Derivation of De Broglie wavelength

PhiJ
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
The De Broglie wavelength was derived like this by our physics teacher.
E=hf v=fλ E=mc^2
so
hf=mc^2
hv=λmc^2
Then the WRONG BIT
h=λmv
h=λρ
λ=h/ρ

But that only works for light (when c=v). There must be a correct way of deriving it for electrons etc. We are expected to use this for electrons.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PhiJ said:
The De Broglie wavelength was derived like this by our physics teacher.
E=hf v=fλ E=mc^2
so
hf=mc^2
hv=λmc^2
Then the WRONG BIT
h=λmv
h=λρ
λ=h/ρ
But that only works for light (when c=v). There must be a correct way of deriving it for electrons etc. We are expected to use this for electrons.

It only works if you take: wave-speed = \frac{c^2}{v}[/tex] where v is the physical<br /> speed of the electron, this is however an ad-hoc assumption here. It&#039;s not<br /> that hard to derive λ=h/ρ directly from E=hf but it takes Special Relativity:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.chip-architect.com/physics/deBroglie.pdf" target="_blank" class="link link--external" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.chip-architect.com/physics/deBroglie.pdf</a>Regards, Hans
 
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