- #1

- 249

- 0

*should*be possible to get it from first principles, right?

- Thread starter Thrice
- Start date

- #1

- 249

- 0

- #2

- 690

- 6

<unverified links deleted>

I was sure I'd seen a derivation before, here's two, I am by no means savy enough to determine if these are correct.

I was sure I'd seen a derivation before, here's two, I am by no means savy enough to determine if these are correct.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #3

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,732

- 3,888

The second link shows a derivation not of the SE itself, but a "quaternion analog" to the SE. At the end author Doug Sweetser notes,

So this is also a non-mainstream approach, and even the author doesn't know yet whether it's going to work out.Sweetser said:Any attempt to shift the meaning of an equation as central to modern physics had first be able to regenerate all of its results. I believe that the quaternion analog to Schrödinger equation under the listed constraints will do the task. These is an immense amount of work needed to see as the constraints are relaxed, whether the quaternion differential equations will behave better.

- #4

- 932

- 0

- #5

- 2,111

- 18

Or on the other hand, if you consider some heuristic arguments being derivation of Newton's laws, in the same spirit you can also derive quantum mechanics somehow.

The question is ultimately about what we mean by "deriving" something.

- #6

- 249

- 0

masudr said:

Well you two know how to "derive" SR from invariance of c & the relativity principle. I assumed that's the only thing he could have meant because otherwise (as jostpuur said) the statement is trivially true.The question is ultimately about what we mean by "deriving" something.

I guess I was thinking something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_picture" [Broken].

Last edited by a moderator:

- #7

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,732

- 3,888

But which first principles? That's the key question. In order to derive something, you have to start with something else that's given as true.Itshouldbe possible to get it from first principles, right?

I have not studied this in depth myself, but I'm sure there are others here who have done so. I would not be surprised to find that there are a variety of ways to "axiomatize" QM, and that some of them assume the SE as a postulate and some of them don't.

With relativity, people usually start from the postulates of the Principle of Relativity and the invariance of [itex]c[/itex], because that's how Einstein did it in his original 1905 paper, which is the starting point for modern relativity theory.

But there is no similar single "starting point" for QM, historically speaking. Schrödinger himself came up with his equation by making an analogy between mechanics and optics, but this is more of an "inspiration" or "motivation" for the SE than a proper "derivation" of it. For some more details, see

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=418069

- #8

- 249

- 0

Any, right? Any (reasonable) set leading to the SE should be enough to reject the general premise that "The SE cannot be derived," because this premise implies that there are no such axioms.But which first principles?

- #9

- 13,023

- 576

However, another approach could provide a derivation.

- #10

- 86

- 0

Your Visiting Professor is right!shouldbe possible to get it from first principles, right?

Quantum Mechanic is a theory with its own axiomatic. As any serios theory has its own axiomatic. There is different interpretations of QM. Any interpretation has own axioms.

Copengagen intepretation. It is almost the official famous interpretation. In this interpretation the Schro"dinger equation is one of postulates. In other words in this interpretation SE is one of axioms Quantum Mechanics. And it is the most of axioms. In addition the source of Planck constant cann't find nobody. And Planck constant is in SE and it is very important part of SE.

Other interpretations of Quantum Mechanic, De-Brougle-Bohm for example, as the target to derive SE. In this interpretation SE is follow from classical mechanics equation named Jacobi-Hamilton equation. But from classical physics we cann't to derive SE. We are need others postulates (axioms) for this. And Planck constant we cann't derive in this case too.

Last edited:

- #11

- 537

- 1

- #12

- 249

- 0

But how is that different from any other derivation? Results are always implied by the axioms preceeding them. I'd appreciate an example of some other approach.There's no derivation in an axiomatical approach. It's part of the axioms.

- #13

- 13,023

- 576

the schrodinger equation can be derived by assuming nothing more than (a) that energy is quantized and (b) a complex wavefunction describes everything about the system.The derivation follows from applying classical dynamics to these assumptions.

Is that so ? Can you prove your statement ?

- #14

- 537

- 1

- #15

- 537

- 1

- #16

- 86

- 0

In http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610121 authors change the electric field E to Psi-function. It is formal operation.

In Schrödinger paper

<<An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules

E. Schrödinger

Phys. Rev. 28, 1049-1070 (1926)>>

he derive his equation from wave equation for the wave-function but this equation he postulated. Here Schrödinger appear that SE similar to wave equation.

There is another way. But it is alternative to official Copenhaven Interpretation. You can read here

<<Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics

E. Nelson

Phys. Rev. 150, 1079-1085 (1966)>> It is derivation is named de-Broile-Bohm Interpretation. But in this case it is used another axioms not official Copenhagen’s and it is not Quantum Mechanic in the ordinary sense. More right it is the stochastic interpretation because in this axioms used unknown random fields postulate.

I'm like very much the derivation SE from Jacobi-Hamilton equation. But it is not ideal too.

Last edited:

- #17

- 537

- 1

In http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610121 authors change the electric field E to Psi-function. It is formal operation.

In Schrödinger paper

<<An undulatory theory of the mechanics of atoms and molecules

E. Schrödinger

Phys. Rev. 28, 1049-1070 (1926)>>

he derive his equation from wave equation for the wave-function but this equation he postulated. Here Schrödinger appear that SE similar to wave equation.

There is another way. But it is alternative to official Copenhaven Interpretation. You can read here

<<Derivation of the Schrödinger equation from Newtonian mechanics

E. Nelson

Phys. Rev. 150, 1079-1085 (1966)>> It is derivation is named de-Broile-Bohm Interpretation. But in this case it is used another axioms not official Copenhagen’s and it is not Quantum Mechanic in the ordinary sense. More right it is the stochastic interpretation because in this axioms used unknown random fields postulate.

I'm like very much the derivation SE from Jacobi-Hamilton equation. But it is not ideal too.

yes, one of the assumptions that i stated is the assumption that the system can be completely described by a complex wavefunction. i guess we also need to assume that it is normalized, but this is also done in classical electrodynamics.

the "big leap" needed is quantization of energy appled to SR.

- #18

reilly

Science Advisor

- 1,075

- 1

With a slight of hand here, and finesse there, some folks can use a sophisticated scam approach to derive the Schrodinger Eq.. But why bother, unless you can before the fact demonstrate that atomic spectra, in detail, can be derived from first principles, or show that electron diffraction is necessary, and so on. And so it's the crazy phenomena of spectra and particle diffraction, spin, Bose and Fermi statistics, radioactive decay, and so on, that drive QM.

The proof of the pudding, is the extraordinary success of the SE, or of Newton, or of Einstein when used to describe and predict natural phenomena.

Regards,

Reilly Atkinson

Note that energy is generally not quantized for free particles, as in scattering theory for example.

- #19

- 537

- 1

I disagree. No one is saying you can derive experimental results, only that the Schrodinger equation follows naturally and does not itself need to be taken as a postulate as many quantum chemistry books erroneously claim. (As an aside, many books erroneously claim that the Pauli principle is also a postulate, when in fact it follows naturally from deriving the Dirac equation).With a slight of hand here, and finesse there, some folks can use a sophisticated scam approach to derive the Schrodinger Eq.. But why bother, unless you can before the fact demonstrate that atomic spectra, in detail, can be derived from first principles, or show that electron diffraction is necessary, and so on. And so it's the crazy phenomena of spectra and particle diffraction, spin, Bose and Fermi statistics, radioactive decay, and so on, that drive QM.

The axioms:

(a) E=hv (accepted from experimental evidence)

(b) Maxwell's equations (assumes the concept of a field in euclidean space, the remaining details follow from exact vector analysis)

(c) Special Relativity (exactly true if spacetime metric is euclidean and F=ma is true), you get de Broglie equation also for free here by accepting (a) above

(d) that the system can be completely described by a complex wavefunction (assumption)

then you can exactly derive the Klein-Gordon and Schrodinger equations, it is not a scam. Our assumption are completely known before hand, as are the experimental considerations. This is axiomatic.

unfortunately, few people have the time to go derive things like the SE for themselves when taking courses and so many people aren't aware of how these equations come about! Those who don't bother taking courses at all just assume that physicists are talking out of their...well, you get it. Aka the "what the bleep do we know" attitude - when in fact we know quite a bit. Give humanity some credit!

For that matter, if you believe that the SE equation is true, the HUP can be exactly derived, it is not a postulate either!

- #20

- 932

- 0

Does this work for systems of particles too? What about for things like the electromagnetic field?

- #21

- 86

- 0

- #22

- 249

- 0

I agree with that, but it doesn't help the professor's point. It means he needs to decide what he meant by "derive."Physics is, after all, about natural phenomena, and test for correctness is almost always based on experiments, on empirical evidence.

I think there's a place for derivations. A theory doesn't need to be correct in order to work.

- #23

- 13,023

- 576

???????????????????????? Say what ? To me, this is nonsense, so please explain your claim.(As an aside, many books erroneously claim that the Pauli principle is also a postulate, when in fact it follows naturally from deriving the Dirac equation).

- #24

- 537

- 1

have you derived the dirac equation? the pauli matrices are a direct result of making the SE conform with SR.???????????????????????? Say what ? To me, this is nonsense, so please explain your claim.

this wikipedia article does it nicely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_equation

are you satisfied?

- #25

- 13,023

- 576

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 31

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 12

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 973

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 293

- Last Post

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 4K