\[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f), can be directly observed in obtained numerical data; these are steplike structures in $P^{(2)}_T(-3, \tau)$, $p^{(2)}_t (-3, \tau)$, $P^{(4)}_T(-3, \tau)$, and $p^{(4)}_t (-3, \tau)$ \[see Figs. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](b) and \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](c)\] and a snakelike shape of the wave function $\Psi_{2,4}(-3; t, R, \rho)$ that emerges from the barrier (see Ref. [@EPAPS_Animations]). Nevertheless, the data regarding Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) \[see Fig. \[Fig\_probability\_tunnel\_time\](a)\] seems not to reveal similar jumps at first sight. It is due to the fact that the coupling between bound states \[the form factor (\[Formfactor\_Def\]), more precisely\] is bigger than the coupling of a bound state to a state of the continuum spectrum. Regardless of smallness, these transitions show up in the observation that the probability of disintegration in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) is less than in Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b) \[see Fig. \[Fig\_disintegr\_prob\] that $P_D^{(1)} (3, 150) < P_D^{(1)} (-3, 150)$ as well as $p_d^{(1)} (3, 150) < p_d^{(1)} (-3, 150)$\].

Concluding this section, we list pivotal factors in explaining the “paradox” reported in Sec. \[Sec2\]. (i) This effect cannot exist in one dimension, it requires at least two dimensions. (ii) Our explanation of the effect relies on a natural isomorphism between systems of one 2D particle and two 1D particles of 