CHAPTER 5

Wave Properties of Matter and Quantum Mechanics I

5.1 X-Ray Scattering

5.2 De Broglie Waves
5.3 Electron Scattering
5.4 Wave Motion
5.6 Uncertainty Principle
5.8 Particle in a Box
5.7 Probability, Wave Functions, and
the Copenhagen Interpretation
5.5 Waves or Particles? Louis de Broglie
(1892-1987)

I thus arrived at the overall concept which guided my studies: for both matter
and radiations, light in particular, it is necessary to introduce the corpuscle
concept and the wave concept at the same time.
- Louis de Broglie, 1929

Prof. Rick Trebino, Georgia Tech, www.frog.gatech.edu

5.1: X-Ray Scattering (Diffraction)
In 1912, Max von Laue suggested that, since x-rays were a form of
electromagnetic radiation, they should diffract.
Crystals have interatomic separations similar to x-ray wavelengths and
so act as three-dimensional diffraction gratings, diffracting x-rays.
Bragg’s Law
William Lawrence Bragg
showed that x-ray diffraction
acted like reflection from
planes of atoms in the crystal.
1) The angle of incidence must equal the
There are two conditions for angle of reflection.
constructive interference of 2) The difference in path lengths must be
the scattered x-rays: an integral number of wavelengths.

Bragg’s Law: nλ = 2d sinθ (n = integer)

The Bragg Spectrometer
A Bragg spectrometer diffracts x-rays
from a crystal.
It measures the intensity of the diffracted
beam vs. angle.
When x-rays pass through a powdered
crystal, the dots become a series of rings.
5.2: De Broglie Waves If a light-wave could also act like
a particle, why shouldn’t matter-
particles also act like waves?
In his thesis in 1923, Prince Louis V.
de Broglie suggested that mass
particles should have wave properties
similar to electromagnetic radiation.
The energy can be written as:



hν = pc ⇒ hν = pλν

The wavelength of a matter wave is called

the de Broglie wavelength:

λ =h/ p
Louis V. de Broglie

So do experiments confirm this idea? (1892-1987)
5.3: Electron Scattering In 1925, Davisson and Germer
observed electrons diffracting
(much like x-rays) from nickel
crystals.

George P. Thomson (1892–1975), son of

J. J. Thomson, saw electron diffraction
from celluloid, gold, aluminum, and
platinum.
A randomly oriented polycrystalline sample
of SnO2 produces rings.
 Beautiful Proof That Electrons are Waves:
Imaging Using Them

Imaging using light 


waves is well known.
But optical microscopes’
resolution is only 

λ/2 ~ 200 nm.

Electrons have much

smaller wavelengths, 

and electron microscopes
can achieve resolutions
of ~0.05 nm.

Electron micrograph of pollen grains with ~0.1 nm resolution

Recall that waves diffract through slits.
Fraunhofer diffraction patterns

One slit

Two slits

In 1803, Thomas Young saw the two-slit pattern for light, confirming the wave
nature of light. But particles are also waves. So they should exhibit similar
patterns when passing through slits, especially pairs of slits.
Electron Double-Slit Experiment

C. Jönsson of Tübingen,
Germany, succeeded in 1961 in
showing double-slit interference
effects for electrons by
constructing very narrow slits
and using relatively large
distances between the slits and
the observation screen.
This experiment demonstrated
that precisely the same
behavior occurs for both light
(waves) and electrons
(particles).
Which slit does an
electron go through?
Shine light on the double slit and observe with a microscope.
This should tell us which slit the electron went through.

The photon momentum: h h Need λph < d (the slit

p ph = > separation) to distinguish
λ ph d the slits.

The electron momentum: h h Diffraction is significant only when

pel = ≤ the slit separation d ≤ λel the
λel d wavelength of the e wave.

So the photon momentum pph > h/d ≥ pel . It’s enough to strongly modify the
momentum of the electron, strongly deflecting it!

The attempt to identify which slit the electron passes through changes the
diffraction pattern, washing out the fringes!

So we can’t tell which slit the electron went through.

Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x
Which slit does a photon go through?
Dimming the light in Young’s two-slit experiment results in single
photons at the screen. Since photons are particles, each can only go
through one slit. So, at such low intensities, their distribution should
become the single-slit pattern. x

Each photon actually

goes through both
slits!
Two-Slit Experiment with
Single Electrons

The same is true for electrons!

 Wave-particle-duality solution
It’s very confusing that everything is both a particle and a wave.
The wave-particle duality is a little less confusing if we think in terms of:
Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity: It’s not possible to describe 

physical observables simultaneously in terms of both particles and 

waves.


When we’re making a measurement, use the particle description, but
when we’re not, use the wave description.
When we’re looking, fundamental quantities are particles; when
we’re not, they’re waves.
In the two-slit problem, the electrons propagate as waves but are
detected as particles.
 Wave-particle-duality solution
„There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave
in the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in
exactly the same way“
Richard Feynman

„The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and

your feeling of what reality 'ought to be“
Richard Feynman
 Wave-particle-duality solution
„There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave
in the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in
exactly the same way“
Richard Feynman

„The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and

your feeling of what reality 'ought to be“
Richard Feynman
 Wave-particle-duality solution

https://hipwallpaper.com/view/QS5ULO
*

„There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave

in the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in
exactly the same way“
Thomson* Hertz* Röntgen*
Richard Feynman
* *

Blackett*

Klemperer ??? & Anderson*
Occhialini

„The 'paradox' is only a conflict between reality and

your feeling of what reality 'ought to be“
*Nobel
Richard Feynman Laureates
5.6: Uncertainty Principle: In the Uncertainty
Principle, we’ll
Energy Uncertainty henceforth use a width
definition that yields
an uncertainty product
The energy uncertainty of a wave packet is: of ½.

Δω
ΔE = h Δν = h = ! Δω
2π
Combined with the angular frequency 

relation we derived earlier:

ΔE 1
Δω Δt = Δt =
h 2

Energy-Time Uncertainty Principle:

ΔE Δt ≥ h / 2 Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976)

Momentum Uncertainty Principle
The same mathematics relates x and k: Δk Δx ≥ ½

So it’s also impossible to measure simultaneously the

precise values of k and x for a wave.

Now the momentum can be written in terms of k:

h h
p= = = (h / 2π )k ⇒ p = hk
λ 2π / k
So the uncertainty in momentum is: Δp = h Δk
But multiplying Δk Δx ≥ ½ by ħ: h
h Δk Δx ≥
2
And we have Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: !
Δpx Δx ≥
2
How to think about Uncertainty

The act of making one measurement perturbs the other.

Precisely measuring the time disturbs the energy.

Precisely measuring the position disturbs the momentum.

The Heisenberg-mobile. The problem was that when you looked

at the speedometer you got lost.
How to think about Uncertainty

The act of making one measurement perturbs the other.

Precisely measuring the time disturbs the energy.

Precisely measuring the position disturbs the momentum.

The Heisenberg-mobile. The problem was that when you looked

at the speedometer you got lost.
Kinetic Energy Minimum
Since we’re always uncertain as to the exact position, Δx = ℓ ,
of a particle, for example, an electron somewhere inside an
atom, the particle can’t have zero kinetic energy:

!/2 !
Δp ≥ =
Δx 2ℓ
The average of a positive quantity must always equal or exceed its
uncertainty:
!/2 !
pave ≥ Δp ≥ =
Δx 2ℓ
so:
2 2 2
pave (Δp ) !
K ave = ≥ ≥ 2
2m 2m 8mℓ
5.4: Wave Motion
De Broglie matter waves should be described in a manner similar to light
waves. The matter wave should also be a solution to a wave equation.

And it will often have a solution like:

Ψ(x,t) = A exp[i(kx – ωt – θ)]

x
Define the wave number k
and the angular frequency ω 2π 2π
k= and ω=
as usual: λ T
5.7: Probability, Wave Functions, and
the Copenhagen Interpretation
Okay, if particles are also waves, what’s waving? Probability


The wave function determines the likelihood (or probability) of finding
a particle at a particular position in space at a given time:

2 The probability of the x2

P( x) = Ψ ( x) particle being between x1 2
and x2 is given by:
∫
x1
Ψ ( x) dx

∞
The total probability of finding the particle is 1.
2

∫
−∞
Ψ ( x) dx = 1 Forcing this condition on the wave function is
called normalization.
The Copenhagen Interpretation
1. A system is completely described by a wave function Ψ, which represents an
observer's knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)
2. The description of nature is probabilistic. The probability of an event is the
mag squared of the wave function related to it. (Max Born)
3. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says it’s impossible to know the values
of all of the properties of the system at the same time; properties not known
with precision are described by probabilities.
4. Complementarity Principle: matter exhibits a wave-particle duality. An
experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or wave-like
properties, but not both at the same time. (Bohr)
5. Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and they measure
classical properties such as position and momentum.
6. The correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg: the quantum
mechanical description of large systems should closely approximate the
classical description.
5.8: Particle in a Box
A particle (wave) of mass m is in a one-dimensional
box of width ℓ.
The box puts boundary conditions on the wave. The
wave function must be zero at the walls of the box
and on the outside.
In order for the probability to vanish at the walls, we
must have an integral number of half wavelengths in
the box:
nλ 2ℓ
= ℓ or λn = (n = 1, 2,3,...)
2 n
The energy: 2 2
p
2 h
E = K = mv =
1
2 = 2
2m 2mλ
The possible wavelengths 

are quantized and hence 

so are the energies:
Probability of the particle vs. position
Note that E0 = 0 is not a
possible energy level.

The concept of energy

levels, as first discussed in
the Bohr model, has
surfaced in a natural way
by using waves.

The probability of
observing the particle
between x and x + dx in
each state is:

2
P( x) = Ψ ( x)
Probability of the particle vs. position
Note that E0 = 0 is not a
possible energy level.

The concept of energy

levels, as first discussed in
the Bohr model, has
surfaced in a natural way
by using waves.

The probability of
observing the particle
between x and x + dx in
each state is: http://ldselection.com/tutorial/basics-of-laser-diode/chapter1-basics-of-laser-diode/#1.5.1

2
P( x) = Ψ ( x)
 In our experiment we want to measure the fluorescence produce

Probability of the particle dots,

vs. position
excited by a UV laser at 405nm.
In particular we intend to show that the wavelength of the e
Home / English Posts / Quantum Dots : a True “Particle in a Box” System Quantum Dot : the larger the size, the greater the wavelength
Note that E0 = 0 is not a
possible energy level.
“Quantum Dot” scheme
November 20, 2015 English Posts, Fluorescence, Nanotechnology & Smart Materials, Quantum Physics
14,191 Views The concept of energy
Quantum
levels, as first discussed in Dots Fluorescence experiment
the Bohr model, has In our experiment we want to measure the fluorescence produced from a colloidal solution of quantum
surfaced in a natural waydots, excited by a UV laser at 405nm. Chaos
by using waves. In particular we intend to show that the wavelength of the emission is related to the size of the
Il Caos Deterministico
Quantum Dot : the larger the size, the greater the wavelength of the fluorescent radiation.
Piezoelectricity and Piroelectricity
The probability of
Piezoelettricità e Piroelettricità
observing the particle
between x and x + dx in Rivelatore gamma basato su cristallo CZT

each state is: Cadmium zinc telluride CZT based gamma-ray

http://ldselection.com/tutorial/basics-of-laser-diode/chapter1-basics-of-laser-diode/#1.5.1
detector

Detector Alfa con CSA-SA Micod

2
P( x) = Ψ ( x) Alpha Detector with Micod CSA-SA
A quantum dot (QD) is a crystal of  semiconductor  material whose diameter is on the order of several
Fotodiodo e Scintillatore CsI(Tl) con Micod CSA-
nanometers – a size which results in its free charge carriers experiencing  “quantum confinement”  in all SA
 Bohr’s Quantization Condition revisited
One of Bohr’s assumptions in his hydrogen atom model was that the
angular momentum of the electron in a stationary state is nħ.
This turns out to be equivalent to 

saying that the electron’s orbit 

consists of an integral number 

of electron de Broglie

wavelengths:
nh
L = rp = = nh
2π
Multiplying by 2π/p, we find the
circumference:
electron 

de Broglie
nh wavelength
2π r = = nλ
Circumference p