does everything have a wavelength

[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?

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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)

[Adam Yaptangco 1D]

Everything has a wavelength, but not every wavelength is detectable. The wavelength is so inconsequential that it cannot be detected.

[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

[Maria Zamarripa 1L]

I believe that everything does have wavelike properties.

[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.

[Ashley P 4I]

Does anyone have the car problem the Professor used in order to explain this?

[Emily Li 4A]

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.