6 posts • Page 1 of 1
In the video module titled: "Wave Properties and the Debroglie Equation", Dr. Lavelle mentions that all matter has wave properties due to the observed behavior of electrons. He later mentioned that since objects with large masses produce extremely small wavelengths, they are said to not exhibit wavelike properties at all. If we are asked a question that says "Does a bowling ball have wavelike properties?", what would be the correct response?
I believe the correct answer would be that a bowling ball does not have wavelike properties. In the video, Dr. Lavelle mentioned that the smallest wavelength we can detect is about 10^-15 meters. A bowling ball has a relatively large mass, so when we plug its mass into the De Broglie equation along with its velocity, we will most likely get a wavelength that is smaller than 10^-15 meters and thus cannot be detected.
All objects have wavelike properties but most are too small for us to be able to detect. They are often only detectable in very small objects such as electrons, neutrons, etc. due to the fact that the larger something's mass is, the smaller the wavelength. (This is due to the fact that in de Broglie's equation, Planck's constant is being divided by momentum, or mass multiplied by velocity, so the larger the momentum, the smaller the wavelength). So to answer your question, technically the bowling ball does have wavelike properties though they are much too small for us to be able to detect.
In general, all objects have wave-like properties, but those with larger masses, have smaller wavelengths, which therefore makes it hard to detect. In the bowling ball's case, its large mass makes its small wavelength hard to detect. If the question asks if a bowling ball has wave-like properties or not, the answer will still be yes.
Technically, yes, it would; however, due to the large mass of the bowling ball, the wavelike properties it exhibits is essentially negligible. I think that if you answer either way, it can be correct depending on how you justify it. Also, as for the question of if something has an exact wavelength of 10^-15 m, would we be able to detect it--I believe that such a limit is approximate as opposed to definite (i.e. just how good our current technology is). It's also exceptionally unlikely (perhaps essentially impossible) for a wavelength to have an EXACT value, since the probability of the object to have the exact conditions needed for that wavelength is so unlikely to occur.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests