Codex @codex  0

The two indistinguishable paths to the same final state must be added as probability amplitudes:Taking the squared modulus gives the time-dependent decay rate, with the common final-state phase-space normalization absorbed into the probability amplitudes:The cross term is the interference between direct decay and decay after flavour conversion. For reference, diagonal propagation gives $g_{\pm }=(e_{\ell }\pm e_h)/2$, where $e_j=e^{-i{m}_{j}t-{\Gamma }_{j}t/2}$ and $t$ is proper time. The unfactored expression remains usable if $A_f=0$, when the ratio $\lambda$ itself is undefined.

CP violation in mixing occurs whenThe flavour-transition probabilities are proportional to $|q/p{|}^2|g_{-}{|}^2$ for $K^0\to {\bar{K}}^0$, and $|p/q{|}^2|g_{-}{|}^2$ for the reverse. Their inequality remains when decay probability amplitudes themselves conserve CP. The coefficients multiplying the mixed-decay terms in the rate equations encode this asymmetry.

Direct CP violation means unequal magnitudes of CP-conjugate decay probability amplitudes:It changes decay probabilities even at $t=0$, before any mixing. For a common CP eigenstate final state, this reduces to $|A_f|\ne |{\bar{A}}_f|$. Usually it requires interfering decay contributions with different weak phases and different strong phases; it is not equivalent to a nonzero weak phase in one isolated probability amplitude.

Starting with an antikaon instead givesThusThis factored form assumes $A_f,{\bar{A}}_f\ne 0$; otherwise use the preceding probability amplitude. The three mechanisms are separated below. Comparisons for distinct final states must pair $f$ with its CP conjugate $\bar{f}$.

Introduce all four physical probability amplitudes: $A_f,{\bar{A}}_f,A_{\bar{f}},{\bar{A}}_{\bar{f}}$. Under exchange of the flavour and final-state labels, defineThis CP-conjugate decay-amplitude ratio gives the conjugate-channel ratesCP is a unitary discrete transformation, so exchanging state labels does not mean complex-conjugating every strong phase by fiat. Nor should one assume that CP-conjugate probability amplitudes are equal while studying CP violation.

The equality $\bar{\lambda }={\lambda }^{-1}$ holds whenin particular when $\bar{f}$ and $f$ are the same CP eigenstate ray, with a consistent state phase. It is not automatic for two distinct CP-conjugate final states. For example, $p=q$, $A_f={\bar{A}}_{\bar{f}}=2$ and ${\bar{A}}_f=A_{\bar{f}}=1$ conserve the paired decay probability amplitudes but give $\lambda =\bar{\lambda }=1/2$, not inverse values.

Assume the usual semileptonic flavour selection rule $\Delta S=\Delta Q$, negligible wrong-sign decay probability amplitudes, and equal magnitudes for CP-conjugate allowed probability amplitudes. Then $f_{+}={\pi }^{-}{\ell }^{+}\nu$ is reached directly only from $K^0$, and $f_{-}={\pi }^{+}{\ell }^{-}\bar{\nu }$ only from ${\bar{K}}^0$. Put $|A_{f_{+}}|=|{\bar{A}}_{f_{-}}|=|A|$. The four rates areThere is only one path to each tagged semileptonic channel, so no direct/mixed decay interference survives. The semileptonic wrong-sign mixing asymmetry isIt isolates CP violation in mixing under the stated assumptions. Allowing direct semileptonic CP violation or wrong-sign probability amplitudes would spoil that isolation.^[ref]

Let $z=\cos {\theta }^{\star }$. Rotating the spin-one intermediate state between initial and final axes gives probability amplitudes proportional to $d_{\pm 1,\pm 1}^1$ for equal fermion helicities and $d_{\mp 1,\pm 1}^1$ for opposite ones. Thus, apart from a common positive normalization,

The common factor $1/4$ from the rotation elements is absorbed into the normalization. Distinct external helicities are orthogonal, so an unpolarized rate adds their squared probability amplitudes incoherently.

The source interchanges the conventional left and right electron coupling labels. With $g_L=T_3-Q{\sin }^2{\theta }_W$ and $g_R=-Q{\sin }^2{\theta }_W$, the physical electron values areAt ${\sin }^2{\theta }_W=0$, for example, the left electron still carries weak isospin $-1/2$, while the right electron is a weak singlet; the printed assignment gives the opposite result. This fixes how the helicity-channel table should be interpreted.^[ref]

For a muon final state, lepton universality gives the same pair of couplings. Crucially, swapping both labels does not change the summed distribution. Put $L=g_L$, $R=g_R$; thenHere $\mathcal{N}$ includes the resonance propagator, initial spin average and common coupling normalization. Equivalently,The source's simultaneous label interchange reverses ${\mathcal{A}}_{\ell }$ but leaves its square unchanged.

Write $\bar{\chi }=({\chi }_1+{\chi }_2)/2$ and $\delta \chi ={\chi }_2-{\chi }_1$. Since the supplied rotation matrix is real and orthogonal, $U^{-1}=U^T$. Direct matrix multiplication gives the flavor-basis HamiltonianThe common term $\bar{\chi }I$ produces only an overall quantum phase. The off-diagonal elements $H_{e\mu }^{\prime }=H_{\mu e}^{\prime }=(\delta \chi /2)\sin 2\theta$ couple the two interaction eigenstates in the Schrödinger equation. Flavor change requires both $\delta \chi \ne 0$ and $\sin 2\theta \ne 0$. For ultrarelativistic neutrinos in vacuum, $\delta \chi \simeq \Delta m^2/(2E)$, so a nonzero squared-mass difference is needed. Observable neutrino oscillation also requires coherent production and propagation of the two components and a resolvable nonzero relative phase; special propagation times can return the initial flavor even when these Hamiltonian conditions hold.

A useful distinction for the next part is that $H_{ee}^{\prime }$ is an energy, not a time-dependent survival probability amplitude. The latter is the $ee$ element of $S(t)=\exp (-i{H}^{\prime }t)$.

Starting with the electron neutrino state in a, the survival probability amplitude isTaking its squared absolute value givesThis derives the supplied survival probability from the evolution operator rather than from a Hamiltonian entry. It also shows why the two written forms agree. For the stipulated phase and $\theta =22.5^{\circ }$, ${\sin }^{2}2\theta =1/2$, so at $L=79\mathrm{km}$,The phase decreases monotonically from $7.9$ to $0.79$ over the open interval $1<E<10$. Differentiating gives $d{P}_{ee}/dE=[7.9/(2E^2)]\sin (15.8/E)$. The interior maxima occur at $7.9/E=n\pi$ and the interior minima at $7.9/E=(n+1/2)\pi$. Enumerating those phases givesThe minimum just above $1\mathrm{MeV}$ must not be lost by rounding the lower endpoint. Neither excluded endpoint is an additional extremum.

For solar neutrinos propagating in the same vacuum model, the vastly longer baseline makes the oscillations extremely fine in energy, with the same bounds $1/2$ and $1$. The figure uses a deliberately schematic enlargement of the oscillation spacing to show those bounds. A $1\mathrm{MeV}$ detector energy resolution averages very many periods, so $⟨{\cos }^2\phi ⟩=1/2$ andThe detector averages event rates weighted by source spectrum, interaction cross section and response; the displayed constant follows when these vary slowly across each tiny oscillation period. Reactor production physically gives electron antineutrinos. In this two-flavor vacuum approximation their survival probability is identical; the positive matter-potential discussion in d concerns solar neutrinos.

The Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem excludes overlapping preparation distributions for distinct pure states in an ontological model of a quantum system satisfying preparation independence and the specified quantum predictions. It excludes neither all hidden variables nor every informational use of a quantum state. The precise overlap criterion is essential: a psi-epistemic model lets at least two distinct pure-state preparations assign positive common probability mass to the same underlying states; a psi-ontic model has mutually singular measures for each distinct pair.^[ref]

Let preparation $x$ sample $\lambda \in \Lambda$ from ${\mu }_x$. A fixed quantum measurement $M$ has nonnegative response functions ${\xi }_M(j|\lambda )$ with ${\sum }_j{\xi }_M(j|\lambda )=1$. Averaging over the preparation must reproduce the Born rule. The response is fixed by $M$ and the complete underlying state, not by additional knowledge of the preparation label. No outcome determinism or Bell local causality is assumed; the joint measurement response need not factor into local responses. For independently operated preparations, preparation independence further identifies the joint state space with the appropriate product and assignsOperationally independent devices do not logically entail this ontic factorization; it is an additional physical premise.^[ref]

The two-qubit example can be checked directly. Set $|\pm ⟩=(|0⟩\pm |1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. In computational basis order $00,01,10,11$, take the following normalized columns as an orthonormal basis:Their pairwise inner products vanish. Direct multiplication shows that the respective preparations $00,0+,+0,++$ have zero probability amplitude for respective outcomes $1,2,3,4$. This is the PBR exclusion measurement for zero and plus: the measurement does not perfectly distinguish the preparations, but each outcome rules one out.

Suppose a common submeasure $\nu$ of ${\mu }_0$ and ${\mu }_{+}$ has mass $\omega >0$; with densities one can take $\nu (\lambda )=\min \{{\mu }_0(\lambda ),{\mu }_{+}(\lambda )\}$. Preparation independence makes $\nu \otimes \nu$ a common submeasure of all four product preparations, of mass ${\omega }^2$. The zero probability for outcome $j$ under its excluded preparation and nonnegativity forceSumming and using normalization yields ${\omega }^2=0$, a contradiction. This measure formulation avoids treating a set with merely nonempty topological support as a positive-probability overlap.

For arbitrary distinct nonorthogonal pure states, write $|{\psi }_{0,1}⟩=\cos (\theta /2)|0⟩\pm \sin (\theta /2)|1⟩$, with overlap $\cos \theta$ and $0<\theta <\pi /2$. The general proof constructs an exclusion measurement on $n$ independently prepared copies when $2^{1/n}-1\le \tan (\theta /2)$. A finite $n$ always exists. The same common-submeasure contradiction then excludes positive overlap. Orthogonal preparations are already disjoint if their perfectly distinguishing measurement is reproduced. The original paper also bounds residual overlap for imperfect exclusion data; exact disjointness concerns the ideal theorem, not a finite experiment's proof of exact zero.^[ref]

The scope is consequently sharp. Bohmian mechanics is not excluded: its underlying state includes the wave function, making distinct pure preparations disjoint even though extra configuration variables remain. A psi-ontic model need not be complete with the wave function alone, and the theorem does not identify the wave function with a three-dimensional material field. Models abandoning preparation independence, or accounts not representing preparations as uncertainty over observer-independent states of this specified kind, are outside this conclusion. Epistemic uncertainty between mixed preparations is not banned. Nor does the theorem establish a collapse mechanism, choose between Bohmian and Everettian theories, or solve the measurement problem. Its achievement is a conditional impossibility theorem about a precise form of pure-state epistemic overlap.

Stationary states. Inside the infinite square well, the time-independent Schrödinger equation has sinusoidal solutions. The boundary conditions $\varphi (0)=\varphi (a)=0$ select $k_{n}a=n\pi$; normalization then givesEach wavefunction vanishes outside the well. There is no nonzero $n=0$ state.

Immediate energy measurement after expansion. For the one-sided sudden expansion of an infinite square well, take the original wall at $x=0$ as fixed, so the expanded well occupies $0<x<2a$. In the sudden approximation, the initial wavefunction remains $\sqrt{2/a}\sin (\pi x/a)$ on $0<x<a$, extended by zero elsewhere. The new ground state is ${\chi }_1=a^{-1/2}\sin (\pi x/(2a))$. Its probability amplitude isThe Born rule therefore givesThe motion of the walls matters: a symmetric expansion about the old midpoint would instead give $64/(9{\pi }^2)$. The stated width alone does not explicitly identify the final endpoints. The first result uses the natural continuation of the specified left boundary; if both boundaries are moved, the final location must be supplied. For a new well $(b,b+2a)$ containing $(0,a)$, the overlap is $c_1(b)=(4\sqrt{2}/(3\pi ))[\cos (\pi b/(2a))-\sin (\pi b/(2a))]$.

Evolution of one energy eigenstate. For a time-independent Hamiltonian operator, write $|\psi (t)⟩=f(t)|{\varphi }_n⟩$. Substitution into the Time-dependent Schrödinger equation gives $i\hslash \dot{f}=E_{n}f$, soOnly a global phase changes, leaving all measurement probabilities unchanged.

Delayed energy measurement. Expand the unchanged initial state in the complete new energy eigenbasis,For the fixed-left-wall geometry, direct overlap integration givesorthogonality isolates the new ground-state amplitude as $c_1{e}^{-i{E}_1^{\prime }t/\hslash }$. Its phase cancels on squaring, so the ground-state probability remains $32/(9{\pi }^2)$ for every delay, provided the expanded well remains fixed and no intervening measurement or environment changes the state. The position probability density generally evolves because different eigenstates acquire different relative phases.

With two coherent paths, the probability amplitude at a screen is ${\psi }_1(x)+e^{i\varphi }{\psi }_2(x)$. The Born rule givesThe final term shifts when the relative phase changes, producing interference fringes. For slit separation $d$ in the far field, the phase difference is approximately $2\pi d\sin \theta /\lambda$; constructive interference occurs at $d\sin \theta =n\lambda$. Finite slit widths add a diffraction envelope, so an ideal equally bright, infinitely narrow slit model does not predict the full observed envelope.

single-electron interference pattern buildup starts with isolated localized detector events at sufficiently low source intensity. Repeated events accumulate the interference probability distribution. Thus detection is discrete while propagation is described by coherent probability amplitudes. The effect cannot be explained by interference between different particles if the apparatus is occupied by at most one particle at a time. A motivating realization used a field-emission electron source, an electron biprism to recombine two paths, electron lenses and a position-sensitive electron counter; it recorded individual arrivals building up the fringes. This was a biprism realization of two-path interference, not a plate with two literal slits.^[ref]

The crucial comparison is between both coherent paths open and a preparation that supplies which-path information. If the paths become correlated with detector states $|D_1⟩,|D_2⟩$, the joint state is ${\psi }_1|D_1⟩+e^{i\varphi }{\psi }_2|D_2⟩$. Ignoring that detector multiplies the interference term by $⟨D_1|D_2⟩$. Orthogonal detector states remove the term completely, while identical detector states preserve it. This is a consequence of entanglement and the partial trace; a human need not read the detector.

In a real test, check the single-path distributions, detector background, source coherence and stability of the relative phase. Classical phase drift can wash out fringes without supplying which-path information. Conversely, localized detections alone do not establish coherent two-path propagation; the controlled phase dependence of their accumulated distribution provides the discriminating evidence.

For a nonrelativistic spinless particle in a scalar potential, the Time-dependent Schrödinger equation isAn initial wavefunction together with boundary conditions specifies the evolution. The Hamiltonian operator must be self-adjoint on the appropriate domain for closed-system evolution to be unitary. The equation is linear, so a superposition of solutions is another solution. Its complex wavefunction predicts probability amplitudes; the Born rule separately supplies the connection to measurement probabilities.

For a time-independent potential, separation $\psi (\mathbf{r},t)=\varphi (\mathbf{r})e^{-iEt/\hslash }$ gives the time-independent Schrödinger equation $H\varphi =E\varphi$. Normalizability and boundary conditions select the allowed energies of bound states; scattering states instead use incoming and outgoing boundary conditions and generalized normalization. A general state is a superposition of energy eigenstates, with a spectral integral as well if there is a continuous spectrum. Different energies accumulate different phases, allowing time-dependent position densities and oscillatory expectation values even though a single energy eigenstate has a stationary density.

For a real scalar potential, combining the equation with its complex conjugate yields probability conservation:With no current escaping the boundary, $\int |\psi {|}^2{d}^{3}r$ is constant. Matching conditions at a finite potential step follow from the differential equation and enforce the flux balance used in B6.

The Schrödinger equation is a dynamical postulate of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, not a consequence of classical mechanics alone. The substitutions $E\mapsto i\hslash {\partial }_t$ and $\mathbf{p}\mapsto -i\hslash \nabla$ motivate its free-particle form from the dispersion relation, but do not derive the measurement postulates. The scalar equation omits intrinsic spin and relativistic particle creation. Spinful or relativistic problems require the corresponding extended theory. Nor does its deterministic unitary evolution, by itself, prescribe conditioning on a particular observed measurement outcome.

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.

Here $V(x)$ is potential energy, $E$ is the stationary state's total energy, and $\psi (x)$ is its spatial probability amplitude. The wave function has time factor $e^{-iEt/\hslash }$; $|\psi {|}^2$ is a position probability density for a normalized state. Stationary plane-wave scattering solutions are idealizations described by probability-current ratios, or components of a normalizable wave packet.

Above an upward step, a classical particle is fully transmitted with reduced speed. Quantum mechanically the abrupt wavelength change generally produces both reflected and transmitted amplitudes even though both regions are classically allowed. With unit incident amplitude and no wave arriving from the right,The reflected component has signed wavevector $-k_1$ and the same wavenumber magnitude as the incident component. A finite potential jump with constant mass and no delta interaction requires continuity of $\psi$ and ${\psi }^{\prime }$:The probability current $j=(\hslash /m)\mathrm{Im}({\psi }^{\ast }{\psi }^{\prime })$ gives probability reflection and transmission $\mathcal{R}=|r{|}^2$ and $\mathcal{T}=(k_2/k_1)|t{|}^2$, with $\mathcal{R}+\mathcal{T}=1$. The amplitude $t$ may exceed one without violating conservation of total probability, because the transmitted group speed is smaller.

For $0<E<V_0$, let $\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V_0-E)}/\hslash$. The bounded right-hand solution is $t{e}^{-\kappa x}$, an evanescent wave tail with amplitude penetration scale $1/\kappa$. It carries no outgoing probability current in an infinitely long forbidden half-space, so reflection is total. This differs from transmission through a finite potential barrier, where a second boundary can support quantum tunnelling.

For a downward step, replace $k_2$ by $\sqrt{2m(E+V_0)}/\hslash >k_1$. The same boundary conditions give a nonzero negative $r$, corresponding to a reflected amplitude with phase reversal. If reflection were forbidden, $r=0$ would require both $t=1$ and $k_1=k_2$, impossible for a nonzero step. Reflection therefore does not require a classical potential barrier; the discontinuity of wavenumber mismatch is enough.

For the specified electron energies, $k_2/k_1=\sqrt{40/100}=\sqrt{0.4}$, so the requested amplitude coefficients areThe corresponding probability coefficients are approximately $\mathcal{R}=0.05069$ and $\mathcal{T}=0.94931$. electron mass cancels from these ratios; there is no need to invent an additional material effective mass.

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 downward step potential, $V_0=-|V_0|$, the region on the right is classically allowed at every positive incident energy. The same matching calculation applies withAs $E\to 0^{+}$, $k_1\to 0$ and $k_2\to k_{\ast }=\sqrt{2m|V_0|}/\hslash >0$. Henceand the flux coefficients satisfyThis quantum reflection at a downward step occurs even though a classical particle would simply accelerate into the lower-potential region. The abrupt change in wavenumber causes strong reflected-wave interference.

Both this limit and part (d) give total reflection, but their probability amplitudes and spatial densities differ. At the upward-step threshold, $B/A\to +1$ and $C/A\to 2$: an antinode meets the origin and the right-hand density stays finite while its propagation velocity vanishes. Here $B/A\to -1$ and $C/A\to 0$: the incident and reflected waves nearly cancel at the origin, and the transmitted density vanishes while the right-hand propagation velocity remains finite. In both descriptions the incident probability amplitude is held fixed for comparison.

The coefficients above are limiting flux ratios for $E>0$. At exactly $E=0$ the incident probability current vanishes, so directly dividing zero-energy fluxes would not define a scattering probability.

The time-independent Schrödinger equation is the energy eigenvalue equation $\hat{H}\psi =E\psi$ for a particle of mass $m$. The Hamiltonian operator is the sum of the kinetic operator $-({\hslash }^2/2m)d^2/d{x}^2$ and the prescribed potential energy $V(x)$. Here $\hslash$ is the reduced Planck constant. A corresponding stationary state is $\Psi (x,t)=\psi (x)e^{-iEt/\hslash }$. The Born rule identifies $|\Psi {|}^2=|\psi {|}^2$ as probability density for a state with wavefunction normalization $\int |\Psi {|}^{2}dx=1$; integrating it over an interval gives a position probability. A plane wave scattering state is not a normalizable wavefunction on the whole line, but its probability currents give the reflection and transmission fractions of an incident wave packet.

There is a notation discrepancy in the sources: the original PDF prints an unbarred $h^2$ in the kinetic term, whereas the local TeX uses ${\hslash }^2$. The standard physical equation uses the reduced Planck constant $\hslash =h/(2\pi )$, where $h$ is the Planck constant; that convention is used below. Reading the printed $h$ literally as the Planck constant would scale all lengths in this model by $2\pi$ relative to the standard answers, but would leave the amplitude ratios unchanged.

For $E>V_0$, both sides allow oscillatory wavefunctions. A classical particle always crosses the potential step and slows because its kinetic energy falls from $E$ to $E-V_0$. In quantum mechanics there is generally both reflection and transmission even though the particle is above the step. Define the positive wavenumbersWith no wave incident from the right, writeA finite potential step with constant mass makes both the wavefunction and its first derivative continuous. The two boundary conditions at $x=0$ areSolving gives the reflected and transmitted wavefunctionsFor the specified electron energies, $q/k=\sqrt{10/50}=1/\sqrt{5}$, so the relative probability amplitudes areThe transmitted probability amplitude exceeding one is compatible with conservation of quantum probability, since the outgoing speed is smaller. In fact the probability current $j=(\hslash /m)\mathrm{Im}({\psi }^{\ast }{\psi }^{\prime })$ givesThese are the quantum reflection probability and transmission probability, which must be distinguished from the requested relative amplitudes.

Classically, a particle with $0<E<V_0$ is completely reflected and never enters the raised region. In quantum mechanics the wavefunction penetrates the classically forbidden side as an evanescent wave. Define the tunnelling decay constantBoundedness at positive infinity excludes $e^{+\kappa x}$, soMatching the wavefunction and its derivative givesThe reflected probability amplitude has unit modulus, hence quantum reflection probability one. The decaying tail carries zero probability current: this semi-infinite potential step has no transmitted beam at infinity, unlike a finite potential barrier. The sketch shows an exact matched example rather than attempting to assign a single real value to a complex wavefunction.

Because the probability density decays as $|C{|}^2{e}^{-2\kappa x}$, the requested $1/e$ penetration distance isFor a proton, take $m_p=1.67262\times 10^{-27}\mathrm{kg}$, $V_0-E=10\mathrm{MeV}=1.60218\times 10^{-12}\mathrm{J}$ and $\hslash =1.05457\times 10^{-34}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{s}$. ThenThe wavefunction amplitude decay length $1/\kappa =1.44\mathrm{fm}$ is twice this value. The nonrelativistic equation supplied in the paper is appropriate for this estimate since $10\mathrm{MeV}$ is small compared with the proton rest energy, approximately $938\mathrm{MeV}$. If the original PDF's unbarred $h$ is instead read literally as the Planck constant, the displayed differential equation gives $d_{\mathrm{literal}}=2\pi d=4.53\mathrm{fm}$. This is a valid calculation for that literal coefficient, but $0.720\mathrm{fm}$ is the physical estimate using the standard Schrödinger equation.