De Broglie Wavelength Derivation

Goalie33
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
In Classical Mechanics the derivative of Kinetic energy with respect to velocity is momentum, so I was wondering if this is valid:

In this L is lambda or wavelength and h is Planck's Constant.

E=hf, therefore E=h(v/L)
This means that dE/dv=h/L.(h and L are constants and the derivative of v would be 1.)
Rearranging this we get:
L=h/p.

I just wanted to know if this is considered valid.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
in E=hf, 'v' is equal to c, which is a constant!

One does not 'derive' de Broglie Wavelength, one postulates it.

E = hc/L, E/c = h/L

But E/c is the momentum of a massless particle, e.g. the photon. Hence, we postulate that this result can be more general to be valid for massive particles with momentum p.

p = h/L

So it is not a rigour derivation, but a bold postulate, which turned out to work fine :-)
 
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