0

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610121

If this is true, why do resources say that it cannot be derived? If it isn't true, can someone explain where the above preprint is wrong? I believe that my question differ from the below mentioned because I am asking about the flaws in the paper's reasoning, not about the nature of the equation itself.

Jimmy360
  • 3,942
  • 2
    It's typically better to link to the abstract page on arxiv, rather than the pdf link. – Kyle Kanos Mar 30 '15 at 03:38
  • 1
    one needs the definition of "derive" . The paper assumes quantization and imposes it so that the hbar enters the system. It is not a pure mathematical derivation, but a heuristic derivation, using physics input. In any case it was never published in a peer reviewed journal. – anna v Mar 30 '15 at 04:32
  • possible duplicate of Is the Schrödinger equation derived or postulated? – 299792458 Mar 30 '15 at 05:27
  • @TheDarkSide I disagree. This is about the merits or flaws of a paper, while that is about the nature of the equation. – Jimmy360 Mar 30 '15 at 05:28
  • @Jimmy360 - I would advise you to edit your question then. "Why resources say that Schrodinger Equation cannot be derived" is a different thing than "Why does this resource say that Schrodinger Equation cannot be derived". The former would definitely qualify as a duplicate, though the latter may not. Cheers :) – 299792458 Mar 30 '15 at 05:45
  • @annav "in any case it was never published in a peer reviewed journal" agreed; and probably never would. Nevertheless you may expect more from, supposedly, one harvard alumnus in chemistry and one mit alumna in physics. – yuggib Mar 30 '15 at 06:48
  • 1
    "This is about the merits or flaws of a paper"...we don't review papers here. I think it is a sufficient duplicate, since the merit or flaw of the paper lies in whether the Schrödinger equation is derived or not. – ACuriousMind Mar 30 '15 at 13:03

1 Answers1

2

I suspect the preprint is wrong at least in this phrase from the abstract: "We illustrate a simple derivation of the Schrodinger equation, which requires only knowledge of the electromagnetic wave equation and the basics of Einstein's special theory of relativity." They use the following in their derivation: "Recall from Einstein and Compton that the energy of a photon is... and the momentum of a photon is...", where the Planck constant appears (I don't want to rewrite the formulas here). I fail to see how this is part "of the electromagnetic wave equation and the basics of Einstein's special theory of relativity" - those do not contain the Planck constant.

akhmeteli
  • 26,888
  • 2
  • 27
  • 65
  • Yup. And furthermore, after inserting the hbars, they end up with the free klein-gordan equation, and then the free Schrodinger equation. Since electromagnetic fields are not charged it is not clear how their method would ever generate a potential term except by including it by hand... or, well, by making some analogy with spatially dependent index of refraction. – hft Mar 30 '15 at 05:51