How to derive the de Broglie Relation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the de Broglie relation by manipulating equations related to energy and momentum. Starting with E = mc^2 and E = hf, the user simplifies the equations to express wavelength in terms of momentum, ultimately arriving at λ = h/p. The conversation reveals a misunderstanding about the constant k, which is defined as k = 2π/λ, and its relationship to wave functions in quantum mechanics. Clarifications are provided on the nature of k as a wave vector and its connection to the Schrödinger equation, emphasizing that k is not a derived quantity but a definition that relates to wavelength and wave behavior. The user expresses a desire to deepen their understanding of these concepts beyond rote memorization.
jigsaw21
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
I'm trying to figure out how to derive the appropriate de Broglie Relation: k = p / h-bar
Relevant Equations
E = mc^2

E = hf

lambda = h / p

h-bar = h / 2*pi

Kinetic Energy = 1/2m*v^2
I began by taking E = mc^2 and E = hf , where h is Planck's constant, and then rewrote E as 1/2mv^2.

I rewrote f as c / λ, which made hf become h*c / λ. I then set this expression equal to the Kinetic Energy equation 1/2mv^2, which gave me:

1/2mv^2 = h*c / λ

I then replaced c on the right side with v, because although that equation initially represented a photon (from E = hf), it can apply to the energy of any particle, which means we can use v for that speed (is that correct??)

So then one of the v's on the left will cancel out with the v term on the right and simplify to:

1/2 mv = h / λ

I then solved for λ and got λ = 2h / mv. I then replaced mv with p (momentum) and got λ = 2h / p

From here, I may have done some redundant steps that were unnecessary, but I was trying to do this from scratch. So I multiplied both sides by (h/2π), and got: hλ / 2π = 2h^2 /p*2π

On the right side, the 2's canceled out. On the left, I recalled from a prior lesson that a value of k was k = 2π / λ. So since I had its reciprocal on the left side next to the, I rewrote the left side as just h / k, which would be equal to h^2 / p*π

From here, I was a bit lost, and decided to multiply both sides by k. That would give me h = h^2 k / p*π

I then multiplied both sides by pπ and got h*p*π = h^2*k

I then canceled out the h from the left with one of the h's on the right, and got pπ = hk

I then divided both sides by h which gave pπ/h = k. At this point I thought I was close, but not sure. I decided to multiply both sides by 2 since I knew that ħ = h / 2π. So after that step, I got p*(2π / h) = 2k.

I then replaced (2π/h) with 1/ħ , since that's the reciprocal, and that gave me p / ħ = 2k, which was really close to the answer I should've gotten which should be k = p / ħ. I have 2k instead of k, and I"m not sure how I got that, or even if this would still be correct since k is a constant. I'm not sure.

Can someone please just check and verify that my steps are correct, and let me know if there's another equation I may be missing, or if I made any mistakes with my math.

Thanks for any help, and apologize for the lengthiness of this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's all in what you have posted except you couldn't just pull it together. You know that ##\lambda=h/p## and you also know that ##k=2\pi/\lambda##. What happens if you take ##\lambda## from the first equation and put it in the second?
 
kuruman said:
It's all in what you have posted except you couldn't just pull it together. You know that ##\lambda=h/p## and you also know that ##k=2\pi/\lambda##. What happens if you take ##\lambda## from the first equation and put it in the second?

I see that now, thanks!

I guess I don't even need the Energy equations at all to derive that k = p / ħ

I then guess one of my other curiosities was what is k = 2π/λ derived from, and how does it relate to the topic of Schrodinger's Equation and Wave Functions? Because that's the topic that I'm currently going over in my studies. I'm at the point where I'm motivated enough to know where these things come from instead of just accepting/memorizing them. I've seen it being referred to as "Circular Wavenumber", but I'm not totally sure what that really means.

From my years of doing math, I've always seen k in most equations referred to as a constant, but it looks like it isn't in this situation since its value is dependent on p. Is that right?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but What I've gathered is the general form of the wave equation is given as ψ = e^i(kx - ωt). And since this represents a wave, I related it to my past history of mathematics with sin and cos graphs when there were transformations, in the form of for example: y = Acos(Bx + C), where the B value is akin to the k value of the wave function, ψ. Are these values in fact related in terms of how they affect the graphs by shortening the wavelengths the larger those values are ??

Thanks again for your reply, and/or anyone else that wouldn't mind chiming into help broaden my understanding.
 
You cannot derive ##k=2\pi/\lambda##; it's a definition of the wave vector. It's a measure of how many wavelengths you can fit in ##2\pi## worth of phase of the sinusoidals. It is true that ##e^{i(kx-\omega t)}## is a solution of the Schrodinger equation with ##E=\hbar \omega## and ##p=\hbar k##. As you probably know, you can write ##\psi(x,t)=e^{i(kx-\omega t)}=\cos(kx-\omega t)+i~\sin(kx-\omega t)##, that is the wavefunction ##\psi(x,t)## has a real and an imaginary part.
 
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with an outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top