Calculating energy from de Broglie wavelength

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of energy using de Broglie wavelength, highlighting the relationships between wavelength, momentum, and energy. It presents two formulas for energy: E = h^2/(mλ^2) and E = (1/2)mv^2, noting that the first result is incorrect due to a factor of 2 difference. The discrepancy arises from mixing phase velocity and group velocity, with the phase velocity being faster than light for massive particles. Participants clarify that the formulas are valid in a vacuum and unrelated to reflection or absorption. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate energy calculations in quantum mechanics.
Alephu5
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Given the relationships: \lambda = \frac{h}{p} = \frac{h}{mv} and E = hf for wavelike non-relativistic matter, and v = \lambda f for a general wave, one can obtain the result:
E = \frac{h^2}{m \lambda^2}.

Whilst for particulate matter, we have E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2, which when combined with the assumptions above gives:
E = \frac{h^2}{2m \lambda^2} which is the generally accepted answer.

Does anyone know why these two results differ by a factor of 2 and why the first is incorrect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think its because in the first one we also consider the reflected wave other than the absorbed wave!
 
You are mixing formulas for phase velocity and group velocity here in an incorrect way.
##v_f = \lambda f## uses the phase velocity, which is always faster than the speed of light for massive particles. The other formulas are for the group velocity, which corresponds to the "motion" of the particle.

@Faris Shajahan: This has nothing to do with reflection and absorption, all formulas are valid in vacuum.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top