comparison of Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](e) and \[Fig\_potentials\](f) turn out to be completely wrong. In other words, the particle does prefer to “go” through the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](c) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e)\] rather than flying above the barrier \[Figs. \[Fig\_potentials\](d) and \[Fig\_potentials\](e)\]. Furthermore, even though the potentials $\Omega_1 (\pm 3; R, \rho)$ look similar to $\Omega_{2,4} (\pm 3; R, \rho)$, the particle favors motion above the barrier \[Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](b)\] rather than penetration through the barrier \[Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a)\] for the former pair of the potentials. This “paradox” is resolved in the next section.

![(Color online) Probabilities of tunneling as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_T^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_T\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_t^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_t\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_tunneling_prob"}](TunnellingProb.pdf)

![(Color online) Probabilities of disintegration as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_D^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_D\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_d^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_d\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_disintegr_prob"}](DesintegrProb.pdf)

![(Color online) Probabilities of reflection as a function of the height of the barrier ($\alpha$). (a) $P_R^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_R\_deff\])\]; (b) $p_r^{(N)}(\alpha, 150)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_r\_deff\])\]. []{data-label="Fig_reflection_prob"}](ReflectionProb.pdf)

![(Color online) The probabilities of tunneling $P_T^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau)$ \[Eq. (\[Prob\_T\_deff\])\] and $p_t^{(N)} (\alpha, \tau)$ \[Eq. (\[prob\_t\_deff\])\] as functions of time $\tau$. (a) Comparison of Fig. \[Fig\_potentials\](a) vs. Fig. 