SweetScientist Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 From what I understand the wavelength of an object is given by: Planks constant/Momentum. Does this mean that when stationary(relatively) that particles have no wavelength and are therefore not waves? If so, why does a particle need to be moving to have a wavelike character? I have the feeling there is a simple answer but I would be grateful if it's cleared up, thanks.
Aethelwulf Posted June 8, 2012 Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) From what I understand the wavelength of an object is given by: Planks constant/Momentum. Does this mean that when stationary(relatively) that particles have no wavelength and are therefore not waves? If so, why does a particle need to be moving to have a wavelike character? I have the feeling there is a simple answer but I would be grateful if it's cleared up, thanks. Compton's wavelength? You can derive it by dividing through [math]Mc^2[/math] into [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math]. Photon's can never be at rest , however, as I understand the wavelnegth the energy of a photon can be low enough to have it's wavelength match any particle who is at rest near rest. So the wavelength may be seen perhaps, as the energy of the wave of a particle at near rest which may fit the energy of a photon whose energy is small enough. Edited June 8, 2012 by Aethelwulf
SweetScientist Posted June 9, 2012 Author Posted June 9, 2012 Compton's wavelength? You can derive it by dividing through [math]Mc^2[/math] into [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math]. Photon's can never be at rest , however, as I understand the wavelnegth the energy of a photon can be low enough to have it's wavelength match any particle who is at rest near rest. So the wavelength may be seen perhaps, as the energy of the wave of a particle at near rest which may fit the energy of a photon whose energy is small enough. Thanks for the reply, I was referring moreso to when I read on the internet and people give wavelengths to things like tennis balls and actual macroscopic matter. Even though we can't see the wavelike properties(another thing I don't know why) they still have a "wavelength". Does this wavelength no longer exists if said particle has 0 momentum?
Aethelwulf Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 Thanks for the reply, I was referring moreso to when I read on the internet and people give wavelengths to things like tennis balls and actual macroscopic matter. Even though we can't see the wavelike properties(another thing I don't know why) they still have a "wavelength". Does this wavelength no longer exists if said particle has 0 momentum? That's right. Even you have a wavelength, but it is very small. So it still exists... very technically speaking, you have a wave function which extends way past the milkyway. All macroscopic objects have wave functions, but as I said, they are too small to be visible.
SweetScientist Posted June 9, 2012 Author Posted June 9, 2012 That's right. Even you have a wavelength, but it is very small. So it still exists... very technically speaking, you have a wave function which extends way past the milkyway. All macroscopic objects have wave functions, but as I said, they are too small to be visible. That is an awesome thing to comprehend, thanks.
j356 Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 There is some great info here related to wave-theory and quantum mechanics plus other stuff, it's well worth checking out http://www.youtube.com/user/physicsacademy
SweetScientist Posted June 9, 2012 Author Posted June 9, 2012 There is some great info here related to wave-theory and quantum mechanics plus other stuff, it's well worth checking out http://www.youtube.c.../physicsacademy Thanks for the link.
swansont Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 That's right. Even you have a wavelength, but it is very small. So it still exists... very technically speaking, you have a wave function which extends way past the milkyway. All macroscopic objects have wave functions, but as I said, they are too small to be visible. The deBroglie wavelength is not the same thing as the wave function. From what I understand the wavelength of an object is given by: Planks constant/Momentum. Does this mean that when stationary(relatively) that particles have no wavelength and are therefore not waves? If so, why does a particle need to be moving to have a wavelike character? Note that as momentum tends toward zero, this corresponds to a wavelength going to infinity, which is not the same as no wavelength. But you really don't have the possibility of momentum actually going to zero.
juanrga Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 All macroscopic objects have wave functions, but as I said, they are too small to be visible. A cat has not wavefunction. The moon has not wavefunction...
Aethelwulf Posted June 9, 2012 Posted June 9, 2012 The deBroglie wavelength is not the same thing as the wave function. I know that.. Perhaps I should have made a distinction. I was just trying to get him to mull over other things as well. A cat has not wavefunction. The moon has not wavefunction... Can you rephrase this... are you saying, does a cat not have a wavefunction, or are you implying it does not have one?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now