De Broglie wavelength in terms of accelerated potential difference

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving a formula for the de Broglie wavelength of an electron in relation to the potential difference through which it is accelerated. The problem is situated within the context of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the relationship between kinetic energy and potential difference, with initial attempts focusing on classical mechanics. Some participants suggest incorporating relativistic effects, questioning how to properly account for relativistic mass and energy.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided insights into the relativistic treatment of energy and mass, with some suggesting starting points for the derivation. There is an ongoing exploration of different interpretations of mass and energy in the context of the problem, but no consensus has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity introduced by relativistic considerations and the potential confusion surrounding the terminology of mass. The original poster expresses frustration with their initial approach and seeks clarification on the correct application of relativistic principles.

Von Neumann
Messages
101
Reaction score
4
Problem:

Derive a formula expressing the de Broglie wavelength (in Å) of an electron in terms of the potential difference V (in volts) through which it is accelerated.

Solution (so far):

The textbook's answer is the following,

\lambda=12.27[V(\frac{eV}{2m_{0}c^{2}}+1)]^{-\frac{1}{2}}

I'm having some trouble getting there. I started by noting that if an electron is accelerated from rest through a potential difference V, it gains a kinetic energy

\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}=eV

So therefore,

v=\sqrt{\frac{2eV}{m}}

Since \lambda=\frac{h}{mv}

Therefore, \lambda=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2meV}}

Also, \frac{h}{\sqrt{2me}}\approx 12.27 Å

So I get, \lambda=\frac{12.27Å}{\sqrt{V}}

I don't know where I went wrong. Any suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Relativity?
 
voko said:
Relativity?

If I use the formula m=\frac{m_{0}}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} in \lambda=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2meV}}

everything gets extremely complex and looks nothing like what the answer is supposed to look like. Can you be more specfic?
 
I think you should start by writing down the energy relativisticly.
 
voko said:
I think you should start by writing down the energy relativisticly.

\frac{m_{0}v^{2}}{2\sqrt{1-\frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}=eV

Is that what you mean?
 
In relativity, kinetic energy is T = \gamma mc^2 - mc^2. Momentum is \vec p = \gamma m \vec v, where \gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}.
 
By the way, when I say m here, I mean the same thing as m_0. I don't distinguish "mass" from "relativistic mass". Most physicists don't these days. Mass is the rest mass, period. If you prefer, kinetic energy is T = \gamma m_0 c^2 - m_0 c^2 .

[Edit: by the way, if you're curious, if you take the Taylor series expansion of \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right) m_0 c^2 - m_0 c^2 around v \approx 0 you'll find that it reduces to the Newtonian \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 for v near 0. Neato.]
 
Last edited:
collinsmark said:
By the way, when I say m here, I mean the same thing as m_0. I don't distinguish "mass" from "relativistic mass". Most physicists don't these days. Mass is the rest mass, period. If you prefer, kinetic energy is T = \gamma m_0 c^2 - m_0 c^2 .

[Edit: by the way, if you're curious, if you take the Taylor series expansion of \left( \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}} \right) m_0 c^2 - m_0 c^2 around v \approx 0 you'll find that it reduces to the Newtonian \frac{1}{2} m_0 v^2 for v near 0. Neato.]

I have no issue with you referring to rest mass as just mass - as long as it's clear to everyone to what you are referring. Why cause unneeded ambiguity (especially in a section of the forum aimed towards students seeking help, and looking to develop good physics practices)?

As for the problem I originally asked, if anyone is interested, I obtained the required solution by the following:

Begin with (pc)^2+(E_0)^2=E^2

Solve for p and substitute the result into the de Broglie wavelength equation λ=h/p.

Next, eliminate E by introducing kinetic energy, then use the fact that K=eV.

Simplify and be sure to express the constant quantity h/sqrt(2em_0) in angstroms (≈12.27Å).

No thanks to voko or collinsmark! - Just kidding, at least you tried to help. :biggrin:
 
Also, it's interesting to note the result reduces to the equation I derived first incorrectly in the event V << c^2.
 
  • #10
My point (and I assume the same point voko was hinting toward), is "relativistic" mass is not used anymore. Instead, "invariant" mass is used, which is the same thing as the rest mass.

Kinetic energy:
T = (\gamma -1) mc^2

Total energy of the system:
E = \gamma mc^2

3-Momentum:
\vec p = \gamma m \vec v

Relationship between 3-momentum and total energy of the system:
p^2 c^2 + m^2c^4 = E^2

And the mass m is the invariant mass. If you wish to directly substitute m_0 in for m, feel free to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
 
  • #11
Thanks for rewording what I already had stated!
 
  • #12
I have solved it, like this
246813
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
832
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K