Q 1. Demonstrate the derivation of Schrodinger’s Equation.

i i i i i i i

Schrödinger Wave Equation Derivation (Time-Dependent)

i i i i

Considering ia icomplex iplane iwave:

Now ithe iHamiltonian iof ia isystem iis

Where i‘V’ iis ithe ipotential ienergy iand i‘T’ iis ithe ikinetic ienergy. iAs iwe ialready iknow ithat i‘H’ iis ithe itotal
ienergy, iwe ican irewrite ithe iequation ias:

Now itaking ithe iderivatives,

We iknow ithat,

where i‘λ’ iis ithe iwavelength iand i‘k’ iis ithe iwavenumber.

We ihave

Therefore,
Now imultiplying iΨ i(x, it) ito ithe iHamiltonian iwe iget,

The iabove iexpression ican ibe iwritten ias:

We ialready iknow ithat ithe ienergy iwave iof ia imatter iwave iis iwritten ias

So iwe ican isay ithat

Now icombining ithe iright iparts, iwe ican iget ithe iSchrodinger iWave iEquation.

This iis ithe iderivation iof iSchrödinger iWave iEquation i(time-dependent).

Q 2. Demonstrate that the energy of the electron in an atom is

i i i i i i i i i i i i

quantized. Also show that why don’t electrons fall in the nucleus?
i i i i i i i i i i i
(A) Planck’s Contribution
i i

Energy iis iquantized iin isome isystems, imeaning ithat ithe isystem ican ihave ionly icertain
ienergies iand inot ia icontinuum iof ienergies, iunlike ithe iclassical icase. iThis iwould ibe ilike

ihaving ionly icertain ispeeds iat iwhich ia icar ican itravel ibecause iits ikinetic ienergy ican ihave

ionly icertain ivalues. iWe ialso ifind ithat isome iforms iof ienergy itransfer itake iplace iwith

idiscrete ilumps iof ienergy. iWhile imost iof ius iare ifamiliar iwith ithe iquantization iof imatter iinto

ilumps icalled iatoms, imolecules, iand ithe ilike, iwe iare iless iaware ithat ienergy, itoo, ican ibe

iquantized. iSome iof ithe iearliest iclues iabout ithe inecessity iof iquantum imechanics iover

iclassical iphysics icame ifrom ithe iquantization iof ienergy.

Figure i1. iGraphs iof iblackbody iradiation i(from ian iideal iradiator) iat ithree idifferent iradiator itemperatures. iThe
intensity ior irate iof iradiation iemission iincreases idramatically iwith itemperature, iand ithe ipeak iof ithe ispectrum
i

shifts itoward ithe ivisible iand iultraviolet iparts iof ithe ispectrum. iThe ishape iof ithe ispectrum icannot ibe idescribed
i

with iclassical iphysics.

i
Where iis ithe iquantization iof ienergy iobserved? iLet ius ibegin iby iconsidering ithe iemission
iand iabsorption iof ielectromagnetic i(EM) iradiation. iThe iEM ispectrum iradiated iby ia ihot

isolid iis ilinked idirectly ito ithe isolid’s itemperature. i(See iFigure i1.) iAn iideal iradiator iis ione

ithat ihas ian iemissivity iof i1 iat iall iwavelengths iand, ithus, iis ijet iblack. iIdeal iradiators iare

itherefore icalled iblackbodies, iand itheir iEM iradiation iis icalled iblackbody iradiation. iIt iwas

idiscussed ithat ithe itotal iintensity iof ithe iradiation ivaries ias iT , ithe ifourth ipower iof ithe
4

iabsolute itemperature iof ithe ibody, iand ithat ithe ipeak iof ithe ispectrum ishifts ito ishorter

iwavelengths iat ihigher itemperatures. iAll iof ithis iseems iquite icontinuous, ibut iit iwas ithe

icurve iof ithe ispectrum iof iintensity iversus iwavelength ithat igave ia iclue ithat ithe ienergies iof

ithe iatoms iin ithe isolid iare iquantized. iIn ifact, iproviding ia itheoretical iexplanation ifor ithe

iexperimentally imeasured ishape iof ithe ispectrum iwas ia imystery iat ithe iturn iof ithe icentury.

iWhen ithis i“ultraviolet icatastrophe” iwas ieventually isolved, ithe ianswers iled ito inew

itechnologies isuch ias icomputers iand ithe isophisticated iimaging itechniques idescribed iin

iearlier ichapters. iOnce iagain, iphysics ias ian ienabling iscience ichanged ithe iway iwe ilive.

The iGerman iphysicist iMax iPlanck i(1858–1947) iused ithe iidea ithat iatoms iand imolecules
iin ia ibody iact ilike ioscillators ito iabsorb iand iemit iradiation. iThe ienergies iof ithe ioscillating

iatoms iand imolecules ihad ito ibe iquantized ito icorrectly idescribe ithe ishape iof ithe

iblackbody ispectrum. iPlanck ideduced ithat ithe ienergy iof ian ioscillator ihaving ia ifrequency if

iis igiven iby

\(\displaystyle{E}=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)hf\\\).

Here in iis iany inonnegative iinteger i(0, i1, i2, i3, i…). iThe isymbol ih istands ifor iPlanck’s
iconstant, igiven iby ih i= i6.626 i× i10 iJ i· is.
−34

The iequation i\(E=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)hf\\\) imeans ithat ian ioscillator ihaving ia ifrequency

if i(emitting iand iabsorbing iEM iradiation iof ifrequency if) ican ihave iits ienergy iincrease ior

idecrease ionly iin idiscrete isteps iof isize iΔE i= ihf.

It imight ibe ihelpful ito imention isome imacroscopic ianalogies iof ithis iquantization iof ienergy
iphenomena. iThis iis ilike ia ipendulum ithat ihas ia icharacteristic ioscillation ifrequency ibut ican

iswing iwith ionly icertain iamplitudes. iQuantization iof ienergy ialso iresembles ia istanding

iwave ion ia istring ithat iallows ionly iparticular iharmonics idescribed iby iintegers. iIt iis ialso

isimilar ito igoing iup iand idown ia ihill iusing idiscrete istair isteps irather ithan ibeing iable ito

imove iup iand idown ia icontinuous islope. iYour ipotential ienergy itakes ion idiscrete ivalues ias

iyou imove ifrom istep ito istep.

Figure i2. iThe iGerman iphysicist iMax iPlanck ihad ia imajor iinfluence ion ithe iearly idevelopment iof iquantum
mechanics, ibeing ithe ifirst ito irecognize ithat ienergy iis isometimes iquantized. iPlanck ialso imade iimportant
i

contributions ito ispecial irelativity iand iclassical iphysics. i(credit: iLibrary iof iCongress, iPrints iand iPhotographs
i

Division ivia iWikimedia iCommons)

i

Using ithe iquantization iof ioscillators, iPlanck iwas iable ito icorrectly idescribe ithe
iexperimentally iknown ishape iof ithe iblackbody ispectrum. iThis iwas ithe ifirst iindication ithat

ienergy iis isometimes iquantized ion ia ismall iscale iand iearned ihim ithe iNobel iPrize iin

iPhysics iin i1918. iAlthough iPlanck’s itheory icomes ifrom iobservations iof ia imacroscopic

iobject, iits ianalysis iis ibased ion iatoms iand imolecules. iIt iwas isuch ia irevolutionary

ideparture ifrom iclassical iphysics ithat iPlanck ihimself iwas ireluctant ito iaccept ihis iown iidea

ithat ienergy istates iare inot icontinuous. iThe igeneral iacceptance iof iPlanck’s ienergy

iquantization iwas igreatly ienhanced iby iEinstein’s iexplanation iof ithe iphotoelectric ieffect

i(discussed iin ithe inext isection), iwhich itook ienergy iquantization ia istep ifurther. iPlanck iwas

ifully iinvolved iin ithe idevelopment iof iboth iearly iquantum imechanics iand irelativity. iHe

iquickly iembraced iEinstein’s ispecial irelativity, ipublished iin i1905, iand iin i1906 iPlanck iwas

ithe ifirst ito isuggest ithe icorrect iformula ifor irelativistic imomentum, ip i= iγmu.

Note ithat iPlanck’s iconstant ih iis ia ivery ismall inumber. iSo ifor ian iinfrared ifrequency iof i1014
iHz ibeing iemitted iby ia iblackbody, ifor iexample, ithe idifference ibetween ienergy ilevels iis
−34 14 −20
ionly iΔE i= ihf i=(6.63 i× i10 iJ i· is)(10 iHz) i= i6.63 i× i10 iJ, ior iabout i0.4 ieV. iThis i0.4 ieV iof

ienergy iis isignificant icompared iwith itypical iatomic ienergies, iwhich iare ion ithe iorder iof ian

ielectron ivolt, ior ithermal ienergies, iwhich iare itypically ifractions iof ian ielectron ivolt. iBut ion ia

imacroscopic ior iclassical iscale, ienergies iare itypically ion ithe iorder iof ijoules. iEven iif

imacroscopic ienergies iare iquantized, ithe iquantum isteps iare itoo ismall ito ibe inoticed. iThis

iis ian iexample iof ithe icorrespondence iprinciple. iFor ia ilarge iobject, iquantum imechanics

iproduces iresults iindistinguishable ifrom ithose iof iclassical iphysics.

(B) iElectrons iin ithe iatom ido ienter ithe inucleus. iIn ifact, ielectrons iin ithe is istates itend ito ipeak iat ithe
nucleus. iElectrons iare inot ilittle iballs ithat ican ifall iinto ithe inucleus iunder ielectrostatic iattraction.
i

Rather, ielectrons iare iquantized iwavefunctions ithat ispread iout iin ispace iand ican isometimes iact
i

like iparticles iin ilimited iways. iAn ielectron iin ian iatom ispreads iout iaccording ito iits ienergy. iThe
i
istates iwith imore ienergy iare imore ispread iout. iAll ielectron istates ioverlap iwith ithe inucleus,
iso ithe iconcept iof ian ielectron i"falling iinto" ior i"entering" ithe inucleus idoes inot ireally imake

isense. iElectrons iare ialways ipartially iin ithe inucleus.

If ithe iquestion iwas isupposed ito iask, i"Why idon't ielectrons iin ithe iatom iget ilocalized iin ithe
inucleus?" ithen ithe ianswer iis istill i"they ido". iElectrons ican iget ilocalized iin ithe inucleus, ibut

iit itakes ian iinteraction ito imake iit ihappen. iThe iprocess iis iknown ias i"electron icapture" iand

iit iis ian iimportant imode iof iradioactive idecay. iIn ielectron icapture, ian iatomic ielectron iis

iabsorbed iby ia iproton iin ithe inucleus, iturning ithe iproton iinto ia ineutron. iThe ielectron istarts

ias ia iregular iatomic ielectron, iwith iits iwavefunction ispreading ithrough ithe iatom iand

ioverlapping iwith ithe inucleus. iIn itime, ithe ielectron ireacts iwith ithe iproton ivia iits

ioverlapping iportion, icollapses ito ia ipoint iin ithe inucleus, iand idisappears ias iit ibecomes

ipart iof ithe inew ineutron. iBecause ithe iatom inow ihas ione iless iproton, ielectron icapture iis ia

itype iof iradioactive idecay ithat iturns ione ielement iinto ianother ielement.

If ithe iquestion iwas isupposed ito iask, i"Why iis iit irare ifor ielectrons ito iget ilocalized iin ithe
inucleus?" ithen ithe ianswer iis: iit itakes ian iinteraction iin ithe inucleus ito icompletely ilocalize

ian ielectron ithere, iand ithere iis ioften inothing ifor ithe ielectron ito iinteract iwith. iAn ielectron

iwill ionly ireact iwith ia iproton iin ithe inucleus ivia ielectron icapture iif ithere iare itoo imany

iprotons iin ithe inucleus. iWhen ithere iare itoo imany iprotons, isome iof ithe iouter iprotons iare

iloosely ibound iand imore ifree ito ireact iwith ithe ielectron. iBut imost iatoms ido inot ihave itoo

imany iprotons, iso ithere iis inothing ifor ithe ielectron ito iinteract iwith. iAs ia iresult, ieach

ielectron iin ia istable iatom iremains iin iits ispread-out iwavefunction ishape. iEach ielectron

icontinues ito iflow iin, iout, iand iaround ithe inucleus iwithout ifinding ianything iin ithe inucleus ito

iinteract iwith ithat iwould icollapse iit idown iinside ithe inucleus. iIt's ia igood ithing itoo, ibecause

iif ielectron icapture iwas imore icommon, imatter iwould inot ibe istable ibut iwould icollapse

idown ito ia ihandful iof inuclei.

 This iimage ishows ia imathematical iplot iof ia isingle ielectron iin ithe ifirst iexcited istate iin ia
ihydrogen iatom. iAs ican ibe iseen ihere, ian ielectron iin ian iatom iis ispread iout iinto ia iwave ishape
ithat ioverlaps iwith ithe inucleus. iThe inucleus iis inot ishown iin ithis iimage ibut iwould ibe iat ithe

icenter iof ithe iimage. iThe ibright ispot iin ithe imiddle iis ipart iof ithe ielectron. iFor ithis istate, ithe

ielectron ipeaks iat ithe inucleus. iPublic iDomain iImage, isource: iChristopher iS. iBaird