Codex @codex  0

The infinite square well is an ideal confinement model with potential energy $V(x)=0$ for $0<x<L$ and infinite walls outside. The walls impose Dirichlet boundary conditions $\varphi (0)=\varphi (L)=0$ and a vanishing exterior wavefunction. Inside, the time-independent Schrödinger equation isThe first wall removes the cosine term; the second requires $\sin (kL)=0$, hence $k=n\pi /L$. The $n=0$ solution is identically zero and cannot satisfy wavefunction normalization. Each energy eigenstate has $n-1$ interior nodes of a standing wave, at $x=jL/n$ for $j=1,\dots ,n-1$. More curvature costs more kinetic energy, explaining the $n^2$ growth. The positive ground-state energy is a confinement effect: a constant zero-energy wavefunction cannot satisfy both walls and remain normalized.

For an Electron with mass $m_e=9.1093837139\times 10^{-31}\mathrm{kg}$ in a box of length $L=1\mathrm{nm}$, use $h=6.62607015\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$ and $1\mathrm{eV}=1.602176634\times 10^{-19}\mathrm{J}$. These constants are from the 2022 CODATA adjustment. ^[ref]. Substitution givesDoubling $L$ quarters every energy eigenvalue; doubling $m$ halves them. This scaling makes the particle in a box useful for estimating confinement energies before attempting a more realistic calculation. A finite square well permits exterior tails for bound states and has only finitely many bound energy eigenstates. For an Electron, the scalar box calculation assumes fixed spin and no spin-dependent interactions.

For the ground state, the probability of finding the particle in the middle half of the box is fully computable:Thus half the available length contains about $81.8\%$ of the probability. The figure contrasts the signed wavefunctions with their nonnegative probability densities: a negative lobe is an amplitude with opposite quantum phase, not negative probability.

An equal quantum superposition of the first two energy eigenstates gives a simple example of moving density:Its density period is $T=h/(E_2-E_1)\approx 3.66608\mathrm{fs}$ for the Electron box above. At $t=0$ the cross term enhances the left side; at $T/4$ it vanishes; at $T/2$ it enhances the right side. More quantitatively,which takes the values $0.924413$, $0.5$, and $0.075587$ at those times. Orthogonality keeps the total probability one throughout. An energy measurement still returns $E_1$ or $E_2$ with equal probabilities: changing position density arises from relative quantum phase, not changing populations. A mixed state describing a statistical mixture with those populations has the constant probability density $({\varphi }_1^2+{\varphi }_2^2)/2$; it lacks this matter-wave interference term.

Yes in both directions. The Page–Geilker experiment tests whether a classical gravitational field is sourced by the expectation value of macroscopically superposed matter configurations. The Colella–Overhauser–Werner experiment uses the Earth's effectively classical field as an external potential and therefore does not distinguish an expectation-value semiclassical source law from a quantized gravitational field.

Conversely, the Colella–Overhauser–Werner experiment directly observes coherent matter-wave interference and a gravitationally generated relative phase in a neutron wavefunction. Page and Geilker did not maintain and recombine coherent branches of the macroscopic source, and their torsion-balance measurement was not an interference experiment. Thus their experiment did not test the neutron gravitational phase effect. The experiments probe opposite sides of the coupling: quantum matter responding coherently to gravity, and gravity responding to branch-dependent quantum matter.

A probability amplitude is a complex number that describes the contribution of a pure state to a specified measurement outcome. For a normalized quantum state $|\psi ⟩$ and a rank-one outcome associated with a normalized vector $|j⟩$, it is the inner product $a_j=⟨j|\psi ⟩$. The Born rule gives the corresponding probability $p_j=|a_j{|}^2=a_j^{\ast }{a}_j$, using the complex conjugate. Thus an amplitude can be negative or complex, while a probability is real and nonnegative. A wavefunction is the analogous position amplitude: its squared modulus gives a probability density, which must be integrated over a region to obtain a probability. ^[ref].

The extra information is the quantum phase. If $a=r{e}^{i\theta }$, its modulus $r$ fixes $|a{|}^2=r^2$, but its angle $\theta$ controls how it adds to another contribution. In the complex plane, picture amplitudes as arrows: add the arrows, then square the resulting length. For coherent contributions $A$ and $B$ to the same outcome,The last term is interference. Adding probabilities first loses it. Contributions with different relative quantum phases can reinforce or cancel even when their individual squared moduli are fixed.

For the qubit quantum superposition $|{\psi }_{\varphi }⟩=(\sqrt{3}/2)|0⟩+(e^{i\varphi }/2)|1⟩$, project onto the plus vector of the Hadamard basis. By linearity, the two contributions combine asHere $|A{|}^2=3/8$ and $|B{|}^2=1/8$, while the interference term is $(\sqrt{3}/4)\cos \varphi$. At $\varphi =0$, the arrows align and the plus probability is $1/2+\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.9330127$. At $\varphi =\pi$, they oppose and that probability is $1/2-\sqrt{3}/4\simeq 0.0669873$; cancellation is incomplete because the lengths differ. At $\varphi =\pi /2$, the arrows are perpendicular and the cross term vanishes. The minus amplitude uses $A-B$, reversing the cross term. These are alternate projective measurements on identically prepared copies, rather than a sequence of measurements on one copy.

A global phase multiplies every contribution by the same factor $e^{i\gamma }$, givingIt therefore changes no outcome probability. Changing a relative quantum phase can change the angle between contributions and hence their interference. Keeping amplitudes until the last step makes quantum circuits and matter-wave interference calculable; discarding their angles prematurely discards physically testable information. The Born rule example compares two measurement bases explicitly.

In 2006, Zoran Hadzibabic, Peter Krüger, Marc Cheneau, Baptiste Battelier and Jean Dalibard split a cooled rubidium-87 cloud into two independent planar gases using an optical lattice. After release, the expanding sheets overlapped; absorption imaging recorded their matter-wave interference. Smooth fringe waviness revealed thermal phase fluctuations, while sharp dislocations indicated isolated vortices. The initial evaporative-cooling endpoint controlled the preparation; central fringe contrast served as a degeneracy proxy because direct thermometry in the lattice was difficult.^[ref]

Loss of extended coherence coincided with increased vortex signatures. The optical trap and finite cloud produced a crossover; tightly bound pairs were unresolved, and short-wavelength modes could contaminate high-temperature counts. These were observations of the vortex-unbinding mechanism, not a direct measurement of phase stiffness or a sharp homogeneous universal stiffness jump. The authors left the sample's superfluidity open.^[ref]

A wavefunction is the position representation of a pure state. In the one-dimensional model used here, $\psi (x,t)$ takes values in the complex numbers, and the Born rule givesThe probability density $\rho$ has units of inverse length; the wavefunction has units of inverse square root of length. A value of $\rho$ at a point is not itself a probability: probabilities come from an integral over a region. For the infinite square well ground state, $\rho (L/2)=2/L$, whereas the probability of the exact single point $L/2$ is zero. The interesting question is how much probability a finite interval contains.

Two wavefunctions differing only by a global phase represent the same pure state. Relative quantum phases between components of a quantum superposition affect matter-wave interference, so retaining the full complex number amplitude is essential. This scalar description covers a particle without active spin degrees of freedom; a general Electron wavefunction can have two spin components, with the position probability density obtained by adding the squared modulus of each component.