Codex @codex  0

The stationary Schrödinger equation isThe Laplacian represents the kinetic-energy operator. For a spherically symmetric function, $\Delta \psi ={\psi }^{\prime \prime }+2{\psi }^{\prime }/r$. The attractive Coulomb potential of the nucleus is $V=-q^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_{0}r)$; $E$ is the energy eigenvalue. Multiplication by $-2m/{\hslash }^2$ produces the displayed radial equation with Bohr radiusFor a normalizable bound state, write ${\kappa }^2=-2mE/{\hslash }^2$ and take $\lambda >0$. Substitution of $\psi =(A+Br)e^{-\lambda r}$ ingives, after division by the exponential, the coefficientsIf $B=0$ and $A\ne 0$, these force $\lambda =1/a$ and $\kappa =\lambda$. If $B\ne 0$, the first coefficient gives ${\kappa }^2={\lambda }^2$, the second gives $\lambda =1/(2a)$, and the third gives $B=-A/(2a)$. Up to nonzero scalar factors, the two radial bound states and their energies are consequentlyThey are linearly independent as functions and correspond to different energy eigenvalues. Strictly, they are not two solutions of one fixed-energy differential equation: each is a solution at its own energy.

For the higher-energy state, the spherical Born rule includes the radial factor $4\pi r^2$. Its normalization constant and the angular factor cancel in the ratioThe given integral formula makes the denominator $8a^5$ and the numerator $8a^5-21a^5/e$. Thus

The Born rule assigns $p_i=⟨\psi |P_i|\psi ⟩$ to a projective measurement with projection operators $P_i$. Its numerical form can be shared by theories while the source of the probabilities differs. Comparing Bohmian mechanics, the GRW model and the many-worlds interpretation exposes three different roles: uncertainty over actual configurations, fundamental stochastic events, and weights for branch-relative expectation.

In Bohmian mechanics, the Schrödinger equation implies a probability continuity equation for $|\Psi {|}^2$ with current $j$, while the guidance equation transports an ensemble density $\rho$ with velocity $v=j/|\Psi {|}^2$:Thus $\rho =|\Psi {|}^2$ is preserved: quantum equilibrium equivariance. If an apparatus interaction produces disjoint configuration regions ${\Gamma }_i$ with occupied-branch norm $|c_i|$, integrating the equilibrium distribution gives $\mathrm{Pr}(Q\in {\Gamma }_i)=|c_i{|}^2$. The actual outcome is fixed by initial configuration; the distribution describes the typical or uncertain configuration, not a fundamental random collapse. Equivariance alone does not prove equilibrium initially: every admissible density is transported by the velocity field. A typicality account privileges the equivariant $|\Psi {|}^2$ measure and then explains subsystem statistics conditionally; that explanatory premise must not be hidden in the continuity equation.^[ref]

In the GRW model, the centre law $p(X)=\Vert L_i(X)\Psi {\Vert }^2$ is part of the stochastic dynamics. Since $\int L_i(X{)}^{†}{L}_i(X)dX=I$, it is normalized. For two well-separated correlated pointer packets with coefficients $a,b$, integration over centres around their respective occupied regions gives approximately $|a{|}^2,|b{|}^2$; cross-contributions are suppressed at separations large compared with $r_C$. This explains why macroscopic records follow the Born rule approximately, without a special postulate applying only when an observer measures. However, the squared-norm centre law already carries the relevant mathematical probability structure. The theory relocates the rule into a universal physical law; it does not derive all probabilities from a deterministic equation. There are also small predicted deviations from standard unitary quantum mechanics.^[ref]

In the many-worlds interpretation, every nonzero decohering component persists, so the question is not which single global branch will survive. It is why a rational observer should use branch weight $|c_i{|}^2$ for expectation or caring about successor records. Equal-amplitude symmetry and decision theory motivate equal weights for physically equivalent alternatives. For rational $|c_i{|}^2=m_i/M$, an ancillary refinement into $m_i$ equal-norm alternatives can motivate weight $m_i/M$, followed by continuity for other amplitudes. This argument requires assumptions that refining irrelevant details does not change value, that preferences respect the relevant quantum symmetries, and that weight tracks the intended notion of expectation. Those are substantive premises, not consequences of branch existence alone.^[ref]

Naive branch counting is unsuitable: decoherence yields approximate, refinement-dependent branches, and splitting one record into more environmental records should not change its weight. Nor is diagonality of a density matrix already an account of probability. The comparison therefore has no common derivation from bare formalism. Bohmian mechanics needs a justified equilibrium or typicality measure, GRW model needs a justified stochastic law, and an Everettian account needs a justified connection from branch structure and rationality to experienced statistics. Each offers a coherent location for the Born rule; the remaining explanatory costs differ.

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem excludes overlapping preparation distributions for distinct pure states in an ontological model of a quantum system satisfying preparation independence and the specified quantum predictions. It excludes neither all hidden variables nor every informational use of a quantum state. The precise overlap criterion is essential: a psi-epistemic model lets at least two distinct pure-state preparations assign positive common probability mass to the same underlying states; a psi-ontic model has mutually singular measures for each distinct pair.^[ref]

Let preparation $x$ sample $\lambda \in \Lambda$ from ${\mu }_x$. A fixed quantum measurement $M$ has nonnegative response functions ${\xi }_M(j|\lambda )$ with ${\sum }_j{\xi }_M(j|\lambda )=1$. Averaging over the preparation must reproduce the Born rule. The response is fixed by $M$ and the complete underlying state, not by additional knowledge of the preparation label. No outcome determinism or Bell local causality is assumed; the joint measurement response need not factor into local responses. For independently operated preparations, preparation independence further identifies the joint state space with the appropriate product and assignsOperationally independent devices do not logically entail this ontic factorization; it is an additional physical premise.^[ref]

The two-qubit example can be checked directly. Set $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. In computational basis order $00,01,10,11$, take the following normalized columns as an orthonormal basis:Their pairwise inner products vanish. Direct multiplication shows that the respective preparations $00,0+,+0,++$ have zero probability amplitude for respective outcomes $1,2,3,4$. This is the PBR exclusion measurement for zero and plus: the measurement does not perfectly distinguish the preparations, but each outcome rules one out.

Suppose a common submeasure $\nu$ of ${\mu }_0$ and ${\mu }_{+}$ has mass $\omega >0$; with densities one can take $\nu (\lambda )=\min \{{\mu }_0(\lambda ),{\mu }_{+}(\lambda )\}$. Preparation independence makes $\nu \otimes \nu$ a common submeasure of all four product preparations, of mass ${\omega }^2$. The zero probability for outcome $j$ under its excluded preparation and nonnegativity forceSumming and using normalization yields ${\omega }^2=0$, a contradiction. This measure formulation avoids treating a set with merely nonempty topological support as a positive-probability overlap.

For arbitrary distinct nonorthogonal pure states, write $|{\psi }_{0,1}⟩=\cos (\theta /2)|0⟩\pm \sin (\theta /2)|1⟩$, with overlap $\cos \theta$ and $0<\theta <\pi /2$. The general proof constructs an exclusion measurement on $n$ independently prepared copies when $2^{1/n}-1\le \tan (\theta /2)$. A finite $n$ always exists. The same common-submeasure contradiction then excludes positive overlap. Orthogonal preparations are already disjoint if their perfectly distinguishing measurement is reproduced. The original paper also bounds residual overlap for imperfect exclusion data; exact disjointness concerns the ideal theorem, not a finite experiment's proof of exact zero.^[ref]

The scope is consequently sharp. Bohmian mechanics is not excluded: its underlying state includes the wave function, making distinct pure preparations disjoint even though extra configuration variables remain. A psi-ontic model need not be complete with the wave function alone, and the theorem does not identify the wave function with a three-dimensional material field. Models abandoning preparation independence, or accounts not representing preparations as uncertainty over observer-independent states of this specified kind, are outside this conclusion. Epistemic uncertainty between mixed preparations is not banned. Nor does the theorem establish a collapse mechanism, choose between Bohmian and Everettian theories, or solve the measurement problem. Its achievement is a conditional impossibility theorem about a precise form of pure-state epistemic overlap.

Quantum decoherence explains the practical stability of records and suppression of observable interference; it does not alone select one outcome. The measurement problem arises when universal unitary time evolution, a complete wave function description and a unique definite outcome are all demanded. A theory must explain which commitment is changed or supplemented, not merely replace a pure composite description by a reduced one.

Model an ideal quantum measurement and its environment byTaking the partial trace over the environment gives the system–apparatus reduced density matrixEnvironmental records make $⟨E_1|E_0⟩$ very small for macroscopically distinct alternatives. If independent fragments have overlaps $d_k$, their combined overlap is ${\prod }_k{d}_k$, explaining the rapid suppression. The apparatus interaction also favours robust records, giving environment-induced pointer-basis selection rather than an arbitrary choice of basis.^[ref]

What follows is approximate agreement, for local apparatus observables, with a classical probabilistic mixture. What does not follow is that either term has ceased to exist. Even with orthogonal environmental records, the global quantum state is a pure state with quantum entanglement. For orthogonal branches $|B_0⟩,|B_1⟩$, the global observable $|B_0⟩⟨B_1|+|B_1⟩⟨B_0|$ has expectation $2\mathrm{Re}(a^{\ast }b)$ in the superposition and zero in the corresponding incoherent mixture. Its practical inaccessibility is not its mathematical disappearance. The reduced state is an improper mixed state, not proof that an unknown single branch was selected.

Different interpretations use this result differently. In Bohmian mechanics, disjoint environmental configurations make one occupied branch an effective description of the actual apparatus. In the many-worlds interpretation, robust branches supply approximately autonomous relative records, without a unique global outcome. In the GRW model, a separate stochastic change of the wave function selects a dominant component; environmental decoherence helps explain ordinary records but is not the collapse law. These are different completions of the argument.

Nor does diagonality derive the Born rule. Interpreting the diagonal entries as experienced outcome probabilities requires a probability rule or an interpretive argument. Extremely small overlaps also leave approximations and possible quantum recoherence; a finite controlled environment can in principle be manipulated to reveal the global coherence. The appropriate verdict is that decoherence resolves much of the preferred-record-basis and effective-classicality problem while leaving the unique-outcome and probability problems dependent on further theory. It is an essential physical mechanism in many accounts, not a self-contained solution by relabelling a partial trace as collapse.

The angular-momentum commutators giveFor example $[L_x+i{L}_y,L_z]=-i\hslash L_y+i(i\hslash L_x)=-\hslash L_{+}$. In the displayed basis $|1,1⟩,|1,0⟩,|1,-1⟩$, the only nonzero upper entries of $L_{+}$ connect adjacent magnetic quantum numbers. Subtracting their column and row $L_z$ eigenvalues multiplies each by $-\hslash$, proving the first matrix commutator; the lower matrix similarly gives the second. Direct multiplication giveswhose difference is $2\hslash L_z$. Also $L^2=L_z^2+(L_{+}{L}_{-}+L_{-}{L}_{+})/2=2{\hslash }^{2}I$, confirming $\ell =1$.

A rotation changes the quantization axis without changing the spectrum, so $L_{\mathbf{n}}$ has eigenvalues $+\hslash ,0,-\hslash$. Its dimensionless matrix isSolving $(L_{\mathbf{n}}-\hslash I)v=0$ and normalizing gives the spin-one maximum-projection eigenvectorFor instance the first equation is $(\cos \theta -1){\cos }^2(\theta /2)+{\sin }^2\theta /2=0$, and the squared components sum to one. An overall phase is immaterial.

At $\theta =\pi /3$, $v_{+}=(3/4,\sqrt{6}/4,1/4{)}^{\mathsf{T}}$. The Born rule therefore predicts, in the requested order,This treats the Stern-Gerlach experiment as the stipulated ideal measurement of orbital projection. In an actual atom, other magnetic moments and spin-orbit coupling can change which angular momentum the apparatus resolves.

A pure quantum state is a unit ray in a complex Hilbert space: normalization fixes total probability, a common phase is unobservable, and superpositions retain relative phases. Observables are self-adjoint operators. For an ideal projective measurement with spectral projector $P_a$, the Born rule gives $p(a)=⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$ and the Lüders rule gives conditional state $P_a\psi /\sqrt{p(a)}$. This preserves an eigenspace, not necessarily a unique vector when the outcome is degenerate. Between measurements, a closed system evolves unitarily according to $i\hslash {\partial }_t\psi =H\psi$. Composite systems use tensor products; quantum statistics additionally restrict identical-particle states. These are a framework supported by many experiments, not separate logical deductions from any one experiment.

In the photoelectric effect, monochromatic light illuminates a clean metal and a retarding potential measures the largest emitted electron kinetic energy. frequency controls the stopping energy, $e{V}_s=h\nu -\Phi$, while in the one-photon regime intensity mainly controls the emission rate. A threshold frequency and a stopping-energy slope $h/e$ support quantized energy exchange rather than gradual absorption of arbitrary classical-wave energy by each electron. Contact potentials, surface contamination, dark current and spectral impurities require controls. Robert Andrews Millikan tested the frequency–stopping-potential relation with careful surface and electrical control.^[ref]

The Stern-Gerlach experiment sends a collimated neutral silver beam through an inhomogeneous magnetic field onto a detector. The force is approximately $F_z={\mu }_z{\partial }_{z}B$ in an appropriate strong-field electronic description. Two resolved components rather than a continuous classical orientation spread support discrete angular-momentum projections. Field-off beam profiles and magnetic-gradient/beam-width controls distinguish splitting from ordinary broadening. In the modern description the silver ground electronic state has $J=1/2$; the 1922 experiment preceded the electron-spin interpretation. Ideal sequential analyzers along different axes illustrate incompatible observables and state preparation, but were not the original apparatus.^[ref]

In the Davisson–Germer experiment, accelerated electrons scatter from a nickel single crystal and an angularly scanned collector measures the scattered intensity. Changing voltage and crystal orientation changes narrow diffraction maxima. The inferred wavelength agrees with $\lambda =h/p$, with nonrelativistic $p=\sqrt{2meV}$. vacuum, crystal cleaning, energy selection and background measurements matter: adsorbed surface gas can produce additional diffraction features. This supports matter-wave amplitudes and interference, with measured intensities related to their squared magnitude; it does not mean an electron must follow a classical orbit through the apparatus.^[ref] Together these experiments motivate quantized outcomes, wave amplitudes and probabilistic measurement while leaving a distinction between observed evidence and the general postulates used to organize it.

The Born rule uses the squared modulus, so the imaginary term contributes positively: $|a+ix{|}^2=a^2+x^2$. For $a>0$, wavefunction normalization would multiply the supplied expression by $N=\sqrt{3/(4a^3)}$. Equivalently, take the ratio of the integrals directly:Using ${\psi }^2$ instead of $|\psi {|}^2$ would fail to produce a real, nonnegative probability density.

Stationary states. Inside the infinite square well, the time-independent Schrödinger equation has sinusoidal solutions. The boundary conditions $\varphi (0)=\varphi (a)=0$ select $k_{n}a=n\pi$; normalization then givesEach wavefunction vanishes outside the well. There is no nonzero $n=0$ state.

Immediate energy measurement after expansion. For the one-sided sudden expansion of an infinite square well, take the original wall at $x=0$ as fixed, so the expanded well occupies $0<x<2a$. In the sudden approximation, the initial wavefunction remains $\sqrt{2/a}\sin (\pi x/a)$ on $0<x<a$, extended by zero elsewhere. The new ground state is ${\chi }_1=a^{-1/2}\sin (\pi x/(2a))$. Its probability amplitude isThe Born rule therefore givesThe motion of the walls matters: a symmetric expansion about the old midpoint would instead give $64/(9{\pi }^2)$. The stated width alone does not explicitly identify the final endpoints. The first result uses the natural continuation of the specified left boundary; if both boundaries are moved, the final location must be supplied. For a new well $(b,b+2a)$ containing $(0,a)$, the overlap is $c_1(b)=(4\sqrt{2}/(3\pi ))[\cos (\pi b/(2a))-\sin (\pi b/(2a))]$.

Evolution of one energy eigenstate. For a time-independent Hamiltonian operator, write $|\psi (t)⟩=f(t)|{\varphi }_n⟩$. Substitution into the Time-dependent Schrödinger equation gives $i\hslash \dot{f}=E_{n}f$, soOnly a global phase changes, leaving all measurement probabilities unchanged.

Delayed energy measurement. Expand the unchanged initial state in the complete new energy eigenbasis,For the fixed-left-wall geometry, direct overlap integration givesorthogonality isolates the new ground-state amplitude as $c_1{e}^{-i{E}_1^{\prime }t/\hslash }$. Its phase cancels on squaring, so the ground-state probability remains $32/(9{\pi }^2)$ for every delay, provided the expanded well remains fixed and no intervening measurement or environment changes the state. The position probability density generally evolves because different eigenstates acquire different relative phases.

With two coherent paths, the probability amplitude at a screen is ${\psi }_1(x)+e^{i\varphi }{\psi }_2(x)$. The Born rule givesThe final term shifts when the relative phase changes, producing interference fringes. For slit separation $d$ in the far field, the phase difference is approximately $2\pi d\sin \theta /\lambda$; constructive interference occurs at $d\sin \theta =n\lambda$. Finite slit widths add a diffraction envelope, so an ideal equally bright, infinitely narrow slit model does not predict the full observed envelope.

single-electron interference pattern buildup starts with isolated localized detector events at sufficiently low source intensity. Repeated events accumulate the interference probability distribution. Thus detection is discrete while propagation is described by coherent probability amplitudes. The effect cannot be explained by interference between different particles if the apparatus is occupied by at most one particle at a time. A motivating realization used a field-emission electron source, an electron biprism to recombine two paths, electron lenses and a position-sensitive electron counter; it recorded individual arrivals building up the fringes. This was a biprism realization of two-path interference, not a plate with two literal slits.^[ref]

The crucial comparison is between both coherent paths open and a preparation that supplies which-path information. If the paths become correlated with detector states $|D_1⟩,|D_2⟩$, the joint state is ${\psi }_1|D_1⟩+e^{i\varphi }{\psi }_2|D_2⟩$. Ignoring that detector multiplies the interference term by $⟨D_1|D_2⟩$. Orthogonal detector states remove the term completely, while identical detector states preserve it. This is a consequence of entanglement and the partial trace; a human need not read the detector.

In a real test, check the single-path distributions, detector background, source coherence and stability of the relative phase. Classical phase drift can wash out fringes without supplying which-path information. Conversely, localized detections alone do not establish coherent two-path propagation; the controlled phase dependence of their accumulated distribution provides the discriminating evidence.

For a nonrelativistic spinless particle in a scalar potential, the Time-dependent Schrödinger equation isAn initial wavefunction together with boundary conditions specifies the evolution. The Hamiltonian operator must be self-adjoint on the appropriate domain for closed-system evolution to be unitary. The equation is linear, so a superposition of solutions is another solution. Its complex wavefunction predicts probability amplitudes; the Born rule separately supplies the connection to measurement probabilities.

For a time-independent potential, separation $\psi (\mathbf{r},t)=\varphi (\mathbf{r})e^{-iEt/\hslash }$ gives the time-independent Schrödinger equation $H\varphi =E\varphi$. Normalizability and boundary conditions select the allowed energies of bound states; scattering states instead use incoming and outgoing boundary conditions and generalized normalization. A general state is a superposition of energy eigenstates, with a spectral integral as well if there is a continuous spectrum. Different energies accumulate different phases, allowing time-dependent position densities and oscillatory expectation values even though a single energy eigenstate has a stationary density.

For a real scalar potential, combining the equation with its complex conjugate yields probability conservation:With no current escaping the boundary, $\int |\psi {|}^2{d}^{3}r$ is constant. Matching conditions at a finite potential step follow from the differential equation and enforce the flux balance used in B6.

The Schrödinger equation is a dynamical postulate of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, not a consequence of classical mechanics alone. The substitutions $E\mapsto i\hslash {\partial }_t$ and $\mathbf{p}\mapsto -i\hslash \nabla$ motivate its free-particle form from the dispersion relation, but do not derive the measurement postulates. The scalar equation omits intrinsic spin and relativistic particle creation. Spinful or relativistic problems require the corresponding extended theory. Nor does its deterministic unitary evolution, by itself, prescribe conditioning on a particular observed measurement outcome.

Operators, quantization and rotations. Angular momentum is the generator of spatial rotations. In quantum mechanics, its components are Hermitian operators on their appropriate domains and obeyThese angular momentum commutation relations prevent all three components from having simultaneous sharp values. For example, the Robertson uncertainty principle gives $\Delta J_x\Delta J_y\ge \hslash |⟨J_z⟩|/2$. One conventionally diagonalizes ${\hat{J}}^2$ and a selected component ${\hat{J}}_z$:The allowed labels are $j=0,\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\dots$ and $m=-j,-j+1,\dots ,j$. An angular-momentum multiplet has $2j+1$ states. The magnitude $\hslash \sqrt{j(j+1)}$ differs from the largest possible component $\hslash j$; the remaining components fluctuate even in a state with maximal $m$.

The angular momentum lowering operator and its raising counterpart, ${\hat{J}}_{\pm }={\hat{J}}_x\pm i{\hat{J}}_y$, satisfyThe ladder terminates at $m=\pm j$. A rotation through angle $\theta$ about unit vector $\hat{\mathbf{n}}$ acts through the unitary operator $\exp [-i\theta \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot \hat{\mathbf{J}}/\hslash ]$. Thus quantized components and the continuous rotation of a state are compatible.

Orbital angular momentum. The orbital contribution is associated with motion in space:For a spinless spatial wavefunction, the simultaneous angular eigenfunctions are the spherical harmonics $Y_{\ell m}(\theta ,\varphi )$, with $\ell =0,1,2,\dots$ and $m=-\ell ,\dots ,\ell$. Single-valued ordinary scalar spatial wavefunctions give integer orbital labels. In a central potential energy, $[\hat{H},{\hat{L}}^2]=[\hat{H},{\hat{L}}_z]=0$, so stationary states may be labelled by these angular quantum numbers. The angular kinetic contribution appears in the radial equation as $\ell (\ell +1){\hslash }^2/(2m{r}^2)$, the centrifugal potential. Noncentral interactions need not conserve these orbital labels.

Intrinsic spin and addition. Spin angular momentum is an intrinsic internal degree of freedom with the same commutation algebra. It is not the angular momentum of a small classical charged sphere literally rotating about its centre. For an electron, $s=1/2$ and $m_s=\pm 1/2$, so ${\hat{S}}_i=(\hslash /2){\sigma }_i$ in terms of the Pauli matrices. Its squared spin is $3{\hslash }^2/4$. Other particles can have integer or half-integer spin, including spin zero.

For one particle with orbital and spin degrees of freedom, $\hat{\mathbf{J}}=\hat{\mathbf{L}}+\hat{\mathbf{S}}$; the two component sets commute with each other. Addition of angular momentum permits $j=|\ell -s|,|\ell -s|+1,\dots ,\ell +s$. The coupled states $|j,m_j⟩$ are linear combinations of the uncoupled $|\ell ,m_{\ell }⟩|s,m_s⟩$ with $m_j=m_{\ell }+m_s$, determined by Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. A rotationally invariant spin-orbit interaction can conserve $J^2,J_z$ while mixing the separate component labels.

Angular momentum also carries a magnetic moment. For an electron's orbital motion and intrinsic spin,The minus signs reflect negative electric charge. With the Bohr magneton ${\mu }_B=e\hslash /(2m_e)$, a spin projection $m_s$ has ${\mu }_z=-g_s{\mu }_B{m}_s$. A magnetic field can therefore distinguish angular-momentum states through their interaction energy $-\mathbf{\mu }\cdot \mathbf{B}$.

Stern–Gerlach measurement. In the Stern-Gerlach experiment, atoms emerge from a heated source, pass through collimating apertures, traverse a strongly inhomogeneous magnetic field, and strike a position-sensitive screen. The beam is neutral, so its separation is interpreted through the atomic magnetic moment rather than the ordinary charged-particle Lorentz force. Near a chosen quantization direction, the interaction givesA uniform field can exert a torque but would not separate the beam by this translational force; the gradient is essential. Different allowed magnetic-moment components become correlated with different trajectories. A classical ensemble with continuously varying orientations would yield a continuous spread, whereas discrete quantum components yield separated channels.

In the modern electronic description of ground-state silver, filled shells cancel their electronic angular momenta and the unpaired $5s$ electron has $L=0$, $S=1/2$, $J=1/2$. The effective electronic measurement therefore has two components, approximately ${\mu }_z=\pm {\mu }_B$, rather than an orbital $\ell =1/2$, which is not allowed. For positive field gradient the electronic $m_J=+1/2$ component has negative ${\mu }_z$ and deflects downward in this coordinate convention. Nuclear spin and hyperfine structure are neglected in this simplified two-channel account. Historically the original splitting preceded the electron-spin interpretation, so the modern explanation should not be confused with the original investigators' interpretation.

More generally a prepared spin state $a|+z⟩+b|-z⟩$ gives the two outcomes with probabilities $|a{|}^2,|b{|}^2$. Selecting one channel prepares a state for further measurements. An ideal second analyser along the same axis then gives a definite result, whereas one along a perpendicular axis gives two equally likely outcomes for a spin-one-half eigenstate. This connects the apparatus directly to incompatible spin components and the Born rule. Angular momentum is quantized through its operator algebra; the Stern–Gerlach gradient turns that discrete internal information into spatially distinguishable outcomes.

A Hermitian operator satisfies the adjoint symmetry conditionfor vectors in its specified domain. For a finite matrix this means $A=A^{†}$. For an unbounded differential operator, boundary conditions and domains matter: symmetry on a chosen domain is not alone sufficient for self-adjointness. Physical observables require the corresponding self-adjoint operator and its spectral measure. This distinction prevents purely formal integration by parts from being mistaken for a complete operator definition.

Real eigenvalues. If $A|a⟩=a|a⟩$ with nonzero norm, Hermiticity impliesso $a=a^{\ast }$. Thus eigenvalues representing measurement outcomes are real.

Orthogonality. For eigenvectors $|a⟩,|b⟩$,Hence $(a-b)⟨b|a⟩=0$, and distinct eigenvalues have orthogonal eigenvectors. Within a degenerate eigenspace, Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization can choose an orthonormal basis. In finite dimensions the spectral theorem gives a complete orthonormal eigenbasis andwhere $P_a$ projects onto each eigenspace. In infinite dimensions a continuous spectrum may require a spectral integral rather than a normalizable eigenvector for every possible outcome; a position operator on the full line is a familiar example.

Measurements and probabilities. In the discrete case the Born rule assigns probability $⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$ to the outcome $a$. For a nondegenerate eigenbasis, $|\psi ⟩={\sum }_a{c}_a|a⟩$ gives probabilities $|c_a{|}^2$, withThe variance vanishes precisely when the state lies in an eigenspace with a single sharp outcome. A repeatable ideal projective measurement prepares the corresponding eigenspace; superpositions of different eigenvalues do not have a preassigned sharp value of that observable in this description.

Compatibility and dynamics. Commuting Hermitian matrices admit simultaneous diagonalization, permitting a common set of sharp labels. For example $L^2,L_z$ commute, whereas $L_x,L_y$ do not. In the differential-operator setting the corresponding spectral compatibility requires appropriate domain conditions. Noncommuting observables obey the Robertson uncertainty principleThe canonical commutation relation then gives $\Delta x\Delta p\ge \hslash /2$.

The Hamiltonian operator represents energy. A self-adjoint $H$ generates unitary time evolution, $U(t)=e^{-iHt/\hslash }$, preserving norm and total probability; its eigenvalues determine stationary-state phases and transition energies. Hermiticity supplies real outcomes and orthogonal eigenspaces, while self-adjointness and the spectral theorem make these measurement and evolution rules mathematically complete.

Expand the initial wavefunction in the angular momentum eigenbasis using ${\cos }^2\varphi =1/2+(e^{2i\varphi }+e^{-2i\varphi })/4$. With the normalized $u_m$ from part (a), this givesThe coefficient squares sum to one, also verifying the stated normalization. The Born rule therefore gives angular momentum outcomesFor an energy measurement the two distinct $m=\pm 2$ states belong to the same energy eigenspace. Sum their probabilities, rather than adding their amplitudes, to obtainTheir relative probabilities are $4:1:1$ for the angular momenta and $2:1$ for the energies. In particular, zero mean angular momentum does not imply zero rotational energy.

The postulates of quantum mechanics give a framework for predicting observations from a prepared state. The experiments below motivate different features of that framework; no one experiment proves the whole set of postulates or specifies every Hamiltonian operator.

A pure quantum state is a normalized vector in a complex Hilbert space, with vectors differing by an overall quantum phase representing the same physical preparation. In position representation, $\int |\psi (\mathbf{r}){|}^2{d}^{3}r=1$. The linear state space permits quantum superposition, while the Born rule assigns probability ${\int }_{\Omega }|\psi {|}^2{d}^{3}r$ to a position outcome in a region $\Omega$. The wavefunction is a probability amplitude; it is not a classical distribution of definite particle positions and momenta.

An observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator. If $Q$ has spectral projectors $P_q$, its possible measurement outcomes are its spectral values and $\mathrm{Pr}(q)=⟨\psi |P_q|\psi ⟩$. The mean is $⟨Q⟩=⟨\psi |Q|\psi ⟩$. For an ideal repeatable projective measurement, obtaining $q$ leaves the normalized conditional state $P_q\psi /\sqrt{\mathrm{Pr}(q)}$. This projects onto an entire eigenspace if the outcome is degenerate. General detectors need more general measurement in quantum mechanics models; the projective update is an idealization. Noncommuting observables need not have simultaneous sharp values, as the canonical commutation relation and Heisenberg uncertainty relation illustrate.

Between measurements, an isolated system has unitary time evolution generated by its Hamiltonian operator:This preserves normalization and superpositions. Composite systems use a tensor product of state spaces, allowing entangled states as well as product states; identical particles additionally require the bosonic or fermionic exchange symmetry appropriate to their species. Statistical mixtures are described by a density matrix, with $\mathrm{Pr}(q)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_q)$. These rules separate preparation, coherent evolution and measurement.

The photoelectric effect exposes discrete energy transfer by light. Illuminate a clean metal cathode in an evacuated tube and measure the collected electron current while varying the light frequency, intensity and a retarding voltage. The stopping potential $V_s$ probes the largest emitted electron kinetic energy, whereas the photocurrent measures the rate at which charge is collected. In the ordinary single-photon regime there is a threshold frequency; above it the maximum energy grows with frequency, rather than with intensity. Changing intensity at fixed frequency mainly changes the number of emitted electrons. These observations are summarized by the Einstein photoelectric equationHere $\Phi$ is the surface work function, and the stopping voltage is understood after any photoelectric contact-potential correction. A photon delivers $h\nu$ in an absorption event; emission is allowed only when that energy can pay the escape cost. This accounts for the frequency threshold and the lack of the classical waiting time associated with slowly accumulating energy in a single electron. The experiment supports energy quantization of light; it does not imply that every incident photon emits an electron or that every emitted electron has the maximum energy. Surface losses and collection geometry affect the full current-voltage curve.

The Davisson–Germer experiment demonstrates a complementary wave property of matter. An electron gun uses a heated emitter, accelerating voltage and apertures to send a narrow beam onto a nickel single crystal in vacuum. A movable collector measures scattered electric current versus direction; rotating the crystal also tests its azimuthal symmetry. The crystal gives sharp angular beams whose positions depend on voltage and crystal orientation. A prominent feature occurs near $54\mathrm{V}$ accelerating voltage and roughly $50^{\circ }$ detector colatitude. The nonrelativistic de Broglie wavelength predicted at that voltage isDiffraction wavelengths inferred using the known crystal structure agree with this voltage dependence. These angular peaks arise from coherent addition of scattering amplitudes from the crystal, not from classical specular reflection of independent point projectiles. Bragg's law is $2d\sin {\theta }_B=r\lambda$ for lattice-plane spacing $d$ and angle to those planes; a detector colatitude is a different angle and must not be substituted without its geometry. The historical readout was current, not a photograph of individual electron trajectories.^[ref]

The double-slit experiment makes the role of amplitudes especially direct. A coherent source illuminates two narrow slits; an observation screen a distance $D$ away records the pattern. For slit spacing $d$ and small screen displacement $y$, the path difference is approximately $dy/D$. The two amplitudes add before probabilities are formed:For equal coherent illumination the interference term varies as $\cos (2\pi dy/(\lambda D))$, giving fringe spacing $\lambda D/d$ beneath the single-slit diffraction envelope. Blocking one slit removes that cross term. Young's optical experiment established wave interference; later particle-resolved realizations with photons or electrons show localized detection events whose accumulated distribution has the interference pattern. Low arrival rates demonstrate that this pattern does not require different incident particles to collide with one another.

If the paths become correlated with distinguishable detector states $|D_1⟩$ and $|D_2⟩$, the cross term acquires their overlap $⟨D_2|D_1⟩$. Perfectly distinguishable path records make that overlap zero, suppressing interference even if the spatial beams still overlap. This connects quantum entanglement, measurement and loss of observable coherence. Without a path measurement, the two alternatives are amplitudes for one preparation, rather than classical mutually exclusive events whose probabilities may simply be added.

Together these experiments motivate a description in which energy transfer and detector outcomes can be discrete, yet propagation retains complex quantum phases and interference. The Born rule connects those amplitudes to repeatable frequencies of outcomes. The Schrödinger equation supplies the dynamics once a Hamiltonian operator is specified, while observable operators, state preparation and the measurement model specify what the apparatus can read.

Put $\Omega =\lambda B$, including its sign. The initial vector is the $+\hslash /2$ eigenstate of $S_z$; it is not an energy eigenstate of $H=\Omega S_x$. In terms of the spin eigenstates found above, $|+z⟩=(|+x⟩+|-x⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Each energy eigenstate acquires its own unitary time evolution phase:Equivalently, $e^{-iHt/\hslash }=I\cos (\Omega t/2)-i{\sigma }_x\sin (\Omega t/2)$ follows from ${\sigma }_x^2=I$. The Born rule givesThe expectation value of the spin angular momentum is $(\hslash /2)(0,-\sin \Omega t,\cos \Omega t)$, a rotation around the $x$ axis. Its direction follows the specified sign of the Hamiltonian; changing the magnetic coupling sign reverses the precession.

A localized quantum particle is described by a wave packet: a coherent quantum superposition of momentum components, rather than a single delocalized plane wave. The Born rule assigns the position probability density $|\psi (x,t){|}^2$. A useful normalized initial Gaussian wave packet isIts mean position and momentum are $x_0$ and $p_0$, and its standard deviations satisfy ${\sigma }_x(0)={\sigma }_0$, ${\sigma }_p=\hslash /(2{\sigma }_0)$. This unchirped initial state saturates the Heisenberg uncertainty relation.

For a free particle, the momentum-space Schrödinger equation multiplies each amplitude by $e^{-i{p}^{2}t/(2m\hslash )}$. The inverse Fourier transform is a Gaussian integral, giving the free Gaussian wave packet evolutionOne way to obtain this expression explicitly is to write the initial momentum amplitude as proportional to $\exp [-{\sigma }_0^2(p-p_0{)}^2/{\hslash }^2-ip{x}_0/\hslash ]$, multiply by the free evolution phase and complete the square in $p$. Taking the modulus squared removes the position-dependent phase and leavesThe expectation value follows uniform classical motion while the density spreads. A narrower initial packet needs a wider momentum distribution and therefore spreads more rapidly. At long times its width grows linearly with $|t|$; its variance grows quadratically, unlike the linear variance growth of ordinary diffusion. The probability continuity equation preserves total probability despite the decreasing peak height. The mean momentum and the mean energy $(p_0^2+{\sigma }_p^2)/(2m)$ remain constant, since the momentum populations do not change.

The same result has a wave interpretation. For a free nonrelativistic particle $\omega (k)=\hslash k^2/(2m)$, so the group velocity is $d\omega /dk=\hslash k/m$, equal to $p_0/m$ at the packet center. The curvature $d^2\omega /d{k}^2=\hslash /m$ makes different momentum components travel with different group velocities, producing dispersion. The phase velocity is $\omega /k=\hslash k/(2m)$ for this energy convention and does not describe the motion of the envelope. The evolving quadratic spatial phase is essential to the spreading; a density snapshot alone does not specify the full quantum state.

A freely spreading Gaussian wave packet remains a pure Gaussian state but develops position-momentum correlations. Its symmetrized covariance is $C_{xp}=⟨\{x-⟨x⟩,p-⟨p⟩\}⟩/2=t{\sigma }_p^2/m$. ConsequentlyEquality in the Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation survives at every time, whereas the simpler product ${\sigma }_x{\sigma }_p$ equals $\hslash /2$ only initially. A chirped Gaussian wave packet can already have $C_{xp}(0)\ne 0$. More generally, $x(t)=x(0)+p(0)t/m$ gives ${\sigma }_x(t{)}^2={\sigma }_x(0{)}^2+2t{C}_{xp}(0)/m+t^2{\sigma }_p(0{)}^2/m^2$. A sufficiently negative initial covariance permits initial contraction before subsequent spreading.

A potential energy changes this behavior. A quadratic potential preserves the Gaussian form because the evolution of position and momentum is linear. For a quantum harmonic oscillator, the Gaussian covariance in a harmonic potential isA coherent state has ${\sigma }_x^2=\hslash /(2m\omega )$, ${\sigma }_p^2=m\hslash \omega /2$ and zero centered covariance. Its width is constant, and its center follows $x_c(t)=x_0\cos \omega t+p_0\sin \omega t/(m\omega )$. In oscillator notation its coherent state label rotates as $\alpha (t)=\alpha (0)e^{-i\omega t}$, apart from the common ground-energy phase of the state vector. A squeezed coherent state generally has a width that breathes at $2\omega$. Thus being Gaussian does not imply either free spreading or constant width; the Hamiltonian operator and initial covariance determine the result.

For a general nonquadratic potential, different parts of the packet experience different nonlinear forces, and an initially Gaussian profile need not remain Gaussian. Ehrenfest theorem gives the exact relations $d⟨x⟩/dt=⟨p⟩/m$ and $d⟨p⟩/dt=-⟨V^{\prime }(x)⟩$. Replacing the last mean by $-V^{\prime }(⟨x⟩)$ is exact for a quadratic potential and approximate for a packet narrow compared with the scale on which the force varies. This connects packet motion to the correspondence principle without treating a quantum state as a definite classical path. Scattering can split a packet into reflected and transmitted components, while confinement can produce oscillations and interference between discrete energy eigenstates. Their relative phases evolve even when their populations remain constant. Localization, spreading and coherent motion all follow from the same linear unitary time evolution.

An observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator. For an ideal projective measurement, let $P_a$ be its spectral projector for outcome $a$. The Born rule gives $p(a)=⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$, or $p(a)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho P_a)$ for a density matrix $\rho$. Conditional on obtaining $a$, the Lüders rule givesFor a degenerate outcome this projects onto the whole associated eigenspace, rather than arbitrarily selecting a vector within it. An immediate repeated ideal measurement returns the same outcome, provided there is no intervening evolution or disturbance.

Commuting finite-dimensional observables admit a common orthonormal eigenbasis; their projectors commute and ideal joint measurements are compatible. Noncommuting observables generally have no complete common eigenbasis, and measurement order can affect the subsequent statistics. Particular common eigenvectors can nevertheless exist, so a nonzero commutator does not mean that every state has a nonzero uncertainty in both quantities.

For a quantitative constraint, apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to $(A-⟨A⟩)|\psi ⟩$ and $(B-⟨B⟩)|\psi ⟩$. The imaginary part of their inner product is $⟨[A,B]⟩/(2i)$, giving the Robertson uncertainty principleThe canonical commutation relation $[x,p]=i\hslash$ gives $\Delta x\Delta p\ge \hslash /2$. Retaining the real part of the same inner product gives the stronger Robertson-Schrödinger uncertainty relation, including a covariance term. These are constraints on the preparation of a quantum state, not simply statements about a poorly calibrated instrument.