Electron frequency and wavelength

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the wave nature of electrons and the relationship between frequency and wavelength. The de Broglie wavelength of an electron is defined as h/momentum, and there is confusion regarding the frequency equation for electrons compared to photons. The correct relationship for particles with mass is f = v_phase / λ, which differs from the photon case where f = c/λ. The apparent paradox in calculating electron velocity arises from misunderstanding phase velocity versus group velocity. The resolution involves recognizing that for massive particles, frequency is linked to energy through f = E/h.
new_id_7
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm studying the wave nature of particles.

My book says that the de broglie wavelength of an electron is h / momentum, or h / (mv).
I also have that E = hf = momentum2/(2m) = 1/2 mv2.
I know that for a photon the frequency is speed of light / wavelength.


I'm wondering why the frequency for an electron is not 1/ wavelength. Is there any equation relating f and lambda for a particle (electron)?

Thanks for any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DeBroglie predicted the wavelength of matter waves would be the same as for the photon.
The releatonship you want is the one you stated: f = c/lambda

Experimental confirmation is discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeBroglie_wavelength
 
Naty's answer seems very wrong to me. The wavelength of a particle is tied to its momentum. The frequency is related to its energy. When you combine the wavelength and frequency to get the apparent velocity of the electron, the answer comes out wrong. You don't get the correct velocity.

The resolution of this paradox comes from a careful analysis of the roles of phase velocity vs. group velocity.
 
Naty1 said:
The releatonship you want is the one you stated: f = c/lambda

If c is the speed of light, that works only for photons.

For particles with mass, f = v_{phase} / \lambda which gives

v_{phase} = f \lambda = \left( \frac{E}{h} \right) \left( \frac{h}{p} \right)<br /> = \frac{E}{p} = \frac {\sqrt{(pc)^2 + (m_0 c^2)^2}}{p}
 
Duh, seems wrong to me, too; right your guys are!..I should have posted f = E/h
the equations are right there in the wiki reference, too.
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K