Quantum physics begun with discretising the energy of resonators (Planck 1900). Quantum systems exhibit a substantially smaller amount of stationary states than classical systems (Einstein 1907). Planck’s and Einstein’s worked within statistical physics and electromagnetism. The first step toward quantum mechanics was, perhaps, Bohr’s 1913 atom model. The task was to explain the stability of the atoms and the frequencies and intensities of their spectral lines. Two of these three tasks concern stationary properties. Heisenberg’s 1925 matrix mechanics mastered them through a radical “reinterpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations”, where that article tackles the harmonic oscillator. The Bohr orbitals result directly from Schrodinger’s 1926 wave mechanics, though the discretisation method is that of classical resonators. The reuse of the classical expressions for the kinetic and potential energies needs justification. Without that, the tunnel effect remains a mystery provided that justification through an axiomatic deduction of the stationary and time-dependent Schrodinger equations from Euler‘s and Helmholtz’s rather than Newton’s and Hamilton’s representations of classical mechanics. Referring to Einstein, the stationary quantum states are selected out of the classical continuum not through the classical eigenvalue method, but using the intrinsic discreteness of the stationary Schrodinger equation and energy conservation. Unbound states are naturally included. The effective potential energy is always smaller than the total energy; a quantum particle does not ‘tunnel’ through a barrier, but jumps over a hill. The smooth transition from classical to quantum mechanics facilitates to teach and understand the latter one. One can give decent details why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field.
From the Quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seen to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory of or the description of reality. It leads to the insight that, if gravity is a fundamental interaction and Quantum Mechanics is universally valid, the gravitational field will have to be quantized, not at least because of the inconsistency of semi-classical theories of gravity. The quantization must be adroitly sufficient, which implies specifically that the subsequent quantum hypothesis must be foundation autonomous. This can't be accomplished by methods for quantum field hypothetical procedures. The goal of a hypothesis of Quantum Gravity would then be to recognize the quantum properties and the quantum elements of the gravitational field. If this means to quantize General Relativity, the general-relativistic identification of the gravitational field with the space time metric has to be taken into account. The quantization must be reasonably sufficient, which implies specifically that the subsequent quantum hypothesis must be foundation free. This can't be accomplished by methods for quantum field hypothetical techniques. One of the fundamental prerequisites for such a quantization technique is, that the subsequent quantum hypothesis has a traditional breaking point that is (in any event roughly, and up to the known phenomenology) indistinguishable from General Relativity.
Be that as it may, should gravity not be an essential, yet an incited, lingering, developing connection, it could in all likelihood be an inherently old style marvel. Should Quantum Mechanics be regardless generally substantial, we needed to expect a quantum substrate from which gravity would result as a new traditional marvel. What's more, there would be no contention with the contentions against semi-old style hypotheses, in light of the fact that there would be no gravity at all on the substrate level. The gravitational field would not have any quantum properties to be caught by a hypothesis of Quantum Gravity, and a quantization of General Relativity would not prompt any principal hypothesis. The target of a hypothesis of 'Quantum Gravity' would rather be the ID of the quantum substrate from which gravity results. The requirement that the substrate theory has General Relativity as a classical limit – that it reproduces at least the known phenomenology – would remain. The paper tries to give an overview over the main options for theory construction in the field of Quantum Gravity. Because of the still unclear status of gravity and space time, it pleads for the necessity of a plurality of conceptually different approaches to Quantum Gravity. The most essential motivations for the development of a theory of Quantum Gravity are generally supposed to be based on two (probably interrelated) types of problems(i) the mutual conceptual incompatibility between General Relativity on the one hand and Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory on the other hand.
Quantum physics begun with discretising the energy of resonators (Planck 1900). Quantum systems exhibit a substantially smaller amount of stationary states than classical systems (Einstein 1907). Planck’s and Einstein’s worked within statistical physics and electromagnetism. The first step toward quantum mechanics was, perhaps, Bohr’s 1913 atom model. The task was to explain the stability of the atoms and the frequencies and intensities of their spectral lines. Two of these three tasks concern stationary properties. Heisenberg’s 1925 matrix mechanics mastered them through a radical “reinterpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations”, where that article tackles the harmonic oscillator. The Bohr orbitals result directly from Schrodinger’s 1926 wave mechanics, though the discretisation method is that of classical resonators. The reuse of the classical expressions for the kinetic and potential energies needs justification. Without that, the tunnel effect remains a mystery provided that justification through an axiomatic deduction of the stationary and time-dependent Schrodinger equations from Euler‘s and Helmholtz’s rather than Newton’s and Hamilton’s representations of classical mechanics. Referring to Einstein, the stationary quantum states are selected out of the classical continuum not through the classical eigenvalue method, but using the intrinsic discreteness of the stationary Schrodinger equation and energy conservation. Unbound states are naturally included. The effective potential energy is always smaller than the total energy; a quantum particle does not ‘tunnel’ through a barrier, but jumps over a hill. The smooth transition from classical to quantum mechanics facilitates to teach and understand the latter one. One can give decent details why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field.
From the Quantum phenomena it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers (quantum numbers). This does not seen to be in accordance with a continuum theory and must lead to an attempt to find a purely algebraic theory of or the description of reality. It leads to the insight that, if gravity is a fundamental interaction and Quantum Mechanics is universally valid, the gravitational field will have to be quantized, not at least because of the inconsistency of semi-classical theories of gravity. The quantization must be adroitly sufficient, which implies specifically that the subsequent quantum hypothesis must be foundation autonomous. This can't be accomplished by methods for quantum field hypothetical procedures. The goal of a hypothesis of Quantum Gravity would then be to recognize the quantum properties and the quantum elements of the gravitational field. If this means to quantize General Relativity, the general-relativistic identification of the gravitational field with the space time metric has to be taken into account. The quantization must be reasonably sufficient, which implies specifically that the subsequent quantum hypothesis must be foundation free. This can't be accomplished by methods for quantum field hypothetical techniques. One of the fundamental prerequisites for such a quantization technique is, that the subsequent quantum hypothesis has a traditional breaking point that is (in any event roughly, and up to the known phenomenology) indistinguishable from General Relativity.
Be that as it may, should gravity not be an essential, yet an incited, lingering, developing connection, it could in all likelihood be an inherently old style marvel. Should Quantum Mechanics be regardless generally substantial, we needed to expect a quantum substrate from which gravity would result as a new traditional marvel. What's more, there would be no contention with the contentions against semi-old style hypotheses, in light of the fact that there would be no gravity at all on the substrate level. The gravitational field would not have any quantum properties to be caught by a hypothesis of Quantum Gravity, and a quantization of General Relativity would not prompt any principal hypothesis. The target of a hypothesis of 'Quantum Gravity' would rather be the ID of the quantum substrate from which gravity results. The requirement that the substrate theory has General Relativity as a classical limit – that it reproduces at least the known phenomenology – would remain. The paper tries to give an overview over the main options for theory construction in the field of Quantum Gravity. Because of the still unclear status of gravity and space time, it pleads for the necessity of a plurality of conceptually different approaches to Quantum Gravity. The most essential motivations for the development of a theory of Quantum Gravity are generally supposed to be based on two (probably interrelated) types of problems(i) the mutual conceptual incompatibility between General Relativity on the one hand and Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory on the other hand.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
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.
The difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The origin of the relativity theories was closely bound up with the development of electromagnetic concepts, a development that approached a coherent fieldtheoretical formulation, according to which all actions may vary in a continuous manner. In contrast, quantum theory arose out of the development of atomic concepts, a development that was characterized by the acknowledgment of a fundamental limitation to classical physical ideas when applied to atomic phenomena. This restriction was expressed in the so-called quantum postulate, which attributed to any atomic process an essential discontinuity that was symbolized by Planck's quantum of action. Quantum field theory (QFT) is a later phase of the conceptual developments of quantum theory, and has the old quantum theory and non-relativistic quantum mechanics, essentially the preliminary analyses of the interactions between atoms and radiation, as its predecessors. This chapter will review some features of quantum physics that are relevant to the rise of QFT. The quantization of motion In solving the problem of the equilibrium between matter and radiation, Max Planck (1900) showed that the laws of heat radiation demanded an element of discontinuity in the description of atomic processes. In the statistical behavior of atoms represented, in Planck's description, by linear resonators in their interactions with radiation, only states of vibration should be taken into account whose energy was an integral multiple of a quantum, hv , where h is Planck's constant and v is the frequency of the resonator. Planck himself believed that the discontinuity of energy was only a property of atoms, and was not ready to apply the idea of energy quantization to radiation itself.
The "quantum equation" should "carry the quantum conditions in itself" (Second Commun., p. 511); 2. There should be a special mathematical method for solving the stationary Schrödinger equation, which accounts for the non-classical character of the quantization problem, ie, which is different from the classical eigenvalue methods for calculating the (eigen)modes of strings, resonators and so on (ibid., p. 513);3. The derivation should uniquely decide, that the energy rather than the frequency values are discretized (ibid., pp.511, 519), since only the former means true quantization, while the latter corresponds to the classical discretization mentioned in requirement 2;4. The use of the classical expressions for the kinetic and potential energies should be justified (Fourth Commun., p. 113).Schrödinger's requirements 1 and 2 mean, that -contrary to the very title of the papersquantization is actually not an eigenvalue problem.For in the latter the discretization is imposed not by the differential equation itself, but by the boundary conditions, and this is the classical discretization for standing waves in organ pipes etc.I will fulfill all four requirements by treating quantization as a selection problem.The number of stationary states of a quantum system is smaller than that of a classical system [6].I will describe, (i), the selection of quantum systems out of the set of all mechanical systems and, (ii), the selection of their stationary states out of the continuum of classical stationary states.Earlier arguing [19][10] is improved and extended in several essential points. Elements of an Eulerian representation of classical mechanics Euler's axiomsLeonhard Euler [20][21][22][23][24][25] was the first to apply the calculus to all areas of mathematics and mechanics of his time, and he developed novel methods, such as the calculus of variations and topology.Moreover, he worked out an axiomatic of mechanics, where only Newton's Law (axiom) 1 concerning the conservation of stationary states is retained as an axiom, while Newton's Laws (axioms) 2 and 3 concerning the change of stationary states are treated as problems to be solved (for a detailed account, see [19][10][45]).This allows for introducing alternative equations of motion without loosing the contact to CM.The existence of stationary states is postulated in the following axioms (as in Newton's axioms, rotatory motion is not considered). Axiom E0: Every body is either resting or moving.This means, that the subsequent axioms E1 and E2 are not independent of each other; they exclude each other and, at once, they are in harmony with each other [22].
Quantum mechanics is the theory of physical phenomena at the atomic and subatomic levels. Historically, quantum mechanics began and took the modern form in the first quarter of the 20th century. The appearance of quantum mechanics was due to the fact that at the end of the last and beginning of our century, there arose a series of experimental facts that could not only get explanations in classical physics but were in contradiction with it: Planetary model [ 1–4 ] : The existence of the planetary atom itself (Rutherford-Bohr model presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913) was in contradiction with classical mechanics and electrodynamics. After the experiments of Rutherford on the planetary model of the atom (the electron revolves about the nucleus), it was necessary to examine the experimental facts on the one hand and theory on the other. From classical mechanics, an electron moving in a definite orbit around the nucleus is constantly accelerated. Knowledge of a classical charged particle shows that when it is accelerated, it emits radiation. From electrodynamics, it is well known that any charged particle with an accelerated motion should emit an electromagnetic wave. So an electron moving around the nucleus would continuously emit radiation and consequently become less energetic. This is because as the electron emits the electromagnetic wave, it loses energy and, consequently, its kinetic energy as well as its velocity reduces. Consequently, from the laws of classical physics and electrodynamics, the radius of the orbit would constantly shrink in size until the electron falls into the atomic nucleus. But this does not take place. Blackbody radiation [ 5–8 ] : Theoretical calculations of blackbody radiation spectrum assume electromagnetic radiation to be a wave and so can exchange energy in any continuous amount and yields a result that does not match with experimental facts. The assumption of Planck shows that electromagnetic radiation of frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_1.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> to exchange energy only in units of https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ℏ ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_2.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . Planck's calculations agree very well with experimental facts. The Planck constant has the value: 1.1 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h = 2 π ℏ = 2 π × 1.054 × 10 - 27 e r g - s e c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_3.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Photo-electric effect : The release of electrons from a metal by irradiating it with electromagnetic waves or light is called photo-electric effect [ 9–11 ] . To free an electron from a metal, the light radiation should have a frequency greater than a critical frequency, a characteristic of the metal, while light radiation frequency lower than this critical frequency would not lead to the photo-electric effect. This was shown by Einstein to be consistent with Planck's hypothesis, considering light with frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_4.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> to only exchange energy in the amount https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_5.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . In order for the electrons to be released from the metal, the following energy is needed: 1.2 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = h ν = h ν 0 + Τ k i n , Τ k i n = h ν - ν 0 ≥ 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_6.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> 4 Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> h ν 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_7.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is the binding energy for the given metal and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Τ k i n https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_8.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is the kinetic energy of the electrons. From the above relation, it is not possible to have any emission of the electrons unless 1.3 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν ≥ ν 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_9.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> From the blackbody radiation and photo-electric effect, it is seen that though classically light is a wave, it has a particle nature which is confirmed by the Compton effect. All these can only be explained by quantum mechanics. Compton effect : The scattering of light by an electron can only be explained if a photon of frequency https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> ν https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_10.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> is considered as a particle moving with energy, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_11.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , and momentum, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> p https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_12.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> : 1.4 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = h ν , p = p → = Ε c = h ν c = h λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_13.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_14.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> and https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_15.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> are, respectively, the speed and wavelength of light wave. From relativistic mechanics, mass and energy may be considered as a manifestation of the same thing. The energy of a particle can be expressed through its momentum as: 1.5 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> Ε = p 2 c 2 + m 2 c 4 , p → = m v → v → = Ε v → c 2 , m v → = m 1 - v 2 c 2 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_16.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> Here, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> m https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_17.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> with https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> v → https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_18.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> are, respectively, the rest mass and velocity of the particle. For the case of the photon, which is a particle moving with the speed of light, https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> c https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_19.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , if it equals https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_20.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> , we have https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> m v → = 0 0 https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_21.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> . The photon momentum has the value 1.6 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> p = Ε c c 2 = Ε c = h λ https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_22.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> So if we consider a photon as a particle, its rest mass should vanish (see details in references [ 12–14 ]). It is obvious from here that electromagnetic radiation has the property of dualism, i.e., it possesses the corpuscular and wave nature. Davisson - Germer experiment : The notion of the trajectory does not coincide with the experimental fact of the diffraction of an electron. The diffraction of the electron was theoretically foreseen by Louis de Broglie in 1924 (wave character of material particles) and experimentally founded by the American physicist Clinton J. Davisson [ 2 , 4 , 15 ] and the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961) in 1927. Davisson and Germer in 1925 and also the British physicist G. P. Thomson (son of J. J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron) in 1926 showed scattered electrons from crystals and found diffraction patterns consistent with the interference of electrons having the de Broglie wavelength and similar to light interacting with a diffraction grating. G. P. Thomson [ 16 ] found diffraction rings produced by electrons passing through thin foils. Considering an electronic beam incident on a crystal lattice, we observe a diffraction pattern. As diffraction is a wave phenomenon, the electron having a corpuscular nature sometimes has a wave nature. Such observations lead to a general conclusion that all objects have both corpuscular and wave nature. The question on the wavelength associated with the particle was given by Louis de Broglie's hypothesis through the relation: 1.7 https://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> λ = h p https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781003273073/d236e21f-f9f6-4e42-b186-ef1c50f0a68b/content/math1_23.tif" xmlns:xlink=" https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink "/> It is instructive to note that experimentation on atomic systems shows that measured quantities achieve quantized values unlike classical mechanics’ predictions, where observables achieve continuous values. 5 Experimentation on dualism : For the dual nature of the particles, sometimes the particles have a corpuscular as well as a wave nature. Classically, particles follow definite trajectories and so do not show interference, whereas waves show interference. These and other experimental facts gave birth to quantum mechanics.