Deriving Schrodinger's Equation w/o Boundary Conditions

[marlon]

Apparently u don't.You asked Masud why not \frac{p}^{2}{2m} as a kinetic part of a the Hamiltonian.I've given you the example in which the kinetic part is more than that & incidentally it is time dependent.

Daniel.

This is irrelevant. The p²/2m-part is still there...

marlon

 

[reilly]

Some history

I wish you the best of luck...



Untrue. That is the time dependent SE. How about the time independent SE ?
You are just talking about time evolution but that is not what we are talking about.
**********************************
Once again, a little history is in order. The idea of the Hamiltonian generating displacements in time is old, like from the 19th century -- Jacobi's transformation theory, contact transformations and the like. The idea that time dependent and time independent approaches were inextricably connected was already time-honored by the 1920s when Heisenberg and Schrodinger invented modern QM. Further, the theory of wave-like motion, elastic strings membranes, even E&M in it's Lagrangian formulation contributed greatly to the connections between time dependent and independent approaches -- like through eigenstate expansions. (Lanczos, Goldstein in their books on mechanics discuss these issues. Virtually all of physics is about time evolution, and stationary states are exceptions - except, -perhaps for isolated atoms and nuclei. )

(There's a nice discussion about this in Pais' biography of Bohr)

So, indeed, we are talking about time evolution.
*****************************************

Let me ask you this question : why is time evolution unitary?
*******************************
Any QM book will explain that QM time evolution must be unitary to preserve probability, which requires the QM Hamiltonian operator to be Hermitian. (See, in particular, Dirac's QM book.)

Again, jtbell got it right, elegantly so, and is completely consistent with the thinking of physicists in the late 1920s and early 1930. The SE, time dependent or not, cannot be derived, but it can be made very plausible.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[masudr]

Marlon, there are indeed two kinds of SE, time-dependent and time-independent. The second one is representative of the fact that eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are energy eigenstates; the energy analogue of the fact that eigenstates of the position operator are position eigenstates (!) which is obvious. What the time-independent equation says is that the Hamiltonian is the operator associated with energy. And it is only valid for energy eigenstates.

The time-dependent equation is making a much more serious claim. It is describing how all state vectors evolve, not just energy eigenstates. As Daniel points out, p^2/2m is not the general case. Saying that is the case is like saying the Lagrangian of all systems is given by L = T - V. This is true for most cases, but not for all. The same applies with saying the p^2/2m form of the SE is valid for all cases -- it is true for most but not all.

The Schrodinger equation cannot be "derived" -- it's validity can be made plausible, but some things still have to be assumed. In a model of the universe, some things have to be assumed, and the SE is one of them for the quantum mechanical model of the universe.

Someone has tried to explain Newton's laws as a consequence of some other principle from General Relativity. Well, let's first be clear on this -- Newton's Laws are merely stating the conservation of linear momentum in any inertial frame. Considering that GR builds on this fact and generalises it, it is no surprise that Newton's Laws drop out of some higher principle from GR. But of course, that is a different model of the universe. There are still certain things that have to be assumed in GR. And any model will have to have at least one assumption that must be accepted.

 

[marlon]

As Daniel points out, p^2/2m is not the general case.

Yes i know that and i never said that p²/2m is the most general case. I don't think you got my point. I just wanted to illustrate how you can give an intuitive "proof" as to why the SE has that specific form.

This remark of yours is something everybody knows and i have never denied this.

The Schrodinger equation cannot be "derived" -- it's validity can be made plausible, but some things still have to be assumed.

In my opinion it can (see my previous posts). The example i gave using only p²/2m clearly illustrates my point. The fact that this is not the general case does not make the content of my point wrong. Interactions are just added using potentials, so i really don't see what the problem is.

The most basic postulate is the wavefunction...

Also the time evolution can easily be proved in a more 'mathematical' manner.

Now let us not restart this discussion again. It will lead to nothing and let us just conclude that we have a difference in opinion.

marlon

 

[marlon]

Let me ask you this question : why is time evolution unitary?
*******************************
Any QM book will explain that QM time evolution must be unitary to preserve probability, which requires the QM Hamiltonian operator to be Hermitian. (See, in particular, Dirac's QM book.)

Correct

marlon

 

[masudr]

Also the time evolution can easily be proved in a more 'mathematical' manner.

I'm interested, please show me.

Now let us not restart this discussion again. It will lead to nothing and let us just conclude that we have a difference in opinion.

Yes, I agree.

The most basic postulate is the wavefunction...

Note, this is more or less unrelated to this discussion, but (a) by wavefunction, I assume you mean state vector, and (b) the three postulates: the state is represented by a state vector in a Hilbert space, all observables are represented by Hermitian operator (or at least normal operators), and the time-evolution of the state vector are all equally important in my opinion.

The reason is that these three are important is because of the link to Hamiltonian mechanics where, the postulates are that the state is represented by a point in a symplectic phase space, the operators are all real-valued function on that space, and the Hamiltonian gives the time-evolution of the point in phase space.

End of discussion.

 

[dextercioby]

Did i miss anything...? Apparently 5 posts.

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

I'm interested, please show me.

Sighs, ok here we go again.

Like i showed it is proven that the time derivative of the wavefunction yields the Hamiltonian multiplied by this wavefunction. The Hamiltonian is just some letter H equal to p²/2m + V...This has been well established in my first and second post.

Now time evolution (being unitary ofcourse for the well known reasons) is easy to derive when knowing that the evolution is expressed by a unitary opertaor U that works on a "given" wavefunction. Substitute this in the SE and solve the corresponding integral equation.

Besides, the unitarity of this U is closely related to the hermiticity of H. you can display this connection by studying the change in this U induced after an arbitrary small time delta t. This proves that H is therefore the generator of an infinitesimal unitary transformation in time expressed by U(t+delta t, t)...and so on and on...

read Bransden and Joachain page 232 and further...

End of discussion.

Please, i insist...
Can i take your word on that ?

Well, we shall see

marlon

 

[dextercioby]

All 5 postulates are of equal importance...One missing,and the description would be incomplete.

Daniel.

 

[Hans de Vries]

Schrödinger's Equation derived from E = hf

The SE, time dependent or not, cannot be derived, but it can be made very plausible.

The Schrodinger equation cannot be "derived" -- it's validity can be made plausible,
but some things still have to be assumed.

Of course we can derive Schrödinger's equation. It does not provide
anything new which can't be derived from more basic physics.




==============================================
Schrödinger's Equation derived from E = hf
==============================================


Step 1:
We get the complex frequencies e^-iEt/ħ by interpreting the Fourier Transform
over time as the energy spectrum. This gives us the derivatives:

from: Ψ = e^-i2πft = e^-iωt = e^-iEt/ħ and: ∂Ψ/∂t = -iωe^-iωt

it follows for the derivatives:

EΨ = iħ ∂Ψ/∂t
E²Ψ = -ħ² ∂²Ψ/∂t²


Step 2:
All we need to get the complementary p = h/λ is using Special Relativity.
The (relativistic) deBroglie wave-length is caused purely by non-simultaneity:
The time-shift we see if we look at the particle from a reference frame in
which it is not at rest:

Ψ(x₁,t₁) = e^-iEt₁
Ψ(x₂,t₂) = e^-iEt₂

Only in the rest frame we have t₁=t₂ and the phase of Ψ(x,t) is constant in x.
After applying the Lorentz Transform ct' = γ (-βx + ct) we get x mixed in:

Ψ(x) = e^i2πx/λ = e^ipx/ħ

It follows for the derivatives:

pΨ = -iħ ∂Ψ/∂x
p²Ψ = -ħ² ∂²Ψ/∂x²



Step 3:
Special Relativity would lead us straight to the Klein Gordon equation with:
E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, where m is the rest-mass. We need the non-relativistic
version however and we also need to include the potential energy:

E² = p²c² + (U + mc²)²

We approximate the energy via:

E = (U + mc²) √( 1 + p²c²/(U+mc²)² )
E ≈ (U + mc²) √( 1 + p²/(m²c²) )
E ≈ (U + mc²) (1 + p²/(2m²c²) )
E ≈ U + mc² + p²/(2m)

This relation holds for all space-time points of the wave function Ψ(x,t):

EΨ = (U + mc² + p²/(2m) )Ψ

This now gives us the complete non relativistic equation:

iħ ∂Ψ/∂t = (U + mc²)Ψ - ħ²/(2m) )∂²Ψ/∂x²


Step 4:
We're now only a single step away from the Schrödinger's equation.
We define Schrödinger's wave function as:

Ψ_s = e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c

Where U₀ is an arbitrary potential energy constant and Ψ_c is the correct
version. This is a bit ugly but it turns out that it doesn't matter for the
probabilities coming out of the time-dependent version, since:

Ψ_s^*Ψ_s = e^{-i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c^* . e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c = Ψ_c^*Ψ_c

And of course it doesn't the matter for the time independent version.
So after removing the rest mass energy term (which is what this accounts
to) we end up with the actual Schrödinger's equation:

iħ ∂Ψ/∂t = UΨ - ħ²/(2m) )∂²Ψ/∂x²

based only on the observation that E = hf



Regards, Hans

 

[dextercioby]

Of course we can derive Schrödinger's equation. It does not provide
anything new which can't be derived from more basic physics.




==============================================
Schrödinger's Equation derived from E = hf
==============================================


Step 1:
We get the complex frequencies e^-iEt/ħ by interpreting the Fourier Transform
over time as the energy spectrum. This gives us the derivatives:

from: Ψ = e^-i2πft = e^-iωt = e^-iEt/ħ and: ∂Ψ/∂t = -iωe^-iωt

it follows for the derivatives:

EΨ = iħ ∂Ψ/∂t
E²Ψ = -ħ² ∂²Ψ/∂t²


Step 2:
All we need to get the complementary p = h/λ is using Special Relativity.
The (relativistic) deBroglie wave-length is caused purely by non-simultaneity:
The time-shift we see if we look at the particle from a reference frame in
which it is not at rest:

Ψ(x₁,t₁) = e^-iEt₁
Ψ(x₂,t₂) = e^-iEt₂

This is incorrect.The energy is not a Lorentz scalar...

Only in the rest frame we have t₁=t₂ and the phase of Ψ(x,t) is constant in x.
After applying the Lorentz Transform ct' = γ (-βx + ct) we get x mixed in:

Ψ(x) = e^i2πx/λ = e^ipx/ħ

It follows for the derivatives:

pΨ = -iħ ∂Ψ/∂x
p²Ψ = -ħ² ∂²Ψ/∂x²



Step 3:
Special Relativity would lead us straight to the Klein Gordon equation with:
E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, where m is the rest-mass. We need the non-relativistic
version however and we also need to include the potential energy:

E² = p²c² + (U + mc²)²

We approximate the energy via:

E = (U + mc²) √( 1 + p²c²/(U+mc²)² )
E ≈ (U + mc²) √( 1 + p²/(m²c²) )
E ≈ (U + mc²) (1 + p²/(2m²c²) )
E ≈ U + mc² + p²/(2m)

This relation holds for all space-time points of the wave function Ψ(x,t):

EΨ = (U + mc² + p²/(2m) )Ψ

This now gives us the complete non relativistic equation:

iħ ∂Ψ/∂t = (U + mc²)Ψ - ħ²/(2m) )∂²Ψ/∂x²


Step 4:
We're now only a single step away from the Schrödinger's equation.
We define Schrödinger's wave function as:

Ψ_s = e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c

Where U₀ is an arbitrary potential energy constant and Ψ_c is the correct
version. This is a bit ugly but it turns out that it doesn't matter for the
probabilities coming out of the time-dependent version, since:

Ψ_s^*Ψ_s = e^{-i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c^* . e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/ħ} Ψ_c = Ψ_c^*Ψ_c

And of course it doesn't the matter for the time independent version.
So after removing the rest mass energy term (which is what this accounts
to) we end up with the actual Schrödinger's equation:

iħ ∂Ψ/∂t = UΨ - ħ²/(2m) )∂²Ψ/∂x²

based only on the observation that E = hf



Regards, Hans

Daniel.

 

[Hans de Vries]

This is incorrect.The energy is not a Lorentz scalar...
Daniel.

?

p = h/λ follows from E = hf via the Lorentz Transform.
That's as correct as it can be. What I want to illustrate
here is that a pure harmonic:

e^-iEt/ħ in it's rest frame.

transforms to

e^{ip'x'/ħ-iE't'/ħ}

under Lorentz transform to a frame in which it moves.
There's no need to separately postulate p = h/λ.



Regards, Hans

 

[dextercioby]

That:
Ψ(x1,t1) = e^(-iEt1)
Ψ(x2,t2) = e^(-iEt2)

is incorrect,why don't u get it...?

Daniel.

 

[Hans de Vries]

That:
Ψ(x1,t1) = e^(-iEt1)
Ψ(x2,t2) = e^(-iEt2)

is incorrect,why don't u get it...?

Daniel.

What do you want it to be then? The deBroglie wave-length is a relativistic
effect which occurs at cm/second or mm/second speeds. Maybe you want
the relativistically corrected value for E? Doesn't make a lot of difference here.

It's purely to illustrate that the time shift produces a different phase shift in
e^-iE₀t/ħ at different x locations which itself then manifest as the deBroglie
wave length. E₀ is the rest mast energy.

Next time I'll give the formal prove which is not that hard to do.
Or you can do it yourself ??


Regards, Hans.

 

[dextercioby]

Why are there 2 functions...?Psi with subscripts "1" & Psi with subscripts "2".Is it the same wavefunction,but in two different reference frames...?

Daniel.

 

[marlon]

Great post Hans,
Finally somebody who really understands QM. Your derivation is indeed the longer version of what i have been trying to point out.

I have one remark though. I am not following step 2 with those :
Ψ(x1,t1) = e-iEt1
Ψ(x2,t2) = e-iEt2

Do we really need them ?

regards
marlon, ps : great work

 

[Hans de Vries]

I have one remark though. I am not following step 2 with those :
Ψ(x1,t1) = e-iEt1
Ψ(x2,t2) = e-iEt2

Do we really need them ?

regards
marlon, ps : great work

They're not really needed no. I replaced them with some text and made
a Journal entry from the derivation:

================================
Schrödinger's Equation derived from E = hf
================================

https://www.physicsforums.com/journal.php?s=&journalid=13459&action=view


It now also includes the derival of p = h/λ from E = hf via the Lorentz
Transform. (Which is just a "one-liner" really)


Regards, Hans

 

[masudr]

Finally somebody who really understands QM.

Why are you making this personal? I don't understand. I find that offensive, to be honest. I'll point it out, and then let it rest. I just don't see why this discussion should ever degenerate to personal tit-for-tat style arguments.

 

[marlon]

Why are you making this personal? I don't understand. I find that offensive, to be honest. I'll point it out, and then let it rest. I just don't see why this discussion should ever degenerate to personal tit-for-tat style arguments.

Why would you even feel attacked ?

Hans finally gave a nice discription of the actual "birth" of the SE in QM. This is also something i have been pointing out here many times (also in previous threads). Saying the SE cannot be derived implies it just "fell out of the sky"
and this is what i mean by not understanding QM. IT does not fall out of the sky in terms of posh-sounding postulates that cannot be discussed.

marlon

 

[reilly]

How's that again?

No, once again: the Schrodinger equantion (SE) is independent of boundary conditions. The SE is a mere manifestation of E = p²/2m, translated into derivative operators working on a wavefunction.
*************************************
What? You might consider explaining this notion. Yours is quite an unusual approach.
**************************************************
The solutions (ie the wavefunctions) are dependent on boundary conditions in order to assure their normalizability (so they are "physical" if you will) and their continuity at boundaries (like in the case of the potential-well)

**************

Whether boundary conditions are part of the SE is a somewhat of a problematical matter. If, for example, you use a Laplace Transform, then the boundary conditions become part of the transformed equation, as would be the case with a "one-sided Fourier transform" But, a regular FT does not explicitely contain boundary conditions. But, there are integrability conditions with the FT, which can be tantamount to Sommerfeld's Radiation Condition, a standard requirement for solutions as their spatial argument goes to infinity.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[marlon]

No, once again: the Schrodinger equantion (SE) is independent of boundary conditions. The SE is a mere manifestation of E = p²/2m, translated into derivative operators working on a wavefunction.
*************************************
What? You might consider explaining this notion. Yours is quite an unusual approach.
**************************************************

Reilly Atkinson

I did. Check out my first post here.

This approach is not unusual since it is done in many introductory QM-textbooks like Bransden and Joachain and even in Zee's QFT in a Nutshell

regards
marlon

ps : check out the journal of Hans de Vries for that matter

 

[reilly]

As Count Basie said, "One More Once" (April in Paris)

Of course we can derive Schrödinger's equation. It does not provide
anything new which can't be derived from more basic physics.
*******************
(RA) Really?
*******************
We get the complex frequencies e^-iEt/h by interpreting the Fourier Transform
over time as the energy spectrum.
*****************************
(RA)Why? Why do you say complex frequencies? If you insist on this, what do you do about exponential growth for exp(-i(i f)t = exp(ft), where f is real?
And, why invoke the energy spectrum? You might do a bit more explaining of this assumption
?

*************************************
I must apologize-- I have no idea how the equations got screwed up. If anyone can fix them, please let me know. Thanks, RA
***************************************************8

This gives us the derivatives:

from: ? = e^-i2pft = e^-i?t = e^-iEt/h and: ??/?t = -i?e^-i?t

it follows for the derivatives:

E? = ih ??/?t
E²? = -h² ?²?/?t²


Step 2:
All we need to get the complementary p = h/? is using Special Relativity.
The (relativistic) deBroglie wave-length is caused purely by non-simultaneity
*****************************************************

How did you ever get this idea? It would help your case substantially if you would explain this in detail. Perhaps you might do so for the classic case of electron scattering from a crystal lattice. (Use neutrons if you prefer.)

*****************************************
The time-shift we see if we look at the particle from a reference frame in
which it is not at rest:

?(x₁,t₁) = e^-iEt₁
?(x₂,t₂) = e^-iEt₂


***********
(RA)Where are the x's?
*************

Only in the rest frame we have t₁=t₂ and the phase of ?(x,t) is constant in x.
After applying the Lorentz Transform ct' = ? (-ßx + ct) we get x mixed in:

?(x) = e^i2px/? = e^ipx/h

It follows for the derivatives:

p? = -ih ??/?x
p²? = -h² ?²?/?x²





Step 3:
Special Relativity would lead us straight to the Klein Gordon equation with:
E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, where m is the rest-mass. We need the non-relativistic
version however and we also need to include the potential energy:

E² = p²c² + (U + mc²)²

**************************
(RA) You are no doubt aware that in SR the idea of potential is quite problematical. Among other things, the LT now requires the momentum to have a term involving U. Recall also that the initial difficulty with the KG equation is that the wave function does not work as a probability amplitude. If I recall correctly, it was Pauli and Weiskopf who figured out what to do with the KG equation.

Why is the U in a relativistic approach valid? (Recall all the difficulties with gauge invariance, and the role of the Coulomb potential. Dirac has a very interesting approach to this issue in his QM book. Master physicist that he is, he does not derive the Schrodinger Eq.)

Also, how do you propose to deal with E&M? If you correctly assume that
E= h f, how do you get the equations of motion for the quantized e&M fields?
That is, what's the "Schrodinger Eq." for the E&M fields?

Now, here is another rub. Your expression for the wave function with U is incorrect, The correct formulation, found in virtually any text on QM or text on continuous groups is

W(x,t) = {exp (Integral (t1 to t) over time of -i(-d/dx*d/dx +U)} W(x,0)

(t1 is arbitrary, but must be <t.)

Granted this is excessively formal for many problems, but not for all -- as in magnetic resonance problems, and problems involving time dependent electromagnetic fields. (See, for example, Mandel and Wolf's Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics on the Bloch Equations and the Rabi Problem, which considers purely sinusoidal E&M fields interacting with an atom.

*************************************


We approximate the energy via:

E = (U + mc²) v( 1 + p²c²/(U+mc²)² )
E ˜ (U + mc²) v( 1 + p²/(m²c²) )
E ˜ (U + mc²) (1 + p²/(2m²c²) )
E ˜ U + mc² + p²/(2m)

This relation holds for all space-time points of the wave function ?(x,t):

E? = (U + mc² + p²/(2m) )?

This now gives us the complete non relativistic equation:

ih ??/?t = (UA + mc²)? - h²/(2m) )?²?/?x²


Step 4:
We're now only a single step away from the Schrödinger's equation.
We define Schrödinger's wave function as:

?_s = e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/h} ?_c

Where U₀ is an arbitrary potential energy constant and ?_c is the correct
version. This is a bit ugly but it turns out that it doesn't matter for the
probabilities coming out of the time-dependent version, since:

?_s^*?_s = e^{-i(U₀ + mc2)t/h} ?_c^* . e^{i(U₀ + mc2)t/h} ?_c = ?_c^*?_c

And of course it doesn't the matter for the time independent version.
So after removing the rest mass energy term (which is what this accounts
to) we end up with the actual Schrödinger's equation:

ih ??/?t = U? - h²/(2m) )?²?/?x²

based only on the observation that E = hf


************ Nope. You have many other assumptions, the inclusion of the potential, only a time independent one, for example, and the assumption of an equation that is first order in the time -- a major issue.

If you did not already know about the SE, why pick linearity in the time derivative? Traditionally, wave equations are of second order in time. What's the reasoning behind the first order d/dt? (In case you are interested in this issue, I suggest you read about it in Bohm's classic QM book, available from Dover.)

I'm not suggesting that what you claim you are doing cannot be done. But by the time you actually recognize all your assumptions, you are very close to the canonical approach of standard QM -- which, after all, has worked quite well for 80 some years, particularly if you were to include the relationship between Poisson Brackets and commutation rules.

jtbell, dextercioby, and masuder are telling it like it is and has been from the origins of QM. If you want to take a revisionist approach, there's much convincing you have to do. Why not take a crack at writing your ideas up for The American Journal of Physics?

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[reilly]

I must apologize-- I have no idea how the equations got screwed up. If anyone can fix them, please let me know. Thanks, RA

 

[reilly]

Marlon-- I looked in Zee's book and could not find what you say is there. I'd be grateful if you could point out the appropriate sections in his book. I note that his first mention of the S.E, p3, refers to electron-proton scattering (the subject of my dissertation) which takes a bit more than messing around with spatial derivatives. Perhaps it's my inadequacies, but I fail to see how the Schrodinger Eq. emerges from your prescription?

Once a professor, always a professor.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Hans de Vries]

HdV: We get the complex frequencies e^-iEt/h by interpreting the
Fourier Transform over time as the energy spectrum.

(RA)Why? Why do you say complex frequencies? If you insist on this, what do you do about exponential growth for exp(-i(i f)t = exp(ft), where f is real?

One word for both questions: Unitary Evolution. The argument can
only be imaginary if you want to have Unitary Evolution.

And, why invoke the energy spectrum? You might do a bit more explaining of this assumption

If one couples energies to specific frequencies like you do with E = hf then that's hardly avoidable.

Hdv:All we need to get the complementary p = h/? is using Special Relativity.
The (relativistic) deBroglie wave-length is caused purely by non-simultaneity

[RA]How did you ever get this idea? It would help your case substantially if you would explain this in detail. Perhaps you might do so for the classic case of electron scattering from a crystal lattice. (Use neutrons if you prefer.)

This is one of the most beautiful examples of the perfect coexistence of QM
and SR. It isn't shown by Schrodinger's Equation however since it puts the
rest-mass energy at zero. (This makes Schrodingers equation incompatible
with E = hf, since the rest mass energy is by far the dominant term )

The Journal Entry now explicitly derives p=h/λ from E=hf using the Lorentz
transform.
[PLAIN
Deriving Schrodingers Equation from E = hf[/URL]

HdV:The time-shift we see if we look at the particle from a reference frame in
which it is not at rest:

?(x₁,t₁) = e^-iEt₁
?(x₂,t₂) = e^-iEt₂

(RA)Where are the x's?

This text was replaced by something clearer when I made the Journal entry.

HdV: Special Relativity would lead us straight to the Klein Gordon equation with:
E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, where m is the rest-mass. We need the non-relativistic
version however and we also need to include the potential energy:

E² = p²c² + (U + mc²)²


(RA) You are no doubt aware that in SR the idea of potential is quite problematical. Among other things, the LT now requires the momentum to have a term involving U. Recall also that the initial difficulty with the KG equation is that the wave function does not work as a probability amplitude. If I recall correctly, it was Pauli and Weiskopf who figured out what to do with the KG equation.

Why is the U in a relativistic approach valid? (Recall all the difficulties with gauge invariance, and the role of the Coulomb potential. Dirac has a very interesting approach to this issue in his QM book. Master physicist that he is, he does not derive the Schrodinger Eq.)

The EM potential energy enters relativistic QED in the electromagnetic four-
vector potential.

Also, how do you propose to deal with E&M? If you correctly assume that
E= h f, how do you get the equations of motion for the quantized e&M fields?
That is, what's the "Schrodinger Eq." for the E&M fields?

Now, here is another rub. Your expression for the wave function with U is incorrect, The correct formulation, found in virtually any text on QM or text on continuous groups is

W(x,t) = {exp (Integral (t1 to t) over time of -i(-d/dx*d/dx +U)} W(x,0)

(t1 is arbitrary, but must be <t.)

Granted this is excessively formal for many problems, but not for all -- as in magnetic resonance problems, and problems involving time dependent electromagnetic fields. (See, for example, Mandel and Wolf's Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics on the Bloch Equations and the Rabi Problem, which considers purely sinusoidal E&M fields interacting with an atom.

What I want to show here. And what is now better explained and corrected
in the Journal entry is that the potential as it is added in the Schroedinger
Equation is ultimately the result of what happens with the mass of the
particle in a potential field: It decreases as a result of the binding energy.

In the Journal entry I show how changing the mass energy from m₀c to m₀c + U
results in a potential energy term U added to up E in the Schrodinger equation

HdV: So after removing the rest mass energy term (which is what this accounts
to) we end up with the actual Schrödinger's equation:

ih ??/?t = U? - h²/(2m) )?²?/?x²

based only on the observation that E = hf


[RA] Nope. You have many other assumptions, the inclusion of the potential, only a time independent one, for example,

Again Special Relativity: "Time independent potentials" do not exist.
The potentials change in all but one reference frame.

and the assumption of an equation that is first order in the time -- a major issue.

If you did not already know about the SE, why pick linearity in the time derivative? Traditionally, wave equations are of second order in time. What's the reasoning behind the first order d/dt? (In case you are interested in this issue, I suggest you read about it in Bohm's classic QM book, available from Dover.)

Unitarity forces a 1st order in time derivative.

It's first order because E occurs linear in the non-relativistic approximation
E = U + 1/2 mv². So it becomes first order via the derivative relations:

EΨ = iħ ∂Ψ/∂t
E²Ψ = -ħ² ∂²Ψ/∂t²


You may want extra proof that it is unitarian but the point of discussion was
that "Schrodingers equation can not be derived"

I'm not suggesting that what you claim you are doing cannot be done.

Well, that's at least a change of tone.

But by the time you actually recognize all your assumptions, you are very close to the canonical approach of standard QM -- which, after all, has worked quite well for 80 some years, particularly if you were to include the relationship between Poisson Brackets and commutation rules.

jtbell, dextercioby, and masuder are telling it like it is and has been from the origins of QM. If you want to take a revisionist approach, there's much convincing you have to do. Why not take a crack at writing your ideas up for The American Journal of Physics?

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

I don't follow that last paragraph at all. There's absolutely nothing "revisionist"
in what I'm stating. People passed beyond Schrodinger's Equation 77 years ago.
I see that I'm in the middle of a discussion now which you have with Marlon.


Regards, Hans

[PLAIN
Deriving Schrodingers Equation from E = hf[/URL]

 

[reilly]

Hans -- You failed to deal with some issues I raised.

1.How are the relativistic view of simultaneity and the deBroglie wavelength related?

2. You did not deal with the well-known relation that the proper time -exponential for a wave function involves an integral over time.

3. Where does the idea of unitarity come from? It is hardly connected with deBroglie wavelengths -- it's a separate assumption, and is, in fact, very close to assuming the Schrodinger Eq. (See Dirac)


The non-relativistic Schrodinger Eq. is alive and well -- cf. atomic physics, theory of superconductivity, etc.

New ideas can be great. But, recall that Feynman's ideas were accepted only after heavy scrutiny -- partly in desperation due to Fermi and his grad students inability to deal with Schwinger's work, and the accessibility of Feynman's ideas.

If you think you are correct, then by all means get some peer review -- it helps clarify, and shows up weaknesses. And remember, at the professional level, physics is a contact sport.

Good luck and regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Hans de Vries]

Dear Reilly,

First let me state that the sole purpose of the derivation in my Journal Entry
is to maybe shed a bit more light on the basics of QM using Special Relativity.
Just based on the same old basic laws of physics.

You make it sound if I'm pushing some new physics here and consequently
put an associated burden of proof on my shoulders. I gladly give back such a
burden to, in principle anybody interested, and ask to first come up with
anything in the Journal entry which is not based on mainstream physics.

I've taken great care here to comply. If I would want to push something new
here then I would surely make that very clear from the start. After all, the
title of this page: "Physics help and Math help, Physics Forums" reveals the
intended purpose of this site. This means that everybody here has an
obligation not to confuse hypothesis and new theories with mainstream
physics.

This is also true for instance for the "free playground" of "QM interpretations"
Free O.K. but it should be possible for every newcomer to differentiate
between mainstream interpretation speculations and alternative speculations.


Kind Regards, Hans

Hans -- You failed to deal with some issues I raised.

1.How are the relativistic view of simultaneity and the deBroglie wavelength related?

2. You did not deal with the well-known relation that the proper time -exponential for a wave function involves an integral over time.

3. Where does the idea of unitarity come from? It is hardly connected with deBroglie wavelengths -- it's a separate assumption, and is, in fact, very close to assuming the Schrodinger Eq. (See Dirac)


The non-relativistic Schrodinger Eq. is alive and well -- cf. atomic physics, theory of superconductivity, etc.

New ideas can be great. But, recall that Feynman's ideas were accepted only after heavy scrutiny -- partly in desperation due to Fermi and his grad students inability to deal with Schwinger's work, and the accessibility of Feynman's ideas.

If you think you are correct, then by all means get some peer review -- it helps clarify, and shows up weaknesses. And remember, at the professional level, physics is a contact sport.

Good luck and regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[reilly]

Hans -- We can agree to disagree on some things about QM. I appreciate your calm demeanor in our discussion, behavior not always shown here. And, your new paper on lepton masses looks very interesting, and I look forward to reading it in detail.

Congratulations & best regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Gandalf]

Deriving Schrodingers equation

Seems to be an old thread, but anyway:

Why not try something original:
Step outside QM and think classically.
An electron as an example would be a particle surrounded by virtual particles (electrons and positrons) and it would be annihilated by a vitual positrons only with the result that there would still be one more electron in the "soup" of particles than positrons, since positrons and electrons are created in pairs.

In this "soup" it is not possible to point out where the electron is or which one of the electrons that is real and which one would be virtual. In fact the location of the electron would only be possile to describe in probabilistic terms.
The "soup" would have some dynamic properties though and satisfy some kind of dynamic equation. As a simplification surely Schrodingers equation would be a good candidate to predict the probabilities of where interaction with the particle would be probable.

So roll up the sleves and try!


As a note, it does also give the notion that the property of a particle as we know it is at least as much a property of space as it is of the particle.

 

[akhmeteli]

Why not try something original:
Step outside QM and think classically.
An electron as an example would be a particle surrounded by virtual particles (electrons and positrons) and it would be annihilated by a vitual positrons only with the result that there would still be one more electron in the "soup" of particles than positrons, since positrons and electrons are created in pairs.
In this "soup" it is not possible to point out where the electron is or which one of the electrons that is real and which one would be virtual. In fact the location of the electron would only be possile to describe in probabilistic terms.
The "soup" would have some dynamic properties though and satisfy some kind of dynamic equation. As a simplification surely Schrodingers equation would be a good candidate to predict the probabilities of where interaction with the particle would be probable.
So roll up the sleves and try!
As a note, it does also give the notion that the property of a particle as we know it is at least as much a property of space as it is of the particle.

Actually, that is the interpretation I discuss in my modest work http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509044 . It is highly likely that it had been proposed earlier (and I would very much appreciate a reference), but it seems especially appropriate for real-valued charged fields discussed in my work.