The

FOUNDATION
of

QUANTUM MECHANICS

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

1 of 29

INDEX
Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 THE HISTORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS

2.1 Classical mechanics 2.1.1 Isaac Newton 2.1.2 Electro-magnetism 2.1.3 Albert Einstein's influence on mechanics 2.1.4 Atoms the 'complete' picture 2.2 Quantum mechanics 2.2.1 The evolution of the atomic model 2.2.2 Louis de Broglie 2.2.3 Erwin Schrdinger 2.2.4 Werner Heisenberg

4-5 6-10 6 6 6 6-7 7 7 7-8 9 9-10 10 10-19 10-11 11 11-12 12 12-13 13 13-16 16-18 18-19 19-23 19 19-21 21-23 24 25 26-28 29-30 29 29-30 30

3.0 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

3.1 Determinism 3.1.1 Laplace's Demon 3.2 Indeterminism 3.2.1 The 'Copenhagen' interpretation 3.2.2 The Pauli exclusion principle 3.3 The differences 3.3.1 Feynman's thought experiments 3.3.2 Dirac's notation 3.3.3 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

4.0 SCHRDINGER'S EQUATION

4.1 The equation 4.2 The 'infinite square well' 4.2.1 The quantization of energy (n = 3, 2, 1, 0)

5.0 CONCLUSION 6.0 RESUM 7.0 APPENDIX 8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

8.1 Books 8.2 Videos 8.3 Websites

The layout of this project was inspired by the layout of Niels Bohr's On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules. It seemed only fitting to make the layout of my project imitate and thereby pay homage to the truly inspiring work done by Niels Bohr. Nonetheless, my project does reach all requirements and does not overshoot the maximum allowance of pages (if the margins were to be set to the normal borders provided by the standard text editor programs).

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

2 of 29

1.0 INTRODUCTION Since early times, an understanding of the universe has been sought. An understanding which could explain the workings of everything. This understanding has changed greatly over many thousands of years, even impacting other fields of thought such as philosophy. Aristotle (384 322 BC) had a philosophy which stated that the world consisted of four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, and that objects acted to fulfill their purpose1. Nave as it may have been, this was the start of a search for what can be called a grand unified theory. Once Pythagoras (570 495 BC) created the first mathematical proof of a physical phenomenon 2 the stage was set to describe the entire universe. When Newton (1643 1727 AD), an avid mathematician, discovered the laws of gravity, a way of thought evolved, determinism, which went unchanged for four centuries 3. So ingrained and powerful was this way of thought that when a new form of mechanics, quantum mechanics (from now on abbreviated as QM), appeared, not even the greatest thinker of modern time, Albert Einstein (1879 1955 AD), could be dissuaded. This was because QM was based on probabilities rather than certainties, leading to indeterminism, to which Einstein exclaimed, God doesn't play dice with the world 4! The universe is an enormously complicated system which no one, even today, has ever fully understood. It is therefore no wonder that a theory, that seems to explain a lot, is doubted. Moreover, it makes sense as QM is not completely understood, yet. What this project shall attempt to achieve is a fundamental understanding of QM through a review of the experimental basis for our view of the structure of atoms. This project will therefore be a short historical guide to the persons involved in the establishment of QM and the experiments which they performed. Moreover, this project will explain and
1 2 3 4 The Grand Design, p. 51. Fermats Store Stning, p. 37. Fermats Store Stning, p. 38. Einstein and the Poet, William Hermann.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

3 of 29

discuss the differences between the determinism of classical mechanics and the indeterminism of QM. In order to give the reader a better understanding of the intricacies of QM, I will later in the project explain and discuss parts of some of the tools of QM, namely Schrdinger's equation and Dirac's notation. I will also touch upon a fundamental aspect of QM, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. The explanations for the Schrdinger equation and Dirac notation are based on a compilation of lectures, videos and other assorted material. It would be too time consuming to reference every part of the mathematics. There will, therefore, be a complete list of the all the relevant references in the bibliography to supplement the lack of individual references.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

4 of 29

2.0 THE HISTORY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Quantum mechanics is a culmination of the work done by various scientists, sometimes by accident, sometimes by design. However, it all starts with the advent of what we today call 'classical' mechanics. 2.1 Classical mechanics Classical mechanics is the name given to the mathematically natured science which gave us the law of gravity. This was thanks to the work of the intuitive Isaac Newton who invented, independent of Gottfried Leibniz, calculus, or rather the rules of differentials and integrals which are still used today. 2.1.1 Isaac Newton Thanks to the invention of calculus, Isaac Newton was able to accurately calculate the movement of terrestrial and heavenly bodies and the force of gravity, among many others5. This was an incredible tour de force of science which allowed scientists to accurately predict the course of an event. Scientists could now understand the dynamics of a system and continued to apply Newton's methods to other aspects of physics. This led to the discovery of magnetism and electricity. 2.1.2 Electro-magnetism At the beginning of the 19th century, scientists believed that magnetism and electricity were two separate forces, H.C. rsted did not. He believed that they had the same origin6. By passing electricity through a conductor, H. C. rsted created a magnetic field, thus proving his theory of electro-magnetism. 2.1.3 Albert Einstein's influence on mechanics Albert Einstein, a genius of unforeseen magnitude, greatly influenced the interpretation of classical mechanics because of his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect. Here Albert Einstein postulated that electro-magnetic radiation consisted of
5 Taming the infinite. p. 141 6 Fysikkens Verden 3. p. 210-211

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

5 of 29

light quanta(photons) moving at the speed of light 7. With this he proved that a photon's energy is: Ephoton = h v (1)

Where h is Planck's constant and v is the electro-magnetic radiation's frequency. This discovery eventually helped lead to the conceptualization of the wave-particle duality which we shall expand upon later. 2.1.4 Atoms the 'complete' picture At this point in time, the idea of atoms had seemingly been completed, that is to say, scientists believed atoms to be the smallest parts of matter. An indivisible part. However, there seemed to exist a great many atoms for such a unique and fundamental building block8. This is why J. J. Thomson's discovery of electrons may have been shocking yet welcomed. 2.2 Quantum mechanics 2.2.1 The evolution of the atomic model After J. J. Thomson (1856 1940) discovered electrons, mechanics and physics as a whole, took a turn towards the infinitesimally small. No longer was the atom the smallest functional particle, now it consisted of electrons. J. J. Thomson was led to conclude, based on the evidence provided by his experiments, that the electron is thousands of times less massive than the atom 9. This conclusion led to the 'plum-pudding' picture of the structure of the atom. In the 'plum-pudding' atom, the negative electrons are randomly dispersed over the positive body of the atom, see figure
7 Elementr kvantemekanik. p. 5 8 The ideas of particle physics. p. 2 9 The ideas of particle physics. p. 3

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

6 of 29

A. This atomic model, however, could not account for the results of Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden. Geiger and Marsden discovered that when high-energy -particles collide with thin metal-foil, a tiny fraction of the -particles are deflected up to 18010. It was first explained when Ernest Rutherford (1871 1937) theorized that atoms must consist of tiny nuclei that make up the majority of the mass of an atom, and an amount of negatively charged electrons at rest around the nucleus that manage to neutralize the positively charged nuclei. Classical mechanics, however, dictated that if that were the case, the electrons would gravitate inwards, towards the nucleus, as opposites attract. Even if the electrons are not at rest but in an accelerated orbit around the nucleus, they would emit electromagnetic waves (see (1)) thus losing energy and spiralling towards the nucleus11. This is not what was found experimentally. It was up to Niels Bohr (1885 1962) to create a modern atomic model which could answer the question of the orbits of electrons. In Bohr's theory, he postulates that electrons revolve around the nucleus in stationary orbits that allow for the movement of the electrons without their necessitated emission of radiation12. Although this model is not the complete atomic model that is used today, it is still the most stable and understandable model and is a major influence on QM. We will not expand upon the history of the atomic model further as this visualization allows us to ascertain the approximate workings and purpose of an electron; to orbit a nucleus, at a quantized distance with a variable but limited speed(slower than or equal to the speed of light), at a variable time, and neutralize the charge of the nucleus.

10 Elementr Kvantefysik. p. 18-19 11 Elementr Kvantefysik. p. 20 12 Elementr Kvantefysik. p. 21

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

7 of 29

2.2.2 Louis de Broglie Louis de Broglie (1892 1987) was the next physicist to advance the concept of QM. In his doctoral thesis, de Broglie suggested that electrons could act like waves in a manner where the wavelength is inversely proportional to its momentum13:

h p

(2)

Where h is Planck's constant. The beauty of his theory consists of the notion that this applies to all particles, not just electrons or photons. One might say that if a human were to have a small enough momentum, the human would also exhibit wavelike properties. De Broglie's hypothesis managed to explain the nature of Bohr's atomic model as the electronic orbits are only allowed if they contain an integral number of de Broglie wavelengths 14. However, de Broglie did not manage to create a resounding theory of mechanics which could trump Newton's classical theory but his work did set the stage for the development of one15. 2.2.3 Erwin Schrdinger Erwin Schrdinger (1887 1961) took de Broglie's hypotheses on particle waves and developed them into wave mechanics16. Schrdinger's approach was to look at the waves' behaviour in space and time. What he discovered was an equation which describes the behaviour of matter through a description of a particle by its wavefunction. This equation shows how a wave might behave given a set of limits. Given such limits, the Schrdinger equation is able to predict the theoretical interference of particles. Practically, however, the measurement of such
13 14 15 16 The ideas of particle physics. p. 17-18 The ideas of particle physics. p. 18 The ideas of particle physics. p. 19 The ideas of particle physics. p. 19

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

8 of 29

behaviour is affected by the measurement itself. 2.2.4 Werner Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg (1901 1976) essentially formulated that only a system which is observed can be defined but that this observation in itself is an interaction with the system. The interaction with the system affects it denying perfect knowledge of the system to the observer17. He formulated this principle mathematically in what is today known as, the uncertainty principle. 3.0 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS Classical mechanics had been the supreme way of thinking for hundreds of years when QM appeared. This new method of understanding the universe brought with it a new way of thinking which forcefully rejected the ways of determinism. Now, scientist were led to believe in probabilities instead of certainties. But why could the two mechanics not coexist? What made them so different? 3.1 Determinism Determinism states that, given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past18. The metaphor that Newton grants us is of a clockwork universe19 in which every action is followed by a definite reaction. As a practical example, imagine an object moving in a vacuum. If that object is moving with the speed of 10m/s then we can, through simple arithmetic, figure out how long it takes the object to traverse a distance. Newton's laws of motion even allow us to figure out the starting acceleration of an object as long as we know the distance and speed over which the acceleration, at observation, has acted over. This
17 The ideas of particle physics. p. 20 18 The Grand Design. p. 30 19 The Number Mysteries. p. 230

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

9 of 29

is a simple universe with no surprises, no miracles, except perhaps for the creation of the universe. 3.1.1 Laplace's Demon This scientific determinism was formulated into what is today known as Laplace's Demon: We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.20 In this analogy, Laplace basically states the view of determinism, that all is determined. It is a neat philosophy in the sense that it allows for the total knowledge and understanding of the entire universe at any time as long as we know all data at a given point in time. Though, if it were completely true, nothing would be left to chance, not even free will21. 3.2 Indeterminism Indeterminism, unlike determinism, certainly allows for free will. In indeterminism, everything is governed by chance, or rather, probabilities. At the macroscopic level indeterminism is diminished, that is to say, the chance of all the particles in a human being suddenly spreading out in their own unique direction, is incredibly small. According to Bohr's Correspondence Principle, the macroscopic effects of QM are actually rather deterministic because of the scale of
20 A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. p.4 21 On Determinism, Sean Carroll.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

10 of 29

the macroscopic universe in comparison to Planck's constant22,23. At the microscopic level though, probabilities play a huge role. 3.2.1 The 'Copenhagen' interpretation. The 'Copenhagen' interpretation of QM is an attempt to understand this complex nature of QM. This interpretation, named after the place where most progress within the field was made at the time, was a summation of multiple points which, in essence, describe QM. These points are, at their simplest24(see Appendix I for full list): 1. A system is represented by its state in the form of a wavefunction. 2. Nature is probabilistic and the square of the amplitude of a wavefunction is the wavefunction's probability. 3. All values of a system cannot be known at the same time. 4. Matter exists in a wave-particle duality. 5. Measuring devices can only measure classical properties as they themselves are classical in nature. 6. The description of a macroscopic system will be approximately deterministic. 3.2.2 The Pauli exclusion principle The Pauli exclusion principle, hypothesized by Wolfgang Pauli (1900 1958), is a principle which explains the spreading of electrons in an atom. According to Pauli, electrons cannot simultaneously occupy precisely the same quantum state (i.e. have identical values of momentum, charge and spin in the same region of space)25. The principle explains the reason as to why electrons will not huddle in the lowest quantum state but spread out in additional orbits. In the innermost orbit, only two electrons
22 23 24 25 Kvantemekanik, Tom Andersen. p. 4 Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Jan Faye. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation The ideas of particle physics. p. 23

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

11 of 29

can coexist as there are only two different kinds of spin. Outer orbits allow for varying degrees of angular momentum and therefore allow more electrons in the same orbit. This means that if we were to find a system with isolated electrons, extending over all of space or a definite size, then only two electrons, with opposite spins, would be allowed the same momentum. 3.3 The differences As has already been stated, classical and quantum mechanics are represented by determinism and indeterminism, two polar opposites. These differences do not just appear in the use of probabilities as opposed to certainties but in fact appear in the very nature of QM. 3.3.1 Feynman's thought experiments The following is a short account of some experiments, used by Richard Feynman in his lectures on physics 26; used to develop an understanding of the nature of probabilities in QM and the mechanics in their most basic aspects.

Figure B. Interference experiment with bullets27 Electrons and photons behave alike, therefore, what we find applying to electrons will also apply to photons. Electrons behave as waves and particles which we shall show but in order for us to
26 The Feynman lectures on physics Vol 3. 27 http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node68.html

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

12 of 29

do that, we must first consider the implications of them being either particles or waves. Consider, for example, a gun which sprays bullets in random directions along a plane. If we were to design an experiment in which we weanted to find out where the bullets landed, we would use a backstop which could stop these bullets. In between the gun and the backstop we place a wall with two holes. After firing the gun we could count the bullets that passed through the holes in the wall and their distance from the point on the backstop directly opposite the gun, x, using a detector of sorts, see Figure B. This way we can measure the probabilistic outcome of our experiment in relation to x, where probability is measured along the first axis and the corresponding x value along the second axis. This way we find that the probability of the bullets through the first hole (P1) plus the probability of the bullets through the second hole (P2) equal the total probability distribution of the bullets reaching the backstop (P1 2). We also find that there is no interference in this experiment. What we have discovered, already with this first experiment, is the use of probabilities in order to explain and, in some respects, quantify a sequence of measurements. Now let us consider a wave, such as the kind one would expect in a pond. Suppose that an object in a water trough is bobbed up and down creating a steady source of waves in the same kind of configuration as the previous experiment, see Figure C.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

13 of 29

Figure C. Interference experiment with water waves28 Here the detector measures the intensity of the wave. As we can see in this example, the total intensity, I1
2

, is interestingly

different from the previous experiment. This is caused by diffraction of the waves at the holes in the wall. Unlike in the first experiment, I1 2 , is not the sum of the intensities of the individual intensities but rather only happens when both holes are open. In this example, the waves interfere, both constructively and destructively, creating this pattern. If we were to try this experiment with an 'electron gun', a device which fires electrons towards a target in much the same way as our gun, we would find that the result is a curve such as the one in figure C (see P 1 2 in figure D).

28 http://dbanach.com/feyn1.htm

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

14 of 29

Figure D. Interference experiment with electrons29 From this experiment we see that if we were to close off hole 1 we would obtain P2 and if we close off hole 2 we would get P1. As we could guess, the sum of P1 and P2 should equal the same probability curve as obtained in the bullet experiment. It does not. However, the square of the sum of the complex numbers 1 and 2 does create such a probability curve and the squares of the individual complex numbers also equal their respective, isolated, probability curves. What we can conclude is that electrons, and therefore also photons and other particles, sometimes behave as a wave and sometimes as particles. 3.3.2 Dirac's notation One of the things we discovered in the above, is that, the probability that a particle will arrive at x, when let out at the source s, can be represented quantitatively by the absolute square of a complex number called a probability amplitude30. This is also called the first general principle of QM. The second general principle of QM simply states that, when a particle can reach a given state by two possible routes, the total amplitude for the
29 http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node68.html 30 The Feynman lectures on physics Vol 3. Chapter 3, page 2.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

15 of 29

process is the sum of the amplitudes for the two routes considered separately31 which we also discovered in the above. In QM, a common practice used to represent these principles is what is called the Dirac notation. Dirac notation is also known as Bracket notation as it consists of a left 'Bra', < |, giving the final condition of a probability amplitude, and a 'Ket', giving the starting condition of a probability amplitude. Using this Dirac notation we are able to simplistically write up the general principles as the following:

<x|s> <x|s>both holes open = <x|s>through hole 1 + <x|s>through hole 2

(3) (4)

If we consider that the process with which the electron moves through a hole is a two-part movement we can rewrite the notation for the second general principle to include which hole the electron has passed through:

<x|s>both holes open = <x|1><1|s> + <x|2><2|s>

(5)

Because of what we discovered for the probability curve P 1 2 in figure D, we can state the probability of the electron passing through one of the holes and towards the screen as32:

P1 2 = |1 + 2|2 = |<x|1><1|s> + <x|2><2|s>|2

(6)

Though, it must be said, this only occurs if we do not observe the electron itself. This is because of the interference of the wave nature of the particles. If we were to observe the electron as a particle then the interference pattern would cease and we would
31 The Feynman lectures on physics Vol 3. Chapter 3, page 3. 32 Kvantemekanik, Tom Andersen. p. 6

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

16 of 29

not get the same type of probability curve as the one in figure D. This is is a consequence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. 3.3.3 Heisenberg's uncertainty principle These types of experiments, were one to attempt them, would also be governed by another part of the uncertainty principle. As stated earlier, Heisenberg formulated a principle expressing that an observation on a system, impacts the system. This impact also seeks to verify the existence of a system as a lack of observation leads to an indefinite system which is therefore irrelevant33. Imagine we wanted to observe an electron's position. We would use a photon with a very high momentum as it gives the photon a very short wavelength. This way, we can measure the position of the electron, at impact, but it's momentum will be highly uncertain because of the momentum of the photon. This is formulated mathematically as:

p x with =

h 2

(7)

Where h is again Planck's constant. This is a statement which says that the product of the uncertainties in the two conjugate parameters must always be greater than or equal to some small measure of the effect of measurement34. It turns out that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle also applies to the energy and time of a system.

E t

(8)

Heisenberg, through other work, also managed to represent observations on a quantum system mathematically leading to
33 The ideas of particle physics. p. 20 34 The ideas of particle physics. p. 20

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

17 of 29

results that were the same as the wave mechanics presented by Erwin Schrdinger. 4.0 SCHRDINGER'S EQUATION Schrdinger formulated an equation to describe the wave mechanics of matter. Schrdinger used a wavefunction, , to describe how a particle's wavefunction evolves in space and time under a specific set of circumstances35. 4.1 The equation Schrdinger's equation is a linear partial differential equation which is the QM equivalent of Newton's laws. It incorporates the time and space that an electron moves in and is actually a deterministic equation as we are able to predict its quantum state 36. This is also a theory in which the electron inhabits continual states. This, argued Bohr, is not possible as the electron can only assume discrete energy values, leading to discontinuity. We shall therefore solve the equation for a one-dimensional box of sorts popularly called the, 'infinity square well', in order to prove or disprove Bohr's notion. 4.2 The 'infinite square well'37 We must first introduce the equation as Schrdinger left it, the timedependent, three-dimensional, Schrdinger equation:

2 2 (r ,t )= (r ,t)+V (r ,t ) ( r ,t ) t 2m

(9)

Where m is mass, V is the potential energy of the particle, 2 is the Laplacean (a differential operator to take the place of the threedimensional coordinates), and of course is the wavefunction. For the 'infinite square well' example we will only need a simplified, one35 The ideas of particle physics. p. 19 36 On Determinism, Sean Carroll. 37 Quantum mechanics: infinite square well (part I)

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

18 of 29

dimensional and time-independent version of the Schrdinger equation: 2 2 =V 2 m x2 (10)

Before we begin, we will create a sketch of what we intend to find out, see figure E. In the sketch we have shown our two limits, 0 and a. We have also shown that the potential, V, has no upper limit at the limits, therefore the particle cannot penetrate the walls. The particle is, however, free to move inside the well. That is to say, the sum of the probabilities of finding the particle inside the well is 1, definite, and outside the box 0. Now, what we can choose to do is, substitute parts of (10) so that we get a simple differential equation.

2 mV 2 2 =k 2 when k = 2 2 x

(11)

We can now solve this equation and get the following function for :

(x )= Acos kx+B sin kx

(12)

Where A and B are constants. We can now look back at figure E and see that:

(0)=0 and (a )=0 If we try to use some of this information in (12) we find that:

(13)

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

19 of 29

 (0)= A cos 0+ Bsin 0 (0)= A(1)+B(0) A=0 We can now use (a )=0 and A=0 in (12):

(14) (15) (16)

(a )=B sin ka=0

(17)

Which means that either B = 0 or ka = n, where n is any whole integer, as we know from the unit circle that any whole integer multiplied by is equal to 0 when coupled with sinus. If we were to take B = 0, then the differential equation would always be 0 which means that the wavefunction would always be zero. As this would not satisfy our condition that the probability inside the well should be equal to 1, we will need to consider the alternative our only viable option. We can now find the energy values of the system using the formula which can be used to equate the different energy values for the different values of n:

2 As k =

2 mV 2 k 2 then V = 2 2m
2 2 2

(18) n a (19)

Which means that V =

n 2 2 ma

because we found that k =

We will not continue further as we have found what we need in order to complete our picture of QM. However, it is possible to find a value for B so that it is possible to find the complete wavefunction and thereafter its probability. 4.2.1 The quantization of energy (n = 3, 2, 1, 0) We can now attempt to use our findings to calculate actual values for the potential energy, V, in an electron. We will only attempt it The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics 20 of 29

for the first four values of n, taken in a reverse order. First we need to define our variables for an electron; it has a mass (m) 9.10953 10-31 kg 38 and we will set our limit to 3 10-10 meters for a. If n = 3 then:

V=

2 n 2 2 (1.054591034)2 32 2 V (3)= 2 ma 2 2( 9.109531031)(31010)2 V (3)=6.024781018 Joule

(20) (21)

If n = 2 then:

2 n 2 2 (1.054591034)2 2 2 2 V= V (2)= 2 ma 2 2(9.109531031 )(31010 )2 V (2)=2.677681018 Joule If n = 1 then:

(22) (23)

V=

2 n 2 2 (1.054591034)2 1 2 2 V (1)= 2 ma 2 2(9.109531031)(31010)2 V (1)=6.69421019 Joule

(24) (25)

If n = 0 then:

V=

2 n 2 2 (1.054591034)2 02 2 V (0)= 2 ma 2 2 (9.109531031)( 31010) 2 V (0)=0 Joule

(26) (27)

What we have discovered here is that the lowest possible value for n must be 1 as 0 cannot be divided. However, as we have said that the potential at the limits is infinite we can also assume that the
38 Elementr Kvantefysik.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

21 of 29

possibility of the electron having infinite potential is possible. This is also the explanation as to why the problem is called the 'infinite square well': the electron can never actually leave the nucleus, as if it were in an infinite well. What we discovered earlier is that n must be a whole integer which means that Bohr was right, the electron can only assume discrete energy values, leading to discontinuity. If we now choose to plot our values into our 'infinite square well' we shall see the effect of our calculations:

Figure F shows the approximate positions of the discrete energy levels that an electron can be at for the different integers of n. Of course, these values are purely theoretical as we can never actually measure the energy levels of electrons with such accuracy given Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. It has, however, helped proved Bohr's theory of quantization.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

22 of 29

5.0 CONCLUSION The invention of the modern approach to science, through rigorous mathematics and experiments, led to classical mechanics which answered many questions and gave a relatively enormous understanding of the universe. Through the impertinence of scientists even more was achieved. The discovery of electro-magnetism paved the road to the discovery of the inner workings of the atom. This, however, led to more questions being raised then answered. Yet again, there was a need for understanding. Only through the hard work of theorists and experimentalists was this finally achieved. Under way, the foundation of mechanics itself was challenged. No longer was determinism the ultimate solution. New methods had to be created in order for understanding to be restored. De Broglie set, in this regard, a continuing trend in motion. From his ideas came a better understanding which enabled Heisenberg to formulate his uncertainties, Schrdinger to create his equation and Dirac to note the system. The quest was not complete. Not even after the realization that a system was quantized; as Bohr had predicted and elaborated. Nonetheless, what can be concluded from our work is that Bohr was right. Electrons orbit the nucleus in integral numbers of de Broglie's wavelength, or in other words, in quantized energy states. This proves that the orbits of electrons are not continuous. We also found that electrons cannot have zero potential but can, on the other hand, have unlimited potential, never really being let go of their orbit around the nucleus. With these realizations it is no surprise that as Bohr defined the orbits as quantized states, the new mechanics came to be known as Quantum Mechanics.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

23 of 29

6.0 RESUM Classical mechanics had maintained a deterministic approach to understanding the universe. Everything could be figured out, everything was specifically designed, everything had a destiny. However, this deterministic utopia of classical mechanics led to the evolution of Bohr's atomic model, further expanding to the discovery of Quantum mechanics. Here was a new way of understanding the universe where everything was indefinite and probabilistic. The universe could no longer be described by classical methods so new methods had to be invented, enter Heisenberg, Schrdinger and Dirac. Through their work, they managed to give us a blueprint of the workings of some of the smallest building blocks of the universe, the electrons. These electrons, Bohr stated, operated in quantized states, as we have shown in our project, which was so accurate that it even lent inspiration to the name, 'Quantum Mechanics'.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

24 of 29

7.0 APPENDIX I. From: Faye, Jan, "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qm-copenhagen/ Bohr's more mature view () on complementarity and the interpretation of quantum mechanics may be summarized in the following points: 1. The interpretation of a physical theory has to rely on an experimental practice. 2. The experimental practice presupposes a certain pre-scientific practice of description, which establishes the norm for experimental measurement apparatus, and consequently what counts as scientific experience. 3. Our pre-scientific practice of understanding our environment is an adaptation to the sense experience of separation, orientation, identification and reidentification over time of physical objects. 4. This pre-scientific experience is grasped in terms of common categories like thing's position and change of position, duration and change of duration, and the relation of cause and effect, terms and principles that are now parts of our common language. 5. These common categories yield the preconditions for objective knowledge, and any description of nature has to use these concepts to be objective. 6. The concepts of classical physics are merely exact specifications of the above categories. 7. The classical conceptsand not classical physics itselfare therefore necessary in any description of physical experience in The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics 25 of 29

order to understand what we are doing and to be able to communicate our results to others, in particular in the description of quantum phenomena as they present themselves in experiments; 8. Planck's empirical discovery of the quantization of action requires a revision of the foundation for the use of classical concepts, because they are not all applicable at the same time. Their use is well defined only if they apply to experimental interactions in which the quantization of action can be regarded as negligible. 9. In experimental cases where the quantization of action plays a significant role, the application of a classical concept does not refer to independent properties of the object; rather the ascription of either kinematic or dynamic properties to the object as it exists independently of a specific experimental interaction is ill-defined. 10. The quantization of action demands a limitation of the use of classical concepts so that these concepts apply only to a phenomenon, which Bohr understood as the macroscopic manifestation of a measurement on the object, i.e. the uncontrollable interaction between the object and the apparatus. 11. The quantum mechanical description of the object differs from the classical description of the measuring apparatus, and this requires that the object and the measuring device should be separated in the description, but the line of separation is not the one between macroscopic instruments and microscopic objects. It has been argued in detail (Howard 1994) that Bohr pointed out that parts of the measuring device may sometimes be treated as parts of the object in the quantum mechanical description. The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics 26 of 29

12. The quantum mechanical formalism does not provide physicists with a pictorial representation: the -function does not, as Schrdinger had hoped, represent a new kind of reality. Instead, as Born suggested, the square of the absolute value of the -function expresses a probability amplitude for the outcome of a measurement. Due to the fact that the wave equation involves an imaginary quantity this equation can have only a symbolic character, but the formalism may be used to predict the outcome of a measurement that establishes the conditions under which concepts like position, momentum, time and energy apply to the phenomena. 13. The ascription of these classical concepts to the phenomena of measurements rely on the experimental context of the phenomena, so that the entire setup provides us with the defining conditions for the application of kinematic and dynamic concepts in the domain of quantum physics. 14. Such phenomena are complementary in the sense that their manifestations depend on mutually exclusive measurements, but that the information gained through these various experiments exhausts all possible objective knowledge of the object.

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

27 of 29

8.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 8.1 Books 1. Hawking Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. New York: Random House, 2010. 2. Singh, Simon. Fermats Store Stning. Trans. Jan Teuber. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1997. 3. Hermanns, William. Einstein and the Poet. N.p.: Branden Books, 1983. 4. Stewart, Ian. Taming the Infinite: The Story of Mathematics. London: Quercus, 2008. 5. Elvekjr, Finn, and Brge Degn Nielsen. Fysikkens Verden 3. Kbenhavn: Gjellerup & Gad, 1990. 6. Hansen, William W., and Henrik Parbo. Elementr Kvantemekanik. Denmark: Systime, 1981. 7. Coughlan, G. D., and J. E. Dodd. The Ideas of Particle Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge university press, 1991. 8. du Sautoy, Marcus. The Number Mysteries. United Kingdom: Fourth Estate, 2010. 9. Laplace, Pierre Simon. A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities. Trans. into English from the original French 6th ed. by Truscott, F.W. and F. L. Emory. New York: Dover Publications 1951. 10. Andersen, Tom. Kvantemekanik. 11. Feynman, Richard P., Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands. The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume III. United States of America: Cambridge Institute of Technology, 1966. 8.2 Videos 1. jrgoldma. Quantum Mechanics: Infinite Square Well (part I). <http://youtu.be/B7vV0PH4Qhg> 2. jrgoldma. Quantum Mechanics: Infinite Square Well (part 2). The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics 28 of 29

<http://youtu.be/9UwsuAPTfoM> 3. Binney, Professor J.J.. 001 Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, Probability Amplitudes and Quantum States. University of Oxford. 11 November 2009. <http://youtu.be/AufmV0P6mA0> 4. Binney, Professor J.J.. Dirac Notation and the Energy Representation. University of Oxford. 12 November 2009. <http://youtu.be/aoaR0BsBR2U> 8.3 Websites 1. Carroll, Sean. On Determinism. Discover Magazine. 5 December 2011. <http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/12/0 5/on-determinism/> 2. Faye, Jan. "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.). <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/qmcopenhagen/> 3. Wikipedia. Copenhagen Interpretation. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation> 4. Branson. Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III Chapter 1. 22 December 2012. <http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/node68 .html> 5. Banach, David. Quantum Behaviour: from Richard Feynman's Lectures on Physics. David Banach's Course Server. <http://dbanach.com/feyn1.htm> 6. Cal Poly Ponoma. Bubble Chamber Picture. <http://www.csupomona.edu/~pbsiegel/phy303/ch9.html>

The Foundation of Quantum Mechanics

29 of 29