De Broglie Relations Confusion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the de Broglie relations in quantum mechanics, specifically addressing the inconsistencies encountered when applying energy-momentum relationships and the de Broglie wavelength equation. Participants explore the implications of using phase velocity versus group velocity in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a derivation attempting to show the consistency of the energy-momentum relation with the de Broglie wavelength equation but finds an inconsistency.
  • Another participant points out that the derivation incorrectly uses phase velocity instead of group velocity, suggesting that the group velocity should be used in de Broglie mechanics.
  • A later reply introduces a correct dispersion relation for free Schrödinger waves, indicating a different relationship between energy and momentum.
  • Several posts appear to diverge from the main topic, discussing the topology of spacetime, which some participants question as being off-topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to use group velocity in the context of de Broglie relations, but there is no consensus on the implications of the initial derivation or the relevance of the off-topic posts regarding spacetime topology.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions regarding the relationships between energy, momentum, and velocity in quantum mechanics. The relevance of the off-topic posts remains unclear.

lekh2003
Gold Member
Messages
539
Reaction score
342
I've been attempting to run through some quantum mechanics and I've seen something extremely odd, and I just can't spot my mistake.

I know the relationships: ##p = \frac{h}{\lambda}## and ##E = hf##. I also know the relationship ##E = \frac{p^2}{2m}##.

I tried to show using the energy-momentum relation and the de Broglie wavelength equation that ##E = hf## is true, but its simply inconsistent.

\begin{align}
E &= \frac{p^2}{2m}\\
&= \frac{(\frac{h}{\lambda})^2}{2m}\\
&= \frac{(\frac{hf}{v})^2}{2m}\\
&= \frac{\frac{E^2}{v^2}}{2m}\\
&= \frac{E^2}{2mv^2}\\
&= \frac{E^2}{2(\frac{h}{\lambda})v}\\
&= \frac{E^2}{2E}\\
&= \frac{E}{2}
\end{align}

Where am I messing this up?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You've used the phase velocity: ##v_p = f\lambda = \frac{v}{2}##.

In the de Broglie mechanics it's the group velocity that is the velocity of the particle: ##v_g = v##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi, jfizzix, vanhees71 and 2 others
Thank you so much! Everything makes sense now, I read up some more on a StackExchange thread.
 
In other words you need to use the correct dispersion relation for free Schrödinger waves, which results from
$$E=\hbar \omega = \frac{p^2}{2m}=\frac{(\hbar k)^2}{2m},$$
i.e.,
$$\omega = \frac{\hbar}{2m} k^2.$$
In your notation it's
$$2 \pi f=\frac{h}{4 \pi m} \frac{(2 \pi)^2}{\lambda^2} \; \Rightarrow \; f=\frac{h}{2m \lambda^2}.$$
 
The neighborhood of an event includes points that are timelike, null, and spacelike separated from it; the light cone does not bound the neighborhood. The topology of spacetime is still ##R^4## even though the metric on it is not the one induced by that topology. Thanks
 
iosman001 said:
The neighborhood of an event includes points that are timelike, null, and spacelike separated from it; the light cone does not bound the neighborhood. The topology of spacetime is still ##R^4## even though the metric on it is not the one induced by that topology. Thanks
Did you attach this post to the wrong thread? It looks off-topic here.
 
iosman001 said:
The neighborhood of an event includes points that are timelike, null and spacelike separated from it; the light cone does not bound the neighborhood. The topology of spacetime is still R4R4R^4 even though the metric on it is not the one induced by that topologyhttps://chatavenue.vipThanks

thanks my issue has been fixed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K