De broglie wavelength is postulate?

einstein_vishnu
we have seen that for massless (rest) patricle.we can relate the particle nature with the wave nature by einstein's relation.
what about the matter waves?
we cann't use the same relativistic equation for the momentum energy relation to generalise that to matter waves too,because rest mass is not zero.Griener mentions that it is postulate,if we try other form then we can get rid off complex schrodinger wave function.
waiting for reply
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The Planck-Einstein relations

E=h\nu=\hbar \omega

\vec p=\hbar \vec k
initially held for photons alone.
It was later postulated to hold for material particles as well.

I hope that's an anwer to your question.
 
why should we take the same equations for particle with nonzero rest mass.that derivation includes the relativistic relation between energy, momentum and rest mass.this gives the answer for my valid question of altering debroglie wavelength.
thanks for the reply.
 
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