PYL101: Electromagnetic waves and
Quantum Mechanics
Lecture 2
Prof. Sunil Kumar (Department of Physics)
1
Photoelectric effect
Hertz (1887): experiment
• Electrons are ejected from metal surfaces when irradiated with appropriate light
2
Einstein (1905): theoretical interpretation
• Light is made of particles called photon in terms of which the energy is quantized
K h W h( 0 )
1
K mu 2 e(V V0 )
2
h = 6.626 x 10-34 Joules.Sec
3
Compton effect
Compton (1923): experiment
• First direct evidence of particle nature of electromagnetic radiation
• Scattering of X-rays by free electrons
(Classically these should have been same, because X-ray energy is
f i too large and it would have just induced oscillatory motion to the
electron which would then radiate same wavelength)
h
f i (1 cos )
me c
Compton wavelength = 2.426 x 10-12 m
4
h h hc
• Energy and momentum of X-ray photon: E h , p ,
c
• Elastic scattering of X-ray photon from free electron at rest
• Energy and momentum conservation
Linear momentum: pi p f pe (Vector)
pe 2 ( pi p f ) 2 pi 2 p f 2 2 pi p f cos
h2 2
c2
vi v f 2 2vi v f cos
• De Broglie wavelength:
Electron rest mass energy: E0 me c 2 , = h/pe
• Energy-momentum:
Recoiling electron energy: Ee pe 2c 2 (me c 2 ) 2 E = pec
5
Apply energy conservation:
me 2c 4
hvi me c 2 hv f h vi 2 v f 2 2vi v f cos
h2
Simplify this to get
h
f i (1 cos )
me c
Compare Compton scattered wavelength shifts for X-rays (1 nm) and
visible radiation (500 nm) from an electron at rest and a nucleus (M =
104me) at rest.
You should imagine the size differences in the two particles and the two
radiations considered.
In which case the scattering is significant?
6
De Broglie hypothesis of matter waves
Waves: wavelength and wave vector 𝑘 Particles: energy E and momentum 𝑝
• The way radiation has dual wave-particle nature, all material particles
also should display dual wave-particle behavior.
• Each material particle of momentum 𝑝 behaves as a group of matter
waves having wavelengths and wave vector 𝑘
h p
, k
p
Niels Bohr used this in his H-atom model which accurately described the
absorption spectrum and hence the atomic structure.
7
Examples:
• De Broglie wavelength of an electron (mass me = 9.1 x 10-31 kg) moving
with speed u = 106 m/s will be ~0.7 nm. The size of the wave is right in the
atomic scale.
• On the other hand, the de Broglie wavelength of a classical body of mass M
(M = me x 1031 kg) moving with the same speed as above will be ~ 0.7 x 10-
40 m. This is insignificant at the atomic length scale. What does this mean?
8
Davisson Germer experiment
• Electron diffraction from solids (proves wave nature of electrons like X-rays)
Equivalence
with Bragg’s
K = 54 eV
(monoengtc X-ray
e-beam) diffraction
from crystals
Bragg’s law n 2d sin 65 Verify this for constructive interference
Only at f = 50, electron count was maximum, this should correspond to n = 1
Using d = 0.091 nm, 2 d sin 65 2 0.091 0.906 0.165 nm
h
De Broglie wavelength of the electrons at 54 eV, 0.167 nm
2me K
Plane waves i ( k .r t ) i ( p.r Et ) / Dual wave-particle description
(r , t ) Ae Ae at microscopic level
9
Double slit experiments with particles
Waves: Amplitude and phase Particles: quantum (microscopic) or classical
(Amplitude add) (Counts/ticks/intensities add)
We will see that amplitudes add for quantum particles.
1. Two-slit experiment with classical (macroscopic) particles
10
Double slit experiments with particles
2. Two-slit experiment with quantum (microscopic) particles
This is wave-like behavior!
11
Double slit experiments with particles
3. Two-slit experiment with waves
I 1 2 1 2 ( 1* 2 1 2* )
2 2 2
I1 I 2 2 Re( 1* 2 ) I1 I 2 2 I1 I 2 cos
12
Double slit experiments with particles
4. Two-slit experiment with quantum (microscopic) particles
Classical particle-like results when you watch the electrons pass through the slits
13
Conclusions
• Act of measurement disturbs the outcome of an
experiment with microscopic particles.
Quantum mechanical principle:
• measurements interfere with the states of
microscopic objects
• microphysical world is indeterministic
• this led to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle
• These either behave like waves or particles but not
both at once.
• They are neither pure particles nor pure waves
but both (think them as complimentary not
exclusive)
14
Conclusions
• Dual wave-particle behavior at microscopic level is
enough to be described by plane waves, the quantum
mechanical wave function to describe state of a
microscopic system,
(r , t ) Aei ( k .r t ) Aei ( p.r Et ) /
Therefore, principle of linear superposition can be applied
(r , t ) a1 1 (r , t ) a2 2 (r , t ) ...
• Since waves are not localized in space, so a probabilistic
feature has to be associated with the wave function.
(Max Born, 1927)
15
