Elementary particles are found in two different situations: (i) bound to metastable states of matter, for which angular momentum is quantized, and (ii) free, for which, due to their high energy-momentum and leaving aside inner a.m. or spin, the $h$-quantization step is completely harmless. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be seen just as the simplest mathematical formalism where angular momentum (the magnitude of each of its three orthogonal projections) is by construction quantized: all possible values are taken from a discrete set. Indeed: (i) This idea finds support in very reasonable, completely classical physical arguments, if we place ourselves in the framework of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED): there, all sustained periodic movement of a charge must satisfy a power balance that restricts the value of the average angular momentum, on each of its projections. (ii) It gives a natural explanation of the concept of "photon", as a constraint on the observable spectrum of energy-momentum exchanges between metastable physical states, in particular also for its discreteness. QM would be, in this picture, a semi-static theory, transparent to all the (micro)-dynamics taking place between apparently "discrete" events (transitions in the state of the system). For instance, (the magnitude of the projections of) quantum angular momentum would only reflect average values over a (classical) cyclic trajectory, a fact that we regard as almost obvious given the particularity of the corresponding addition rules in QM.
Elementary particles are found in two different situations: (i) bound to metastable states of matter, for which angular momentum is quantized, and (ii) free, for which, due to their high energy-momentum and leaving aside inner a.m. or spin, the h-quantization step is completely harmless. Perhaps Quantum Mechanics can be seen just as the simplest mathematical formalism where angular momentum (the magnitude of each of its three orthogonal projections) is by construction quantized: all possible values are taken from a discrete set. Indeed: (i) This idea finds support in very reasonable, completely classical physical arguments, if we place ourselves in the framework of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED): there, all sustained periodic movement of a charge must satisfy a power balance that restricts the value of the average angular momentum, on each of its projections. (ii) It gives a natural explanation of the concept of "photon", as a constraint on the observable spectrum of energy-momentum exchanges between metastable physical states, in particular also for its discreteness. QM would be, in this picture, a semi-static theory, transparent to all the (micro)-dynamics taking place between apparently "discrete" events (transitions in the state of the system). For instance, (the magnitude of the projections of) quantum angular momentum would only reflect average values over a (classical) cyclic trajectory, a fact that we regard as almost obvious given the particularity of the corresponding addition rules in QM.
Introduction It is believed that the basic physical building blocks forming the world we live in may be categorized into particles of matter and carriers of force between matter. All known elementary constituents of matter and transmitters of force are quantized. For example, energy, momentum, and angular momentum take on discrete quantized values. The electron is an example of an elementary particle of matter, and the photon is an example of a transmitter of force. Neutrons, protons, and atoms are composite particles made up of elementary particles of matter and transmitters of force. These composite particles are also quantized. Because classical mechanics is unable to explain quantization, we must learn quantum mechanics in order to understand the microscopic properties of atoms – which, for example, make up solids such as crystalline semiconductors. Historically, the laws of quantum mechanics have been established by experiment. The most important early experiments involved light. Long before it was realized that light waves are quantized into particles called photons, key experiments on the wave properties of light were performed. For example, it was established that the color of visible light is associated with different wavelengths of light. Table 2.1 shows the range of wavelengths corresponding to different colors. The connection between optical and electrical phenomena was established by Maxwell in 1864. This extended the concept of light to include the complete electromagnetic spectrum. A great deal of effort was, and continues to be, spent gathering information on the behavior of light.
Preface. 1. Origins of Quantum Physics. 1.1 Historical Note. 1.2 Particle Aspect of Radiation. 1.3 Wave Aspect of Particles. 1.4 Particles versus Waves. 1.5 Indeterministic Nature of the Microphysical World. 1.6 Atomic Transitions and Spectroscopy. 1.7 Quantization Rules. 1.8 Wave Packets. 1.9 Concluding Remarks. 1.10 Solved Problems. Exercises. 2. Mathematical Tools of Quantum Mechanics. 2.1 Introduction. 2.2 The Hilbert Space and Wave Functions. 2.3 Dirac Notation. 2.4 Operators. 2.5 Representation in Discrete Bases. 2.6 Representation in Continuous Bases. 2.7 Matrix and Wave Mechanics. 2.8 Concluding Remarks. 2.9 Solved Problems. Exercises. 3. Postulates of Quantum Mechanics. 3.1 Introduction. 3.2 The Basic Postulates of Quantum Mechanics. 3.3 The State of a System. 3.4 Observables and Operators. 3.5 Measurement in Quantum Mechanics. 3.6 Time Evolution of the System's State. 3.7 Symmetries and Conservation Laws. 3.8 Connecting Quantum to Classical Mechanics. 3.9 Solved Problems. Exercises. 4. One-Dimensional Problems. 4.1 Introduction. 4.2 Properties of One-Dimensional Motion. 4.3 The Free Particle: Continuous States. 4.4 The Potential Step. 4.5 The Potential Barrier and Well. 4.6 The Infinite Square Well Potential. 4.7 The Finite Square Well Potential. 4.8 The Harmonic Oscillator. 4.9 Numerical Solution of the Schrodinger Equation. 4.10 Solved Problems. Exercises. 5. Angular Momentum. 5.1 Introduction. 5.2 Orbital Angular Momentum. 5.3 General Formalism of Angular Momentum. 5.4 Matrix Representation of Angular Momentum. 5.5 Geometrical Representation of Angular Momentum. 5.6 Spin Angular Momentum. 5.7 Eigen functions of Orbital Angular Momentum. 5.8 Solved Problems. Exercises. 6. Three-Dimensional Problems. 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 3D Problems in Cartesian Coordinates. 6.3 3D Problems in Spherical Coordinates. 6.4 Concluding Remarks. 6.5 Solved Problems. Exercises. 7. Rotations and Addition of Angular Momenta. 7.1 Rotations in Classical Physics. 7.2 Rotations in Quantum Mechanics. 7.3 Addition of Angular Momenta. 7.4 Scalar, Vector and Tensor Operators. 7.5 Solved Problems. Exercises. 8. Identical Particles. 8.1 Many-Particle Systems. 8.2 Systems of Identical Particles. 8.3 The Pauli Exclusion Principle. 8.4 The Exclusion Principle and the Periodic Table. 8.5 Solved Problems. Exercises. 9. Approximation Methods for Stationary States. 9.1 Introduction. 9.2 Time-Independent Perturbation Theory. 9.3 The Variational Method. 9.4 The Wentzel Kramers Brillou in Method. 9.5 Concluding Remarks. 9.6 Solved Problems. Exercises. 10. Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory. 10.1 Introduction. 10.2 The Pictures of Quantum Mechanics. 10.3 Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory. 10.4 Adiabatic and Sudden Approximations. 10.5 Interaction of Atoms with Radiation. 10.6 Solved Problems. Exercises. 11. Scattering Theory. 11.1 Scattering and Cross Section. 11.2 Scattering Amplitude of Spinless Particles. 11.3 The Born Approximation. 11.4 Partial Wave Analysis. 11.5 Scattering of Identical Particles. 11.6 Solved Problems. Exercises. A. The Delta Function. A.1 One-Dimensional Delta Function. A.2 Three-Dimensional Delta Function. B. Angular Momentum in Spherical Coordinates. B.1 Derivation of Some General. B.2 Gradient and Laplacianin Spherical Coordinates. B.3 Angular Momentum in Spherical Coordinates. C. Computer Code for Solving the Schrodinger Equation. Index.
Chapter 4 deals with Quantum Mechanical (QM) phenomena. The first section describes the first attempts at quantization of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. We start with Plank's solution to the black-body problem, introducing the concept of photons: discrete packets of electromagnetic energy. We show how Plank's description of black-body radiation is perfectly fit by the cosmic microwave radiation, providing the strongest evidence for the Big-Bang at the origin of the Universe. We then describe Bohr's solution to the paradoxical stability of atoms, introducing quantization of angular momentum (or action) and correctly predicting the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. We show how Einstein used Plank's idea to explain the photo-electric effect (an effect exploited in CCD cameras and solar cells) and how he used Bohr's understanding of energy levels in atoms to provide an intuitive explanation of Plank's law. Einstein insight opened the way to the field of spectroscopy and the development of the laser. In the second section, following the lead of Dirac, we show that QM is equivalent to Linear Algebra in the space of complex functions (which describe the state of the system). We show that Schrödinger's equation is a natural consequence of that description, once the relation between energy and frequency established by Plank (for photons) and de Broglie (for particles) is taken into account. In the context of the chiral ammonia molecule we discuss the queerness of QM which describes physical systems as superposition of states (such as left and right chirality state of a molecule, dead and alive cat). We show that this queerness is nonetheless supported by experiments and is behind much of our technology: masers and lasers, atomic clocks, semiconductors (diodes, transistors, etc.). In the following section we introduce the representation of operators in QM (the equivalent of matrices in linear algebra): momentum, position, energy, etc. which correspond to measurements on the system. We show that the non-commutability of some operators (common with matrix operations) leads to Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the position and momentum of a particle cannot be determined with absolute precision. We discuss the solution of Schrödinger's equation for free particles demonstrating their equivalence with EM phenomena: particles undergo refraction and diffraction, exemplifying the particle/wave duality inherent to QM systems. We discuss QM tunneling and its use in the Scanning Tunneling Microscope. In the following section we study Dirac's equation: the successful attempt by Dirac to unify QM with Einstein's relativity, with the resulting prediction of anti-particles and spin. We then solve for the energy levels of electrons in the hydrogen atom (from Schrödinger's equation) and show that the existence of spin profoundly affects the behavior of electrons in an atom: they cannot share the same energy level, a rule known as Pauli's exclusion principle. Pauli's principle is central to the understanding of the chemical properties of atoms and fully explains Mendeleev's periodic table of the elements. In the next section we discuss along with two exactly soluble systems (diatomic rotational and vibrational levels), various approximations used to study systems (e.g. molecules) for which there are no analytical solutions. In particular, we introduce Pauling's variational approach, Hückel molecular orbital theory and time independent perturbation theory. We apply those approaches to determine the energy levels in alkenes, in multi-electron atoms and in systems under constant electric or magnetic field (such as in Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In the last section we discuss time dependent perturbation theory. We use it to establish the rules allowing for transitions between energy levels and revisit Einstein description of absorption/emission phenomena.
Following previous works by E. Prugovečki [Physica A 91A, 202 (1978) and Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)] on common features of classical and quantum mechanics, we develop a unified mathematical framework for classical and quantum mechanics (based on L2-spaces over classical phase space), in order to investigate to what extent quantum mechanics can be obtained as a simple modification of classical mechanics (on both logical and analytical levels). To obtain this unified framework, we split quantum theory in two parts: (i) general quantum axiomatics (a system is described by a state in a Hilbert space, observables are self-adjoints operators, and so on) and (ii) quantum mechanics proper that specifies the Hilbert space as L2(Rn); the Heisenberg rule [pi,qj]=−iℏδij with p=−iℏ∇, the free Hamiltonian H=−ℏ2Δ/2m and so on. We show that general quantum axiomatics (up to a supplementary “axiom of classicity”) can be used as a nonstandard mathematical ground to formulate physical ideas and equations of ordinary classical statistical mechanics. So, the question of a “true quantization” with “ℏ” must be seen as an independent physical problem not directly related with quantum formalism. At this stage, we show that this nonstandard formulation of classical mechanics exhibits a new kind of operation that has no classical counterpart: this operation is related to the “quantization process,” and we show why quantization physically depends on group theory (the Galilei group). This analytical procedure of quantization replaces the “correspondence principle” (or canonical quantization) and allows us to map classical mechanics into quantum mechanics, giving all operators of quantum dynamics and the Schrödinger equation. The great advantage of this point of view is that quantization is based on concrete physical arguments and not derived from some “pure algebraic rule” (we exhibit also some limit of the correspondence principle). Moreover spins for particles are naturally generated, including an approximation of their interaction with magnetic fields. We also recover by this approach the semi-classical formalism developed by E. Prugovečki [Stochastic Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Space–time (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986)].
We suggest a somewhat non-standard view on a set of curious, paradoxical from the standpoint of simple classical physics and everyday experience phenomena. There are the quantisation (discrete set of values) of the observables (e.g., energy, momentum, angular momentum); forbidden simultaneous measurements of the observables in the most cases (e.g., of a coordinate and momentum, of angular momentum projections on difference axis); counter-intuitive relations on the simultaneously measurable quantities (e.g., the famous expression for the square momentum l(l+1) with the maximal projection l). These and other paradoxes are traditionally related to "purely quantum" phenomenon, i.e., having no analogue in the "classical world" ones. However, there are deep analogies between classical and "quantum" worlds, as soon as the quantum technique is applied to the classical phenomenon. We follow these analogies with the examples of relatively simple and well known models of classical physics, such as a simplified model of light transition through the media, a system of electric charges close to each other and far from the observer; the specific of motion in the Coulomb/Newtonian field. This text can be considered as a mini-course addressed to higher school and undergraduate students who are interested in basics of quantum mechanics, but are not yet ready for systematic study of standard courses. The text may be also useful to those who supervise such students.
Quantum mechanics is the theoretical framework that describes physical phenomena on the microscopic scale. In particular, it is used in those situations in which Planck's constant h , approximately equal to 6.62 × 10 -34 Js, cannot be assumed to be negligible, despite its apparently tiny magnitude. Macroscopic phenomena, on the other hand, involve magnitudes that are so large that h can be set equal to zero without appreciable error. As an illustration of this in the macroscopic context, consider the following example: a ladybug ( Hippodamia convergens ) of mass 1 g moves radially at a speed of 0.01 ms -1 on a turntable rotating at 10 rpm. In the rotating frame of reference, the ladybug has a kinetic energy of about an erg, and, in the laboratory frame, its angular momentum is roughly 10 -5 Js when it is at a distance of 0.1 m from the center of the rotating turntable. The latter angular momentum is of the order of 10 28 h . Thus, relative to this value, h is well approximated by zero and, indeed, only classical mechanics is needed to describe the ladybug's motion. In contrast to the preceding example, an electron in the “2p” level of hydrogen has an energy of about 10 -25 J and an angular momentum whose magnitude is approximately h /(2π) = ħ (pronounced “h-bar”). Here, h cannot be ignored and only a quantum description can accurately account for the properties of this system.