Page 1 of 1

does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:24 pm
by Lily Emerson 1I
just kinda forgot this in my notes, but while im on the topic is there any kind of cutoff for when we really consider an object having a wavelength?

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 4:18 pm
by Yeo Bin Yook 1K
According to De Broglie, anything with mass has wavelike properties. So using his equation, lamda=h/p you can figure out the wavelength. It works for any particle with momentum (p) and it has wavelike properties with wavelength (lamda).

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:42 pm
by Gisselle Sainz 2F
Yes everything has a wavelength, but wave properties can only be detected for microscopic particles. The wavelengths of macroscopic objects do exist, but they are regarded to be very small and negligible according to De Broglie's equation. In De Broglie's equation, if you divide Planck's constant by a very big mass found at the macroscopic level you will end up with a very very small wavelength.

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2018 8:08 pm
by Rummel Requerme 1E
A good rule of thumb for myself is that anything that has a given mass will have a wavelength. So, yes; but of course, there may be certain exceptions somewhere down the line.

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:29 pm
by Chiara Berruto 1K
Everything does have a wavelength that can be calculated using the DeBroglie equation. However large objects have such small wavelengths that they cannot be observed or detected (If a wavelength is smaller than 10^-18 it is considered undetectable)

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:32 pm
by Adam Yaptangco 1D
Everything has a wavelength, but not every wavelength is detectable. The wavelength is so inconsequential that it cannot be detected.

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 10:44 pm
by Sophie W
According to DeBroglie: yes everything has a wavelength, but some of them have wavelengths so insubstantial/large that it's difficult to observe wavelike properties from them

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 1:26 pm
by Maria Zamarripa 1L
I believe that everything does have wavelike properties.

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 8:31 pm
by Jaedyn_Birchmier3F
Everything with a mass has wavelength properties, but mass has an affect on if the wavelength properties (wavelength) are able to be measure. De Brogile's equation gives this as it is wavelength = h/p. P is mass time velocity therefore if the mass is larger it will make the wavelength much smaller as the two have an inverse relationship. So if the mass is large their will be a wavelength that is too small so therefore the wavelength properties are immeasurable.

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:29 pm
by Ashley P 4I
Does anyone have the car problem the Professor used in order to explain this?

Re: does everything have a wavelength

Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 12:10 am
by Emily Li 4A
Ashley P 4I wrote:Does anyone have the car problem the Professor used in order to explain this?


A 1.50 * 10^3 kg car is travelling at 27.0 m/s. What is the de Broglie wavelength of the car? Does the car have any detectable wavelike properties?

wavelength= h/p = h/mv = (6.626 *10^34 Js)/(1500 kg) (27.0 m/s) = 1.64 * 10^-38 meters.

The car's wavelength is not detectable. Lavelle compared this example to gamma rays, which are 10^-12 meters in wavelength and are detectable. He stated that he wouldn't give us examples with wavelengths close to this value (like 10^-11 or 10^-14) and confuse us. I think if the solved wavelength was around 10^-40, it's very safe to say that it's not detectable.