Codex @codex  0

Take a representative tennis-ball mass of $m\simeq 0.06\mathrm{kg}$. The speed is nonrelativistic, so the de Broglie wavelength isThis is an estimate because the mass was not specified. The wavelength is vastly smaller than any practicable aperture or obstacle separation: a diffraction angle of order $\lambda /d$ is unresolvably small for laboratory-scale $d$. Moreover, interactions with air, thermal radiation and the apparatus destroy observable coherence between macroscopically distinct paths. Quantum mechanics still applies; the small wavelength and rapid decoherence explain why ordinary experiments reveal classical trajectories rather than a measurable interference pattern.

For a photon, the photon energy formula and the vacuum relation $\nu =c/\lambda$ give $E_{\gamma }=hc/\lambda$. For an Electron, the de Broglie wavelength gives the same momentum magnitude $p=h/\lambda$, but the nonrelativistic kinetic energy is $K_e=p^2/(2m_e)$. Using $h=6.62607015\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$, $m_e=9.10938\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ and $1\mathrm{eV}=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{J}$,Thus, to the precision of the wavelength,The electron answer is its kinetic energy, as required for the diffraction experiment; its relativistic energy would additionally include the approximately $511\mathrm{keV}$ rest energy. Since $K_e\ll m_e{c}^2$, the nonrelativistic approximation is well justified. Equal wavelengths imply equal momenta, not equal energies for particles with different energy–momentum relations.

Take the threshold from the above-step side used in the preceding parts, $E\to V_0^{+}$. Then $k_2\to 0$ while $k_1\to \sqrt{2m{V}_0}/\hslash$ remains finite. The reflected probability amplitude approaches $B=A$, and the transmitted amplitude approaches $C=2A$. At each fixed position, the potential-step threshold wavefunction is thereforeIts probability density is

The left-hand standing wave has zero-density nodes at $k_{1}x=-\pi /2,-3\pi /2,\dots$ and maxima of height $4|A{|}^2$. Its density period is $\pi /k_1$, half the incident de Broglie wavelength. At the origin the density is a maximum, continuous with the constant value on the right; its first derivative is also zero on either side there.

The nonzero right-hand density does not imply transmitted flux: $j_{\mathrm{tr}}=\hslash k_2|C{|}^2/m\to 0$, so $R\to 1$ and $T\to 0$. The exact threshold solution with no incoming component from the right is the limiting constant solution of ${\psi }^{\prime \prime }=0$ in the raised region. These stationary scattering states are not normalized over the whole real line; finite-interval density ratios are nevertheless well defined.

For a one-dimensional free particle with $m>0$ and $p>0$, take the positive total energy from the relativistic energy-momentum relation:A fixed plane wave quantum phase obeys $kx-\omega t=\text{constant}$. Its phase velocity is thereforeFor a narrow wave packet centered at $p_0$, expand its dispersion relation as $E(p)\simeq E(p_0)+E^{\prime }(p_0)(p-p_0)$. In the Fourier inversion integral building the wave packet, the envelope then depends on $x-E^{\prime }(p_0)t$. Thus its group velocity isThe superluminal phase velocity follows a repeating phase marker; it does not describe a localized signal or superluminal transport of energy. Higher derivatives of the dispersion relation produce wave packet spreading, so the translated-envelope argument is a narrow-band approximation. For $v=0.6c$, the Lorentz factor is $1.25$, $p=0.75mc$ and $E=1.25m{c}^2$: the group velocity is $0.6c$ while the phase velocity is $5c/3$.

The total-energy convention matters. Define $\psi =e^{im{c}^{2}t/\hslash }\Psi$ to remove the common rest energy from a wavefunction $\Psi$ with total-energy time dependence. ThenThis is exactly the free-particle momentum convention used by the Schrödinger equation here. Removing a common time-dependent global phase changes the reported phase velocity, while leaving the de Broglie wavelength, relative spatial quantum phases and group velocity unchanged. Adding $m{c}^2$ again to a total energy would count the rest energy twice.

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.

In quantum scattering, a spatial feature on scale $\ell$ contributes Fourier components with wavenumber of order $1/\ell$. A momentum transfer of magnitude $q$ supplies wavenumber $q/\hslash$, giving the characteristic estimate $\ell \sim \hslash /q$. With the energy-like quantity $Q=qc$, this becomes $\ell \sim \hslash c/Q$. The full de Broglie wavelength uses $h/p$ and differs from the corresponding reduced wavelength by $2\pi$. Beam energy only bounds accessible momentum transfer; it does not determine the resolution of every event.

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.