Question about De Broglie's laws

  • Thread starter Thread starter fanwars
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the wavelength of an electron traveling at 4.35*10^6 m/s using De Broglie's equation. The correct approach involves using the momentum equation, p = mv, leading to the result of approximately 0.167 nm. The confusion arises when attempting to use the energy equation E = hf, where the participant mistakenly applies the speed of light instead of the electron's velocity in the frequency formula. Clarifications highlight that De Broglie's hypothesis equates momentum with wavelength, emphasizing the distinction between photon and electron energy calculations. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment of the historical significance of De Broglie's work and its acceptance by Einstein.
fanwars
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Find the wavelength of an electron which is traveling at 4.35*10^6 m/s.

Homework Equations


p = h/λ
p = mv
E = hf
E = 1/2mv^2

The Attempt at a Solution


I know this can be easily solved using the momentum equation and De Broglie's law like this:
mv = h/λ
(9.109*10^-31)*(4.35*10^6)=(6.626*10^-34)*λ
λ ≈ 0.167nm

But here comes the actual question...
Why can't I solve this with the second law E = hf and the classical 1/2mv^2?
1/2mv^2 = hf, where f = (c/λ)
This gives me an incorrect result. If I wanted to use kinetic energy, I would have to first convert it to momentum
p = √(2Em), which I would use with p = h/λ.

After all, for instance the photoelectric effect can be calculated using kinetic energy with hf-W.
I think I've missed something relevant, and I can't seem to find the answer. Sorry if this is too obvious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is giving the correct result : 1.6722e-010 = 0.16722 nm.
What result are you getting?
 
If you are using the following equation:

"1/2mv^2 = hf, where f = (c/λ)"

then it is incorrect because f ≠ c/λ, it is f = v/λ i.e.the velocity of the electron, not that of light.
 
You are on the right tracks.
In the early days of this work it was realized that the energy of a light photon was given
by E = hf (from photoelectric effect).
DeBroglies hypothesis was to equate Einstein's E = mc^2 with hf
So his hypothesis was that mc^2 = hf
which becomes mc = h/λ
De Broglie (controversially) said that this was a general relationship and since m x c looks like
'momentum' he produced his equation momentum =h/λ
ie mv = h/λ

Simple algebra but remarkable that it is true.
 
It makes more sense now. I guess I was all the time applying the energy of a photon, not an electron. Thank you, now I can sleep restfully at night.
 
De Broglie was a strange character! When he came up with his hypothesis, as part of his thesis, his professor did not think much of it and showed it to Einstein.
Einstein accepted the thesis completely !
There but for fortune...
Sleep tight
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
277
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top