Schrodinger Equation Explained - Get the Answer Now

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins and derivation of the Schrödinger equation, a fundamental equation in quantum mechanics. Participants are exploring how Schrödinger formulated the equation and the assumptions that underpin it, as well as the historical context surrounding its development.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Historical
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the origins of the Schrödinger equation and seek explanations for how Schrödinger arrived at it.
  • One participant mentions that the equation cannot be proven in a mathematical sense, suggesting that it was more of a 'guess' based on certain assumptions.
  • Another participant notes that Schrödinger's approach involved assuming a system is described by a wave function that is continuous, square-integrable, and normalized.
  • There are references to advanced quantum mechanics textbooks that discuss the derivation of the equation from more basic postulates.
  • Participants mention the importance of Galilean symmetries and translational invariance in the context of the equation's formulation.
  • A historical reference is made to a letter from Schrödinger to Einstein, indicating the influence of de Broglie's thesis on Schrödinger's work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the Schrödinger equation cannot be proven in a strict mathematical sense and that it was derived from certain assumptions. However, there is no consensus on the specifics of these assumptions or the exact process by which Schrödinger formulated the equation.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the lack of detailed explanations regarding the assumptions made by Schrödinger and the dependence on specific definitions of wave functions and operators. The discussion also reflects varying levels of familiarity with quantum mechanics literature.

Mech-Master
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I am trying to understand where did this equation exactly come from. I know it is very complex, but anyone can explain it to me in the best way possible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
jtbell said:
Do you mean, how did Schrödinger come up with the equation in the first place?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=418069#post418069

Yes please. I think most people who are trying to learn QM want to ask that question. In most Physics textbooks, it's just mentioned that it can't be proved. But are there any plausible explanations as to how the guy came up wit that equation?
 
Well, of course it can't be proven - this is physics, not pure math.

But IIRC, Schrödinger made some assumptions but basically 'guessed it'. It was first later that it was derived more rigorously from more basic postulates. This is covered in some more advanced QM textbooks (e.g. first chapter of Landau-Lifschitz)

I'm embarrassed I can't remember it all, but you assume a system is described by a wave function, which is continuous, square-integrable and normalized. That the observable properties of the system correspond to eigenvalues of Hermitian operators on that wave function, etc.
(What've I forgotten?)
 
Gaelilean symmetries: spatial and temporal translational invariance, stuff like that. See e.g. the book by Ballentine.
 
The whole process, including the historical context, is described in Valentini and Bacciagaluppi's recent book, available online here:

http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184"

or on Amazon if you want to buy it.

See section 2.3 p.57 onwards. The relevant bit starts "On 3rd November 1925, Schroedinger wrote to Einstein: 'A few days ago I read with the greatest interest the ingenious thesis of Louis de Broglie...'"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K