DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Reality of the Quantum State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Reality of the Quantum State On the reality of the quantum state Matthew F. Pusey,1, ∗ Jonathan Barrett,2 and Terry Rudolph1 1Department of Physics, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom 2Department of Mathematics, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham TW20 0EX, United Kingdom (Dated: April 11, 2012) Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions which contradict those of quantum theory. At the heart of much debate concerning quantum the- we cannot know what we are talking about; it ory lies the quantum state. Does the wave function corre- is just that simple.[9] spond directly to some kind of physical wave? If so, it is an odd kind of wave, since it is defined on an abstract con- Here we present a no-go theorem: if the quantum state figuration space, rather than the three-dimensional space merely represents information about the real physical we live in. Nonetheless, quantum interference, as ex- state of a system, then experimental predictions are ob- hibited in the famous two-slit experiment, appears most tained which contradict those of quantum theory. The readily understood by the idea that it is a real wave that argument depends on few assumptions. One is that a is interfering. Many physicists and chemists concerned system has a \real physical state" { not necessarily com- with pragmatic applications of quantum theory success- pletely described by quantum theory, but objective and fully treat the quantum state in this way. independent of the observer. This assumption only needs Many others have suggested that the quantum state is to hold for systems that are isolated, and not entangled something less than real [1{8]. In particular, it is often with other systems. Nonetheless, this assumption, or argued that the quantum state does not correspond di- some part of it, would be denied by instrumentalist ap- rectly to reality, but represents an experimenter's knowl- proaches to quantum theory, wherein the quantum state edge or information about some aspect of reality. This is merely a calculational tool for making predictions con- view is motivated by, amongst other things, the collapse cerning macroscopic measurement outcomes. The other of the quantum state on measurement. If the quantum main assumption is that systems that are prepared inde- state is a real physical state, then collapse is a myste- pendently have independent physical states. rious physical process, whose precise time of occurrence In order to make some of these notions more precise, let is not well-defined. From the `state of knowledge' view, us begin by considering the classical mechanics of a point the argument goes, collapse need be no more mysterious particle moving in one dimension. At a given moment than the instantaneous Bayesian updating of a probabil- of time, the physical state of the particle is completely ity distribution upon obtaining new information. specified by its position x and momentum p, and hence The importance of these questions was eloquently corresponds to a point (x; p) in a two-dimensional phase stated by Jaynes: space. Other physical properties are either fixed, such as mass or charge, or are functions of the state, such as But our present [quantum mechanical] arXiv:1111.3328v3 [quant-ph] 18 Nov 2012 energy H(x; p). Viewing the fixed properties as constant formalism is not purely epistemological; it is functions, let us define \physical property" to mean some a peculiar mixture describing in part realities function of the physical state. of Nature, in part incomplete human infor- Sometimes, the exact physical state of the particle mation about Nature | all scrambled up by might be uncertain, but there is nonetheless a well- Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that defined probability distribution µ(x; p). Although µ(x; p) nobody has seen how to unscramble. Yet we evolves in a precise manner according to Liouville's equa- think that the unscrambling is a prerequisite tion, it does not directly represent reality. Rather, µ(x; p) for any further advance in basic physical the- is a state of knowledge: it represents an experimenter's ory. For, if we cannot separate the subjec- uncertainty about the physical state of the particle. tive and objective aspects of the formalism, Now consider a quantum system. The hypothesis is that the quantum state is a state of knowledge, repre- senting uncertainty about the real physical state of the ∗ [email protected] system. Hence assume some theory or model, perhaps 2 A m mL L′ l measure B mL m L′ l l 1 l2 D FIG. 1. Our definition of a physical property is illustrated. Consider a collection, labelled by L, of probability distribu- tions fµL(λ)g. λ denotes a system's physical state. If every pair of distributions are disjoint, as in a, then the label L is uniquely fixed by λ and we call it a physical property. If, how- ever, L is not a physical property, then there exists a pair of labels L; L0 with distributions that both assign positive prob- FIG. 2. Two systems are prepared independently. The quan- ability to some overlap region ∆, as in b.A λ from ∆ is tum state of each, determined by the preparation method, consistent with either label. is either j0i or j+i. The two systems are brought together and measured. The outcome of the measurement can only depend on the physical states of the two systems at the time of measurement. undiscovered, which associates a physical state λ to the system. If a measurement is performed, the probabilities for different outcomes are determined by λ. If a quantum system is prepared in a particular way, then quantum theory associates a quantum state (assume for simplic- Our main result is that for distinct quantum states ity that it is a pure state) . But the physical state λ and , if the distributions µ (λ) and µ (λ) over- j i 0 1 0 1 need not be fixed uniquely by the preparation { rather, lapj i (morej precisely:i if ∆, the intersection of their sup- the preparation results in a physical state λ according to ports, has non-zero measure) then there is a contradic- some probability distribution µ (λ). tion with the predictions of quantum theory. We present Given such a model, Harrigan and Spekkens[10] give a first a simple version of the argument, which works when precise meaning to the idea that a quantum state corre- 0 1 = 1=p2. Then the argument is extended to ar- j h j i j sponds directly to reality or represents only information. bitrary 0 and 1 . Finally, we present a more formal To explain this, the example of the classical particle is version ofj thei argumentj i which works even in the presence again useful. Here, if an experimenter knows only that of experimental error and noise. the system has energy E, and is otherwise completely uncertain, the experimenter's knowledge corresponds to Consider two methods of preparing a quantum sys- a distribution µ (x; p) uniform over all points in phase tem, corresponding to quantum states 0 and 1 , with E j i j i space with H(x; p) = E. Seeing as the energy is a physi- 0 1 = 1=p2. Choose a basis of the Hilbert space so j h j i j cal property of the system, different values of the energy that 0 = 0 and 1 = + = ( 0 + 1 )=p2. In order E and E0 correspond to disjoint regions of phase space, to derivej i a contradiction,j i j i supposej i j thati j thei distributions hence the distributions µE(x; p) and µE0 (x; p) have dis- µ0(λ) and µ1(λ) overlap. Then there exists q > 0 such joint supports. On the other hand, if two probability that preparation of either quantum state results in a λ distributions µL(x; p) and µL0 (x; p) have overlapping sup- from the overlap region ∆ with probability at least q. ports, i.e. there is some region ∆ of phase space where both distributions are non-zero, then the labels L and L0 Now consider two systems whose physical states are cannot refer to a physical property of the system. See uncorrelated. This can be achieved, for example, by con- Figure 1. structing and operating two copies of a preparation de- Similar considerations apply in the quantum case. vice independently. Each system can be prepared such Suppose that, for any pair of distinct quantum states 0 that its quantum state is either 0 or 1 , as illus- j i j i 2 j i and 1 , the distributions µ0(λ) and µ1(λ) do not over- trated in Figure 2. With probability q > 0 it happens j i lap: then, the quantum state can be inferred uniquely that the physical states λ1 and λ2 are both from the over- from the physical state of thej systemi and hence satisfies lap region ∆. This means that the physical state of the the above definition of a physical property. Informally, two systems is compatible with any of the four possible every detail of the quantum state is \written into" the quantum states 0 0 , 0 + , + 0 and + + .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Concept of Quantum State : New Views on Old Phenomena Michel Paty
    The concept of quantum state : new views on old phenomena Michel Paty To cite this version: Michel Paty. The concept of quantum state : new views on old phenomena. Ashtekar, Abhay, Cohen, Robert S., Howard, Don, Renn, Jürgen, Sarkar, Sahotra & Shimony, Abner. Revisiting the Founda- tions of Relativistic Physics : Festschrift in Honor of John Stachel, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 451-478, 2003. halshs-00189410 HAL Id: halshs-00189410 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00189410 Submitted on 20 Nov 2007 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. « The concept of quantum state: new views on old phenomena », in Ashtekar, Abhay, Cohen, Robert S., Howard, Don, Renn, Jürgen, Sarkar, Sahotra & Shimony, Abner (eds.), Revisiting the Foundations of Relativistic Physics : Festschrift in Honor of John Stachel, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 451-478. , 2003 The concept of quantum state : new views on old phenomena par Michel PATY* ABSTRACT. Recent developments in the area of the knowledge of quantum systems have led to consider as physical facts statements that appeared formerly to be more related to interpretation, with free options.
    [Show full text]
  • Entanglement of the Uncertainty Principle
    Open Journal of Mathematics and Physics | Volume 2, Article 127, 2020 | ISSN: 2674-5747 https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9jhwx | published: 26 Jul 2020 | https://ojmp.org EX [original insight] Diamond Open Access Entanglement of the Uncertainty Principle Open Quantum Collaboration∗† August 15, 2020 Abstract We propose that position and momentum in the uncertainty principle are quantum entangled states. keywords: entanglement, uncertainty principle, quantum gravity The most updated version of this paper is available at https://osf.io/9jhwx/download Introduction 1. [1] 2. Logic leads us to conclude that quantum gravity–the theory of quan- tum spacetime–is the description of entanglement of the quantum states of spacetime and of the extra dimensions (if they really ex- ist) [2–7]. ∗All authors with their affiliations appear at the end of this paper. †Corresponding author: [email protected] | Join the Open Quantum Collaboration 1 Quantum Gravity 3. quantum gravity quantum spacetime entanglement of spacetime 4. Quantum spaceti=me might be in a sup=erposition of the extra dimen- sions [8]. Notation 5. UP Uncertainty Principle 6. UP= the quantum state of the uncertainty principle ∣ ⟩ = Discussion on the notation 7. The universe is mathematical. 8. The uncertainty principle is part of our universe, thus, it is described by mathematics. 9. A physical theory must itself be described within its own notation. 10. Thereupon, we introduce UP . ∣ ⟩ Entanglement 11. UP α1 x1p1 α2 x2p2 α3 x3p3 ... 12. ∣xi ⟩u=ncer∣tainty⟩ +in po∣ sitio⟩n+ ∣ ⟩ + 13. pi = uncertainty in momentum 14. xi=pi xi pi xi pi ∣ ⟩ = ∣ ⟩ ∣ ⟩ = ∣ ⟩ ⊗ ∣ ⟩ 2 Final Remarks 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Path Integral for the Hydrogen Atom
    Path Integral for the Hydrogen Atom Solutions in two and three dimensions Vägintegral för Väteatomen Lösningar i två och tre dimensioner Anders Svensson Faculty of Health, Science and Technology Physics, Bachelor Degree Project 15 ECTS Credits Supervisor: Jürgen Fuchs Examiner: Marcus Berg June 2016 Abstract The path integral formulation of quantum mechanics generalizes the action principle of classical mechanics. The Feynman path integral is, roughly speaking, a sum over all possible paths that a particle can take between fixed endpoints, where each path contributes to the sum by a phase factor involving the action for the path. The resulting sum gives the probability amplitude of propagation between the two endpoints, a quantity called the propagator. Solutions of the Feynman path integral formula exist, however, only for a small number of simple systems, and modifications need to be made when dealing with more complicated systems involving singular potentials, including the Coulomb potential. We derive a generalized path integral formula, that can be used in these cases, for a quantity called the pseudo-propagator from which we obtain the fixed-energy amplitude, related to the propagator by a Fourier transform. The new path integral formula is then successfully solved for the Hydrogen atom in two and three dimensions, and we obtain integral representations for the fixed-energy amplitude. Sammanfattning V¨agintegral-formuleringen av kvantmekanik generaliserar minsta-verkanprincipen fr˚anklassisk meka- nik. Feynmans v¨agintegral kan ses som en summa ¨over alla m¨ojligav¨agaren partikel kan ta mellan tv˚a givna ¨andpunkterA och B, d¨arvarje v¨agbidrar till summan med en fasfaktor inneh˚allandeden klas- siska verkan f¨orv¨agen.Den resulterande summan ger propagatorn, sannolikhetsamplituden att partikeln g˚arfr˚anA till B.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-State Systems
    1 TWO-STATE SYSTEMS Introduction. Relative to some/any discretely indexed orthonormal basis |n) | ∂ | the abstract Schr¨odinger equation H ψ)=i ∂t ψ) can be represented | | | ∂ | (m H n)(n ψ)=i ∂t(m ψ) n ∂ which can be notated Hmnψn = i ∂tψm n H | ∂ | or again ψ = i ∂t ψ We found it to be the fundamental commutation relation [x, p]=i I which forced the matrices/vectors thus encountered to be ∞-dimensional. If we are willing • to live without continuous spectra (therefore without x) • to live without analogs/implications of the fundamental commutator then it becomes possible to contemplate “toy quantum theories” in which all matrices/vectors are finite-dimensional. One loses some physics, it need hardly be said, but surprisingly much of genuine physical interest does survive. And one gains the advantage of sharpened analytical power: “finite-dimensional quantum mechanics” provides a methodological laboratory in which, not infrequently, the essentials of complicated computational procedures can be exposed with closed-form transparency. Finally, the toy theory serves to identify some unanticipated formal links—permitting ideas to flow back and forth— between quantum mechanics and other branches of physics. Here we will carry the technique to the limit: we will look to “2-dimensional quantum mechanics.” The theory preserves the linearity that dominates the full-blown theory, and is of the least-possible size in which it is possible for the effects of non-commutivity to become manifest. 2 Quantum theory of 2-state systems We have seen that quantum mechanics can be portrayed as a theory in which • states are represented by self-adjoint linear operators ρ ; • motion is generated by self-adjoint linear operators H; • measurement devices are represented by self-adjoint linear operators A.
    [Show full text]
  • Structure of a Spin ½ B
    Structure of a spin ½ B. C. Sanctuary Department of Chemistry, McGill University Montreal Quebec H3H 1N3 Canada Abstract. The non-hermitian states that lead to separation of the four Bell states are examined. In the absence of interactions, a new quantum state of spin magnitude 1/√2 is predicted. Properties of these states show that an isolated spin is a resonance state with zero net angular momentum, consistent with a point particle, and each resonance corresponds to a degenerate but well defined structure. By averaging and de-coherence these structures are shown to form ensembles which are consistent with the usual quantum description of a spin. Keywords: Bell states, Bell’s Inequalities, spin theory, quantum theory, statistical interpretation, entanglement, non-hermitian states. PACS: Quantum statistical mechanics, 05.30. Quantum Mechanics, 03.65. Entanglement and quantum non-locality, 03.65.Ud 1. INTRODUCTION In spite of its tremendous success in describing the properties of microscopic systems, the debate over whether quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory has been going on since its inception1. The basic property of quantum mechanics that belies it as the most fundamental theory is its statistical nature2. The history is well known: EPR3 showed that two non-commuting operators are simultaneously elements of physical reality, thereby concluding that quantum mechanics is incomplete, albeit they assumed locality. Bohr4 replied with complementarity, arguing for completeness; thirty years later Bell5, questioned the locality assumption6, and the conclusion drawn that any deeper theory than quantum mechanics must be non-local. In subsequent years the idea that entangled states can persist to space-like separations became well accepted7.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamilton Equations, Commutator, and Energy Conservation †
    quantum reports Article Hamilton Equations, Commutator, and Energy Conservation † Weng Cho Chew 1,* , Aiyin Y. Liu 2 , Carlos Salazar-Lazaro 3 , Dong-Yeop Na 1 and Wei E. I. Sha 4 1 College of Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; [email protected] 2 College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA; [email protected] 3 Physics Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA; [email protected] 4 College of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † Based on the talk presented at the 40th Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS, Toyama, Japan, 1–4 August 2018). Received: 12 September 2019; Accepted: 3 December 2019; Published: 9 December 2019 Abstract: We show that the classical Hamilton equations of motion can be derived from the energy conservation condition. A similar argument is shown to carry to the quantum formulation of Hamiltonian dynamics. Hence, showing a striking similarity between the quantum formulation and the classical formulation. Furthermore, it is shown that the fundamental commutator can be derived from the Heisenberg equations of motion and the quantum Hamilton equations of motion. Also, that the Heisenberg equations of motion can be derived from the Schrödinger equation for the quantum state, which is the fundamental postulate. These results are shown to have important bearing for deriving the quantum Maxwell’s equations. Keywords: quantum mechanics; commutator relations; Heisenberg picture 1. Introduction In quantum theory, a classical observable, which is modeled by a real scalar variable, is replaced by a quantum operator, which is analogous to an infinite-dimensional matrix operator.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Online Quantum State Learning
    The Thirty-Fourth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-20) Revisiting Online Quantum State Learning Feidiao Yang, Jiaqing Jiang, Jialin Zhang, Xiaoming Sun Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Bejing, China University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China {yangfeidiao, jiangjiaqing, zhangjialin, sunxiaoming}@ict.ac.cn Abstract theories may also help solve some interesting problems in quantum computation and quantum information (Carleo and In this paper, we study the online quantum state learn- Troyer 2017). In this paper, we apply the online learning the- ing problem which is recently proposed by Aaronson et al. (2018). In this problem, the learning algorithm sequentially ory to solve an interesting problem of learning an unknown predicts quantum states based on observed measurements and quantum state. losses and the goal is to minimize the regret. In the previ- Learning an unknown quantum state is a fundamental ous work, the existing algorithms may output mixed quan- problem in quantum computation and quantum information. tum states. However, in many scenarios, the prediction of a The basic version is the quantum state tomography prob- pure quantum state is required. In this paper, we first pro- lem (Vogel and Risken 1989), which aims to fully recover pose a Follow-the-Perturbed-Leader (FTPL) algorithm that the classical description of an unknown quantum state. Al- can guarantee to predict pure quantum states. Theoretical√ O( T ) though quantum state tomography gives a complete char- analysis shows that our algorithm can achieve an ex- acterization of the target state, it is quite costly. Recent pected regret under some reasonable settings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradoxes of the Interaction-Free Measurements
    The Paradoxes of the Interaction-free Measurements L. Vaidman Centre for Quantum Computation, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford 0X1 3PU, England; School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel Reprint requests to Prof. L. V.; E-mail: [email protected] Z. Naturforsch. 56 a, 100-107 (2001); received January 12, 2001 Presented at the 3rd Workshop on Mysteries, Puzzles and Paradoxes in Quantum Mechanics, Gargnano, Italy, September 17-23, 2000. Interaction-free measurements introduced by Elitzur and Vaidman [Found. Phys. 23,987 (1993)] allow finding infinitely fragile objects without destroying them. Paradoxical features of these and related measurements are discussed. The resolution of the paradoxes in the framework of the Many-Worlds Interpretation is proposed. Key words: Interaction-free Measurements; Quantum Paradoxes. I. Introduction experiment” proposed by Wheeler [22] which helps to define the context in which the above claims, that The interaction-free measurements proposed by the measurements are interaction-free, are legitimate. Elitzur and Vaidman [1,2] (EVIFM) led to numerousSection V is devoted to the variation of the EV IFM investigations and several experiments have been per­ proposed by Penrose [23] which, instead of testing for formed [3- 17]. Interaction-free measurements are the presence of an object in a particular place, tests very paradoxical. Usually it is claimed that quantum a certain property of the object in an interaction-free measurements, in contrast to classical measurements, way. Section VI introduces the EV IFM procedure for invariably cause a disturbance of the system.
    [Show full text]
  • The Elitzur-Vaidman Experiment Violates the Leggett-Garg Inequality
    Atomic “bomb testing”: the Elitzur-Vaidman experiment violates the Leggett-Garg inequality Carsten Robens,1 Wolfgang Alt,1 Clive Emary,2 Dieter Meschede,1 and Andrea Alberti1, ∗ 1Institut für Angewandte Physik, Universität Bonn, Wegelerstr. 8, D-53115 Bonn, Germany 2Joint Quantum Centre Durham-Newcastle, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK (Dated: September 21, 2016) Abstract. Elitzur and Vaidman have proposed a measurement scheme that, based on the quantum super- position principle, allows one to detect the presence of an object in a dramatic scenario, a bomb without interacting with it. It was pointed out by Ghirardi that this interaction-free measurement scheme can be put in direct relation with falsification tests of the macro-realistic worldview. Here we have implemented the “bomb test” with a single atom trapped in a spin-dependent optical lattice to show explicitly a violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality a quantitative criterion fulfilled by macro-realistic physical theories. To perform interaction-free measurements, we have implemented a novel measurement method that correlates spin and position of the atom. This method, which quantum mechanically entangles spin and position, finds general application for spin measurements, thereby avoiding the shortcomings inherent in the widely used push-out technique. Allowing decoherence to dominate the evolution of our system causes a transition from quantum to classical behavior in fulfillment of the Leggett-Garg inequality. I. INTRODUCTION scopically distinct states. In a macro-realistic world- view, it is plausible to assume that a negative out- Measuring physical properties of an object whether come of a measurement cannot affect the evolution of macroscopic or microscopic is in most cases associated a macroscopic system, meaning that negative measure- with an interaction.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 6: Time Evolution and the Schrödinger Equation
    8.04: Quantum Mechanics Professor Allan Adams Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2013 February 26 Lecture 6 Time Evolution and the Schr¨odinger Equation Assigned Reading: E&R 3all, 51;3;4;6 Li. 25−8, 31−3 Ga. 2all6=4 Sh. 3, 4 The Schr¨odinger equation is a partial differential equation. For instance, if pˆ2 m!2xˆ2 Eˆ = + ; 2m 2 then the Schr¨odinger equation becomes @ 2 @2 m!2x2 i = − ~ + : ~ @t 2m @x2 2 Of course, Eˆ depends on the system, and the Schr¨odinger equation changes accordingly. To fully solve this for a given Eˆ, there are a few different methods available, and those are through brute force, extreme cleverness, and numerical calculation. An elegant way that helps in all cases though makes use of superposition. Suppose that at t = 0, our system is in a state of definite energy. This means that (x; 0; E) = φ(x; E); where Eφˆ (x; E) = E · φ(x; E): Evolving it in time means that @ i E = E · : ~ @t E Given the initial condition, this is easily solved to be (x; t; E) = e −i!tφ(x; E) through the de Broglie relation E = ~!: Note that p(x; t) = j (x; t; E)j2 = jφ(x; E)j2 ; 2 8.04: Lecture 6 so the time evolution disappears from the probability density! That is why wavefunctions corresponding to states of definite energy are also called stationary states. So are all systems in stationary states? Well, probabilities generally evolve in time, so that cannot be. Then are any systems in stationary states? Well, nothing is eternal, and like the plane wave, the stationary state is only an approximation.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 4: the Schrödinger Wave Equation
    4 THE SCHRODINGER¨ WAVE EQUATION 1 4 The Schr¨odinger wave equation We have noted in previous lectures that all particles, both light and matter, can be described as a localised wave packet. • De Broglie suggested a relationship between the effective wavelength of the wave function associated with a given matter or light particle its the momentum. This relationship was subsequently confirmed experimentally for electrons. • Consideration of the two slit experiment has provided an understanding of what we can and cannot achieve with the wave function representing the particle: The wave function Ψ is not observable. According to the statistical interpretation of Born, the quantity Ψ∗Ψ = |Ψ2| is observable and represents the probability density of locating the particle in a given elemental volume. To understand the wave function further, we require a wave equation from which we can study the evolution of wave functions as a function of position and time, in general within a potential field (e.g. the potential fields associated with the Coulomb or strong nuclear force). As we shall see, manipulation of the wave equation will permit us to calculate “most probable” values of a particle’s position, momentum, energy, etc. These quantities form the study of me- chanics within classical physics. Our quantum theory has now become quantum mechanics – the description of mechanical physics on the quantum scale. The particular sub-branch of quantum mechanics accessible via wave theory is sometimes referred to as wave mechanics. The time–dependent Schr¨odinger wave equation is the quantum wave equation ∂Ψ(x, t) h¯2 ∂2Ψ(x, t) ih¯ = − + V (x, t) Ψ(x, t), (1) ∂t 2m ∂x2 √ where i = −1, m is the mass of the particle,h ¯ = h/2π, Ψ(x, t) is the wave function representing the particle and V (x, t) is a potential energy function.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Quantum Theory
    Chapter 2 - Quantum Theory At the end of this chapter – the class will: Have basic concepts of quantum physical phenomena and a rudimentary working knowledge of quantum physics Have some familiarity with quantum mechanics and its application to atomic theory Quantization of energy; energy levels Quantum states, quantum number Implication on band theory Chapter 2 Outline Basic concept of quantization Origin of quantum theory and key quantum phenomena Quantum mechanics Example and application to atomic theory Concept introduction The quantum car Imagine you drive a car. You turn on engine and it immediately moves at 10 m/hr. You step on the gas pedal and it does nothing. You step on it harder and suddenly, the car moves at 40 m/hr. You step on the brake. It does nothing until you flatten the brake with all your might, and it suddenly drops back to 10 m/hr. What’s going on? Continuous vs. Quantization Consider a billiard ball. It requires accuracy and precision. You have a cue stick. Assume for simplicity that there is no friction loss. How fast can you make the ball move using the cue stick? How much kinetic energy can you give to the ball? The Newtonian mechanics answer is: • any value, as much as energy as you can deliver. The ball can be made moving with 1.000 joule, or 3.1415926535 or 0.551 … joule. Supposed it is moving with 1-joule energy, you can give it an extra 0.24563166 joule by hitting it with the cue stick by that amount of energy.
    [Show full text]