De Broglie wavelength and diffraction

josephcollins
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
Hi ppl I have a short question concerning the de Broglie hypothesis. I worked out the de Broglie wavelength of an electron in a TV picture tube accelerated by 20,000 V, using the fact that mv^2/2 = QV and then that lambda=h/mv. Now I need to answer whether this is relativistic or not, how do I do this? and then the neck of the tube is 5cm and I'm asked whether we have to worry about diffracttion blurring the picture on the screen. The wavelength is obviously much smaller than the neck of the tube, so diffraction will occur, will this then affect the picture? Thanks for any help, Joe
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To check whether or not your calculations take relativity into account, first check to see if v is close to c. If it is then the energy is not given by 1/2*mv^2.

Secondly the neck of the tube has to be of the same order as the wavelength for diffraction to occur.
 
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