Understanding de Broglie Wavelengths

nsang
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I understand the derivation and calculation of de Broglie wavelengths. What I don't understand is what exactly they are. What does the wavelength of a particle mean? Does it mean the wavelength of its probability wave, or some other kind of wave?

The idea of wave-particle duality for EMR makes sense to me in that it can be seen as oscillating changes in energy (a wave), and as photons from the photoelectric effect. But with particles, what quantity is oscillating in their wave?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That depends on the theory you use to interpret the equation. For de Broglie, it meant something like this:

Imagine point-like particle whose velocity is determined by a kind of guiding wave (pilot-wave theory). The wave behaves similarly to common kinds of wave, it can propagate, interfere and form some pattern of maxima and minima. If the particle is at place where the wave amplitude changes much, the velocity of the particle is large. If the amplitude has plateau, the particle there does not move much.
 
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