The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?  (Read 387 times)

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Planck's Constant was first recognized by its originator Max Planck in 1900,  who  initially considered it to be  the proportionality constant between the minimal increment of energy, e, of a hypothetical electrically charged oscillator in a cavity that contained black body radiation, and the frequency, 260b57b4fdee8c5a001c09b555ccd28d.gif, of its associated electromagnetic wave. In 1905 Einstein further implemented this relationship by linking it to the energy of the of the electromagnetic wave. The value e, the minimal energy increment of a hypothetical oscillator, was theoretically associated by Einstein with a "quantum" or minimal element of the energy of the electromagnetic wave itself. The light quantum behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, as opposed to an electromagnetic wave. It was eventually called the photon.

The point under consideration is whether, when such an anomalous definition of the photon is given, namely that it is a wave that behaved in some respects as an electrically neutral particle, were all the permutations and manipulations of the  relationship that was Planck's constant justified ? 

Where:

e = Energy of a particle,
m = mass of particle
c = Speed of light
h = Planck's constant

260b57b4fdee8c5a001c09b555ccd28d.gif = Frequency of light
Einstein's equation :        796f64e97cdd054d8b097f589e4fdc00.gif
Planck's equation :          1c6dc3f344b103493433b046e2e91325.gif
Equating both we get :     dfe2157a7b590f7e9941d4a92be2dbfd.gif
we know that :               8c1efef9dba26b424728e07d4941a8e0.gif
                                   9a0ce33ffeb402bbb8169a72717e6dd7.gif
                                   97e29411c1638e9f8776e774e22b0adb.gif
or :                              7998f26f5058041031e5b07a0fc20463.gif   

for macroscopic particles v can replace c:

Thus the equation becomes b51041685fb4558046915512358ee522.gif

Now ,  mv = p ( momentum of particle) and therefore,

De Broglie relation:    4976bad938f41bc82a7b6d9da6adc323.gif

Notice that these 'equations' only hold good IF the premise of  wave/particle duality in the sense of classical wave and a classical particle hold good.  If the premise fails then so does the theory and the equation becomes unproductive, since it points to a non-existent relationship.

For instance would it be possible, or even worthwhile, to apply the De Broglie relation to a hyper sonic sound wave such as used in lithotripsy ? These hypersonic  sound waves, are definitely waves but they behave like particles in the sense that they possess the ability to break and even shatter stones. Suppose  that frequency of the sound is 2 Hz and that the speed of sound is 343m/s

Then the wave-length would be 343/2 = 171.5 m.
so according to De Broglie:   08113cbdf24d5021bd8eb63f19895f46.gif  = 0f5ec7fb0ac898d3da62b3b594d4d864.gif =9ba65166485d25db000df2740de59a07.gif

Dividing by v  we find that mass of the sound wave = e5448e988bf5729d08a56cb3fe98c0cd.gif Kg. approx.

Does it make sense, only if it is absolutely essential and you want it to.

What is needed and what unfortunately was never considered, everything being in a state of chaos and excitement was a new type of wave on the lines of the hypersonic waves used in lithotripsy, which incidentally was first introduced only in 1980, decades after all of these conventions including the de Broglie relation were firmly established.  What was needed was a new idea, and a new wave, classical waves would never fit the various paradigm that planck's discovery denoted.  The inability to come up with a new wave concept has resulted in the acceptance of the De Broglie relation with all its ambiguities and improbabilities.


« Last Edit: 30/05/2016 06:34:46 by McQueen »


 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Reply #1 on: 31/05/2016 18:02:35 »
For instance would it be possible, or even worthwhile, to apply the De Broglie relation to a hyper sonic sound wave such as used in lithotripsy ? These hypersonic  sound waves, are definitely waves but they behave like particles in the sense that they possess the ability to break and even shatter stones. Suppose  that frequency of the sound is 2 Hz and that the speed of sound is 343m/s
Rather than hypersonic, I think you should use the term ultrasonic for lithotripsy. Hence the frequency is at least 20 kHz.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2016 02:55:54 »
Rather than hypersonic, I think you should use the term ultrasonic for lithotripsy. Hence the frequency is at least 20 kHz.

Appreciated.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: De Broglie Equation : Convention or Aberration ?
« Reply #2 on: 01/06/2016 02:55:54 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums