De Broglie wavelength and atom penetration

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the de Broglie wavelength (DBW) of an electron with a kinetic energy of 60 GeV and determining its penetration percentage into an atom's diameter. The user successfully calculates the DBW but seeks guidance on how to relate this to atomic penetration. It is suggested that the diameter of the hydrogen atom in its ground state could be used for this comparison. Additionally, there is clarification on using the correct momentum formula for relativistic electrons, emphasizing the importance of using the electron's rest mass in calculations. The conversation highlights the need for proper equations to connect kinetic energy, momentum, and wavelength in relativistic contexts.
Bakery87
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Calculate the de broglie wavelength (DBW) of an electron with kinetic energy 60 GeV.

What percentage of an atom's diameter can it penetrate?


Homework Equations



DBW = h/p
p=mv


The Attempt at a Solution



Basically I have an electron traveling at the speed of light. I arrived at this from its kinetic energy (60 GeV) and by using the relativistic K-energy equation. So I get it's de broglie wavelength fairly easily (I have this part done).

The part I don't understand is the penetration. I guess I just need some guidance/equations. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF, Barkery87.

For an atom's diameter, they might mean take the diameter of the Bohr model for the hydrogen atom in its ground state. What percentage of that diameter is the deBroglie wavelength?

p.s.
Um, you didn't use the electron's rest mass to calculate p=mv, did you?
 
I used 0.511003 MeV/c^2
 
Momentum is calculated differently for relativistic motion. There should be a formula in your textbook or lecture notes, relating E, p, and m (the rest mass, sometimes called m0)
 
I did find something...

p = K/c

I'm still looking through my notes.
 
Bakery87 said:
p = K/c

Actually, that's a valid approximation for extremely relativistic situations (like this one).
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top