The relativistic de Broglie equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the derivation and formulation of the relativistic de Broglie equation, exploring the relationships between the 4-wave vector and the 4-momentum vector. Participants delve into the mathematical underpinnings and theoretical implications, referencing various equations and concepts from quantum mechanics and relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding the derivation of the 4-wave vector and its application in the relativistic de Broglie equation, specifically questioning the inner product of the 4-momentum vector with itself and with the 4-wave vector.
  • Another participant notes that the de Broglie relation is empirical and suggests that it should not be expected to be "proven" in a traditional sense, proposing instead to consider plane wave solutions to the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations.
  • There is a request for clarification regarding the source of a specific phrasing related to the derivation of the de Broglie equation, indicating that it was found in a past paper.
  • Several participants discuss the d'Alembert operator and its relation to wave equations, with one participant expressing a desire to understand the notation and its implications further.
  • Another participant attempts to relate the 4-momentum and 4-wave vectors in the context of the de Broglie relation, presenting a specific form involving mass, velocity, and frequency.
  • One participant provides a detailed expression for the 4-momentum and 4-wave vector, suggesting a relationship in the context of the de Broglie relation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants demonstrate a mix of agreement on the empirical nature of the de Broglie relation, while also presenting differing views on its derivation and the mathematical relationships involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific derivation and notation used.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various equations and concepts, including the Klein-Gordon equation and the d'Alembert operator, without reaching a consensus on the derivation of the relativistic de Broglie equation. There are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved mathematical steps in the discussion.

mjda
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding how the 4-wave vector is derived, and also how it is then used alongside the 4-momentum vector to formulate the relativistic de Broglie equation.

The inner product of the 4-momentum vector with itself, is an invariant quantity. If we define the 4-momentum vector, P, as:

P = (p''' , iE/c) ---- where p''' is just the 3 dimensional momentum vector.

This then leads to finding:

P.P = p2 - (E/c)2 <-- this is invariant

The 4-wave vector, N, is defined as:

N = f (c/w , 1) <-- how does one derive this?

From what I have read, you should be able to derive the de Broglie equation by considering the inner product of P and N, with P.P?

The result being:

cP = hN

Has anyone seen this notation before and able to show this result is true? I can't find it anywhere in this form!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, you have to realize that the de Broglie relation is an empirical relation. It was historically convenient to consider particles having a wavelength proportional to its momentum. For the same reason, you should not expect to ”prove” the relativistic version of the relation.

What you can do is to look at plane wave solutions to the Klein-Gordon or Dirac equations. For a plane wave, you can easily derive the 4-frequency as the gradient of the phase function and relate it to how the solution behaves under space-time translations, which are generated by the momentum and energy operators.
 
mjda said:
From what I have read, you should be able to derive the de Broglie equation by considering the inner product of P and N, with P.P?

Where did you read this?
 
Mister T said:
Where did you read this?

It is in a question from a past paper I found. Maybe my wording is a bit misleading, but the exact phrasing is:

By considering the scalar product of P both with itself, and with N, deduce the deBroglie equation.
 
mjda said:
It is in a question from a past paper I found.

What paper? Please give a reference.
 
Relativistic relation

E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4

replacing E and p by QM operators

[-\frac{\partial^2}{c^2\partial t^2}+\mathbf{\nabla}^2-\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2}]\psi=0

(\mathbf{\square}^2+\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2})\psi=0

Are you looking for something like this?
 
sweet springs said:
Relativistic relation

E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4

replacing E and p by QM operators

[-\frac{\partial^2}{c^2\partial t^2}+\mathbf{\nabla}^2-\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2}]\psi=0

(\mathbf{\square}^2+\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2})\psi=0

Are you looking for something like this?
That is pretty sexy looking. Would you mind telling me what the square symbol is called so I can look it up? Wild guess is it has something to do with a wave since there is a second order partial derivative there.
Edit- Nevermind, I found it. It is indeed related to waves, specifically the four dimensional, Minkowski space variety. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Alembert_operator
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs
The ##\square## is a second order differential operator, the d'Alembert operator ##\square = g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu##. Note that there should not be a square on the ##\square##, i.e., the equation should contain ##\square##, not ##\square^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sweet springs and Sorcerer
  • #10
Orodruin said:
The ##\square## is a second order differential operator, the d'Alembert operator ##\square = g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\mu \partial_\nu##. Note that there should not be a square on the ##\square##, i.e., the equation should contain ##\square##, not ##\square^2##.
I really need to take the time to learn Einstein summation convention. But four dimensional partial differential equations and matrices are hard enough without bringing weird dot product rules and tensor stuff into it, let alone short hand for it. ;) *sigh* So much work to be done...

But thanks for the insight! Slowly but surely I’ll learn, until I can get back into school.
 
  • #11
sweet springs said:
Relativistic relation

E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4

replacing E and p by QM operators

[-\frac{\partial^2}{c^2\partial t^2}+\mathbf{\nabla}^2-\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2}]\psi=0

(\mathbf{\square}^2+\frac{m^2c^2}{\hbar^2})\psi=0

Are you looking for something like this?

I am trying to find it in the form of:

cP = hN

where P and N are both the 4-Momentum, and 4-Wave vectors.

It can also be written in the form:

cm( u , ic ) = hf( cn / w , 1 )

c - speed of light
m - mass
u - 3-D velocity vector
i - imaginary component
f - frequency
h - Planck's const.
w - ang. freq.
n - unit vector
 
  • #12
I suppose you would say
4-momentum
mc^2u^\mu=mc^2(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},\frac{v_x/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},\frac{v_y/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}},\frac{v_z/c}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}})
equals 4-wave vector
c\hbar k^\mu<br /> =c\hbar (\omega/c,k_x,k_y,k_z)
in de Broglie relation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
951
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
996