Unit -I

Quantum Mechanics: Introduction: Wave particle duality, de Broglie

waves, the experiment of Davisson and Germer, electron diffraction,
physical interpretation of the wave function, properties, the wave packet,
group and phase velocity, the uncertainty principle. The Schrödinger
wave equation (1D), Eigen values and Eigen functions, expectation
values, simple Eigen value problems – solutions of the Schrödinger’s
equations for the free particle, the infinite well, the finite well,
tunneling effect, the scanning electron microscope, the quantum simple
harmonic oscillator (qualitative), zero-point energy.

Chapter
1

______________________________Wave Particle Duality

Introduction :
We have studied that the phenomenon of interference and diffraction
shown by light, prove the wave nature of radiations. The transverse
character of light is shown by the phenomena of polarization and the
electromagnetic wave nature and the transverse character of light waves
is well established by James Clerk Maxwell.
However, the black body radiation, photoelectric effect and Compton
Effect could only be explained on the basis of discrete particle (the
photons) nature of radiations (wave). Also, there are other physical
phenomenon which prove that the radiations show wave as well as
particle nature. Now, it is well proved that radiation has a dual character.
In one situation it behave like a wave whereas in other situation it is
supposed to behave like a particle ( matter).
In 1924, French theoretical physicist, Prince Louis de Broglie, suggested
that if wave can behave like matter, so matter should also possess wave
character because nature loves symmetry. Later, wave character of
electron was experimentally verified by C.J. Davisson and L.H. Germer
in 1927, and also by G.P. Thomson in the same year.

The hypothesis, proposed by Prince Louis de Broglie about the wave

character of matter, is known as wave particle duality.

3.1 de Broglie’s Hypothesis of Matter Waves

Prince Louis de Broglie put forward the following arguments which were
enough to defend his hypothesis of matter wave:
• The whole energy in the universe is only in two forms: either matter
or radiations.
• Nature loves symmetry. So, the dual character of matter should also
exist as in the case of radiation.
On the basis of the above arguments, he gave the following hypothesis,
called as de Broglie hypothesis of matter wave.
According to this, a moving particle has a wave associated with it and the
wavelength of this matter wave, is given by;
h
λ= (1)
mv
Here, m and v are the mass and velocity of the particle respectively. h is
Planck’s constant.
The relation (1) was derived by taking analogy with radiation, but de
Broglie could not provide conclusive experimental evidence for the wave
nature of matter. Later Davisson and Germer gave the evidential proof
about the wave nature of electron which could be considered as the first
experimental proof of matter wave.

3.2 Wavelength and Velocity of de Broglie’s Matter Wave

We have the equation of photonic energy of radiations as;
E = hν = pc = mc 2 (2)
So, hν = pc
hν
Or p=
c
h
p=
λ
h
Or λ= (3)
p
(Here symbols used have their usual meanings)
If p, which is used as the momentum of the photon, is considered the
momentum of a material particle, then the de Broglie wave length of
matter wave should be given as;
h
λ= (4)
p
h
= (5)
mvP
Here, p = mvP is the momentum of the particle and vP is the particle
velocity of the material particle.
For the relativistic case, the wavelength is given as;
v2
h h√1− 2
c
λ= =
mvP m0 vP
Now if vw is the wave velocity of the matter wave associated with the
particle, then using the well-known relation for wave velocity, we have;
vw = νλ (6)
But using relation (2) and analogy of total relativistic energy of the de
Broglie particle mc 2 = hν , we have;
 mc2
ν= (7)
h
Using (5), (6) and (7), we have;
mc2 h
vw =
h mvP
c2
Or vw = (8)
vP
And also

The equation (8) gives the wave velocity of de Broglie’s matter wave.
Here, it can be observed that the wave velocityvw of a wave associated
with a moving particle is always greater than c i.e., velocity of light, as the
particle velocity vP is always less than c. So, the relation (8) contradicts
Einstein’s postulate about velocity of light i.e. velocity of light cannot be
attained. To justify the relation (8), the concept of wave-packet came into
picture which was predicted by Schrodinger. According to him, a single
wave associated with a moving de Broglie particle has no physical
significance and there is always a group of waves called wave-packet
associated with a moving particle. So, the wave velocity or phase
velocityvw , associated with a particle does not have any meaning and it
does not matter whether it is greater than c or not.
Later, we will show that the velocity of wave-packet called group velocity
is equal to the particle velocity and can be considered as the velocity of
matter wave of the moving particle.

3.3 Predicted Wavelength of a Moving Electron

The theoretically predicted value of the wavelength of a moving electron
can be calculated in the following manner.
Let an electron of mass m and charge e is accelerated by a potential
difference V. If vP be the velocity acquired by the electron, then the
kinetic energy of the electron is given by:
1
K.E = mvp2 = eV
2
So, the de’ Broglie wavelength of moving electron will be given as;
h h
λ= =
mvP 2eV
m√ m
Or
h
λ= (9)
√ 2meV
This formula can also be used to calculate the theoretical value of
wavelength of any charged particle. Particularly for electrons, it comes
out to be;
Putting h = 6.6203× 10−34 Js, m = 9.1× 10−31 Kg and e = 1.6× 10−19 C,
we get:
6.6203×10−34
λ=
√ 2×9.1×10−31 ×1.6×10−19 V
12.27
Or λ= Å (10)
√V
Using equation (10), we can calculate the wavelength of a moving
electron different accelerating potentials.
For example, at 100V, the wavelength of an electron would be;
12.27
λ= = 1.227 Å
√ 100
However, this wavelength is in the range of wavelength of X-Rays, but
these waves are quite different from electromagnetic waves as well as
mechanical waves.

3.4 Relativistic de Broglie Wavelength

As we know, the mass is a variable quantity according to Einstein’s theory
of relativity, so for the particle moving with relativistic velocity, the mass
of the moving particle will be taken as;
m0
m= 2
(11)
√1− v2
c
where m0 is the rest mass of the particle, v is its velocity and c is the
velocity of light.
Applying relativistic equation for kinetic energy K, viz.
K = (m − m0 ) c 2
Also, (m − m0 ) c 2 = eV
eV
Or (m − m0 ) = 2
c
eV eV
Or m = m0 + = m0 (1 + )
c2 m0 c2
eV
Or m1/2 = m0 1/2
(1 + )1/2
m0 c2
Substituting the value of m1/2 in equation (9) above, we get the velocity
of the relativistic electron:
h eV
 = (1 + 2 )−1/2
(12)
√2Vem0 m0 c
h 12.27
Putting  = = Å in (12) we have the expression for the
√2Vem0 √V
wavelength of an electron in relativistic form as;
12.28 eV −1/2
 = (1 + 2) Å (13)
√V m0 c

3.5 Experimental Wavelength of a Moving Electron

Davisson and Germer performed an experiment and calculated the
wavelength of the wave of moving electrons which was very close enough
to the wavelength predicted by de Broglie. At that time it was considered
the first experimental verification of matter wave.
3.5.1 Davisson and Germer’s Experiment: Verification of de Broglie
Hypothesis

Apparatus. The Davisson and Germer apparatus is shown in Fig.3.1. F

is a tungsten filament which emits electrons when it is heated by passing
a current from a low-tension battery B. P is a metal plate having a narrow
hole, S1. It is maintained at a positive voltage V with respect to F so that
the electrons are accelerated by the potential difference and emerge as a
well collimated beam through the hole S1. C is a nickel crystal with its (1
1 1) face normal to the beam of electrons. When the electron beam is
incident on the crystal, electrons are scattered in all directions by the
atoms in the crystal.

Fig. 3.1. Davisson and Germer experimental set-up

AB is the chamber called Faraday Cylinder, in which the electron beam

scattered in a given direction from the nickel crystal is received. The
chamber can be rotated about an axis in the face of C passing through
the point of incidence of the electron beam. The electron current is
measured by means of a sensitive galvanometer G. The front and back
walls of the chamber are insulated from one another and a retarding
potential Vr is applied between them so that only those electrons which
have energy eV can enter the chamber. The apparatus is enclosed in an
evacuated chamber.

Method: A known potential difference is applied between the filament

F and the metal plate P. The chamber AB is set at different angles, and
for each setting of the chamber, the current is noted. The current is
directly proportional to the number of scattered electrons entering the
chamber in 1 sec. Thus, the intensity of the scattered beam is measured
as a function of the angle of scattering. The crystal is held in a fixed
position throughout the measurements. This observation is repeated for
different known potential differences. For each potential difference, the
intensity of the current is plotted against the angle of scattering as shown
in Fig.3.2.

Observation and Calculations

Fig.3.2.
It is seen that the intensity of the scattered beam is maximum at = 50°
when the accelerating voltage V = 54 volts. The plotted curve of the
intensity of the current due to scattered electrons resembles with the
diffraction pattern. Later, it was found that the intensity curve of
scattered electrons is due to Bragg’s diffraction like phenomena of waves
of electrons through the crystal as in Fig.3.3. If it is so, then applying
Bragg’s well-known formula for diffraction, the experimental value for
the wavelength of the electron can be calculated as;
2dsin θ = n (14)
where θ is the angle at which the electrons are incident to the interatomic
planes and d is the perpendicular distance between two adjacent rows of
atoms in (1 1 1) planes of the nickel crystal. In this case it is 0.91Å.

Fig.3.3. Bragg’s diffraction for X-Rays

From the geometry of the crystal as in Fig. 3.4 and using Fig.3.3, we have:
1 1
θ = (180 − ) = (180 − 50) = 650
2 2

Fig. 3.4.
Using Bragg’s diffraction equation for first order for the electron waves,
we have;
 = 2 × 0.91Å sin 650
= 1.65 Å (15)
The theoretical value of wavelength of electron, accelerated by 54V
potential difference, can be calculated by the equation (9) which comes
out to be;
 12.28 12.28 12.28
= = = = 1.67 Å (16)
√V √54 7.348
From (15) and (16) we can see that theoretically calculated value of
wavelength as postulated by de Broglie is nearly equal to the
experimentally calculated value of wavelength. As all the experimental
calculations to find the wavelength, are done according to the Bragg’s
Diffraction equation and also the diffraction is a property of wave so
from here the wave nature of moving electrons is verified. Ultimately, we
can say that the de Broglie’s hypothesis for waves of moving material
particle is experimentally verified from this Davisson and Germer
experiment.

3.6 Concept of a wave-packet

Now it has been proved experimentally that the matter can behave like a
wave. But as we look at the equation (8), it seems that wave velocity
(phase velocity) of the wave associated with the particle exceeds the
velocity of light, so this wave leaves the particle, far behind from the wave
as the particle velocity is very less than this wave velocity of the particle.
Both these statements are not acceptable because, according to the
Einstein’s postulate, the velocity of light cannot be reached and the wave
should be an integral part of the particle i.e. the wave should be intact
with the particles and in any case, wave should not leave the particle. So,
relation (8) cannot be justified in any way as such. To justify this relation,
Schrodinger gave a hypothesis. According to that, there are a number of
waves associated with the de Broglie particle rather than single waves. All
the waves have slightly different velocities/wavelengths from each other.
They all always interfere constructively in a small region of space where
the particle exists and destructively where the particle does not exit.
Wherever the amplitude of the constructive interfering region is higher,
the probability of particle to be there is higher. This implies that a group
of waves making a region of constructive interference are always around
the particle. This group of waves which confines the particle within it, is
called a wave-packet (Fig.3.5). In nutshell, according to Schrödinger, it
may be concluded that there is a wave-packet associated with a moving
de Broglie particle rather than a single wave. Later, it will be proved that
the velocity of this wave-packet called group velocity was found to be
equal to the velocity of the particle and is always less than the velocity of
light. It means the concept of a single wave associated with the de Broglie
particle has no physical significance and so the wave velocity (phase
velocity) of individual wave does not have any meaning. So, the relation
(8) can be justified in a way such that the velocity of this single wave given
by the relation (8), does not have any physical meaning. So, it does not
contradict Einstein’s Postulate about the velocity of light.

Fig.3.5. Wave packet of a de Broglie particle

3.7 Velocity of Matter Wave: Group Velocity
As it has been shown that a single wave associated with a moving particle
has no physical significance and there are a group of waves associated
with the particle, the velocity of wave of a particle will always mean the
velocity of the group of waves. This velocity is called group velocity. It
will also be shown here that this group velocity is always equal to the
velocity of the particle which is confined in the wave-packet of this group
of waves.

3.8 Superposition of a number of waves

To explain the concept of wave packet, let us look at the superposition
of a number of waves. For simplicity, let us take only two waves of slightly
different velocity and different frequencies, given as follows.
Two plane simple harmonic waves of the same amplitude but of slightly
different wavelengths and frequencies, travelling simultaneously in the
positive x-direction in a dispersive medium can be represented by:
y1 = A sin(ωt − kx) (17)
y2 = A sin[ω′ t − k ′ x] (18)
Here ω′ ∽ ω = δω and k′ ∽ k = δk
The resultant instantaneous amplitude y, at time t and at position x is
given by
y = y1 + y2
= A sin(ωt − kx) + A sin[ω′ t − k ′ x]
On simplification we have,
ω′ ∽ ω k′ ∽k ω′ + ω
y = 2A cos [( )t − ( ) x] . sin [( )t −
2 2 2
k′ +k
( ) x] (19)
2
The above equation (19) represents a wave equation whose angular
ω′ + ω k′ +k 2π
frequency is , propagation constant is , wavelength λ = k′ +k
2 2
2
ω′ ∽ ω k′ ∽ k
and the amplitude is 2A cos [( )t − ( ) x].
2 2
So, the velocity of the phase which is known as wave velocity will be;
ω′ + ω
ω′ + ω ω
vw = ′
2
= , (As the wave velocity = )
k +k k′ +k k
2
(20)
Here, it should be noted from equation (19) that the amplitude of the
resultant of two waves having slightly different frequencies and velocities,
is not constant but varies as sinusoidal in nature, given as;
ω′ ∽ ω k′ ∽k
R = 2A cos [( )t − ( ) x] (21)
2 2
The equation (21) gives the variable amplitude which again represents an
ω′ ∽ ω
equation of a progressive wave in which 2A is the amplitude, is
2
k′ ∽k
angular frequency, is the propagation constant and whose velocity
2
can be given as:
ω′ ∽ ω
ω′∽ ω
vg = ′
2
= . (22)
k ∽k k′ ∽k
2
From the above treatment, we can say that equation (19) represents a beat
kind of wave in which the amplitude of the wave is also propagating as a
sinusoidal wave with a velocity (given by (22), different from the phase
velocity (given by (20). As it has already been mentioned that the particle
is intact with this variable amplitude and maximum amplitude indicates
the higher probability of the particle’s presence. So, the velocity of this
amplitude wave given by the relation (22) will be same as that of the
particle. Later, it will be proved mathematically. In the similar way, we
can find the superposition of the number of waves which are associated
with the de Broglie particle. Here we can justify that the amplitude of
constructive interference region is moving with the velocity given by
equation (22) and as according to Schrödinger, the particle is located in
the region of the constructive interference, so the particle is also moving
with the velocity given by (22), called as the group velocity of the wave-
packet. So, for a wave-packet, associated with a de Broglie particle, the
group velocity or the particle velocity can be written as;
ω′ ∽ ω δω
vg = lim ′ = (23)
k′→ k k ∽k δk
And the phase velocity will be given as;
ω′ + ω ω
vw = lim ′ = (24)
k′→ k k + k k
From (23) and (24) it is clear that group velocity and the phase velocity
of the matter wave is entirely different.
3.9 Relation between the Group Velocity (𝐯𝐠 )and the Particle
Velocity (𝐯𝐩 )
We have the well-known energy relation;
1
mvp 2 = E - V,
2
1
where E is the total energy, V is the potential energy and mvp 2 is the
2
kinetic energy of the particle.
So,
2(E−V)
vp = √
m
And the de’ Broglie wavelength of the moving particle is given as;
h h
= =
m vp 2(E−V)
m√
m
Now, as the group velocity is given as;
dω d(2πν) dν
vg = = 2π = 1
dk d( λ ) d(λ)

1 d 1 d m 2(E−V)
Or = ( )= { √ }
vg dν λ dν h m
1 d
= (√2m(hν − V)
h dν
1 1 −12
= . {2m(hν − V)} (2mh)
h 2
m 1
= =
√2m(E−V) vp
1 1
Or =
vg vp
Or vg = vp
Or group velocity of the wave- packet is equal to the particle velocity.
3.10 Relation between the Group Velocity (𝐯𝐠 )and the Phase
Velocity (𝐯𝐰 )
We have the propagation constant
2π 2π
k= Or  = (25)
 k
ω
Phase velocity vw = Or ω = vw k
k
(26)
dω
And the group velocity vg = (27)
dk
d dvw
= (vw k) = vw + k
dk dk
dvw d
= vw + k .
d dk
d d 2π 2π
But = ( )=−
dk dk k k2
dvw 2π
Hence vg = vw + k (− )
d k2
2π dvw
= vw −
k d
dvw
vg = vw −  (28)
d
This equation (28) shows that the group velocity vg is less than wave
velocity (phase velocity) vw , when the medium is dispersive. When the
dv
medium in non-dispersive, w = 0, then vg = vw . Here, it should be
d
noted that the relation (28) is a general relation between the group
velocity of a group of waves and the phase velocity of a single wave. The
relation gives that for a non-dispersive medium, group velocity is equal
to the phase velocity. But here it should be noted that no medium, even
the free space also is a non-dispersive medium for matter waves. So,
group velocity which is equal to the particle velocity, will never be equal
to the wave velocity or phase velocity. This can also be shown as follows.
3.11 Relation between the Phase Velocity and the Wavelength of de
Broglie Wave
The phase velocity of the de Broglie wave associated with a particle in
motion is given by
E
vw =
p
Substituting the expression for the total relativistic energy E, we get
√p2 c2 +m20 c4
vw =
p
pc m20 c2
= √1 +
p p2
m20 c2
= c√ 1 +
p2
Now, substituting p = h/ in this equation we get;
m20 c2
vw = c√ 1 + ( ) 2 (29)
h2
This equation shows that for a particle in motion, the phase velocity of
the associated wave is always greater than c, and even in free space it is a
function of the wavelength. In other words, we can say no medium is
non-dispersive for the matter waves. So, velocity of matter waves is
always less than the velocity of light.
Now we have understood that according to de Broglie, a moving particle
is equivalent to a group of waves called a wave-packet, whose velocity is
equal to the group velocity of the wave-packet. And according to
Schrodinger, the position of the particle within the wave-packet is
uncertain and the probability of finding the particle is higher at the
position where the amplitude of the constructive superposition is higher
in the wave-packet. It means at the quantum level where a particle can be
considered as a wave, there is an uncertainty in the position of the particle
within the wave-packet. So, the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle should
be applied to find the uncertainty in the position as well as in the
momentum of the particle to estimate the other physical parameters of a
particle.

3.12 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle

As discussed in the previous section a wave packet is of finite width. So,
specifying the position of an electron is uncertain within the wave-packet.
Also at the same time, the spectral distribution of the amplitude of a
wave-packet covers a range of wavelengths which by the de Broglie
relationship means that the momentum of an electron will also be
uncertain. Thus, we can say that the position and the momentum of an
electron in general cannot be determined exactly and simultaneously. The
principle states that for a particle of atomic magnitude in motion it is
impossible to determine both the position and the momentum
simultaneously with perfect accuracy. If the momentum of electron is
accurately known then by the de’ Broglie relation, the wavelength of the
associated wave has a unique value, i.e. the associated wave is mono-
chromatic. In such a case, the wave-packet has infinite length and hence
the position of the electron may be anywhere between minus infinity and
plus infinity.
Quantitatively the principle is represented by Heisenberg’s uncertainty
relation explained first by Wermer Heisenberg, in 1927. This term has
been translated as uncertainty, indeterminacy or indefiniteness which is
as follows:
The product of the uncertainty ∆x (or possible error) in the x-coordinate
of a particle in motion at some instant, and the uncertainty ∆px in the x-
component of the momentum at the same instant is of the order of or
greater than ћ.
∆x. ∆px ≳ ћ
The symbol  stands for “is of the order of, or greater than.” In three
dimensions, the uncertainty relations are
∆x. ∆px ≳ ћ
∆y. ∆py ≳ ћ (30)
∆z. ∆pz ≳ ћ (31)
The uncertainty principle can also be expressed in terms of the energy E
of the particle and the time t at which it is measured as
∆E. ∆t ≳ ћ (32)
Where ∆E and ∆t represents uncertainty in the energy and the
uncertainty in the time respectively.

3.13 Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle by Thought-Experiments

Any imaginary experiment not violating the fundamental laws of nature
but cannot be performed practically is a thought experiment.
The Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle can be explained by considering
the following two thought experiments.

3.13.1 Diffraction of Electrons through a slit

Let us consider a parallel beam of electrons which is moving from left to
right in a horizontal direction. For a particular electron, we can locate its
vertical position y above a fixed point. We block the beam by a vertical
screen having a slit of width ∆y comparable to the calculated de Broglie
wavelength of an electron as shown in Fig. 3.6. Then a narrow beam of
electron together with the particular electron passes through the slit.
 Fig. 3.6.
It can be seen that the beam that passes through the slit undergoes
diffraction as a moving electron, is always associated with a wave. A
Fraunhofer diffraction pattern consisting of central wide band with
maximum intensity followed by dark and bright bands of decreasing
intensity on both the sides is observed on the photographic plate P placed
perpendicular to the direction of the incident beam.
For an electron in the incident beam, if p be the momentum of an
electron, then the wavelength of the associated wave is given by
h
= (33)
p
If the first minima is formed at A such that θ be the angle of diffraction
of the electrons in the beam, then

sin θ = (34)
∆y
The diffraction pattern observed concludes that:
1. While passing across the slit each electron gets deflected at the slit but
the place in the slit at which the passage of an electron takes place remains
quite indefinite by the amount ∆y.
Thus, the uncertainty in the y coordinates of an electron which has passed
through the slit = ∆y.
This uncertainty for an electron, which is deflected through θ in the
upward or downward direction keeping in view of Eqn. (34) can be given

as ∆y =
sin θ
(35)
2. The original momentum for an electron p decreases in the horizontal
direction when an electron is deflected at the slit, thereby acquiring
momentum ∆py in the y-direction (the resultant momentum p remaining
constant).
The original momentum of an electron however was accurately known
to be zero in the y-direction. ∆py is thus the uncertainty along the y
component of the momentum.
This uncertainty for the electron which is deflected through θ in the
upward or downward direction, is given by (Fig. 3.6)
∆py = p sin θ
h
or ∆py = sin θ (36)

Hence, the product of the uncertainties in the simultaneous
determination of the y coordinate and y-component of the momentum
of the electron at the instant when it passes through the slit is given by
 h
∆y. ∆py = . sin θ = h (37)
sin θ 
The probability of an electron reaching the centre of the pattern is
greatest. Therefore, Eqn. (37) gives the maximum uncertainty ∆py for a
given value of ∆y. Hence, Eq. (37) is consistent with the uncertainty
relation i.e.
∆y. ∆py ≳ ћ
By decreasing ∆y, we decrease the uncertainty in the determination of the
y-coordinate but from Eq. (34) this leads to an increase in the angle θ
producing a wider diffraction pattern. A wider diffraction pattern implies
larger value of the uncertainty ∆py .

3.13.2 Gamma Ray Microscope- Thought Experiment

Usually called -ray microscope experiment, this thought experiment was
first proposed by Heisenberg.
We know that, the atomic radius of an atom is of the order of 10−11 m.
If suppose we want to locate the position i.e. the x-coordinate of an
electron of an atom by means of a microscope with an uncertainty of
about 10% of the radius of the atom we must employ radiation of
wavelength of the order of 10−12 m i.e. 0.01 Å.This means that the
electron can be illuminated with -rays of wavelength of the order of
0.01Å.
Consider an electron at O (Fig. 3.7) is at rest and we want to locate its
position for which we illuminate on it a narrow beam of monochromatic
-rays proceeding in the x-direction.

Fig. 3.7
If  be the frequency and  the wavelength of the -rays. Then the
momentum of an incident -ray photon in the x-direction is:
hv h
=
c 
The electron can now be visible only when a photon gets scattered by the
electron into the microscope. This causes change in the frequency and
wavelength of the scattered photon resulting in Compton recoil of an
electron due to gain in its momentum.
When an electron is observed in the microscope, let 2α be the angle
subtended at the electron by the diameter AB of the instrument’s
aperture. The scattered photon may enter the microscope along the
surface of the cone whose semi-vertical angle is α, or along the surface
of the cone. Suppose, the photon enters the microscope along OA. Let
 be the frequency and λ′ the wavelength of the scattered photon, the
momentum of the scattered photon along OA is
hv′ h
= ′
c λ
The image of the electron formed by the microscope will be a diffraction
pattern which consists of a central bright disc flanked on both sides by
alternate dark and bright rings. The position of the electron can be
anywhere within the central bright disc, the diameter of this disc thus
gives the uncertainty in the position of the electron If ∆x be the diameter
of the central disc and so will be the uncertainty in the position.
According to Rayleigh’s criterion of resolution, the resolving power of an
optical instrument is the distance between the peak intensity and the first
minimum of the diffraction pattern, and its expression is
λ′
R. P. =
2 sin α
∆x
In this case R. P. =
2
∆x λ′
∴ =
2 2 sin α
λ′
or ∆x = (38)
sin α
This is the expression for the uncertainty in the position.
Let p be the gain of momentum by the electron in the direction of recoil
θ.

Fig. 3.8.

Resolving the momenta along OX (Fig. 3.7), we get;

 hν hν′
= cos(90° − α) + p cos θ
c c
h h
or = sinα + p cosθ
 λ′
h h
Or p cos θ = − sin α
 λ′
(39)
In this equation, p cos θ is the x-component px of the momentum p.
Since, the term h/ on the right hand side of this equation is accurately
known and since the scattered photon can enter the microscope along
any other direction making angle less than α with the axis of the
microscope, the second term on the right hand side of Eq. (38) represents
maximum uncertainty in px . Thus,
h
∆px = ′ sinα (40)
λ
Multiplying Eq. (38) by Eq. (40), we get,
∆x. ∆px = h
Since in this equation the value of ∆px is the maximum, equation is
consistent with the uncertainty relation
∆x. ∆px ≳ ћ (41)
3.14 Principle of Complementarity
In 1928, Bohr introduced the principle of complementarity, according to
which wave and particle properties of electromagnetic radiation and
matter are merely complementary ways of regarding the same
phenomenon. Both the properties are important for providing a
complete explanation of the results of an experiment on an atomic
phenomenon. But because of the principle of uncertainty, it is impossible
to design an experiment which reveals the details of either the wave or
the particle property.
If we try to improve the accuracy of measurement so that both the
properties should be revealed simultaneously, there is an unavoidable
interaction between the measuring apparatus and the quantity to be
measured.
For example, the complementarity principle for particle and wave
characteristics can be very well understood with the two slit diffraction
experiment of electron. If we try to define the exact trajectory (position)
on the screen, the interference pattern disappears.

3.15 Applications of the Uncertainty Principle

3.15.1 Non-existence of Free Electrons in the Nucleus
We know that:
(i) Emission of an electron from radio-active nuclei is at about 4 MeV and
is the maximum possible kinetic energy of an electron.
(ii) The rest mass of the electron, m0 = 9.11 × 10−31 kg, and
(iii) The diameter of the nucleus is ≈ 2 × 10−14 m.
This means that if an electron exists within the diameter of the nucleus,
the maximum uncertainty ∆x in the position of the electron is the same
as the diameter of the nucleus,
i.e. ∆x = 2 × 10−14 m (42)
According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, the product of the
uncertainty ∆x in the position of the electron and the uncertainty ∆px in
the x-component of its momentum is given by
∆x. ∆px ≳ ћ
∴ The uncertainty in the momentum px is
ћ
∆px ≳
∆x
So, the minimum uncertainty in the momentum is given by
ћ
∆px =
∆x
6.63×10−34 6.63×10−20
= =
2π×2×10−14 4π
 = 5.278× 10−21 kg. m/sec.
(43)
It means that if an electron exists in the nucleus, its minimum momentum
must be
pmin = 5.278 × 10−21 kg. m/sec.
Now the total relativistic energy E of a particle is given by
E 2 = p2 c 2 + m20 c 4
For the electron of the minimum momentum, the minimum energy is
given by
2
Emin = p2min c 2 + m20 c 4
= (5.278 × 10−21 × 3 × 108 )2 + (9.11 × 10−31 )2 (3 ×
108 )4
= 5.282 × 9 × 10−26 + 9.112 × 81 × 10−30
= 2.5 × 10−24 + 6.72 × 10−27 J 2
The second term is much smaller than the first. Therefore, it can be
neglected.
Thus, Emin = √2.5 × 10−24
= 1.58 × 10−12 J
1.58×10−12
= eV
1.6×10−19
= 0.9875 × 107
= 9.875 MeV.
Thus, if a free electron exists inside the nucleus, it must have a minimum
energy of about 9.0 MeV. But the maximum kinetic energy which
a β− particle emitted from radioactive nuclei can have is 4 MeV.
Therefore, free electrons cannot be present within nuclei.

3.15.2 Energy of a Particle in a One-Dimensional Box

We can find out the kinetic energy of a particle trapped in one
dimensional box of length l. The maximum uncertainty in the position of
the particle can be given as;
(Δx)max. = l
According to the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we have;
ћ
Δx. Δp ≈ ћ ⇒ ∆p ≈
∆x
Now as (Δx)max. = l, so the minimum momentum of the particle should
be;
ћ
∆p = ,
l
So the kinetic energy of a particle in a box will be
p2 ћ2
T= = ,
2m 2ml2
Or energy of the particle in box will be
h2
E= 2 2 (44)
8π ml
The equation (44) can also be derived with the help Schrodinger equation
for a particle in a box.

3.15.3 Finite width of an Energy Band

Theoretically, it is proved that each energy level can be treated as a
spectral line without any band width considering each energy level having
single value of energy. But in practicality each energy band has few
numbers of energy levels in its band thereby giving a finite width to a
spectral line. This can be proved very easily using Heisenberg’s
Uncertainty principle. According to it, we have;
∆E. ∆t ≳ ћ,
We know that the mean life time of an electron in the excited state is of
the order of ≈ 10−8 sec, therefore the minimum uncertainty in the energy
in any energy level should be;
 ℏ
∆E ≈ ,
∆t
6.623×10−34
Or ∆E ≈
10−8
≈ 6.623 × 10−26 Joules
This is a finite value thus defining a finite band width of the excited
energy levels indicating an impossibility to produce purely
monochromatic radiation. In other words, each electromagnetic
radiation produced has its own finite band rather than being fully
monochromatic