8 posts • Page 1 of 1
Throughout the module, in addition to the calculations, there was a question that would ask whether or not that circumstance/object was therefore acting as a wave. In the case of the baseball, for example, technically everything with momentum has the potential to act as a wave correct? It all just comes down to whether or not those wavelengths can be detected, if I'm understanding this. So if the question asks if the baseball is acting as a wave is it no because it can't be detected, or is it yes? Because the calculations demonstrate that there is a wave being produced, it's just on a very small level.
I believe technically it has a wavelength, but it doesn't have wavelike characteristics because it's so small. Dr. Lavelle also explained this in the Wave Properties of Electrons Module when he discussed the de Broglie equation, which has mass*velocity in the denominator, so when the mass of a baseball is relatively high, the value of the wavelength is relatively low. Basically, it depends on whether the question is asking if it EXHIBITS wavelike properties versus whether it has a wavelength.
Objects that exhibit wavelike properties have a small mass and high velocity. In the case of a baseball, since it has a large mass and short wavelength, it does not exhibit wavelike properties.
If you are referring the the post module assessment, while you can get a number for the wavelength of a baseball using DeBrogile equation, it will be incredibly small and therefore impossible to detect with our technology. So no, objects like baseballs do not have wavelength like properties. Like the response above me mentioned, wavelengths are only measurable for particles with small mass and high velocity (such as an electron or a neutron traveling at speeds a little less than that of light).
While the baseball, with appropriate calculations, does technically have a wavelength, it is so incredibly small (some examples have its wavelength at 1.9x10^-39) that it is basically undetectable; it would only be measured through high specialized equipment. Such an object, with it's high mass as compared to an electron/neutron, would not exhibit wavelike properties.
The baseball technically is both a particle and a wave, though it doesn't exhibit any measurable wave-like properties. I'm assuming the question is asking whether or not its wave-like properties are noticeable, as all matter is technically a wave and a particle.
As long as there's a mass and velocity of something, a theoretical wavelength is always produced, no matter how small it is. However, always consider that things have more than one property (in this case, the baseball has both wavelike and particle properties).
According to De Broglie equation,any object with a mass and a velocity(that is to say, any object with momentum)can be considered as a wave. However, since baseball has a relatively large mass, the wavelength will be too small to be detectable. Let's say the baseball weighs 145g and moves at 40m/s. According to De Broglie equation, the wavelength of the baseball is 1.14*10^-34m, this value is nearly equal to zero. So that's why we say that only object with small mass and high velocity experiences wave like properties.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest