Resolving Tiny Structures: De-Broglie-Relation & Relativity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anton Alice
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Structures
Anton Alice
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
Hello,

I was wondering, if the de-Broglie-relation for particle waves already includes relativistic effects?

Suppose I want to resolve an atomic structure of about, say, 0.1 nanometers. For an attempt using particle waves I would need a certain momentum p=h/0.1nm, at least.
Now comes the question: The particle wave sees the contracted version of the atomic structure. Doesnt this mean that I have to include a gamma into the nominator? p would then be gamma*m*v, and then the gammas would cancel, leading to: mv=h/0.1nm, whereby mv stands for the classical momentum. Something is wrong here...

EDIT:
I think my problem is, that I mixed up different reference frames. I have to stay in one reference frame, which I chose to be the the one of the observer. The observer observes an atomic structure of 0.1nm, and observes a particle with speed v (and corresponding p). These two observations have to fit together, i.e. the de-Broglie-relation needs to be fulfilled. And if it is fulfilled in one reference frame, then also in any other. Like saying, if barack obama has been elected in one reference frame, then also he is or will be in any other.
Can you elaborate on this?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anton Alice said:
Like saying, if barack obama has been elected in one reference frame, then also he is or will be in any other.
Can you elaborate on this?

That's pretty much it.
 
Anton Alice said:
I was wondering, if the de-Broglie-relation for particle waves already includes relativistic effects?
Are you familiar with four-vectors? The relativistic de Broglie relationship is simply ##p=\hbar k## where p is the four momentum and k is the four-wavevector.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top