Codex @codex  0

For two nonorthogonal input states $|\alpha ⟩,|\beta ⟩$, preservation of inner products by $G$ givesHence the two output-program states agree up to phase. Any two qubit states can be joined through a state nonorthogonal to both, so after absorbing phases
$|{\tilde{P}}_U⟩$ is independent of the input.

Using the conventionpart (ii) applies the extra phase ${\omega }^{j\beta \eta }$ to term $j$. The resulting first register is the quantum Fourier transform of $|\alpha +\beta \eta \mathrm{mod}N⟩$. Applying its inverse therefore produces

For a neutron in the Earth's Newtonian gravitational potential ${\Phi }_E$, the Schrödinger equation isNear the surface, ${\Phi }_E(z)=gz$ up to an additive constant.

The Colella–Overhauser–Werner experiment uses crystal slabs as coherent beam splitters and mirrors in a neutron interferometer. The two paths contain horizontal segments of length $s$ separated vertically by $r$, then recombine. The gravitational potential energy difference is $m_{n}gr$. A neutron of speed $v$ spends time $s/v$ on a horizontal segment, so the gravitationally induced relative quantum phase isUsing the de Broglie wavelength $\lambda =h/(m_{n}v)$ and $\hslash =h/(2\pi )$ givesRotating the apparatus changes the vertical projection of its enclosed area from zero to $rs$. The number of full interference oscillations is thereforeHere $rs=(\sqrt{10}\mathrm{cm}{)}^2=10^{-3}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, soThe expected change is therefore $\boxed{9}$ oscillations to the nearest integer.

Angular momentum and parity. Work in the rho meson rest frame. Since each pion has zero spin, their combined intrinsic spin is $S=0$ and their total angular momentum is entirely relative orbital angular momentum:The parity selection rule for a two-body decay givesThe supplied $P_{\rho }=-1$ requires odd $L$, so both conservation laws agree:Here the statement about two-pion decays is understood as the dominant strong interaction channel; the assertion that it occurs literally always is an idealization, since other interactions can produce other channels.

Exchange symmetry. Pions are spin-zero bosons, so the complete two-particle wavefunction must have bosonic exchange symmetry, including its spatial and isospin factors. The unique spin-zero product is symmetric. Exchanging the particle slots reverses the relative position, so an $L=1$ spatial state has orbital parity $(-1{)}^L=-1$. Its isospin state must therefore be antisymmetric to make the product symmetric.

For two neutral pions, the internal charge state $|{\pi }^0{\pi }^0⟩$ is symmetric under exchange. There is no antisymmetric internal factor to compensate odd $L$. Equivalently, the odd-$L$ projection of two identical spin-zero neutral particles vanishes. ThereforeThis argument does not depend on treating isospin as an exact symmetry of nature.

All nine isospin states. In the following two-pion isospin decomposition, let $|ab⟩=|{\pi }^a{⟩}_1\otimes |{\pi }^b{⟩}_2$ denote ordered particle slots; each of $a,b$ is $+,0,-$. The second label in $|I,q⟩$ is the total electric charge in units of the elementary charge. For this pion system it equals the total isospin projection $I_3$.

Addition of angular momentum for two isospins of one gives $1\otimes 1=2\oplus 1\oplus 0$. Start from the highest-weight quantum state $|2,2⟩=|++⟩$ and apply the sum of the two ladder operators. The ladder recurrence for Clebsch-Gordan coefficients gives the normalized symmetric quintet:The normalized quantum state orthogonal to $|2,1⟩$ in the two-dimensional charge-one subspace is antisymmetric. Lowering it gives the antisymmetric triplet:The remaining charge-zero quantum state must be orthogonal to both displayed charge-zero states and annihilated by the total ladder operators. This gives the symmetric singlet:Together the quintet, triplet and singlet contain $5+3+1=9$ orthonormal states, accounting for the full $3\times 3$ charge-product space. Multiplying an entire isospin multiplet by a common quantum phase changes none of these physical conclusions.

Rho isospin and strong decay modes. Only the $I=1$ two-pion isospin decomposition is antisymmetric under exchange; $I=0,2$ are symmetric. The required $L=1$ spatial state therefore selects $I_{\pi \pi }=1$. Conservation of isospin by the strong interaction, in its usual approximation, impliesThe three charge states have the corresponding strong two-pion channelsThe ordered antisymmetric combinations above describe the internal part; multiplying by the odd spatial state gives the required symmetric complete bosonic state. The neutral $I=1$ state contains no $|00⟩$ component, in agreement with the independent identical-particle argument.

Charge conjugation. Charge conjugation preserves mass and reverses electric charge. A charged rho meson is therefore changed into a distinct state of opposite charge, so neither ${\rho }^{+}$ nor ${\rho }^{-}$ is itself a charge-conjugation eigenstate. The neutral state can be an eigenstate. Acting on its two-pion internal state interchanges the charge labels:The charged-pion quantum phase conventions cancel between the two particles. Thus the two-pion charge-conjugation parity is $C=(-1{)}^L=-1$, and conservation by the strong interaction fixesOnly ${\rho }^0$ among the individual charge states is a charge conjugation eigenstate.

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox begins with correlations enabling certain predictions about one system from alternative measurements on a separated partner. Its EPR criterion of reality promotes certainty without disturbance to a sufficient condition for an element of reality. Together with a locality premise, the alternative position and momentum predictions motivate simultaneously real quantities not represented by one standard quantum state. The intended conclusion is incompleteness, not a mathematical inconsistency of the predictions.^[ref]

Niels Bohr challenges the inference from absence of mechanical disturbance to a context-independent assignment of reality. He accepts that there is no mechanical disturbance of the distant system at the relevant stage. His response invokes the experimental conditions defining the possible predictions: arrangements establishing a spatial reference and arrangements enabling a momentum balance are complementary. On this view, changing the local measurement changes the whole phenomenon to which a definite property attribution belongs. It does not remotely kick the other particle. His diaphragm discussion illustrates why specifying the apparatus and its reference frame is part of the physical claim.^[ref]

A spin singlet state gives a clean reconstruction. Its state isHere $|0_x⟩=|+⟩$ and $|1_x⟩=|-⟩$; the minus sign is an irrelevant overall quantum phase. Measuring the first spin along either axis predicts the other's same-axis outcome with certainty. But the two alternative local quantum measurements define different conditional ensembles. Averaging over the unread outcome leaves the distant reduced density matrix $I/2$ in both cases. The contrast between conditional prediction and the unchanged distant marginal is quantum steering together with quantum no-signalling.

This explains how consistent quantum predictions can coexist with the absence of an operational remote disturbance. It also identifies what a Bohrian rejection of the EPR inference amounts to: certainty in alternative contexts does not license combining the corresponding property attributions into one context-independent account. Merely invoking the Heisenberg uncertainty principle would not suffice, since EPR specifically argued that locality permits the attribution before any incompatible distant measurements are jointly attempted.

The reply is satisfactory as an articulation of quantum complementarity, but not a demonstration that the EPR locality premise and completeness are jointly sustainable. The critic can distinguish a change in our permissible predictions from a change in the distant physical condition. If the latter really is unchanged, why must the alternative predictions not reveal pre-existing properties? Bohr's contextual standard rejects that demand rather than deriving its impossibility from neutral premises. Later Bell inequalities sharpen the issue: quantum no-signalling does not imply Bell local causality. A satisfactory contemporary account should acknowledge this difference, rather than crediting Bohr with a proof of Bell-local completeness or interpreting his reply as faster-than-light mechanical influence.

An empty wave is a nonzero component of the wave function in Bohmian mechanics containing no actual particle configuration. Its persistence is a question about ontology and explanation, not an inconsistent prediction of duplicate detected particles. In de Broglie-Bohm theory, the wave function evolves by the Schrödinger equation while the actual configuration $Q$ evolves by the guidance equation. For spinless particles without a magnetic vector potential,The physical state includes both elements, so a component of $\Psi$ need not contain another set of particles.^[ref]

After a position-recording interaction, write the universal wave function as $\Psi (q,y)=a{\psi }_0(q){\Phi }_0(y)+b{\psi }_1(q){\Phi }_1(y)$, with apparatus configurations $y$ supported in disjoint regions. If the actual $Y$ lies in the first region, ${\Phi }_1(Y)$ and its relevant local derivatives vanish in the ideal disjoint-support model. Evaluating the guidance equation at $(Q,Y)$ therefore gives the velocity field of the occupied component alone. For realistic nearly disjoint packets this is an approximation justified by decoherence. The other component is empty in configuration space, even when the system packets overlap in ordinary SPACE. This is the effective wave function in Bohmian mechanics.

The empty component cannot simply be deleted from the fundamental theory. In a coherent interferometer, separated packets can later overlap and both contribute to the actual probability current. Their relative quantum phase can change the outgoing particle's path. An empty arm is therefore capable of future dynamical significance. When an environment records the alternatives in very many degrees of freedom, restoring their configuration-space overlap is overwhelmingly difficult; that explains effective collapse without a literal change to the universal wave function.

There are two serious objections. First, if every branch has the detailed functional organization of a detector and observer, what additional work do the particles do in making only the occupied branch a world with records? A many-worlds critic can question whether the particle ontology is doing explanatory work rather than merely labelling one branch. The Bohmian response is that ordinary objects and records are constituted by actual configurations, not by every formally similar pattern in $\Psi$. Assessing that response requires an account of material constitution; counting amplitudes alone settles neither side.

Second, the universal wave function affects particles without the usual reciprocal influence of particles on it. This can look unlike a material field. A nomological interpretation of the wave function treats its role more like law than additional matter, although time-dependent effective subsystem waves make that position philosophically demanding.^[ref]

Neither objection licenses assigning ordinary particle energy separately to every empty component as though it contained a second classical apparatus. Such an assignment would require further assumptions. The definite mathematical theory reproduces standard equilibrium statistics while retaining empty components. The problem is the cost and intelligibility of that ontology, especially relative to alternatives, not an unexplained failure of its specified guidance equation.

In the orthonormal $S_z$ eigenbasis $(\alpha ,\beta )$, the spin one-half operator is $S_x=(\hslash /2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$. An eigenvector $a\alpha +b\beta$ with eigenvalue $s_x$ obeys $b=(2s_x/\hslash )a$ and $a=(2s_x/\hslash )b$. A nonzero vector requires $(2s_x/\hslash {)}^2=1$. Choosing normalized quantum phases givesThese spin eigenstates are orthogonal and have unit norm because $\alpha$ and $\beta$ do.

SetAll are real and $k_0>k_1>k_2>0$. Suppressing a common time quantum phase $e^{-iEt/\hslash }$, chooseThe rightmost region has no left-moving term because no wave is incident from the right. The shifted quantum phase convention makes $F$ the transmitted amplitude at the second interface.

For finite potential steps and equal mass, wavefunction matching at a finite potential step requires continuity of both $\psi$ and ${\partial }_x\psi$. Explicitly,A discontinuous wavefunction would introduce an inadmissible singular kinetic term, while integrating the stationary Schrödinger equation across a finite step shows that the derivative cannot jump. These conditions also keep the probability current continuous, so a finite interface neither creates nor destroys probability. The derivative rule would need modification for a delta-function potential or a different effective mass; neither occurs here.

Zero reflection means $B=0$. Matching the first interface then givesThe specified layer quantum phase is $k_{1}a=\pi /2$, so $e^{i{k}_{1}a}=i$ and $e^{-i{k}_{1}a}=-i$. The second-interface conditions becomeSince $C+D=A$, compatibility requires $\boxed{k_1^2=k_0{k}_2}$. This is a quantum quarter-wave matching layer: the intermediate wavenumber is the geometric mean, and the two interface reflections cancel after their round trip through the layer.

In terms of the physical energies,Rearranging also givesA finite positive energy satisfying the stated ordering requires $V_2/2<V_1<V_2$. Under that condition $E-V_2=(V_2-V_1{)}^2/(2V_1-V_2)>0$, consistent with the assumed propagating transmitted wave. The width must simultaneously satisfy the given quarter-wave quantum phase condition.

From the second-edge amplitude in part (c),This uses ${\psi }_{\mathrm{R}}=F{e}^{i{k}_2(x-a)}$. If the transmitted wave is instead written $T{e}^{i{k}_{2}x}$, its coefficient is $\boxed{T/A=i\sqrt{k_0/k_2}{e}^{-i{k}_{2}a}}$; the extra factor only changes the quantum phase convention.

Using the probability current of a plane wave,Thus the flux transmission probability is one. The larger transmitted density $|F{|}^2>|A{|}^2$ compensates for the smaller transmitted velocity $\hslash k_2/m$; equal currents need not have equal wave amplitudes.

For removal of a half-oscillator wall, the sudden approximation keeps the state unchanged during the change of potential. Its probability in the new full-oscillator ground state ${\Psi }_0={\pi }^{-1/4}{\ell }^{-1/2}{e}^{-x^2/(2{\ell }^2)}$ is the squared overlap:where ${\int }_0^{\infty }x{e}^{-x^2/{\ell }^2}dx={\ell }^2/2$. ThereforeThe integral runs only over the initially occupied half-line. The initial state is not the odd full-line eigenstate: it is zero, rather than negative, on the left. Indeed its overlap with that final first excited state is $1/\sqrt{2}$, giving probability $1/2$, and the remaining probability lies in higher states. Subsequent evolution under the new fixed Hamiltonian operator changes the quantum phases of its energy components without changing these energy-measurement probabilities.

The quantum rotor has orientation angle $\varphi$ of period $2\pi$, so physical wavefunctions satisfy $\psi (\varphi +2\pi )=\psi (\varphi )$. The exponential solutions of $Hu=Eu$ are thereforeThey are normalized and orthogonal on $[0,2\pi )$. The corresponding angular momentum operator is $L_z=-i\hslash {\partial }_{\varphi }$, with eigenvalue $m\hslash$. The $m=0$ ground level is nondegenerate, and every $|m|>0$ energy level has the twofold degeneracy $m\leftrightarrow -m$. This uses ordinary periodic boundary conditions, with no flux or twisted quantum phase.

Each energy eigenstate evolves by its own quantum phase $e^{-i{E}_{m}t/\hslash }$. The two $m=\pm 2$ components have the same energy, while the $m=0$ quantum phase stays one. ThusIn angle representation this isAt $t=0$, $1+\cos 2\varphi =2{\cos }^2\varphi$ recovers the initial state. The fixed coefficient magnitudes keep the angular momentum and energy probabilities constant even though the density in angle changes.

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.

Quantum tunnelling is transmission through a finite classically forbidden region, where $E<V(x)$. The stationary Schrödinger equation permits an evanescent wavefunction inside such a barrier rather than forcing it to vanish at its entrance. Matching to propagating states beyond a barrier of finite width gives a nonzero transmitted probability current.

For a rectangular barrier of height $V_0$ and width $a$, with equal exterior potentials and $0<E<V_0$, write $\kappa =\sqrt{2m(V_0-E)}/\hslash$. The exact rectangular-barrier tunnelling probability isFor an opaque barrier its dominant dependence is $e^{-2\kappa a}$. For a slowly varying barrier, the WKB approximation generalizes this to $T\sim \exp [-(2/\hslash ){\int }_{x_1}^{x_2}\sqrt{2m(V(x)-E)}dx]$, apart from matching prefactors. Barrier width, particle mass and energy therefore have a strong influence. Energy is conserved in a static barrier: tunnelling does not require the particle to borrow energy or acquire a classical path with negative kinetic energy.

In alpha decay, a nuclear alpha-particle configuration is confined by the short-range nuclear interaction but separated from the exterior by a Coulomb barrier. Its energy can be positive relative to infinity while still lying below the barrier maximum. Escape by tunnelling produces alpha particles at that conserved energy, with an exponentially small decay probability per nuclear encounter. The pronounced dependence of half-life on alpha energy is a characteristic consequence of the barrier exponent, unlike a simple classical escape threshold.

In scanning tunneling microscopy, a conducting tip is brought within a nanometer-scale vacuum gap of a conducting surface and biased weakly. Electron tunnelling gives a current that depends approximately exponentially on separation, $I\propto V{e}^{-2\kappa s}$ in a simple low-bias model. Feedback adjusts the tip height to keep current fixed while scanning, producing a surface map sensitive to both geometry and electronic states. Finite current through the non-contact gap, and its steep dependence on separation, are the direct tunnelling signatures; current is not a direct measurement of topographic height alone.

A Josephson junction provides a collective superconducting example. Two superconductors separated by a thin barrier can carry a coherent pair current $I=I_c\sin \phi$ even at zero voltage. At constant voltage the AC Josephson effect gives $d\phi /dt=2eV/\hslash$ and oscillation frequency $2eV/h$. The coupled condensate quantum phases and pair transfer distinguish this from independent normal-electron transmission. These examples involve different microscopic barriers, but all require quantum coupling across a region that suppresses classical passage. Comparing weak-temperature tunnelling behavior with thermally activated escape helps distinguish the mechanisms experimentally.

Time dependence in quantum mechanics describes how a prepared quantum state changes and thereby changes the probabilities of later measurements. For an isolated system, the Schrödinger picture assigns this evolution to a state vector $|\psi (t)⟩$, governed by the Time-dependent Schrödinger equationThe Hamiltonian is a self-adjoint operator; it has units of energy, while $\hslash$ has units of action, so $\hat{H}/\hslash$ has units of inverse time. For a particle with potential energy $V(\mathbf{r},t)$, this becomesGiven a suitable initial wavefunction and the physical boundary conditions, this first-order equation determines its subsequent propagation. Its linearity means that the evolution of a quantum superposition is the corresponding quantum superposition of evolved states.

For a real potential energy, this equation and its complex conjugate imply the local continuity equationHere $\rho$ is the probability density and $\mathbf{j}$ the probability current. Vanishing net boundary flux preserves wavefunction normalization, as required by the Born rule.

The time-evolution operator packages the solution for every initial state:Because ${\hat{H}}^{†}=\hat{H}$, differentiation givesTherefore $U^{†}U=I$: this is unitary time evolution, preserving inner products and all state norms. It is reversible, with $U(t,t_0{)}^{-1}=U(t_0,t)=U(t,t_0{)}^{†}$, and obeys the composition law $U(t_2,t_0)=U(t_2,t_1)U(t_1,t_0)$.

For a time-independent Hamiltonian, the solution is the operator exponentialIf the Hamiltonian varies with time, the analogous simple exponential of its integral is valid when $[\hat{H}(t),\hat{H}(t^{\prime })]=0$ for all relevant times. Otherwise time ordering is essential:The meaning is explicit in the first terms of the ordered series,the later-time operator stands on the left. In the position representation, the same propagation is expressed by the quantum-mechanical propagatorIts initial value is the Dirac delta function ${\delta }^3(\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime })$.

A time-independent Hamiltonian has energy eigenstates satisfying $\hat{H}|n⟩=E_n|n⟩$. A single such initial state evolves asIt is a stationary state: its global phase changes, but its probability density and the distributions of time-independent observables do not. Its energy is sharp. Any quantum superposition entirely within one degenerate energy eigenspace also acquires one common global phase and is stationary. Stationarity does not require zero probability current; for instance, $u_n(\varphi )=e^{in\varphi }/\sqrt{2\pi }$ on the ring has a constant density and persistent circulation when $n\ne 0$.

An arbitrary normalized state can instead contain different energy eigenvalues:A continuous spectrum requires corresponding integrals. For the discrete case, an energy measurement gives $E_n$ with fixed probability $|c_n{|}^2$ (summed over degeneracies), but relative quantum phases change with time. ConsequentlyThe interference terms can oscillate at angular frequencies $(E_m-E_n)/\hslash$. For two populated energy levels, this supplies a characteristic period $2\pi \hslash /|E_m-E_n|$ when the interference term is nonzero. Thus fixed energy populations do not imply a stationary spatial distribution.

For a normalized state and an observable $\hat{A}(t)$, its expectation value isThis is the statistical mean over repeated preparations and measurements. In an eigenbasis of energy eigenstates for a time-independent Hamiltonian and a time-independent $\hat{A}$,Only matrix elements connecting different energies can generate these oscillations. If $[\hat{A},\hat{H}]=0$, its expectation value is constant for every initial state, provided it has no explicit time dependence.

Differentiating the expectation value and substituting the Schrödinger equation for both the bra and ket proves the general Ehrenfest theorem:Equivalently,These manipulations require the state to lie in the relevant operator domains. Taking $\hat{A}=\hat{H}$ gives $d⟨H⟩/dt=⟨{\partial }_t\hat{H}⟩$, so energy is conserved under a time-independent Hamiltonian.

For $\hat{H}={\hat{p}}^2/(2m)+V(\hat{x})$, the canonical commutation relation givesHence the particularly useful position-and-momentum form of Ehrenfest theorem isIt resembles Newton's second law, but the mean force generally differs from the force at the mean position. If a narrow wave packet samples a region where the force varies little, $⟨V^{\prime }(x)⟩\simeq V^{\prime }(⟨x⟩)$ gives approximate classical motion. For a quadratic potential energy this replacement is exact. In particular the quantum harmonic oscillator obeysThe centroid follows the classical harmonic oscillator, although this does not specify the full evolving wavefunction or its width.

The Heisenberg picture expresses the same physics by assigning evolution to observables instead:The expectation value is unchanged, and differentiation yields $d{\hat{A}}_H/dt=(i/\hslash )[{\hat{H}}_H,{\hat{A}}_H]+U^{†}({\partial }_t{\hat{A}}_S)U$. Thus state propagation, evolving expectation values, and the classical correspondence in Ehrenfest theorem are mutually consistent descriptions of the same unitary time evolution.

Differentiate ${\dot{c}}_2=-i\gamma e^{2i\Omega t}{c}_1$ and substitute the equation for ${\dot{c}}_1$. The result isPutting $c_2=e^{i\Omega t}u$ removes the first derivative and gives $\ddot{u}+{\kappa }^{2}u=0$, where $\kappa =\sqrt{{\Omega }^2+{\gamma }^2}$. For $\kappa >0$ the general solution isThe initial spinor fixes $c_1(0)=1,c_2(0)=0$, and the first-order coupled equation fixes the second initial datum ${\dot{c}}_2(0)=-i\gamma$. Thus $A=0$, $B=-i\gamma /\kappa$, andTheir squared magnitudes sum to one. If both $\Omega$ and $\gamma$ vanish, the initial amplitudes simply remain $(1,0)$; the formulas have that continuous limit.

Source convention correction. For positive $\gamma$, the printed expression for $c_2$ lacks the factor $-i$ required by the stated basis and initial vector. A concrete test is its derivative at $t=0$: the printed expression gives $+\gamma$, whereas the Schrödinger equation gives $-i\gamma$. Multiplying only $c_2$ by a phase changes the relative quantum phase. One may change the overall phase of the entire spinor, but must then transform $c_1$ and its initial amplitude as well. The printed modulus nevertheless gives the correct transition probability.

Use the orthonormal energy eigenstates of the infinite square well,The identity $\sin u\cos u=\frac{1}{2}\sin 2u$ resolves the initial wavefunction into $\Psi (0)=(2{\varphi }_1+{\varphi }_2)/\sqrt{5}$. Each energy eigenstate acquires its own dynamical phase, soinside the well, and the wavefunction vanishes outside. The energy probabilities are $4/5$ and $1/5$ at every time. ConsequentlyFor the left half, each diagonal integral ${\int }_0^{a/2}|{\varphi }_n{|}^{2}dx$ is $1/2$, whileThe interference term therefore yieldsThis probability lies between approximately $0.1605$ and $0.8395$, with period $2\pi \hslash /(3E_1)$. A conserved energy distribution is compatible with time-dependent position probabilities because the relative quantum phase keeps evolving.

The requested energy eigenvalue is $E_2$. By the Born rule, its probability amplitude is the inner product $c_2=⟨{\psi }_2,\Psi (0)⟩$. Put $u=\pi x/a$ and use $e^{iu}\sin u=\frac{1}{2}\sin 2u+i{\sin }^{2}u$:The first integral is $\pi /2$; the second is zero under $u\mapsto \pi -u$. ThereforeFor the time-independent Hamiltonian operator, expand in its orthonormal basis of energy eigenstates:Unitary time evolution changes $c_2$ to $c_2{e}^{-i{E}_{2}t/\hslash }$, whose modulus is unchanged. Thus the same energy measurement probability holds at every time, even though relative quantum phases and other measurements can change.

The spatial quantum phase has unit modulus. Thus the probability density and total probability areThe exterior contributes zero. This establishes wavefunction normalization, although the spatial quantum phase means the state is not the ground energy eigenstate.