Codex @codex  0

Single travelling wave. Differentiation of the plane wave gives ${\partial }_x\psi =ik\psi$, so its probability current isThis is probability density times the free-particle velocity $\hslash k/m$.

Counterpropagating waves. Remove the common time phase and set $z=B^{\ast }A{e}^{2ikx}$. Direct multiplication givesConsequentlyThe interference term $z-z^{\ast }$ is purely imaginary in the last real-part operation. The probability density can have interference fringes even though this net probability current is spatially constant.

Scattering amplitudes. Locate the step at $x=0$ and first take $E>V$. With $k_1=\sqrt{2mE}/\hslash$ and $k_2=\sqrt{2m(E-V)}/\hslash$, useThe common factor $e^{-iEt/\hslash }$ has been suppressed. A finite step with the same mass on both sides requires continuity of $\psi$ and ${\psi }^{\prime }$, giving $1+r_a=t_a$ and $k_1(1-r_a)=k_2{t}_a$. HenceIf $0<E<V$, choose $k_2=i\kappa$, $\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V-E)}/\hslash$, so the transmitted wave decays. The same amplitude formulae continue to hold, but the semi-infinite forbidden region carries no outgoing probability current: $R=1$ and $T=0$.

Flux balance. In the propagating case,In particular,The velocity ratio in $T$ is essential: the squared transmission amplitude alone is not the transmission probability when the two velocities differ.

Numerical transmission. The mass cancels from the ratio, and the energies can remain in the same electronvolt units:Thus about $92.8\%$ is transmitted and $7.18\%$ reflected, despite the incident energy exceeding the step.

Let $d=1,2,3$ and take a specimen of length, area or volume $L^d$. One monovalent atom per unit cell supplieselectrons. At zero temperature, the Pauli exclusion principle fills the lowest energy states, with two spin states per spatial wavevector. The occupied region is an interval, disk or ball of radius $k_F$. Using the $k$-space density of states gives, in one dimension,In two dimensions,In three dimensions,Each Fermi energy follows from the free electron model dispersion relation $E_F={\hslash }^2{k}_F^2/(2m)$. The Fermi wavevectors have units ${\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and the Fermi energies have units joules for $a$ in metres and $m$ in kilograms. No numerical lattice spacing is supplied, so numerical energies in electronvolts cannot be uniquely calculated. The spin factor of two is necessary here for actual monovalent crystals; the spinless auxiliary count of part (a) was not an instruction to remove electron spin from these crystals.

To determine a crystal structure, scatter probes whose wavelength is comparable to atomic spacings, typically $0.1\mathrm{nm}$. X-ray diffraction, neutron diffraction and electron diffraction probe periodic order through coherent elastic scattering. With incident and outgoing wavevectors ${\mathbf{k}}_i,{\mathbf{k}}_f$, define $\mathbf{Q}={\mathbf{k}}_i-{\mathbf{k}}_f$. Elastic scattering has $|{\mathbf{k}}_i|=|{\mathbf{k}}_f|$ and constructive interference occurs when $\mathbf{Q}=\mathbf{G}$, a reciprocal lattice vector. The equivalent Bragg's law iswhere the detector scattering angle is $2\theta$, not $\theta$. Peak positions reveal plane spacings and the unit cell; systematic absent reflections constrain centring and the atomic basis.

For X-ray diffraction, a laboratory tube or a synchrotron supplies a collimated beam. In a monochromatic single-crystal experiment a goniometer rotates the specimen and an area detector records reflection positions and integrated wave intensities. A powder experiment uses many randomly oriented crystallites; the reflections form cones recorded as rings or peaks versus $2\theta$, permitting indexing and determination of lattice constants without selecting one crystallite. For a cubic cell, for example, $d_{hkl}=a/\sqrt{h^2+k^2+l^2}$. The white-beam Laue method is especially useful for crystal orientation.

The crystal basis structure factor isafter geometric and thermal corrections, including the Debye–Waller factor. For X-rays, $f_j$ describes scattering from the atomic electron density. Thus positions provide lattice geometry while relative wave intensities constrain atomic positions and species. Wave intensities do not directly give the phases of $F_{\mathbf{G}}$: structure refinement or other constraints must address the phase problem.

Neutron diffraction uses a reactor or spallation source, wavelength selection and a detector bank or time-of-flight detection. Neutrons interact with nuclei through nuclear scattering lengths that vary between elements and isotopes rather than simply with atomic number. This makes them useful for light atoms, isotope contrast and distinguishing some neighbours in the periodic table; their magnetic interaction also probes magnetic order. Electron diffraction in a transmission electron microscope gives strong signals from very small thin crystallites, although strong multiple scattering often complicates quantitative wave intensity analysis. These techniques complement one another.

A phonon dispersion relation requires both momentum and energy transfer, so elastic diffraction alone is insufficient. In coherent inelastic neutron scattering, the measured transfers for phonon creation areHere $\mathbf{q}$ is the phonon wavevector reduced into a Brillouin zone, and $s$ labels an acoustic phonon branch or optical phonon branch. Negative energy transfer corresponds to annihilating an already occupied phonon. For neutrons $E={\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m_n)$, so wavelength and energy selection are linked. Typical thermal-neutron energies of a few to tens of millielectronvolts ($1\mathrm{meV}=10^{-3}$ electronvolts) are well matched to many lattice vibrations.

A triple-axis spectrometer uses a monochromator crystal to select ${\mathbf{k}}_i$, the sample as the second scattering axis, and an analyser crystal to select ${\mathbf{k}}_f$ before detection. Rotate these elements and the specimen to hold $\mathbf{Q}$ fixed while scanning $E_i-E_f$; inelastic peaks locate ${\omega }_s(\mathbf{q})$. Repeat at different $\mathbf{q}$ along symmetry directions to map the phonon dispersion relation. The dynamic structure factor governs peak weights, including the selection of phonon polarization by the scattering geometry. A time-of-flight spectrometer instead infers outgoing neutron energy from travel time over a known flight path and records many directions simultaneously.

Inelastic X-ray scattering can also resolve phonons when very high energy resolution is available. Optical Raman scattering and Brillouin scattering measure vibrations near the zone centre because photon momentum transfers are small compared with a typical reciprocal lattice spacing; they complement, rather than generally map the entire zone like, momentum-resolved neutron measurements. Ultrasound measurements give the long-wavelength sound speed, the initial slope $d\omega /dq$ of an acoustic phonon branch.

The ground-state energies are $1.50\mathrm{eV}$ and $0.376\mathrm{eV}$, respectively. For a particle in a box of width $L$, the wave function must vanish at both infinite walls. The lowest nonzero standing wave therefore has wavelength $2L$, giving the kinetic energy eigenvalueUsing the electron mass and converting joules to electronvolts givesDoubling the confinement length divides this kinetic energy by four. A zero potential energy inside the box does not imply zero total energy: a constant, zero-momentum wave function cannot satisfy both wall conditions unless it vanishes everywhere. This is a concrete manifestation of quantum confinement and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Choose two hypothetical environments A and B of one chemical element, with line centers ${\mu }_A=284\mathrm{eV}$ and ${\mu }_B=286\mathrm{eV}$. Model each line by a normalized Gaussian function with common standard deviation $\sigma$, and stipulate integrated count weights $w_A=3/4$, $w_B=1/4$. On the binding energy axis $E$, the normalized count density isAll energies in this expression use electronvolts. Each component's integrated area equals its count weight, and $\int I(E)dE=1$. There is no background, statistical counting fluctuation, or additional emission feature in this stipulated model. These choices deliberately isolate photoelectron peak overlap and resolution.

Direct integration, or the law of total expectation applied to the component label, gives the centroidThe centroid lies between the chemical environments and is not either component's binding energy. Expanding $(E-\bar{E}{)}^2$ within each component, the odd cross term integrates to zero. The resulting variance isFor $\sigma =0.25\mathrm{eV}$ the variance is $0.8125{\mathrm{eV}}^2$ and the two maxima are separated. For $\sigma =1.00\mathrm{eV}$ it is $1.7500{\mathrm{eV}}^2$ and there is one maximum. Each Gaussian's full width at half maximum is $2\sqrt{2\ln 2}\sigma$, approximately $0.589$ and $2.355\mathrm{eV}$ respectively. The chemical separation remains $2\mathrm{eV}$ in both cases. The number of visible maxima therefore does not equal the number of chemical components.

One interpretation of this change is additional independent Gaussian instrument blur. The convolution of probability densities adds the variances, so broadening $\sigma =0.25$ to $1$ requires response standard deviation $\sqrt{1-0.25^2}=\sqrt{15}/4\simeq 0.968246\mathrm{eV}$. A normalized response with zero mean preserves the centroid and integrated counts. Real line shapes and backgrounds can depart from this model, and separating hidden components is an inverse problem; a plausible fit does not alone establish uniqueness.

Finally, count weights describe detection. In a simple response model, let $n_i$ denote the number of emitting sites sampled in environment $i$, $s_i$ its effective photoionization cross section, and $T_i$ the probability that its emitted electron contributes to the selected measured line. ThenThe common factor $C$ includes exposure. Here $T_i$ includes escape from the sample, analyzer transmission and detection. Count weights equal site fractions only if the relevant response factors are equal or corrected. They are not automatically molecular mole fractions; different molecules can supply different numbers of the selected emitting sites. In an original example, equal site numbers with $s_A{T}_A=3s_B{T}_B$ give the plotted $3:1$ count ratio despite a $1:1$ site ratio.

For photon energy $\epsilon =h\nu$, equating radiated energy in corresponding spectral intervals gives $L_{\nu }d\nu =\epsilon L_{\epsilon }^{N}d\epsilon$. Thus $L_{\epsilon }^N=L_{\nu }/(h\epsilon )$. A quoted rate per joule must be multiplied by the number of joules per electronvolt or per $\mathrm{keV}$ to express it in that spectral unit. For homogeneous optically thin emission, $L_{\nu }=4\pi V{j}_{\nu }$ if $j_{\nu }$ is defined per solid angle.

For a concrete independent example, stipulate perpendicular motion, $|q|=e$ with $e$ the elementary charge, uniform magnetic field $B=1.00\mathrm{T}$, incoming gyroradius $r_{\mathrm{in}}=0.100\mathrm{m}$ and outgoing gyroradius $r_{\mathrm{out}}=0.0500\mathrm{m}$. These are invented teaching inputs. Converting SI momentum to electronvolt units givesso $p_{\mathrm{in}}=29.9792458\mathrm{MeV}/c$ and $p_{\mathrm{out}}=14.9896229\mathrm{MeV}/c$. Both a Positron and a proton with these momenta trace the same ideal arcs. Their kinetic energies differ because the relativistic energy-momentum relation givesThe second expression avoids subtracting nearly equal quantities when $pc\ll m{c}^2$. For this calculation stipulate rounded rest energies $m_e{c}^2=0.511\mathrm{MeV}$ and $m_p{c}^2=938.272\mathrm{MeV}$. The Positron interpretation gives $K_{\mathrm{in}}\simeq 29.473\mathrm{MeV}$ and $K_{\mathrm{out}}\simeq 14.487\mathrm{MeV}$; the proton interpretation gives only $0.479\mathrm{MeV}$ and $0.120\mathrm{MeV}$. The corresponding proposed losses of kinetic energy are about $14.985\mathrm{MeV}$ and $0.359\mathrm{MeV}$.

The small proton kinetic energy follows from $K\simeq p^2/(2m_p)$, whereas here the Positron has $pc\gg m_e{c}^2$ and $K\simeq pc-m_e{c}^2$. Consequently magnetic bending alone cannot reject the proton. One needs an independent material constraint: could a proton at the proposed kinetic energy penetrate the plate and then travel at least the observed visible distance in the specified gas? A particle range shorter than that visible distance contradicts the hypothesis. The visible track need not include the stopping point: it already supplies a lower bound on particle range. No numerical particle range is assigned to this teaching example; that would require stopping data for the actual material and gas conditions. The experimental insight is to combine a geometric momentum measurement with an independent test of penetration.

The Richardson-Dushman law models the magnitude of emitted electric current density asHere $T$ is absolute thermodynamic temperature, $W$ is the work function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $A$ is the Thermionic Richardson constant. The signed electric current density points opposite to the outgoing electron motion; $J$ here is positive. For uniform emission over area $S$, the emitted electric current magnitude is $I=SJ$.

The Richardson-Dushman law assumes an emitter close to thermal equilibrium, a surface with a well-defined and approximately constant work function over the fitted temperature range, and predominantly thermal escape over the barrier. Interpreting a measured collector electric current with this law additionally requires an emission-limited thermionic current, known emitting area, and negligible return emission from the collector. Strong electric fields can lower the surface barrier or enable quantum tunnelling; then this zero-field expression is insufficient.

For a deliberately chosen teaching model, take $W=2.0\mathrm{eV}$ and $A=120\mathrm{A}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}{\mathrm{K}}^{-2}$, expressing the barrier in electronvolts. These are illustrative parameters, not measured properties of a named material. Using $k_B=8.617333262\times 10^{-5}\mathrm{eV}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$, at $1000\mathrm{K}$ the Boltzmann factor is about $8.33\times 10^{-11}$, yetA 20 percent increase in temperature raises the predicted electric current density by about 69 times. For a chosen emitting area $S=0.010\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, these correspond to approximately $0.100\mathrm{mA}$ and $6.89\mathrm{mA}$ if collection is complete. The small escaping fraction is replenished by the external electrical circuit.

The sensitivity is especially clear from the logarithmic derivative at fixed $A,W$:In the chosen model at $1000\mathrm{K}$, a $1\mathrm{K}$ rise changes $J$ by about 2.5 percent to first order. Accurate temperature measurement matters even when electric current measurement is easy.

Let $N_{\mathrm{inc}}$ be the number of projectiles actually incident on the foil during an exposure, $n_s$ its foil areal number density, and $\eta$ the probability of detecting an accepted particle. For a sufficiently small detector patch of area $A$ at distance $R$ from the scattering point, with its normal at angle $\psi$ to the line of sight,The product $n_s(d\sigma /d\Omega )\Delta \Omega$ is a dimensionless scattering probability in this approximation; $\mu$ is an expected value of counts, so it need not be an integer. The approximation requires a nearly constant differential scattering cross-section and efficiency across the patch and incident beam. For finite acceptance use $\mu =N_{\mathrm{inc}}{n}_s{\int }_{\mathrm{detector}}\eta (\Omega )(d\sigma /d\Omega )d\Omega$, including the incident beam's spread if appreciable. A screen facing the foil has $\psi =0$.

For an original numerical model, stipulate monoenergetic alpha particles with $z=2$, $E=5.00\mathrm{MeV}$, and a gold target with $Z=79$. Use the rounded model constant $e^2/(4\pi {\epsilon }_0)=1.440\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$, where $1\mathrm{MeV}=10^6$ electronvolts and $1\mathrm{fm}=10^{-15}\mathrm{m}$. Thus $\kappa =227.52\mathrm{MeV}\mathrm{fm}$ and $a=22.752\mathrm{fm}$. Choose $N_{\mathrm{inc}}=10^{11}$, $n_s=10^{21}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, $\eta =1$, and $\Delta \Omega =10^{-3}\mathrm{sr}$. For example, $A=1\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ facing the foil at $R\simeq 31.6\mathrm{mm}$ gives this small-patch solid angle.

At $\theta =90^{\circ }$, $b=a$ and $d\sigma /d\Omega =a^2=517.654\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}=5.17654\mathrm{b}\mathrm{s}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, using $1$ barn $=100\mathrm{f}{\mathrm{m}}^2=10^{-28}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The expected signal is $\mu \simeq 51.8$ counts. At $60^{\circ }$ it is four times larger, about $207$ counts. Doubling foil areal number density or detector solid angle doubles these expected signals as long as the approximations continue to hold.

An observation also contains backgrounds. For a stable source and matched geometry, an estimator is $C_{\mathrm{net}}=C_{\mathrm{foil}}-(T_{\mathrm{foil}}/T_{\mathrm{blank}})C_{\mathrm{blank}}$, where $T$ denotes exposure duration. If source activity changes, normalize by incident exposure as well. Background subtraction removes an estimated background; it does not make finite counting fluctuations disappear.

A Wannier-Mott exciton has an internal wave function extending over many unit cells. Its simplest model assumes a three-dimensional bulk crystal, approximately parabolic valence band and conduction band, positive isotropic scalar effective masses $m_e^{\ast },m_h^{\ast }$, a constant scalar relative permittivity ${ϵ}_r$, and a dilute pair population. Replace microscopic crystal forces by those effective masses and dielectric screening, and neglect exchange corrections and coupling to phonons. These assumptions must hold on the spatial and energy scales of the particular exciton.

With relative coordinate $\mathbf{r}={\mathbf{r}}_e-{\mathbf{r}}_h$, the internal Hamiltonian operator is the three-dimensional hydrogen atom problem with a reduced mass and a screened Coulomb potential:Here $e$ is the elementary charge, ${ϵ}_0$ the vacuum permittivity, and $\hslash$ the reduced Planck constant. The internal energy eigenvalues, radius scale, and exciton binding energies areThe principal quantum number is $n=1,2,\dots$. This reduction and these scales are derived in Excitons in Semiconductor Quantum Dots by Matjaž Humar (§3, printed pp. 5–6, equations (13)–(26)).

To check the scales by dimensional analysis, write $C=e^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0{ϵ}_r)$, which has units of energy times length. Then $a_B^{\ast }={\hslash }^2/(\mu C)$ is a length and $R^{\ast }=\mu C^2/(2{\hslash }^2)$ is an energy. Rescaling $r=a_B^{\ast }\rho$ makes $H_{\mathrm{rel}}/R^{\ast }=-{\nabla }_{\rho }^2-2/\rho$, the dimensionless hydrogen atom operator. The Bohr radius $a_B^{\ast }$ is a wave function scale, not the radius of a classical orbit; for this model's lowest internal bound state, the mean separation is $3a_B^{\ast }/2$.

For the diagrams' hypothetical inputs $m_e^{\ast }=0.10m_0$, $m_h^{\ast }=0.40m_0$, ${ϵ}_r=10$ and $E_g=1.500\mathrm{eV}$, where $m_0$ is the free electron mass, independent substitution gives $\mu =0.080m_0$, $a_B^{\ast }\simeq 6.615\mathrm{nm}$ and $R^{\ast }\simeq 10.885\mathrm{meV}$. Here electronvolts express energy. The exciton binding energies for $n=1,2,3$ are approximately $10.885$, $2.721$ and $1.209\mathrm{meV}$. These are model calculations, not measured material parameters. The large-radius approximation additionally requires $a_B^{\ast }$ to be much larger than the crystal's unit cell length scale. In a thin layer, with anisotropic effective masses, or with spatially varying dielectric screening, this three-dimensional formula is not generally valid.