De Broglie Hypothesis: If p → 0, Does λ → ∞?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter newton1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    De broglie
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the de Broglie hypothesis, specifically the relationship defined by the equation λ = h/p, where λ represents wavelength and p represents momentum. Participants explore the implications of momentum approaching zero, concluding that this results in an infinite wavelength, which leads to a constant field. The conversation also touches on the nature of particles at atomic scales, emphasizing that particles do not possess definite properties until measured, aligning with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the de Broglie wavelength equation
  • Knowledge of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
  • Basic concepts of wave-particle duality
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the de Broglie hypothesis in quantum mechanics
  • Study the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in detail
  • Explore wave-particle duality and its experimental evidence
  • Investigate the concept of probability clouds in quantum physics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, quantum mechanics enthusiasts, and researchers interested in the foundational concepts of wave-particle duality and quantum behavior.

newton1
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
de Broglie hypothesis is \lambda = h/p
how about if p tend to zero...
is it wavelength tend to infinite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Newton1 said:
de Broglie hypothesis is \lambda = h/p
how about if p tend to zero...
is it wavelength tend to infinite?

Yes, you get a constant field.

cheers,
patrick.
 
vanesch said:
Yes, you get a constant field.

cheers,
patrick.

what you mean by constant field? can you tell me more?
 
ok I have a question If I could hrienk myself down into an atomic size and particles were as big as basket balls (highly unlikly yet metaphorically) what would they look like? would they be like glass like orbs? or actual waves? or force fields?
 
The would be blurs of probability.
 
Ghetalion said:
The would be blurs of probability.


Surely that only true until you actually measure them (i.e. look at them)

They don't have any definite properties until measured. Thats my idea. Even then you can't know certain things accurately. So i guess if you are that small and look at an atom, you see something whizzing about pretty fast (in the particle sense)

Hmmm thinking about it I am struggling to imagine what i would see.
 
You wouldn't see anything, because an electron in a stable orbit doesn't emit light. You can't see the thing unless it's emitting photons in your direction.
 
Even if electrons did emit light, we wouldn't be able to understand or analyse what we saw. As Heisenberg wrote, many years ago, our bodies and brains and hence our experimental machines work only in "classical" mode and not in "quantum" mode. So trying to make sense of an essentially quantum phenomenon is not possible. We can write the equations, but I wouldn't try visualising, because it is usually wrong. If a probability cloud actually meant something to our brains, we would see them. But as Kane points out, we only see photons. So it would have to be an excited atom which returns to a lower energy eigenstate, and thus emits a photon in a random direction.

Masud.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K