Codex @codex  0

The scattering interpretation connects an incoming preparation to the relative frequency of outgoing directions and final atomic states. Max Born's 1926 paper treats a distant incoming electron and a chemical atom, expands the outgoing wavefunction into final atomic states, and imposes conservation of energy. Its translated correction footnote specifies the square of the coefficient; the modern complex modulus notation below is ours.^[ref]

In his 11 December 1954 lecture, Max Born recalled the difficulty of interpreting bound electrons alone. He instead described an incident electron wave generating an outgoing spherical wave, with direction-dependent squared amplitude determining relative scattering probabilities. Distinct final atomic states describe excitation with corresponding electron energy loss. This is a retrospective account of an interpretation, rather than the report of a new apparatus.^[ref]

The distinction from the modern Born rule matters. The historical question was which collision outcome occurs: a direction of motion and a final atomic state. The general projective measurement formula applies to arbitrary observables, including degenerate outcomes and mixed states; a positive operator-valued measure describes still more general detector statistics. Those formulations should not be read back as the explicit contents of the short 1926 scattering paper. Nor does the scattering interpretation itself supply a rule for the conditional post-measurement state.

Actual experimental settings are described in the Davisson–Germer experiment and the Franck-Hertz experiment. The former scans collected electric current as an electron beam scatters from prepared nickel; changing direction, accelerating voltage and surface preparation probes electron diffraction. The latter uses acceleration through mercury vapor and a retarding collector to infer discrete energy losses from current minima, with vapor density and retarding settings as controls. Angular resolution and surface backgrounds limit the first inference; initial energy spread and collision positions limit the second. These linked experiments supply the preparation, apparatus and readout; the examples below are original calculations, not Born's measured data.

A physicist whose route into research included a telephone-company job when he could not afford to continue at Chicago. He later worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories, retiring in 1946 after 29 years, and taught physics at Virginia in 1947–1949.^[ref] The Davisson–Germer experiment connects that industrial-laboratory work to electron diffraction and matter waves.

The Davisson–Germer experiment turned elastic scattering from nickel into evidence for a matter wave. The search became a deliberate wave test in 1926, with diffraction beams found early in 1927. The earlier crystal investigation had begun in 1925; the de Broglie wavelength proposal was already present in the 1924 thesis.^[ref]

A heated tungsten ribbon supplied electrons; gun apertures selected a narrow beam. Two $1\mathrm{mm}$ apertures were $8\mathrm{mm}$ apart; the gun ended $7\mathrm{mm}$ from a nickel crystal cut parallel to its $\{111\}$ planes. An adjustable electric potential difference set the speed. The beam struck normally inside an evacuated, field-free enclosure with target and outer electrodes at one potential. A double-box collector, $11\mathrm{mm}$ from the target with a $1\mathrm{mm}$ entrance, selected directions. A retarding electric potential difference rejected slower electrons; the inner collector fed a sensitive galvanometer. Moving the collector scanned colatitude; rotating the crystal scanned azimuth.^[ref]

The readout was collected electric current, not a photograph of electron paths. Voltage scans held the gun-plate current constant because incident-beam current could not be held constant; the overall current trend therefore needed caution. A strong feature developed at $54\mathrm{V}$ near $50^{\circ }$ colatitude. Surface heating distinguished crystal beams from adsorbed-gas beams; finite apertures and background shifted or broadened apparent peaks.^[ref]

At the bright beam's colatitude, an azimuth scan revealed three companion directions, matching crystal symmetry. The test compared wavelengths inferred from diffraction angles and known crystal spacings with wavelengths inferred from accelerating voltage and momentum; the 1937 lecture displayed this comparison against $U^{-1/2}$. Agreement across beam directions supplied more evidence than one angular peak.^[ref]

The inference is about coherent quantum phases in scattering probabilities. It does not establish a wavy particle trajectory, and a collector-current experiment does not resolve individual detection events. Predicting the full intensity additionally requires the material's scattering amplitude, its surface condition, and instrumental angular acceptance; the de Broglie wavelength alone predicts none of those strengths. The following finite-row electron diffraction model isolates phase addition without attempting to reproduce the nickel measurements.

The de Broglie wavelength is the distance over which a matter wave accumulates one full spatial quantum phase cycle in its propagation direction:Here $h$ is the Planck constant, $\mathbf{p}$ is the momentum, and $\mathbf{k}$ is the angular wavevector. The scalar $p$ in $\lambda =h/p$ means the positive momentum magnitude, not a signed component. Reversing a momentum reverses the wavevector without making the wavelength negative. At zero momentum there is no finite spatial phase period: the limiting wavelength diverges.

This relation makes microscopic diffraction accessible with particles: increasing the momentum shortens the wavelength until it is comparable with the spacings in a crystal scattering problem. The electron accelerating-voltage wavelength gives a practical way to tune this scale, while the Davisson–Germer experiment tests it by comparing electron diffraction directions with independently known crystal geometry. The same relation applies to neutral particles in a neutron interferometer; electric charge is not a requirement for a matter wave.

The wavelength belongs to the wavefunction, not to a sinusoidal path of a particle. A free-particle momentum convention makes the distinction especially clear: a plane wave has a rotating complex quantum phase but a constant probability density. A localized wave packet contains a range of momenta and therefore generally has a range of wavelengths, rather than one exact spatial period.

A physicist who developed wave mechanics. In 1926, Erwin Schrödinger made the energies of chemical atoms an eigenvalue problem, rather than prescribing a separate quantization rule for each classical orbit. He shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933 with Paul Dirac.^[ref]

The Schrödinger equation turns a proposed Hamiltonian operator into predictions for a wavefunction and its evolution. Boundary conditions can select discrete energy eigenvalues, while quantum superposition makes their relative quantum phases observable through interference. The infinite square well gives a transparent worked example; a hydrogen atom supplies a physical application with a different potential energy.

The Davisson–Germer experiment gives a complementary experimental route into matter waves: an accelerated electron beam scattered from a nickel crystal produces direction-dependent collected electric current. Its apparatus and angular scans make the wave prediction testable. Interpreting a wavefunction as a probability amplitude also requires the Born rule; that statistical interpretation deserves its own history alongside Erwin Schrödinger's dynamics.

Take $N$ equally spaced scattering sites at $x_j=jd$ on a line, a normally incident plane wave, equal site scattering amplitudes, and observation far enough away that outgoing directions are effectively parallel. Retain only one scattering event per amplitude, as in the Born approximation. For angle $\varphi$ from the outward normal, write the adjacent-site quantum phase difference as $\delta =kd\sin \varphi$, with $k=2\pi /\lambda$; reversing its overall sign leaves the intensity unchanged. Summing a geometric series givesAt $\delta =2\pi m$ use the continuous limit $I/I(0)=1$, rather than treating $0/0$ as a missing peak. The integer $m$ is the diffraction order: $d\sin \varphi =m\lambda$. This is a surface-row spacing, not the plane spacing in Bragg's law. The plotted intensity is normalized to its central value; it is not an integrated detection probability or an absolute collector electric current.

At $100\mathrm{V}$, $\lambda \simeq 0.12264\mathrm{nm}$ and the positive first-order angle is $\arcsin (\lambda /d)\simeq 29.4^{\circ }$. At $400\mathrm{V}$, the wavelength halves and this angle becomes about $14.2^{\circ }$. Increasing $N$ narrows each peak through more selective interference, while increasing momentum brings a fixed-order peak nearer the normal. Unequal site amplitudes, multiple scattering, a three-dimensional crystal lattice structure factor, and finite detector acceptance can change this simple picture; it is an explanatory model with hypothetical inputs.

A discovery becomes more intelligible when its motivating question, proposed explanation and actual measurement can be followed together. The photoelectric effect connects Albert Einstein's light-quantum reasoning with the Millikan photoelectric experiment. The Schrödinger equation and the Davisson–Germer experiment connect mathematical wave mechanics with a laboratory test of matter waves.

The Nobel Prize in Physics provides one route through these subjects. Following the original papers and the people who built the apparatus also brings collaborators into view: Lester Halbert Germer appears alongside Clinton J. Davisson in the Davisson–Germer experiment. The history belongs in the articles on those people and concepts as well as in award records.

A matter wave is the quantum wave associated with a material particle. Its phase can interfere after coherent paths recombine.

In the position representation, a matter wave is described by a wavefunction: a complex number probability amplitude, with detection probabilities given by the Born rule. A localized wave packet combines different momenta; its envelope can move while its individual quantum phase crests move at another speed. Neither curve is a literal mechanical oscillation of material along a particle's path. The de Broglie phase harmony explains the historical route to $\lambda =h/p$; the relativistic matter-wave velocities distinguish the two speeds. The Davisson–Germer experiment and the Thomson electron transmission diffraction experiment connect that spatial quantum phase to measured electron diffraction.

Awarded jointly to Erwin Schrödinger and Paul Dirac for developments in atomic theory.^[ref]

The Schrödinger equation and relativistic theory of the electron are two routes through that work. The Davisson–Germer experiment supplies related experimental evidence for matter waves.

Clinton Davisson and George Paget Thomson shared the award equally for demonstrating electron diffraction by crystals.^[ref] The Davisson–Germer experiment and Thomson electron transmission diffraction experiment connect different apparatus geometries to the matter waves.

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 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.

The photoelectric effect, black-body radiation and the Davisson–Germer experiment challenge different parts of a fully classical picture. Classical electromagnetic waves successfully describe propagation, interference and diffraction, while classical particles follow trajectories determined by forces. The difficulty is combining that picture with the observed exchange of energy between radiation and matter, the equilibrium distribution of radiation, and electron scattering. The three experiments expose the roles of discrete energy exchange and coherent matter waves.

In a photoelectric effect experiment, monochromatic light illuminates a metal cathode in vacuum and a second electrode collects emitted electrons. Varying the collecting voltage measures a photocurrent; reversing it until collection ceases determines the stopping potential. The observations distinguish two controls: at fixed frequency above threshold, increasing light intensity increases the emission rate, whereas the largest emitted kinetic energy is determined mainly by frequency. There is a material-dependent photoelectric threshold frequency, and emission above threshold does not require the long charging-up delay predicted by a simple picture of gradual classical energy accumulation at low intensity.

A classical wave carries continuously distributed energy, with intensity proportional to squared field amplitude. On a fully classical absorption picture, increasing intensity would be expected to increase the energy delivered to an electron, and sufficiently long exposure could accumulate the escape energy even below the observed threshold. It does not naturally produce the measured universal straight-line relation between stopping potential and light frequency. In 1905, Albert Einstein instead treated light-energy transfer as localized quanta. His argument distinguished the fastest escaping electrons from electrons losing energy before escape.^[ref]

In the single-photon regime, conservation of energy gives the Einstein photoelectric equationwhere $\Phi$ is the surface work function. The photon supplies energy $h\nu$; the escape cost is paid first, and the remainder sets the upper electron-energy edge. Increasing intensity at fixed frequency increases the number of available photons, so it raises current without raising this edge. Below ${\nu }_0$, one photon cannot pay the escape cost. In an actual measurement, stable surface preparation, suppression of unwanted higher-frequency light, and the photoelectric contact-potential correction are needed to test the slope $h/e$ reliably. Robert Andrews Millikan's experiment used selected mercury spectral lines, freshly exposed metal surfaces and an electrometer to make such a quantitative test.^[ref] The interpretation is for weak single-photon illumination; multiphoton photoemission at sufficiently intense fields is a different regime.

Black-body radiation tests equilibrium physics rather than the escape of individual electrons. A small aperture in an isothermal absorbing cavity approximates an ideal blackbody: radiation entering the hole undergoes repeated interactions with the walls, and the equilibrium spectrum depends on temperature rather than wall material. A spectrally resolving detector outside the aperture measures how emitted power varies with frequency or wavelength. Experimentally the spectrum has a finite peak, is strongly suppressed at short wavelengths, shifts toward shorter wavelengths when the cavity is heated, and has integrated emission proportional to $T^4$.

For a large cavity, the electromagnetic mode density in a box, including two independent transverse polarizations, is $g(\nu )=8\pi {\nu }^2/c^3$ per volume per unit frequency. The classical equipartition theorem assigns mean energy $k_{B}T$ to each mode, leading to the Rayleigh-Jeans lawThis agrees at low frequencies but diverges as frequency increases; integrating it over all frequencies gives infinite energy density at any nonzero temperature. This is the ultraviolet catastrophe, a failure of classical equipartition applied to the electromagnetic modes.

Max Planck's essential modification was that energy at a frequency is exchanged in units $h\nu$. In a modern oscillator description, the thermal excitation levels are $nh\nu$, $n=0,1,\dots$. Using the Boltzmann distribution and summing a geometric series givesMultiplying by the mode density yields Planck's law for the spectral energy density,When $h\nu \ll k_{B}T$, expansion of the denominator recovers the classical law. When $h\nu \gg k_{B}T$, the large excitation cost suppresses occupancy exponentially, removing the divergence. Its integral gives the Stefan–Boltzmann law, while its peak gives Wien's displacement law. Thus quantization repairs the spectral shape, total emission and temperature dependence together. The displayed thermal energy excludes the oscillator's temperature-independent zero-point energy.

The Davisson–Germer experiment supplies the complementary evidence that matter cannot always be treated as classical particles with definite scattering trajectories. In 1927, Clinton J. Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer sent a narrow, accelerated electron beam normally onto a single nickel crystal in vacuum. A movable collector measured the current of scattered electrons as direction and accelerating voltage were varied; a retarding potential selected electrons retaining approximately the incident energy. Sharp angular beams depended on crystal orientation and beam energy, with a prominent feature near $54\mathrm{V}$ and detector colatitude $50^{\circ }$. These are scattering directions and currents, not photographs of electron paths.^[ref]

The de Broglie wavelength predictsAt $U=54\mathrm{V}$, this gives $\lambda \simeq 0.167\mathrm{nm}$, comparable to atomic spacings. A crystalline arrangement supplies regularly spaced scattering sites, so scattered probability amplitudes can add constructively in selected directions. For a suitable family of crystal planes, Bragg's law expresses the condition as $2d\sin {\theta }_B=n\lambda$, with ${\theta }_B$ measured relative to those planes. The detector colatitude is not automatically this angle. The measured angular structure and its variation with electron momentum are described by electron diffraction with the de Broglie wavelength. A classical point-particle deflection model has no phase wavelength $h/p$ and does not supply that interference condition.

The common quantum account preserves the successes of wave propagation and particle detection while changing what is quantized. Photons exchange energy in frequency-dependent units; a thermal distribution of those excitations gives the blackbody spectrum. Electrons have a wavefunction whose amplitudes interfere on scattering from a crystal, while detection transfers localized charge. The Born rule turns squared amplitudes into event probabilities. These results invalidate a fully classical description of matter and radiation; the photoelectric energy law alone does not establish every property of a quantized electromagnetic field, but the three phenomena together provide complementary evidence for the quantum description.

For an isolated quantum system, pure states are normalized rays in a complex Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoint operators, and their probabilities obey the Born rule. A spectral projector $P_a$ has outcome probability $⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩$; an ideal repeatable projective measurement has conditional state $P_a\psi /\sqrt{⟨\psi |P_a|\psi ⟩}$. The Schrödinger equation specifies continuous unitary evolution between such ideal measurements, given a Hamiltonian operator. General measurements need not have the projective state-update rule.

Composite systems use the tensor product of their state spaces. Identical particles additionally obey the bosonic or fermionic exchange symmetry appropriate to their species. The photoelectric effect, Davisson–Germer experiment and double-slit experiment motivate energy quanta, matter-wave phases and probability interference, respectively; these experiments constrain the framework but do not separately prove every abstract postulate or specify every system's Hamiltonian.

The Schrödinger equation governs the evolution of a quantum state between instances of measurement in quantum mechanics. For a particle of mass $m>0$ moving in a prescribed real potential energy $V(\mathbf{r},t)$, its position wavefunction satisfiesHere $h$ is the Planck constant, ${\nabla }^2$ is the Laplace operator, and the Hamiltonian operator combines kinetic energy with potential energy. Specify an initial wavefunction, an operator domain and any boundary conditions: the differential expression alone does not completely specify a physical model. The Born rule then turns the evolving probability amplitude into position probabilities through $\rho =|\psi {|}^2$ and integration over a region.

This scalar Schrödinger operator describes nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, with relevant momenta much smaller than $mc$, where $c$ is the speed of light. It omits the constant rest energy $m{c}^2$, assumes fixed particle number, and suppresses active spin dynamics and coupling to a magnetic vector potential. A free electron with a fixed, uncoupled spin state can still use this scalar model; the Pauli equation supplies the additional spin components and magnetic coupling when needed. A prescribed real $V$ describes a closed evolution model or an approximation in which the source of that potential energy is treated as external. Dissipation, particle creation and a general measurement in quantum mechanics need further modelling.

For a time-independent self-adjoint Hamiltonian operator, the spectral theorem defines unitary time evolution byInitial states in the operator domain satisfy the differential equation in the Hilbert space sense; the unitary operator also evolves all other states in that Hilbert space. Time-dependent Hamiltonian operators need suitable regularity and domain hypotheses; their evolution is not generally the exponential of $-itH(t)/\hslash$.

The local reason for conservation is especially tangible. Multiply the Schrödinger equation by the complex conjugate ${\psi }^{\ast }$, subtract its conjugate multiplied by $\psi$, and use the fact that the real potential energy terms cancel. For smooth wavefunctions this gives the probability continuity equationThe divergence theorem identifies the change in probability inside a region with minus the outward probability current. Decay at infinity, or appropriate probability-conserving boundary conditions, preserves wavefunction normalization. Conservation of total probability does not require a stationary probability density.

Its usefulness comes from being a linear partial differential equation: quantum superpositions of solutions are solutions, while different quantum phases can produce interference. For a fixed Hamiltonian operator, the time-independent Schrödinger equation finds the energy eigenstates; each then acquires just its own time-dependent quantum phase. One eigenvalue problem therefore organizes both allowed energies and the evolution of arbitrary quantum superpositions, with a continuous spectrum included when required. This is the attractive bridge between a spatial wave problem and a clock: energy differences determine the rate at which relative quantum phases change. It makes atomic spectral lines, quantum tunnelling and quantum scattering calculable from a specified model.

For an explicit example without confinement, take a free particle on the whole line, $V=0$, initially in a Gaussian wave packet with position standard deviation ${\sigma }_0$ and mean momentum $\hslash k_0$:Unlike a single plane wave, this wavefunction satisfies wavefunction normalization. A Fourier transform writes it as a quantum superposition of plane waves. Their dispersion relation is $\omega (k)=\hslash k^2/(2m)$, so each Fourier component gains the factor $e^{-i\hslash k^{2}t/(2m)}$. Completing the square in the resulting Gaussian integral giveswith the square root chosen continuously from $t=0$. Its position probability density and standard deviation areThe centre moves with the group velocity ${\omega }^{\prime }(k_0)=v_0$ and the wave packet spreads because different wavenumbers have different group velocities. This is unitary wave dispersion, without a random force or loss of probability. Independently, the initial momentum standard deviation is $\Delta p=\hslash /(2{\sigma }_0)$ and the initial position-momentum covariance vanishes. Free evolution gives $x(t)=x(0)+p(0)t/m$ in the Heisenberg picture, henceThis independently checks the spreading law. The Gaussian integral of $\rho$ is one at every time; the decreasing peak is exactly offset by increasing width.

As hypothetical preparation parameters, choose a free electron with ${\sigma }_0=1\mathrm{nm}$ and $k_0=2{\mathrm{nm}}^{-1}$. Using $\hslash \simeq 1.054571817\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$ and $m\simeq 9.1093837\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ givesThe rounded electron mass uses the 2022 adjustment.^[ref] At $t=t_s$, the centre is $4\mathrm{nm}$ and ${\sigma }_t=\sqrt{2}\mathrm{nm}$; at $t=2t_s$, they are $8\mathrm{nm}$ and $\sqrt{5}\mathrm{nm}$. The mean kinetic energy staysIt includes both mean motion and the momentum spread. The mean speed is about $7.72\times 10^{-4}c$ and the momentum spread corresponds to $1.93\times 10^{-4}c$, making the nonrelativistic model accurate for the appreciably occupied part of this ideal Gaussian distribution. Its mathematically unbounded tails are an idealization.

The complex width also explains where the probability goes. Write $\psi =\sqrt{\rho }{e}^{i\theta }$, where $\theta$ is the dimensionless quantum phase. Differentiating the exact solution givesRelative to the moving centre, the probability current $j_{\mathrm{rel}}=j-v_0\rho$ points outward on both sides for $t>0$. This is a flux statement, not an additional assumption about individual particle trajectories. At $t=t_s$ and $x-v_{0}t=\pm {\sigma }_0$, the relative flow speeds $j_{\mathrm{rel}}/\rho$ are $\pm {\sigma }_0/(2t_s)$, about $\pm 2.8942\times 10^4\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. The probability within a moving interval of half-width ${\sigma }_0$ falls from about $0.6827$ initially to $0.5205$ at $t_s$, exactly because of this outward probability current.

Historically, the 1926 Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung) by Erwin Schrödinger began with the stationary hydrogen atom problem. It distinguishes discrete negative energies from a positive continuous spectrum; it is not yet the general evolution equation displayed above.^[ref] The opening of quantum mechanics discusses its original vibrating-string analogy.

In the 12 December 1933 lecture The fundamental idea of wave mechanics by Erwin Schrödinger, Erwin Schrödinger explains the move from independent rays to waves through diffraction, then applies that analogy to atomic physics. His closing pages explicitly acknowledge the difficulty of reconciling wave language with observed particle tracks. This retrospective physical argument motivates the model; it does not derive the modern Born rule from classical mechanics.^[ref]

The dates separate proposal from measurement: the de Broglie wavelength belongs to the 1924 thesis, the Schrödinger equation to 1926, and the Davisson–Germer experiment's electron diffraction beams to 1927.^[ref] That linked experiment describes the prepared nickel crystal, evacuated electron gun, angular collector scans, retarding-potential selection and heating controls. Its measured collector electric current tests wave-dependent scattering probabilities; it neither measures a wavefunction directly nor establishes this equation uniquely.

Alongside the 1927 Davisson–Germer experiment, George Paget Thomson developed an independent transmission test. Alexander Reid first used celluloid; Thomson used thin metal films. A narrow electron beam crossed a film about $10^{-6}\mathrm{cm}$ thick, reaching a photographic plate perpendicular to the beam. Rings appeared. Accelerating voltages of $20$–$60\mathrm{kV}$ set the de Broglie wavelengths; metal structures known from X-ray diffraction allowed quantitative comparison. A downstream magnetic field deflected ring-forming electrons like those passing through holes, identifying the carriers as electrons rather than X-rays. Celluloid's uncertain structure limited its quantitative interpretation.^[ref]

The Davisson–Germer experiment uses crystal reflection and angular electric current scans; this transmission camera records a spatial pattern behind the specimen. Both probe interference in electron diffraction, with different specimen preparations and readouts. A developed photographic plate records accumulated detections, not a direct image of the wavefunction.

Why rings? In an ideal film containing many small crystals with uniformly distributed orientations, a family of lattice planes with spacing $d$ can satisfy Bragg's law at every azimuth about the incident beam. First-order elastic scattering then forms a cone of opening half-angle $2\theta$, where $2d\sin \theta =\lambda$. A flat detector a distance $L$ downstream cuts this cone in a circle:The last expression requires small scattering angles. It explains a useful control: hold the specimen and camera distance fixed, increase accelerating voltage, and the ring radii should shrink with the electron accelerating-voltage wavelength. It predicts positions, not intensities: preferred crystal orientations, film thickness and repeated quantum scattering can alter a real pattern.

For a chosen example, take $L=0.200\mathrm{m}$ and $d=0.200\mathrm{nm}$. The exact relativistic electron accelerating-voltage wavelength gives $\lambda =8.589\mathrm{pm}$ at $20\mathrm{kV}$ and $4.176\mathrm{pm}$ at $80\mathrm{kV}$. The corresponding exact ring radii are $8.594\mathrm{mm}$ and $4.176\mathrm{mm}$. These are calculated examples with chosen spacings and camera distance, not Thomson's measurements. The higher voltage lies outside the range quoted from his lecture, deliberately illustrating a prediction rather than reconstructing his data.