Now, we're going to rely on a wave

particle [inaudible] to deduce the form of

the main equation of quantum physics.
The Schrodinger equation.
But before going to this equation.
I first would like to ask the following
question.
Which picture is more fundamental?
The particle-based picture or the
wave-based picture?
So here, I have simple example of what we
usually mean by a particle in this, in
this example.
Here is the baseball and so this is an
object which has a well-defined velocity
and position at any given time.
We can easily identify its position just
by looking at it, and measure the
velocity.
In contrast when we are talking about
waves, it doesn't really make sense to ask
the question where is it located.
So here, for instance, I have an example
of wave which, is generated using a rope
and well, we cannot define a position of
the wave.
Okay?
Part of what we can do, we can define its
phase velocity and the wavelength and the
corresponding wave vectors.
So which is so wavelength lambda is equal
to 2pi divided by k, k is the wavelength,
right, omega is the frequency.
So, the velocity of the wave is the
coefficient between the frequency and the
efficiency of proportionality between the
frequency and the wavelength.
Now there are two common expressions which
are two types of common expressions that I
use to describe a simple sinusoidal wave
that we will see pretty often.
So one is just using the sine or cosine
function such as here.
So in this example u is the vertical is,
displacement, which is a function of x, a
position in time and s in this case, in
this horizontal direction.
So another way to describe a wave is using
this exponential function of an imaginary
line constant, which i here is the square
root of minus 1.
And they are equivalent to one another.
One most commonly we're actually going to
use the latter expression.
Now, going back to the main question,
what, what is more fundamental, particles
or wave?
I would argue is that waves are in fact
much more fundamental and that we can't

really represent the wave in terms of a

particle, but we can surely decompose a
localized particle into waves.
And this decomposition goes by the name of
Fourier transform.
So here I have an example of a generic
Fourier transform, which is a way,
basically, to represent an arbitrary
reasonable function of a fence, in terms
of these exponentials e to the power of
ikx.
We should respond to this way of
responding the wave at any given time.
And the responding coefficients here which
multiply these exponential are
both[INAUDIBLE] of the, of the function f
of x.
In particular, we can consider a function
f of x, which has a sharp a peak, see?
With a narrow spread out, in let's say
delta x.
And we can we can consider this function
as a mathematical description of an entity
which is a particle-like entity.
And, by decomposing it into if we're going
to transform, we represent it, it's a
linear combination of waves.
Now, we're going to move a little closer
to the main subject of today's lecture,
and, and remind ourselves the classical
description of electromagnetic waves or
classical description of light.
So this electromagnetic waves follow from
the Maxwell's equations, which have been
known for a long time.
And, here are those equations, Maxwell's
equations.
And so, the first two equations here
essentially represent the Gauss's law.
So, the first one tells that electric
charges, electric density[UNKNOWN] gives
rise to an electric field.
The second one tells us that there are no
magnetic charges, no monopoles.
So the last week, we has, or essentially,
the Faraday's law which tells that the
changing magnetic fields in time creates
an electric field and vice versa.
And also there is an Ampere's law that
cars, electric cars give rise to magnetic
field.
Now, even if there is no[INAUDIBLE] the
problem, that is even if there is there
are no charges present so, the right-hand
side of this equation is zero and the
current is zero.
That is, if were in vacuum, even in this
case a material solution exists to this
Maxwell's equation, this solution is
exactly what electromagnetic waves are.

In order to derive the wave equation, what

we can do, we can apply the curl the curl
operator to the both sides of this third
equation.
And the result of this would be a double
curl of the electric field and the
electron side is equal to minus 1 over c,
d over dt, curl of B in the right-hand
side.
Now, this left-hand side can be simplified
by using the following expression, so
double curl is equal to gradient of the
divergence of the electric field minus
Laplacian of the electric field.
So the Laplacian here is of course, is
just the second derivative with respect to
x, second derivative with respect to y,
second derivative with respect to z.
Since we have no charges in the problem,
since we're operate in vacuum, so this guy
is equal to zero, and so the, the
left-hand side is simply equal to this
Laplacian of e.
Sometimes, it identically can be written
as, as so.
This triangle basically means Laplacian.
Now the, the right-hand side can be
simplified using the fourth equation, the
fourth Maxwell's equations by writing it
as minus 1 over c squared, second
derivative of the electric field, with
respect to time.
So, so therefore, we have no closed
equation, which is basically the wave
equation that governs the behavior of the
electric field in vacuum.
So let me write it down.
So Laplacian minus 1 over c squared, d2
over dt squared acting on the electric
field, E is equal to 0.
Now, let's us simplify the problem a
little bit and let's assume that the wave,
the solution to this equation depends only
on one spatial coordinate.
Let's call it x.
So in which case the equation is going to
become d2 over dx squared minus 1 over c
squared, c of course is the speed of
light, secondary with respect to time.
And here, I have a function, so the
function itself is a variable, but it
depends on the one spatial coordinate in
time.
So, one can check that solution to this
equation can be written as E of x and
t[UNKNOWN] times an exponential kx
minus[UNKNOWN].
So, if we differentiate this exponential
twice, we're going to just pull out the
wave [unknown] key.

So it will appear here minus k squared and

here will have the frequency omega squared
over c squared and this whole thing must
be equal to 0 in order to satisfy this
equation.
So what we get is the result of this
solution we will get first of all the
functional form of the so called plane
wave And a relation between Omega and K.
So, which is the final result.
So finally I would like to use the wave
particle duality for electrons now, in
order to guess, if you want, or to derive
the, the wave equation that governs their
quantum wave property.
So here, we're relying on uh,uh, on
experiments of the type performed by,
let's see, [inaudible] a fraction where we
clearly saw that the data can be
understood if we assume the collection
behaves, behaves as waves.
And, so, let's assume that this is indeed
so.
Let's assume that the free electron is
described by some wave function psi.
So, the precise physical meaning of this
function will be discussed later,
[unknown] throughout the course, but at
this stage, let's just assume that this is
so.
So, jst like in the case of protons, we
have an electric, an electric field which
have the form of the plane waves.
Here, we have some electron wave function,
which has the form of the plane wave with
the sum momentum p and energy epsilon.
But unlike protons, where energy scales
with momentum linearly, so we know that
for non-relativistic electrons the kinetic
energy is basically mv squared over 2 or p
squared over 2m.
So what we, what we have to demand is that
whatever equation governs the quantum
properties of electrons, it must give us
this functional form to describe a free
electron, and this spectrum as a
constraint on this solution.
And so, basically, we can construct such
an equation by hand that gives that has
these properties.
And this is what we can do, is we can
write this equation by acknowledging to
the wave equation before, that gave us the
linear spectrum.
Now, here if we plug in this guy into this
equation, so the first dividend is going
to give us minus h squared over 2m, and
here is the mass, of course.
The second derivative is going to give us
minus 1 over h bar squared p squared, and

the second term here is going to give us

minus ih bar, d over dt is minus ih bar
epsilon.
And we will have the same plane with
multiplying both terms, so we must demand
that this but these guys are equal to
zero.
Okay, so a lot of things cancel out here.
So we have p squared over 2m here.
And we have minus, minus, so basically
minus epsilon here.
And indeed we're, we reproduce this
desired spectrum.
Now this construction of course is
nothing, but yes, we can, it's a very
convenient, and yes, we can generalize
this equation just by writing it in a
slightly different form.
So let me do so, so what we're going to
do, we're going to put the time derivative
in the left-hand side.
So basically this time derivative is going
to be in the left-hand side, ih bar, d
over dt psi and this guy, we're going to
interpret it as an energy function.
So after all, p squared over 2m is just an
energy of a free electron, but what we're
going to do, we're going to put some
energy function, otherwise known as
Hamiltonian.
So this guy is very important object, is a
Hamiltonian.
Ad we're going to postulate that this
Hamiltonian is essentially kinetic energy,
p squared over 2m plus some potential
energy, V of r.
So our p here is an operator, minus ih bar
gradient [inaudible] whatever it is that
we have here, so this wave function.
So and this is the economical Schrodinger
equation, that basically contains most, if
not all [inaudible] physics.
So of course the way we derive it in
quotes is not really proper derivation.
It was more like a guess, and in some
sense, this is what Schrodinger give well,
almost hundred years ago now.
And the reason we actually believe that
this equation is a true equation that
describes quantum physics, is because,
because when we use it to actually solve
problems where apart from just free
particles, where we both have a
non-trivial, let's say, potential
landscape, let's say in the case of an
atom or in, in the case of scattering of
particles.
So this equation produces theoretical
results, which are perfectly consistent
with experimental observations.

So there is no question now, nowadays,

that this equation indeed describes
quantum reality.
But the way people early in the early days
got to this equation was very, very
non-trivial.
So they had to edit a lot of pieces
together to guess what is the underlying
mathematical structure that governs the
quantum behavior.