What's the Flaw in De Broglie's Derivation of Wave-Particle Duality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter americast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    De broglie
americast
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

De Broglie had proposed the theory of wave particle duality. But I don't understand how the relation λ=h/(mu) holds true. I will tell you why:

De Broglie's derivation:
E=mc2 and E=hv
So mc2=hv
Thus, λ=h/(mc) and for particles its h/(mu).

I have a problem in the last line. All of us know that according to the theory of relativity, speed of light c is a constant and is independent of the frame of reference. It remains c from all reference frames i.e. if you are to travel at 2*108 m/s, you will still find light travel at c (unlike other particles which would otherwise travel at 1*108 m/s for you.) This means that the velocity of light relative to everyone is c. So h/(mc) does not need a defined reference frame.

In the above equation, when I am replacing c with u (for particles) the expression lacks a defined frame of reference. u is not an independent velocity but it is a velocity with respect to some observer. Who is this observer?

Gramercy...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your derivation is incorrect. The (special-relativistic) De-Broglie Einstein relations are as follows
$$p = \hbar k$$
or in coordinates
$$\begin{pmatrix}
E/c \\
\vec p
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\hbar \omega/c \\
\hbar \vec k
\end{pmatrix} \, ,$$
which makes perfect sense for photons. The problem is that you cannot use
$$E= m c^2 \dot t \, ,$$
where the dot represents differentiation with respect to the proper time of the photon. This is nonsense, since photons (considered as points) travel with ##c## and thus do not experience any time lapse. On a principle level, photons do not have any mass, so you cannot divide by it to get the Compton-Wavelength.
 
Last edited:
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