Composite particles de Broglie wave length

edpell
Messages
282
Reaction score
4
Does de Broglie wave length apply to composite particles? For example a very low momentum neutron does it have a very large wave length? Or do we think in terms of the three quarks that make up the neutron? The three quarks do not have low momentum they are banging back and forth inside the neutron and so have a shorter de Broglie wave length.

Which way is the right way to think about this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I too have wondered about this. My quantum mechanics professor used the example that a basketball has a very small wavelength, but if the individual particles that constitute the basketball have much larger wavelengths, well, then what's going on? (What does this mean experimentally?)
 
When you're dealing with a system that has more than one degree of freedom, you have to think in terms of phase space. There's an (x,p) pair for each degree of freedom and a de Broglie wavelength for each. So for a slow neutron there's a center of mass coordinate X and a corresponding momentum P and de Broglie wavelength h/P, while the individual partons that make up the neutron each have their own coordinate xi, momentum pi and wavelength h/pi.
 
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