Connection between phase, wave number and momentum

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the physical justification behind the de Broglie relation p = ħk and its equivalent form p = -iħ∂/∂x. Participants inquire about the connection between the gradient of phase in wave mechanics and momentum, particularly in the context of laser physics. A reference to Lord Rayleigh's work on phase velocity is mentioned, noting its mathematical significance rather than direct physical observability. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these relationships through de Broglie's original thesis and Nobel lecture. The inquiry highlights the ongoing exploration of fundamental wave-momentum relationships in physics.
cin-bura
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
hello!

Does anybody know the physical justification of the de broglie relation p=\hbar k? or (i guess equivalently) for p=-i\hbar ∂/∂x ?

i came across a more general "law" in laser physics, where momentum is seen as the gradient of the phase of a scalar light field (used in eg the paraxial wave equation).

what is the exact connection between the phase (or actually it's gradient) and momentum, and where does it come from physically?

thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hello cin-bura,

Do you have a reference for the statement that "momentum is seen as the gradient of the phase" ?

Long ago Lord Raleigh found that one way to characterize waves is the phase velocity. That is the velocity of the plane in which the phase is constant. That's more of a mathematical extrapolation than a physical observable because it's only in special situations that that plane is aligned with the actual wave front. But from the phase velocity many facts about the wave can be determined which de Broglie used to great advantage.

For the rationale and derivation you can see de Broglie's thesis or Noble prize lecture:

http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ie-lecture.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top