WAVE ELECTRONICS AND

MECHANICS

EEE5425 Introduction to Nanotechnology 1

How big are atoms ?
Democritus : Atoms as
building blocks.

Size?
Shape ?
Substance?

17000 Copper Diameter 10-7 cm

atoms

1 nm = 10-9 meters
Atomic size determined not till the 19th century
Atoms are very small ; about 0.5 nanometers.
Nanotechnology deals with atomic manipulations.
 From the atom to the quark

How small are the smallest constituents of matter?

<10-18 m

<10-1 8 m

~ 10-14 m
~ 10-10 m ~ 10-15 m

Atoms and sub-atomic particles are much smaller than visible light wave-length
Therefore, we cannot really see them (all graphics are artists impressions)
To learn about the sub-atomic structure we need particle accelerators
 Rutherford
R and his Nuclear Atom: 1898 -1911
r
Ernest Rutherford used alpha rays to discover the
nucleus of the atom. The nucleus was positvely
charged and contained almost all of the mass of
the atom. Most of the atom was empty space.

Atomic size
Electron cloud

Classical physics required

that this atom is unstable
electrons would fall into
the nucleus in 10-7 sec!

Nuclear size
Failure of the Classical model

The orbiting electron is an accelerating

charge.

Accelerating charges emit

electromagnetic waves and therefore
lose energy

Classical physics predicts electron

should spiral in to the nucleus
emitting continuous spectrum of
radiation as the atom collapses

CLASSICAL PHYSICS CANT GIVE

US STABLE ATOMS..
 Wave-particle duality of Nature

Central concept of quantum mechanics:

all particles present wave-like properties

l
Not only light has a dual nature

De Broglie showed that moving particles have an

equivalent wavelength l

1 Electron Microscope Image

l
So high momentum gives us Gold atoms
short wavelengths so we can (0.2 nm apart)

p make out small details

Example: electron microscope

Copyright FEI
 Light is . . .
Initially thought to be waves
They do things waves do, like diffraction and interference
Wavelength frequency relationship clf
Planck, Einstein, Compton showed us they behave like
particles (photons)
Energy comes in chunks E hf
Wave-particle duality: somehow, they behave like both
Photons also carry momentum
Momentum comes in chunks
p E c hf c h l pl h

Electrons are . . .
They act like particles
Energy, momentum, etc., come in chunks
They also behave quantum mechanically
Is it possible they have wave properties as well?
 Wave-particle duality and two-slit experiments

Experimental results if electrons were normal particles

Experimental results if electrons
behave like waves
Conclusions: Electrons
interfere like photons
wave nature of particles
important when mv is
small (otherwise is too
small to produce detectable effects)
 Waves and Particles : What do we mean by them?
Material Objects:
Ball, Car, person, or point like objects called particles.
They can be located at a space point at a given time.
They can be at rest, moving or accelerating.

Falling Ball

Ground level
9
 Waves and Particles: What do we mean by them ?

Common types of waves:

Ripples, surf, ocean waves, sound waves, radio waves.
Need to see crests and troughs to define them.

Waves are oscillations in space and time.

Direction of travel, velocity

Up-down
oscillations

Wavelength ,frequency, velocity and oscillation size defines

waves
 Particles and Waves: Basic difference in behaviour

When particles collide they cannot pass through each other !

They can bounce or they can shatter
Before collision After collision

Another after
collision state
shatter

11
 Waves and Particles Basic difference:

Waves can pass through each other !

As they pass through each other they can enhance or cancel
each other

Later they regain their original form !

 Wavelength Frequency
Waves and Particles:
Spread in space and time
Waves
Can be superposed show
interference effects

Pass through each other

Localized in space and time

Particles
Cannot pass through each other -
they bounce or shatter.
 Nature of a wave

A wave is described by frequency ,

wavelength l, phase velocity u and intensity I

A wave is spread out and occupies a relatively

large region of space
 Nature of a particle

A particle is specified by mass m, velocity v,

momentum p, and energy E

A particle occupies a definite position in

space.
In order for that it must be small
 Wave-Particle Duality

particle wave function

 The Results:
1928: Electrons have both wave and particle properties
1900: Photons have both wave and particle properties
1930: Atoms have both wave and particle properties
1930: Molecules have both wave and particle properties
Neutrons have both wave and particle properties
Protons have both wave and particle properties
Everything has both wave and particle properties
 Wave-particle Duality

So, an electromagnetic wave of wavelength and frequency

f can be thought of as a stream of particles with energy E
and momentum p given by:

Ehf
h
p
l
 The de Broglie Hypothesis
In 1924, de Broglie suggested that if waves of wavelength
were associated with particles of momentum p=h/,
then it should also work the other way round.

A particle of mass m, moving with velocity v has

momentum p given by:

h
pmv

l
 From Special Theory of Relativity

E

mc2
pc 22 2

consequently, particle with zero rest mass (eg photon) has momentum p
given by:

E hf h
p
c c l
 The Bohr Model (1912-13)
Bohr suggested that the electrons in an atom orbit the
positively-charged nucleus, in a similar way to planets orbiting
the Sun

(but centripetal force provided by electrostatic attraction rather

that gravitation)

Hydrogen atom: single electron orbiting positive nucleus of

charge +Ze, where Z =1:

r -e
F
+Ze
 Quantisation of angular momentum

Bohr now makes the bold assumption that the orbital angular momentum
of the electron is quantised

Since v is perpendicular to r, the orbital angular momentum is just given

by L = mvr.

Bohr suggested that this is quantised, so that:

nh

mvr n

2

IMPLICATIONS???..........................................................................
 Electron standing waves and the Bohr Model
Bohrs suggestion that orbital angular momentum of electrons
is quantised is equivalent to the requirement that an integer
number of de Broglie wavelengths must fit into the electron
orbit:
Electron standing waves and the Bohr Model

h
l
n
2r
n
n rn
2
mevn

h 2 L
n
L mvr n
enn n
mev
n mev
n

nh
n
L n

2
 The de Broglie Hypothesis
Two equations that relate the particle- E hf
like and wave-like properties of light
lp h
1924 Louis de Broglie postulated that these
relationships apply to electrons as well
Implied that it applies to other particles as well
de Broglie could simply explain the Bohr quantization condition
Compare the wavelength of an electron in hydrogen to the
circumference of its path
hr 2 r
L n mevr pr
l l
cancel
nl 2 r C
Integer number of wavelengths fit around the orbit
WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY

Evidence for wave-particle duality

Photoelectric effect
Compton effect

Electron diffraction
Interference of matter-waves

Consequence: Heisenberg uncertainty principle

 Hertz J.J. Thomson
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT
When UV light is shone on a metal plate in a vacuum,
it emits charged particles (Hertz 1887), which were
later shown to be electrons by J.J. Thomson (1899).

Vacuum Light,
frequency Classical expectations
chamber
Metal Collecting Electric field E of light exerts
plate plate force F=-eE on electrons. As
intensity of light increases, force
increases, so KE of ejected
electrons should increase.
Electrons should be emitted
whatever the frequency of the
I light, so long as E is sufficiently
Ammeter large
For very low intensities, expect a
Potentiostat time lag between light exposure
and emission, while electrons
absorb enough energy to escape
from material
 Einstein
PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT (cont)
Actual results: Einsteins
interpretation
Maximum KE of ejected (1905):
electrons is independent of
intensity, but dependent on Light comes in
packets of energy
For <0 (i.e. for frequencies
below a cut-off frequency) no
(photons) E h Millikan
electrons are emitted An electron
There is no time lag. absorbs a single
However, rate of ejection of photon to leave
electrons depends on light the material
intensity.

The maximum KE of an emitted electron is then

K max h W
Work function: minimum Verified in
Planck constant: energy needed for electron detail through
universal constant to escape from metal subsequent
of nature (depends on material, but experiments by
h 6.63 1034 Js usually 2-5eV) Millikan
 SUMMARY OF PHOTON PROPERTIES

Relation between particle and wave properties of light

Energy and frequency E h
Also have relation between momentum and wavelength
Relativistic formula relating
energy and momentum E p c m c
2 2 2 2 4

For light E pc and c l

h
h
p
l c
Also commonly write these as wavevector
2 h
E p k 2 k
angular frequency l hbar 2
 Compton
COMPTON SCATTERING
Compton (1923) measured intensity of scattered X-
rays from solid target, as function of wavelength for
different angles. He won the 1927 Nobel prize.

Collimator Crystal
X-ray source
(selects angle) (measure
wavelenght)

Target

Result: peak in scattered Detector

radiation shifts to longer
wavelength than source. Amount
depends on (but not on the
target material). A.H. Compton, Phys. Rev. 22 409 (1923)
 COMPTON SCATTERING (cont)
Classical picture: oscillating electromagnetic field causes oscillations in
positions of charged particles, which re-radiate in all directions at same
frequency and wavelength as incident radiation.
Change in wavelength of scattered light is completely unexpected
classically

Incident light wave Oscillating Emitted light wave

electron
Comptons explanation: billiard ball collisions between
particles of light (X-ray photons) and electrons in the material

Before After p
Incoming
scattered photon
photon

p
Electron
pe scattered electron
 COMPTON SCATTERING (cont)
Before After p
Incoming scattered photon
photon
p
Electro
n pe scattered electron

Conservation of energy Conservation of momentum

h mec h p c m c
2 4 1/ 2 h
2 2 2
p i p p e
l
e e

From this Compton derived the change in wavelength

h
l l 1 cos
me c
lc 1 cos 0
h
lc Compton wavelength 2.4 1012 m
me c
 COMPTON SCATTERING
(cont)

Note that, at all angles

there is also an unshifted peak.

This comes from a collision between

the X-ray photon and the nucleus of
the atom
h
l l 1 cos > 0
mN c

since mN > me
WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY OF LIGHT
In 1924 Einstein wrote:- There are therefore now two theories
of light, both indispensable, and without any logical connection.

Evidence for wave-nature of light

Diffraction and interference
Evidence for particle-nature of light
Photoelectric effect
Compton effect
Light exhibits diffraction and interference
phenomena that are only explicable in terms of
wave properties
Light is always detected as packets (photons); if
we look, we never observe half a photon
Number of photons proportional to energy density
(i.e. to square of electromagnetic field strength)
 De Broglie

MATTER WAVES
We have seen that light comes in discrete units (photons) with
particle properties (energy and momentum) that are related to the
wave-like properties of frequency and wavelength.

In 1923 Prince Louis de Broglie postulated that ordinary matter can have
wave-like properties, with the wavelength related to momentum
p in the same way as for light

de Broglie relation h Plancks constant

l h 6.63 1034 Js
de Broglie wavelength
p
wavelength depends on momentum, not on the physical size of the particle
Prediction: We should see diffraction and interference
of matter waves
Estimate some de Broglie wavelengths
Wavelength of electron with 50eV kinetic
energy 2 2
p h h
K l 1.7 10 10
m
2me 2me l 2
2me K

Wavelength of Nitrogen molecule at room temp.

3kT
K , Mass 28m u
2
h
l 2.8 1011 m
3MkT

Wavelength of Rubidium(87) atom at 50nK

h
l 1.2 106 m
3MkT
 ELECTRON DIFFRACTION
The Davisson-Germer experiment (1927)

G.P.
The Davisson-Germer Davisson Thomson
i experiment: scattering a beam
of electrons from a Ni crystal.
Davisson got the 1937 Nobel
prize.
i

At fixed angle, find sharp peaks in

intensity as a function of electron
energy
Davisson, C. J.,
At fixed accelerating voltage "Are Electrons
(fixed electron energy) find a Waves?,"
pattern of sharp reflected beams Franklin
from the crystal Institute
Journal 205,
597 (1928)
G.P. Thomson performed similar
interference experiments with thin-
film samples
 ELECTRON DIFFRACTION (cont)

Interpretation: similar to Bragg scattering of X-rays from

crystals

i Path
a cos i difference:
a(cos r cos i )
r
Constructive interference
a
when
a(cos r cos i ) nl

Electron scattering
dominated by
surface layers a cos r Note difference from usual Braggs
Law geometry: the identical
Note i and r not scattering planes are oriented
necessarily equal perpendicular to the surface
 THE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT
Originally performed by Young (1801) to demonstrate the wave-nature
of light. Has now been done with electrons, neutrons, He atoms among
others.

Alternative
method of
y detection: scan
a detector
across the
d
plane and
record number
Incoming d sin of arrivals at
coherent beam each point
of particles (or Detecting
light) screen
D

For particles we expect two peaks, for waves an interference pattern

 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Neutrons, A
Zeilinger et al.
1988 Reviews of
Modern Physics 60
1067-1073

He atoms: O Carnal and J

Mlynek 1991 Physical Review
C60 molecules: Letters 66 2689-2692
M Arndt et al. Fringe
1999 Nature visibility
401 680-682 decreases as
molecules
With are heated.
multiple-slit L.
grating Hackermlle
r et al. 2004
Without Nature 427
grating 711-714
Interference patterns can not be explained classically - clear demonstration of
 DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT WITH HELIUM ATOMS
(Carnal & Mlynek, 1991,Phys.Rev.Lett.,66,p2689)

Path d sin
difference:
Constructive interference: d sin nl
lD
Separation between maxima: y y
(proof following) d
Experiment: He atoms at 83K, d
with d=8m and D=64cm
d sin
Measured separation:y 8.2 m
Predicted de Broglie
wavelength: D
3kT
K , Mass 4m u
2 Predicted separation:y 8.4 0.8 m
h
l 1.03 1010 m Good agreement with experiment
3MkT
 FRINGE SPACING IN
DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT
Maxima when: d sin nl
D d so use small angle approximation

nl
y
d
l
d
d

d sin
Position on screen:y D tan D

So separation between adjacent

D
maxima:
y D
lD
y
d
 DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT
INTERPRETATION

The flux of particles arriving at the slits can be reduced so that only
one particle arrives at a time. Interference fringes are still observed!
Wave-behaviour can be shown by a single atom.
Each particle goes through both slits at once.
A matter wave can interfere with itself.
Hence matter-waves are distinct from H2O molecules collectively
giving rise to water waves.
Wavelength of matter wave unconnected to any internal size of
particle. Instead it is determined by the momentum.
If we try to find out which slit the particle goes through the
interference pattern vanishes!
We cannot see the wave/particle nature at the same time.
If we know which path the particle takes, we lose the fringes .

The importance of the two-slit experiment has been memorably summarized

by Richard Feynman: a phenomenon which is impossible, absolutely impossible,
to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics.
In reality it contains the only mystery.
 HEISENBERG MICROSCOPE AND
THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

(also called the Bohr microscope, but the thought

experiment is mainly due to Heisenberg).
The microscope is an imaginary device to measure
the position (y) and momentum (p) of a particle.

Heisenberg

Particle
/2
y
Light source,
wavelength
Resolving power of lens:
Lens, with angular
diameter l
y

 HEISENBERG MICROSCOPE (cont)

Photons transfer momentum to the particle when they scatter.

Magnitude of p is the same before and after the collision. Why?
p
Uncertainty in photon y-momentum
= Uncertainty in particle y-momentum
/
p sin / 2 p y p sin / 2 2
p
Small angle approximation
p y 2 p sin / 2 p
h
de Broglie relation givesp h / l and so p y
l
l
From before y hence p y y h

HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.
 HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

xpx / 2
yp y / 2
zpz / 2

HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.

We cannot have simultaneous knowledge

of conjugate variables such as position and momenta.

Note, however, xp y 0 etc

Arbitrary precision is possible in principle for

position in one direction and momentum in another
 HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE

There is also an energy-time uncertainty relation

Et / 2
Transitions between energy levels of atoms are not perfectly sharp in
frequency.

n=3 An electron in n = 3 will spontaneously

E h 32 decay to a lower level after a lifetime
n=2
of ordert 108 s

n=1

Intensity
There is a corresponding spread in
32
the emitted frequency

32 Frequency
 QUANTUM MECHANICS:

ALL PHYSICAL OBJECTS exhibit both PARTICLE AND WAVE

LIKE PROPERTIES. THIS WAS THE STARTING POINT
OF QUANTUM MECHANICS DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY
BY WERNER HEISENBERG AND ERWIN SCHRODINGER.

Particle properties of waves: Einstein relation:

Energy of photon = h (frequency of wave).

Wave properties of particles: de Broglie relation:

wave length = h/(mass times velocity)

One cant measure the position and momentum of a particle

-Heisenberg
Classical world is Deterministic:
Knowing the position and velocity of
all objects at a particular time
Future can be predicted using known laws of force
and Newton's laws of motion.
Quantum World is Probabilistic:
Impossible to know position and velocity
with certainty at a given time.

Only probability of future state can be predicted using

known laws of force and equations of quantum mechanics.
Tied together
Observer Observed
BEFORE OBSERVATION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY
WHETHER AN OBJECT IS A WAVE OR A PARTICLE
OR WHETHER IT EXISTS AT ALL !!
QUANTUM MECHANICS IS A PROBABILISTIC THEORY OF NATURE

UNCERTAINTY RELATIONS OF HEISENBERG ALLOW YOU TO

GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING PROVIDED YOU DO IT FAST
ENOUGH !! example: Bank employee withdrawing cash, using it ,but
replacing it before he can be caught ...
CONFINED PHYSICAL SYSTEMS AN ATOM CAN ONLY
EXIST IN CERTAIN ALLOWED STATES ... .

THEY ARE QUANTIZED

COMMON SENSE VIEW OF THE WORLD IS AN
APPROXIMATION OF THE UNDERLYING BASIC
QUANTUM DESCRIPTION OF OUR PHYSICAL
WORLD !
IN THE COPENHAGEN INTERPRETATION OF
BOHR AND HEISENBERG IT IS IMPOSSIBLE IN
PRINCIPLE FOR OUR WORLD TO BE
DETERMINISTIC !

EINSTEIN, A FOUNDER OF QM WAS

UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS
INTERPRETATION
God does not play dice !
Bohr and Einstein in discussion 1933
 CONCLUSIONS
Light and matter exhibit wave-particle duality

Relation between wave and particle properties

given by the de Broglie relations h
E h p
, l
Evidence for particle properties of light
Photoelectric effect, Compton scattering

Evidence for wave properties of matter

Electron diffraction, interference of matter waves
(electrons, neutrons, He atoms, C60 molecules) xpx / 2
Heisenberg uncertainty principle limits
simultaneous knowledge of conjugate variables
yp y / 2
zpz / 2