DeBroglie's formula is not correct [split from Waveform of an electron]

[altsci]

The measurable physical property (frequency) has to be frame independent (invariant). I agree that "Velocity is a condition of the frame". That means that DeBroglie's formula is not correct. I propose to replace v in DeBroglies formula by some invariant difference between 4-d speed of an electron (q(0), q(1)) and 4-d speed of the target (p(0), p(1)). The difference s(0)=q(0)-p(0), s(1)=q(1)-p(1) . This vector s(k) has norm s and this s has to go instead of v in DeBroglies formula. In the frame where target is stationary we have p(0)=1, p(1)=0, q(0)=1/g , q(1)=v/g, where g=sqrt[1-(v/c)^2]. The calculation of s gives s=sqrt[2(1//g-1)] which is approximately v at small velocities. This calculation shows that DeBroglies frequency is the result of relative movement between the electron and the target independently of chosen frame.

[Klaynos]

The measurable physical property (frequency) has to be frame independent (invariant).

Does it? Why? Frequency in general is not, energy is not.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

This is a non-mainstream speculation, and has been removed from the topic in which it was posted. Please don't hijack someone else's thread with your own pet ideas.

 

Please take the time to review the special rules for this section. Please provide evidence for your claims. No need to reply to this modnote, unless you want to Report it as unfair.

[swansont]

Isn't the change in the wavelength or frequency simply the Doppler shift? Why are all these extra hoops necessary?

[altsci]

I think that we can do without frames. My original statement "velocity is always relative" (always 2 objects are required) is pretty conclusive. One of these objects can not be a frame. Both objects have to be relevant to the experiment.

 

I agree that energy is not a scalar (it is time component). But any experiment to measure energy will include other devices. We measure always a scalar because any measurement is unique.

 

DeBroglie's frequency can be viewed as Doppler frequency. The Doppler frequency also requires 2 physical objects.

 

The final result: DeBroglie;s frequency is not a property of the electron alone. The electron remains a particle...

[Strange]

I think that we can do without frames.

 

Only if you eliminate all motion. If you have two things moving with a relative velocity then you have two frames of reference, by definition.

[swansont]

I think that we can do without frames. My original statement "velocity is always relative" (always 2 objects are required) is pretty conclusive. One of these objects can not be a frame. Both objects have to be relevant to the experiment.

 

I agree that energy is not a scalar (it is time component). But any experiment to measure energy will include other devices. We measure always a scalar because any measurement is unique.

 

DeBroglie's frequency can be viewed as Doppler frequency. The Doppler frequency also requires 2 physical objects.

 

The final result: DeBroglie;s frequency is not a property of the electron alone. The electron remains a particle...

 

 

You're proposing something that physics already deals with; a remarkable solution for mundane concept. Any object with mass will define a frame of reference. Any wave is going to be subject to Doppler effects of relative motion.

 

You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist.

[altsci]

The electron's mass is absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron).

The electron's charge is also absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron).

These two characterize a particle (the spin also).

 

DeBroglie's frequency depends on velocity. So it is the property of not only electron. The relative velocity between the electron and the target (this one is frame independent) is the significant factor. There is no grounds to claim dualism (double nature of an electron). Electron remains the particle with its invariant mass, charge, and spin.

 

Note: by changing frame I mean transformation of coordinates only - without any physical change.

[swansont]

The electron's mass is absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron).

The electron's charge is also absolute invariant - it does not depend on frame (or velocity of the electron).

These two characterize a particle (the spin also).

 

DeBroglie's frequency depends on velocity. So it is the property of not only electron. The relative velocity between the electron and the target (this one is frame independent) is the significant factor. There is no grounds to claim dualism (double nature of an electron). Electron remains the particle with its invariant mass, charge, and spin.

 

Note: by changing frame I mean transformation of coordinates only - without any physical change.

You're missing/ignoring the point. How is this an issue for deBroglie waves, but not other waves?

[ajb]

It is true that the formulation of de Broglie wave's as usually given in introductory quantum mechanics courses is not Lorentz invariant. This is clear and no big issue. It is quite expected as one relates momentum and a wave vector where we know one should also include energy into this mix.

 

You can reformulate the understanding of the relation between momentum and wave vectors to a relation between 4-mometum and the wave 4-vector. In doing so you end up with Lorentz invariant expressions.

[altsci]

The issue here is that electron and wave are separate physical entities and as a result an electron has to be orbiting in the atom. The psi-function represent some physical field (standing wave) that interacts with the electron

[elfmotat]

The issue here is that electron and wave are separate physical entities and as a result an electron has to be orbiting in the atom. The psi-function represent some physical field (standing wave) that interacts with the electron

 

Oh, so you're arguing for a particular interpretation of QM? This sounds a lot like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Unfortunately that's probably not going to be very useful. There is no test you can do to distinguish which interpretation is 'correct.' They're called interpretations for a reason!

Edited April 22, 2016 by elfmotat

[imatfaal]

Oh, so you're arguing for a particular interpretation of QM? This sounds a lot like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Unfortunately that's probably not going to be very useful. There is no test you can do to distinguish which interpretation is 'correct.' They're called interpretations for a reason!

[ot]

Welcome back! Long time no post. Hope the self-schooling is still progressing - it was already pretty amazing.

[/ot]

[elfmotat]

[ot]

Welcome back! Long time no post. Hope the self-schooling is still progressing - it was already pretty amazing.

[/ot]

 

Hi! Unfortunately I've been pretty busy working, working on my degree, and playing music to get much physics self-study done for a while. I'm looking to get back into it, so hopefully I'm not too rusty.

[altsci]

Quote: "Oh, so you're arguing for a particular interpretation of QM? This sounds a lot like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Unfortunately that's probably not going to be very useful. There is no test you can do to distinguish which interpretation is 'correct.' They're called interpretations for a reason!"

 

It is different from De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. De Broglie frequency (f=(mc/h)V is proportional to the velocity of an electron V. Since V is always relative there have to be 2 objects and a wave between them: an electron, nucleus, and a wave between them. Since an atom is stationary - the wave has to be standing wave. So, the new interpretation of QM is that psi-function is the amplitude of standing wave of some physical scalar field that satisfies to the wave equation. It is completely classical interpretation.

[swansont]

Quote: "Oh, so you're arguing for a particular interpretation of QM? This sounds a lot like the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. Unfortunately that's probably not going to be very useful. There is no test you can do to distinguish which interpretation is 'correct.' They're called interpretations for a reason!"

 

It is different from De Broglie-Bohm interpretation. De Broglie frequency (f=(mc/h)V is proportional to the velocity of an electron V. Since V is always relative there have to be 2 objects and a wave between them: an electron, nucleus, and a wave between them. Since an atom is stationary - the wave has to be standing wave. So, the new interpretation of QM is that psi-function is the amplitude of standing wave of some physical scalar field that satisfies to the wave equation. It is completely classical interpretation.

 

 

Physics has to work equally well in any frame of reference, so the electron could be stationary, too. But a stationary object has no wavelength. In any event, nothing here is necessarily a standing wave. (nor is anything with Planck's constant in it classical)