De Broglie wavelength of particle in potential V

yxgao
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
The initial kinetic energy of a free particle is E and has wavelength \lambda. What is the de Broglie wavelength of a particle in a potential V?

This is what I have so far:

Since k=\frac{\sqrt{2mE}}{\hbar},
the original de Broglie wavelength of the a free particle is:
\lambda = \frac{h}{p} = \frac{h}{\hbar k} = \frac{h}{\hbar} \frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2mE}}=\frac{h}{\sqrt{2mE}}

When the particle enters the region of potential V,
we solve Schrodinger's equation to get
<br /> \lambda_{new}=\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2m(E-V)}}<br />

So that the new wavelength is:
<br /> \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V}{E}}}<br />


This kind of confusing because it means that the potential energy can only be as large as the kinetic energy to give real values of the new wavelength - why is this? Or should the wavelength be:
<br /> \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{\frac{V}{E}-1}}<br />


Thanks for any help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The first expression, ##(1-V/E)^{-1/2}## is correct; you can get that result from the de Broglie wavelength formula if you take the kinetic energy to be ##E-V##, consistent with the kinetic energy being ##E## when there is no potential.

The result you get for ##V\gt{E}## is just telling you that the particle cannot be found in regions where the potential is greater than the initial kinetic energy.
 
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