Showing that the Schrödinger equation implies the de Broglie relation when PE=0

qLinusq
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,

In the book physical chemistry (P. Atkins & Julio de Paula, 2009, 5 ED) the authors derive a justification of the Schrödinger equation.

1.) \frac{-\hbar^{2}}{2m} \frac{d^{2}\psi}{dx^{2}}+V(x)\psi=E \psi

The derivation goes as follows:

Derivation:
We can justify the form of the Schrödinger equation to a certain extent by showing that it implies the de Broglie relation for a freely moving particle.
By free motion we mean motion in a region where the potential energy is zero (V=0 everywhere).

If V=0, equation 1 simplifies to:

2.) \frac{-\hbar^{2}}{2m} \frac{d^{2}\psi}{dx^{2}}=E \psi

So far all good, however they then present a solution to equation 2. without showing how they obtained it.

The solution is:

\psi=sin(kx)
k=\frac{(2mE)^{2}}{\hbar}

I have no problem understanding that this is a valid solution however i would like to derive it myself.

Could you provide me with the derivation to the solution of equation 2?

/Thanks in advance,

Linus.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
qLinusq said:
Could you provide me with the derivation to the solution of equation 2?

I think you can find it here:

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Constant-Coefficients.topicArticleId-19736,articleId-19720.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
qLinusq said:
i would like to derive it myself.

Could you provide me with the derivation to the solution of equation 2?

:confused: :smile:
 
Lol, yes I can see how what I wrote is contradicting. That is the kind of help that I was looking for actually.

/Thank you torquil :)
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top