- #1

- 9

- 0

- I
- Thread starter Tumorsito
- Start date

- #1

- 9

- 0

- #2

Isaac0427

Gold Member

- 704

- 156

http://web.archive.org/web/20081217...toricPaper/Schroedinger/Schroedinger1926c.pdf

- #3

fresh_42

Mentor

- 14,163

- 11,464

The equation named after him was postulated by Schrödinger in 1926 . The starting point was the idea of matter waves, going back to Louis de Broglie , and the Hamilton-Jacobi theory of classical mechanics. The effect ##S## classical mechanics is identified with the phase of a matter wave. As soon as typical distances are smaller than the wavelength, diffraction phenomena play a role, and the classic mechanics must be replaced by a wave mechanics.

The Schrödinger equation cannot be derived from classical physics, but is a postulate. Formally, however, the Schrödinger equation can be derived from the Hamilton function (expression for the energy) of the problem under consideration

$$

E=\dfrac{\mathbf{p^2}}{2m} +V(\mathbf{r},t)

$$

can be derived by replacing the classic quantities energy, momentum and location according to the correspondence principle with the corresponding quantum mechanical operators :

\begin{align*}

E&\longrightarrow \hat{E}=i \hbar\dfrac{\partial}{\partial t}\\[6pt]

\mathbf{p}&\longrightarrow \hat{\mathbf{p}}=-i \hbar \nabla\\[6pt]

\mathbf{r} &\longrightarrow \hat{\mathbf{r}} = \mathbf{r}

\end{align*}

Subsequent application to the unknown wave function ##\psi = \psi (\mathbf{r}, t)## gives the Schrödinger equation

$$

i \hbar \dfrac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=-\dfrac{\hbar^2}{2m}+\Delta \psi + V\psi

$$

In the same way, the Hamilton function can be converted into a Hamilton operator.

Historically, Schrödinger started from Louis de Broglie's description of free particles and introduced analogies between atomic physics and electromagnetic waves in the form of de Broglie waves (matter waves):

$$

\psi(\mathbf{r},t) = A \,\exp\left(-\dfrac{ i }{\hbar}(Et- \mathbf{p}\cdot\mathbf{r})\right)

$$

in which ##A## is a constant. This wave function is a solution to the Schrödinger equation just mentioned

##V (\mathbf{r}, t) = 0##. In the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (founded by Max Born ) there is the square of the amount ##|\psi|^{2}## the probability function density of the particle to the wave function.

- #4

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,412

- 1,051

In the late fall or early winter of 1925, Schrodinger gave a colloquium on de Broglie's work. Peter Debye attended this colloquium and commented that if Schrodinger wanted to talk about waves, he should have a wave equation.

Schrodinger first looked for a relativistic wave equation, and he "came up with" the Klein-Gordon equation (before Klein and Gordon). This gave the wrong energy spectrum for hydrogen, as it does take into account spin. He then went on his vacation, made a non-relativistic approximation, and "came up with" the Schrodinger equation for hydrogen.

Arriving home, he separated variables, and found that he could not solve the radial equation. He went to his wife's lover, Hermann Weyl, for help with solving this.

- #5

- 16,753

- 8,000

All this can be nicely read in the biography

W. Moore, Schrödinger - Live and Thought

W. Moore, Schrödinger - Live and Thought

- #6

- 1,913

- 1,145

Michael Raymer uploaded this paper, which he co-authored: https://www.researchgate.net/profil...wave-function-of-the-photon-Invited-Paper.pdf (available for pdf download here: https://www.researchgate.net/public...ell_wave_function_of_the_photon_Invited_Paper)

and which contains this illustration:

Fig. 1 Flow chart for derivations of electron and photon wave equations, m = rest mass, s = spin, v = velocity.

and which contains this illustration:

Fig. 1 Flow chart for derivations of electron and photon wave equations, m = rest mass, s = spin, v = velocity.

Last edited:

- #7

- 16,753

- 8,000

- #8

- 1,468

- 487

Didn't find this mentioned anywhere when I read it.

- #9

- 16,753

- 8,000

- #10

- 1,913

- 1,145

I guess I'm not as 'seasoned' as you are in that regard ##-## the paper doesn't discuss 'Schrödinger steering', but it does make brief reference to the fact that the photon doesn't exhibit the locality that is characterizable with Schrödinger's ('(##v<<c##)-bounded' approximation) equation.

Just after Fig. 1 the paper says this:

In modern terms, a photon is an elementary excitation of the quantized electromagnetic field. If it is known a priori that only one such excitation exists, it can be treated as a (quasi-) particle, roughly analogous to an electron. It has unique properties, arising from its zero rest mass and its spin-one nature. In particular, there is no position operator for a photon, leading some to conclude that there can be no properly defined wave function, in the Schroedinger sense, which allows localizing the particle to a point. On the other hand, it is known that even electrons, when relativistic, don’t have properly defined wave functions in the Schroedinger sense [2,3], and this opens our minds to broader definitions of wave functions. In relativistic quantum theory, one distinguishes between charge-density amplitudes, mass-density amplitudes, and particle-number density amplitudes. These can have different localization properties. Photons, of course, are inherently relativistic, so it is not surprising that we need to be careful about defining their wave functions.

And later:

- #11

- 16,753

- 8,000

Indeed, a 1st-quantization formalism ("wave function") for photons is at least problematic. I'd not use it at all. Photons are created and destroyed (emitted and absorbed) all the time. So why should one insist on a wave-function picture.

- #12

- 1,913

- 1,145

- #13

- 16,753

- 8,000

I'll have a look at it. It's a theory paper typed in MS Word though

- #14

- 11,220

- 3,884

In my experience, such papers are either trivial or wrong or both. And they never use units ##c=1## or ##\hbar=1##. And usually work with ##h## and ##\nu## rather than ##\hbar## and ##\omega##.It's a theory paper typed in MS Word though

- #15

- 1,468

- 487

I think conference proceedings contain more MS Word papers than actual journal articles do.In my experience, such papers are either trivial or wrong or both. And they never use units ##c=1## or ##\hbar=1##. And usually work with ##h## and ##\nu## rather than ##\hbar## and ##\omega##.

- #16

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,722

- 3,858

I summarized the basic argument from that paper in a long-ago post:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/schrodingers-equation.57867/#post-418069

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 6K

- Last Post
- Quantum Interpretations and Foundations

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 716

- Last Post
- Quantum Interpretations and Foundations

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 11

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 9K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 500