Shrodinger Equation, where did it come from?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nick89
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of the Schrödinger Equation, exploring its historical context and the reasoning behind its formulation. Participants express curiosity about how the equation was developed and its relationship to classical mechanics and wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the derivation of the Schrödinger Equation, noting that it is presented without explanation in their textbook.
  • Another participant suggests that the equation was adapted from classical theory and linked to de Broglie's wave nature of matter.
  • A participant speculates on the process of deriving the equation, mentioning the relationship between energy and momentum and referencing the Klein-Gordon equation as a precursor.
  • There is a mention of the idea that solutions to the equation may have been found before the equation itself was established.
  • One participant expresses satisfaction with the explanation provided, indicating that it aligns with their understanding of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the exact origins of the Schrödinger Equation, with multiple competing views and speculative reasoning presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on historical interpretations that may not be universally accepted, and there are unresolved details regarding the derivation process and the relationship between different equations in quantum mechanics.

Nick89
Messages
553
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was just wondering this lately: where does the Shrodinger Equation come from? How was it 'invented'?
Our teacher told us that it cannot be derived from any classical mechanics (quite obviously) so how did Shrodinger come up with it?

I can hardly believe he just postulated that a wavefunction would obbey that equation, and it "happened" to obbey measurements..?

I can't find this anywhere, not even in my QM textbook (by Griffiths). Actually the first chapter begins by stating the SE... No explanation whatsoever!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure if my history is correct here but I believe that his equation was borrowed from classical theory and he found that it could be adapted to encompass De Broglies idea of the wave nature of matter.
 
I don't know exactly, but I think it went something like this:

de Broglie's work suggested that matter had wave properties. So let's try writing down a function describing a wave. [itex]exp(-iEt+i\vec p\cdot \vec x)[/itex] is a plane wave propagating in the direction of [itex]\vec p[/itex]. That suggests that [itex]\vec p[/itex] is proportonal to the velocity. It could be the velocity itself, or the momentum. If this exponential is the solution of a differential equation, then this equation is also going to tell us the relationship between E and [itex]\vec p[/itex]. What equation will give us the relativistic relationship between energy and momentum, [itex]E^2=\vec p^2+m^2[/itex]? The answer is the Klein-Gordon equation. That didn't work out very well, so let's try the equation that gives us the non-relativistic relationship between energy and momentum, [itex]E=\vec p^2/2m[/itex]. The result is the Schrödinger equation.

I'm not sure about the details, but I'm pretty sure that I've read that the solutions were found before the equation, and that the Klein-Gordon equation was found before the Schrödinger equation. (By the way, I'm using units such that [itex]\hbar=1[/itex]).

Edit: My speculations can safely be ignored. Jtbell seems to have actually read the original papers. :biggrin: I consider that a form of cheating. :smile:
 
Thanks, that actually makes sense :)

Our teacher did give us a quick "semi-derivation" simply by explaining what the derivatives for example physically represent and that it is at least probable that it is correct, but this is much more satisfying :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K