Deriving the De Broglie Wavelength

Strafespar
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
E=mc^2 and E=hf. In Special Relativity, how can y=h/p be derived from E=hf?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Strafespar said:
E=mc^2 and E=hf. In Special Relativity, how can y=h/p be derived from E=hf?

E2(p) = m2 c4 + p2 c2 [energy in the reference frame with momentum p]

E(p)=h/T(p) [T(p) is the time periodicity in the reference frame p ]

m c2 = E(0) [the mass is the energy in the rest frame p=0]

m c2 = h/T(0) [T(0) is the time periodicity in the reference frame p=0]

by putting all things together you find:

1/T2(p) = 1/T2(0) + c2/y2(p) [from the relativistic dispersion relation]

where y(p)= h / p [is the induced spatial periodicity in the reference frame with momentum p].

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3680" "Compact time and determinism: foundations"

Then if you impose the above periodicities as constraints to a string (field in compact space-time, similarly to the harmonic frequency spectrum of a vibrating string with fixed ends) you obtain the following energy quantization

E2n(p) = n2 E2(p) = n2( M2 c4 + p2 c2)

which is actually the energy quantization coming from the usual field theory with second quantization, after normal ordering. In arXiv:0903.3680 it is shown that this procedure provides an exact matching with ordinary quantum field theory, including Path integral and the commutation relations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top