De Broglie wavelength computable by just fixing speed of light ?

xortdsc
Messages
98
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I was wondering if it is possible to compute e.g. bohr radii for a metric system whose correspondence to real units is unknown and only the speed of light is known.

Let's say the only thing I know is that lightwaves travel x spaceunits in t timeunits, therefore defining the speed of light. The obvious problem is that I lack correspondance to real units such as meters for space and seconds for time.
So the question is: Is it possible to compute e.g. the bohr radius of an electron in groundstate in the hydrogen in units of x (or alternatively ct, lightspeed time) from just this defined lightspeed ? I've read that sometimes physisists set c=1 and hbar=1, but I don't get how to convert the dependent constants appropriately. Would this help solve my problem at all ? And if so how would this be done exactly ?

Thanks and cheers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think I figured it out finally. Turned out that system I meant was the Planck unit system. ;)

To compute the deBroglie wavelength of a 1s electron:

Code:
-> c                 = 1
-> h                 = 2pi
-> M (planck-mass)   = 2,1765e−8 kg
-> alpha             = 1/137
-> v                 = Z/n * alpha
-> v                 = 1/1 * 1/137
-> v                 = 1/137
-> m                 = m_e(in kg) / M
-> m                 = 9,10938291e-31 kg / 2,1765e−8 kg
-> m                 = 4,1853355892487939352170916609235e-23
-> lambda            = h / (m * v)
-> lambda            = 2pi / (4,1853355892487939352170916609235e-23 * 1/137)
-> lambda            = 20566962164152375997583578,037296
So this lambda-value can be interpreted as the distance a lightwave travels in 20566962164152375997583578 Planck-time units, right ?

so in meters this becomes
Code:
-> L (planck length) = 1,616199e−35 m
-> lambda_m (in m)   = lambda * L
-> lambda_m (in m)   = 20566962164152375997583578,037296 * 1,616199e−35 m
-> lambda_m (in m)   = 3,32403036827409059349185812403e-10 m
that seems fitting.
 
Last edited:
Well now that I have everything in Planck units I still don't see how that gives me result, because I don't know how many Planck time units my timeunit is. Don't I understand something here or is it really impossibe to compute because some necessary constant (t/T or x/L) is unknown ?
 
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