9 posts • Page 1 of 1
So if an object has a wavelength of less than x10^-15, its wavelength is technically undetectable or just so small that is irrelevant has little to no functionality. However, does it technically have a wavelength still? Do we consider it as an object that still has a wavelength? or if its value is smaller than x10^-15, do we no longer say it has a wavelength?
If an object has a wavelength of less than x10^-15, then it still has wave-like properties, but they are basically undetectable. For example, if you throw a baseball, it will still have a wavelength, but it will oscillate at such a small wavelength, that it becomes irrelevant.
Yeah, the wavelength exists but is very small and imperceivable. The entire concept of De Broglie's is to propose that all matter has wave-like properties, such as wavelengh. It is usually applied to describe the wave-like nature of an electron, but can still be used for larger objects. Just doesn't tell us much about them, since their wavelength is so tiny (negligible).
The wavelength exists, but is merely not detectable. Typically, if the wavelength is smaller than 1*10^-12 m (the size of gamma rays) then its not detectable. DeBroglie's suggests that all matter has wavelike properties, only that some are not detectable or visible (typically, objects with larger mass have non-detectable wavelengths, as wavelength = h/ (mass*velocity))
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests