The formulation is provocative, the question is similar to the question here. There I can follow the question, but not the answers, which for me imply that an electron in a momentum eigenstate does not have a certain energy.

In other words again: in Wikipedia and many textbooks you can find the dispertion relation $$ \omega (k)=\frac{\hbar k^2}{2m} $$ which is a consequence of the Schrödinger equation $$ -{\frac {\hbar ^2}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}\ \psi (r,t)=i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\psi (r,t) $$ for free particles if you set $$ p=\hbar k,\quad E=\hbar \omega $$ On the other hand the relativistic dispersion relation is $$ \omega (k)=\sqrt{ k^2 c^2 + \frac{1}{\hbar^2} m^2 c^4 } $$ The non-relativistic approximation with $ k^2 c^2 \ll \frac{1}{\hbar^2} m^2 c^4 $ then is , because $ \sqrt{1+x} = 1 + \frac{1}{2} x + O(x^2) $ , $$ \omega (k) \simeq \frac{mc^2}{\hbar} + \frac{\hbar k^2}{2m} $$ which differs from the first equation by a term also known as Compton frequency.

So my question is: Is the first equation a wrong approximation? Or a different formulation would be: is it true that there is no experiment that can detect an electron's frequency (hence energy)? Only wavelengths can be observed like in the double slit experiment? Or in a more philosophical way: Does an electron have a frequency if there is no experiment that can detect it?

If the first equation is wrong, shouldn't the usual Schrödinger equation in position base read $$ i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=\left[{\frac {-\hbar ^{2}}{2\mu }}\nabla ^{2}+V(\mathbf {r} ,t)+mc^2\right]\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t) $$ yielding the correct non-relativistic limit for the frequency when setting $$ \lambda(p) = \frac{h}{p}, \quad \omega(p) = \frac{p^2}{2m\hbar} + \frac{mc^2}{\hbar} $$ rather than $$ i\hbar {\frac {\partial }{\partial t}}\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t)=\left[{\frac {-\hbar ^{2}}{2m}}\nabla ^{2}+V(\mathbf {r} ,t)\right]\Psi (\mathbf {r} ,t) $$ The last equation has solutions with negative energies when introducing an attracting force $ V(r) $ like in the hydrogen problem. With $ mc^2 $ you get purely positive energy eigenvalues which better fits to a relationship of energy and measurable information, the latter one being positive by definition and limited by the dimension of the Hilbert space, which itself is positive by definition.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't really understand your question, you give a formulation for finding the energy and frequency of an electron and ask if it exists. $\endgroup$
    – Ismasou
    Aug 6, 2018 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ See the linked question and there the comments "So you can just redefine energy by removing this value and take energy levels by referring to the constant term as the 0-energy level" and "A constant energy term will affect nothing since only energy differences are physically meaningful." They argue that energy has no physical meaning. But I say that it has a meaning, and the usual forms of the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation and dispertion relation are not correct. $\endgroup$ Aug 7, 2018 at 12:09


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.