Schrodinger equation and Born's Rule

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the interpretation of the Schrödinger equation and Born's Rule in quantum mechanics. The correct answer to the homework question is that the energy of the atomic orbital can be determined by solving the Schrödinger equation. There is confusion regarding why option D, which states that the square of the wave function gives the probability of finding an electron, is not the correct answer. It is clarified that Born's Rule applies to the square of the wave function, not the square of the Schrödinger equation itself. Understanding this distinction is crucial for correctly interpreting quantum mechanics principles.
yecko
Gold Member
Messages
275
Reaction score
15

Homework Statement


[/B]
Q18.
Which of the following statements about Schrodinger equation is true?
A) The exact solution of the equation never exists
B) It is only applicable to the hydrogen-like atoms
C) We can know the energy of the atomic orbital by solving the equation
D) The square of the equation gives the probability of finding an electron

Answer: C

Homework Equations


Schrodinger equation

The Attempt at a Solution


I do not understand the answer why is not D.
"The atomic orbital, when squared, describes the probability of finding the electron at a spatial location; Therefore, an atomic orbital is simply the probability amplitude function. ( |Y(x,y,z)|2; Born’s rule, 1926 ) "
Isn't Born's rule applicable in the question?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Born rule involves the square of the wave-function, not the square of the Schrodinger equation.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top