Codex @codex  0

For a second-order real linear partial differential equation in two variables, an invertible local change of variables simplifies its principal part. At regular points, the hyperbolic case has mixed-derivative principal part $U_{\xi \eta }$, the elliptic case has principal part $U_{\xi \xi }+U_{\eta \eta }$, and the parabolic case has rank-one principal part $U_{\xi \xi }$, after multiplication by nonzero factors. Lower-order terms and forcing must also be transformed with the chain rule; simplifying only the principal part does not in general give the full canonical equation. In the hyperbolic partial differential equation case the new variables can be chosen constant along the two characteristic families.

A dispersion relation specifies which angular frequencies and wavevectors a linear wave model admits. Fix the plane wave conventionHere $a$ is a constant complex amplitude, $\mathbf{k}$ is the wavevector, and $\omega$ is the angular frequency. Substitution into a constant-coefficient linear partial differential equation replaces ${\partial }_t$ by $-i\omega$ and $\nabla$ by $i\mathbf{k}$, turning the wave problem into an algebraic condition. A system can have several roots; $\omega =\omega (\mathbf{k})$ means one chosen branch, rather than a promise that the full dispersion relation is single-valued. For real $\mathbf{k}$, $\mathrm{Im}\omega >0$ means temporal growth in this convention, while $\mathrm{Im}\omega <0$ means damping. The real-branch discussion of phase velocity and group velocity below assumes negligible loss.

For the one-dimensional wave equation $u_{tt}=c^2{u}_{xx}$, the dispersion relation is ${\omega }^2=c^2{k}^2$. The branch $\omega =ck$ carries right-moving travelling waves for $c>0$; both its phase velocity and group velocity are $c$. One may instead use the positive-angular frequency branch $\omega =c|k|$, with right-moving components at $k>0$ and left-moving components at $k<0$. A real wave pairs each $(k,\omega )$ with $(-k,-\omega )$; that conjugate pair represents the same travelling pattern. Branch and sign choices therefore matter when interpreting a dispersion diagram.

A particularly tangible dispersive example is a small-amplitude surface gravity wave on still water of uniform depth $h$. Neglect surface tension and viscosity, assume incompressible flow and irrotational flow, and impose a flat impermeable bottom. With $k>0$ and positive angular frequency,Here $g$ is gravitational acceleration and $\tanh$ is the hyperbolic tangent. Deep water means $kh\gg 1$: $\omega \simeq \sqrt{gk}$ and longer wavelengths have larger phase speed. Shallow water means $kh\ll 1$: $\omega \simeq \sqrt{gh}k$, an approximately nondispersive wave. Thus depth relative to wavelength, rather than depth alone, determines whether crests and wave packets travel together.^[ref]

The dispersion diagram below also includes the ideal deep-water capillary wave limit $\omega =\sqrt{\gamma /\rho }{k}^{3/2}$, where $\gamma$ is surface tension and $\rho$ is mass density. This limit requires the surface tension restoring term to dominate gravity; it reverses the trend of the surface gravity wave, giving larger phase speed at shorter wavelength. The combined gravity-capillary wave has ${\omega }^2=gk+(\gamma /\rho )k^3$.^[ref]

The curves use dimensionless normalizations chosen separately for each model; they are analytical diagrams, not experimental data. Their beauty is that a single dispersion relation encodes several observable behaviours: its value gives the angular frequency, its origin-to-point slope gives the one-dimensional phase velocity, its tangent slope gives the group velocity, and variation of that tangent slope predicts distortion of a wave packet. A straight line through the origin describes a nondispersive wave; an affine branch $\omega =ck+b$ with $b\ne 0$ has constant group velocity but phase velocity $c+b/k$, so those properties must be distinguished.

For the linear partial differential equation $2y{u}_x-x{u}_y=0$, the method of characteristics gives $\dot{x}=2y$, $\dot{y}=-x$, $\dot{u}=0$. Thus $\varphi =x^2+2y^2$ is constant on each characteristic curve, whose nonzero level sets are ellipses. On a domain containing entire such ellipses, the solutions have the form $u=F(\varphi )$, subject to the desired regularity at the origin.

For the inhomogeneous equation $2y{u}_x-x{u}_y=xy(2y^2-x^2)$, a particular solution is $u_p=x^2{y}^2/2$, so the general solution is $u=x^2{y}^2/2+F(x^2+2y^2)$. Prescribing $u(x,1)=x^2$ fixes $F(s)=(s-2)/2$ only for $s\ge 2$. The inner ellipses $s<2$ never intersect that data line, so the boundary values leave their solution values undetermined. Smooth extensions must match the prescribed $F$ at $s=2$; choosing the same linear formula everywhere gives one polynomial extension.

The scalar linear partial differential equation $u_t+u_x+u_{xxx}=0$ is an Airy equation with a first-order transport term. It is a linearization of the Korteweg-De Vries equation with an advective term retained. It is distinct from the viscous incompressible-flow Stokes equation. On the whole line its spatial Fourier transform evolves by $e^{i(k^3-k)t}$.

For a second-order linear partial differential equation written $A{u}_{xx}+2B{u}_{xy}+C{u}_{yy}+\cdots =0$, the discriminant is $B^2-AC$. HereIt is positive exactly when $x\ne 0$, proving that the equation is a hyperbolic partial differential equation on each half-plane. At $x=0$ its principal part degenerates and it is not hyperbolic.

For a second-order linear partial differential equation with principal part $A{u}_{xx}+2B{u}_{xy}+C{u}_{yy}$, the discriminant is $B^2-AC$. Here $A=1$, $B=0$, $C=-x^2$, soThe equation is therefore a hyperbolic partial differential equation throughout its domain. The lower-order term $-u_x/x$ does not affect this classification.

The characteristic curves satisfyIntegrating gives the two families $y\mp x^2/2=\text{constant}$. Choose coordinates constant along these families:Their Jacobian determinant is $8x\ne 0$, so they define an invertible change of variables on $x>0$, with image $\xi +\eta >0$. Write $u(x,y)=U(\xi ,\eta )$. The chain rule givesBoth the pure second partial derivatives and the first partial derivatives cancel in the original equation, leavingThis is the full canonical form of a second-order partial differential equation, including the effect of the lower-order term. Integrating shows $U_{\xi }$ is a function of $\xi$ alone, hencewith arbitrary twice differentiable functions $f,g$. The representation is global on $x>0$: for each fixed $\xi$, the allowed $\eta >-\xi$ form an interval, so $U_{\xi }$ is independent of $\eta$ throughout that interval; after subtracting its antiderivative, the same reasoning in the other coordinate leaves only $g(\eta )$. These are quadratic characteristic coordinates for a variable-speed wave equation.

For the data on $x=1$, set $s=1-2y$, so the other argument is $2-s$. The two initial conditions becomeDifferentiating the first equation with respect to $s$ also gives $f^{\prime }(s)-g^{\prime }(2-s)=0$. Solving these two linear equations yields $f^{\prime }(s)=g^{\prime }(2-s)=1/2$. Since $s$ ranges over all real numbers,ConsequentlyIndeed $u_{xx}=2$, $u_{yy}=0$, $u_x=2x$, so the equation and both initial conditions hold directly.

Use a time Laplace transform and a spatial Green function. The first-order transport term must be retained: the Airy resolvent kernel for ${\partial }_x^3+p$ alone would solve a different equation. The governing linear partial differential equation is the linear dispersive Stokes equation, distinct from the viscous-fluid Stokes equation.

For the time interval of interest, extend the given boundary signal by zero after $T$ and putThe possible discontinuity at $T$ does not affect a solution at $t<T$. Equivalently, use any sufficiently regular continuation beyond $T$: the resulting causal Green function produces the same earlier solution. We seek the usual solution with spatial decay and a time transform, rather than an unrestricted spatially growing solution on the half-line.

Writing $Q(x,p)$ for the time Laplace transform, the Laplace transform of a derivative givesThe corresponding characteristic roots are the three roots of a polynomialFor $\mathrm{Re}p>0$, label the unique root of negative real part by $r_{-}(p)$, and the two roots of positive real part by $r_1(p),r_2(p)$. This spatial root splitting for the dispersive Stokes resolvent is easily checked: if $r=ik$, then $p=-i(k-k^3)$ is imaginary, so no root crosses the imaginary axis as $p$ varies in the right half-plane. For real $p>0$ the cubic is strictly increasing on the real line and has one negative real root, while its conjugate pair has positive real parts. The root count remains the same throughout that connected half-plane. A repeated root would satisfy $3r^2+1=0$ and again put $p$ on the imaginary axis. All roots are therefore simple there, and $r_{-}(p)$ is a nonzero holomorphic function.

Set $d_j=3r_j^2+1$, including $j=-$. Define the Stokes resolvent kernel with advectionThe sign on the negative half-line is essential. To verify the Green function, use the partial fraction decompositionIts expansion at infinity yields the reciprocal-polynomial root identitiesConsequently $R_p$ and $R_p^{\prime }$ are continuous at zero, and $R_p^{\prime \prime }$ has jump one. Each piece solves the homogeneous ordinary differential equation, so the jump conditions for a third-order Green function imply, in the sense of distributional derivatives,Both pieces decay in their respective spatial directions.

Now defineIt satisfies the transformed inhomogeneous equation. The difference $Q-V$ solves the homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation; spatial decay leaves only $e^{r_{-}x}$. Imposing the Neumann boundary condition fixes its coefficient, giving the half-line Stokes solution with a boundary derivativeNo division by a vanishing root is involved, since $r_{-}=0$ would require $p=0$. Moreover the remaining boundary trace is explicitly known from $q_0$:Thus introduce the completely explicit initial-data kernelFor any upward Bromwich contour $\mathrm{Re}p=\sigma >0$ to the right of any transform singularities, the requested integral representation isThe contour integral is understood in the standard Bromwich inversion formula sense, with truncation limits if it is not absolutely convergent. Every term is expressed in the supplied data and algebraic characteristic roots; there are no unknown Dirichlet or second-derivative boundary traces.

The transformed equation verifies the linear partial differential equation and the initial term, while taking the spatial derivative gives $Q_x(0,p)=G(p)$. Bromwich inversion formula therefore supplies the prescribed derivative for $0<t<T$ and the initial value for $x>0$. For zero initial and boundary data, the transformed solution is a decaying homogeneous mode with zero boundary derivative, hence vanishes; this proves uniqueness in the stated transform/decay class. A change of the boundary continuation after $T$ has transform $e^{-pT}$ times another causal transform and contributes only after $T$, by the Laplace transform time-shift rule. The printed dot on $q_0$ is interpreted as its derivative in its sole variable $x$, so the stated corner compatibility is $q_0^{\prime }(0)=g_1(0)$. Additional differentiability at the corner requires the corresponding higher-order compatibility, but is not needed for the representation at positive $x,t$.

The wave equation is a homogeneous linear partial differential equation. Consequently, if ${\psi }_1$ and ${\psi }_2$ solve it, every constant linear combination $A{\psi }_1+B{\psi }_2$ also solves it. This is the superposition principle, because partial differentiation distributes over the linear combination.

The same statement holds for the homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions. Initial conditions combine in the same way; an arbitrary combination need not retain a fixed nonzero initial displacement.

On $x>0$, the linear partial differential equation $u_{xx}-x^2{u}_{yy}-u_x/x=0$ has characteristic curves $y\pm x^2/2=\text{constant}$. The change of variables $\xi =x^2-2y$, $\eta =x^2+2y$ has Jacobian determinant $8x\ne 0$. The chain rule givesThus its canonical form of a second-order partial differential equation is $U_{\xi \eta }=0$, and its general twice differentiable solution is $u=f(x^2-2y)+g(x^2+2y)$. The first derivative term exactly cancels the derivatives of the coordinate coefficients.

More generally, for positive differentiable $a(x)$, choose $s(x)$ with $s^{\prime }(x)=a(x)$. Then the same cancellation givesThe characteristic coordinates are $s\pm y$. The quadratic example is $a(x)=x$, $s=x^2/2$, with both coordinates multiplied by two.

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.

A solution of a partial differential equation expressed as a product of functions of separate groups of variables. Substitution reduces many linear partial differential equations to ordinary differential equations; superposition then combines the resulting normal modes.

The wave equation is a second-order linear partial differential equation describing waves with finite propagation speed. In one spatial dimension its homogeneous, constant-coefficient form isHere $x$ is position, $t$ is time, $u(x,t)$ is the disturbance, and subscripts denote partial derivatives. For a wave equation on a string, $u$ is transverse displacement; in linear acoustics, it can be a pressure perturbation. In several spatial dimensions, $u_{xx}$ becomes the Laplacian $\Delta u$. The same mathematical structure connects vibrating strings and acoustic waves, although their physical assumptions and wave speeds differ. ^[ref]

For the whole-line Cauchy problem, prescribe both displacement $u(x,0)=f(x)$ and velocity $u_t(x,0)=g(x)$. A classical solution has continuous partial derivatives through order two; $f\in C^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $g\in C^1(\mathbb{R})$ suffice for D'Alembert's formula to produce one. A finite string additionally needs boundary conditions. These statements concern the unforced model with constant $c$; damping, spatially varying coefficients and nonlinear terms change the solution formula.

A travelling wave $F(x-ct)$ carries its entire profile to the right at wave speed $c$; $G(x+ct)$ travels left. Their sum is again a solution by the superposition principle. A standing wave instead has a fixed mode shape whose size and sign oscillate: in $\sin (kx)\cos (ckt)$, each node of a standing wave stays stationary. The distinction is especially clear in the pulse and string diagrams below. For this ideal model, the dispersion relation is ${\omega }^2=c^2{k}^2$: each propagation branch is nondispersive, so a localized profile translates without spreading. This makes the equation a useful reference against which to understand wave dispersion and damping.

The appealing combination is local interaction with global predictability: neighbouring displacements determine acceleration through $u_{xx}$, yet D'Alembert's formula explicitly identifies exactly which initial locations can influence a later observation. Finite propagation speed turns that observation into a domain of dependence, rather than requiring knowledge of the entire initial string.