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 ?
 
This post is a spin-off of the original post that discussed Barandes theory, A new realistic stochastic interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, for any details about the interpretation in general PLEASE look up for an answer there. Now I want this post to focus on this pre-print: J. A. Barandes, "New Prospects for a Causally Local Formulation of Quantum Theory", arXiv 2402.16935 (2024) My main concerns are that Barandes thinks this deflates the anti-classical Bell's theorem. In Barandes...
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...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
Back
Top