Struggling to understand the de Broglie equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter LukeeeeBennet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    De broglie
LukeeeeBennet
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
So, I've come across a new page in my revision guide in the Quantum Phenomena section, labelled "de Broglie wavelength".

My old enemy.

Now, I understand the theory behind wave-particle duality, I just don't understand this chunk of de Broglie and his equation.

Here it reads "The de Broglie wave of a particle can be interpreted as a 'probability wave'."

So, what does this actually mean?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It means that you can interpret it as wave carrying the information about the probability that a particle will be in a certain place. In the "standard" interpretation of QM, the probability that a particle will be in a certain place is proportional to the "square" of the wavefunction:

P(r)dP = {\left | \psi(r) \right |}^2 dr

I think this is what they mean although I find this kind of strange. What kind of book are you reading?
 
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