de Broglie wavelength possibilities?
827091
Hi. I think it deals more with the interaction of radiation with particles (or a particle) than with speed. At any non-relativistic speed (less than .1 'c' say) the wavelength would not be infinite or unbounded. Just my opinion.
702843
Fringe width β= λD/d\nIf the wavelength is decreased,  the fringe width also decreases.\nSo, if you consider any order fringe, say 5th order, it would form at a lesser distance from the centre as compared to the previous case(i.e.when red light was used)
998189
ok, you could choose how light waves chance in different colors, and make it interesting with examples of real life. You could also talk about the light properties like reflection, refraction, dispersion, diffraction and interference. Always remember to show an example from day to day life.
267019
Given:\nh = Planck's constant = 6.626*10^-34\nf = frequency = 7.5*10^14\n\nBinding Energy = h*f = 6.626*10^-34*7.5*10^14 = 4.9695*10^-19 Joules\n\n============================================================\nGiven:\nh = Planck's constant = 6.626*10^-34\nf = frequency = 7.5*10^14\nc = speed of photon = 3*10^-8 m/s\nWavelength of photon = 366 nm = 3.66*10^-7 m\n\nFrequency of photon = c/wavelength of photon = 3.3*10^-8/3.66*10^-7 = 0.090163934 /s\nEnergy of photon = h*f = 6.626*10^-34*0.090163934 = 5.97426*10^-35 Joules\n\n============================================================\nSorry, I'm actually at work. Not being able to concentrate too much on it.\n\nEnergy of photon should have been bigger than the B.E. of electrons. Try to figure out, why its not.\n\nDifference of the two energies would be the energy of the realsed electrons from the surface.\n\nWhen I'm done with work I'll check back and try to finish it up.\n\nHope you understand.
384399
Because Debrogelie's wave equation has momentum on the bottom, which is dependent on mass. Therefore, as mass increases, the wavelength decreases. This means that all things that we can see have such a low wavelength that its impossible to see, let alone measure.
892822
(1) there is no problem with the concept\n\n(2) the concept refers not to "a wave of particle". But to the fact that the wave IS the particle, and the particle IS the wave.  More precisely, the particle (in our everyday definition, i.e. a small bit of matter) does not really exist at a precise point in space, but it is to be found in a given region, and the probability of finding it there is proportional to the absolute value of its "wave function"\n\nyou seem to view this as little bits of matter / light undulating on top of a wave - that's wrong.\n\n\nhistorically, what happened is that various experiments seemed to suggest that SOMETIMES it seemed that you had a wave, and other times, a particle.\n\nThe most famous one is the double slot experiment.  Incoming light will go through the two slots, and lights re-emitted after having gone through each slot will interfere with each other, and on a screen you will observe an interference pattern, i.e. a series of bright and dark bands.\n\nso then someone suggested to use light of such low intensity so that you'd literally emit one photon at a time.  Hoping to not get any interference picture - since each photon could not interfere with anything.\n\nbut what happened was that the photons would arrive at various points on the screen, and little by little, their accumulation would reconstruct the interference picture\n\nthis is what caused people problems - until they invested quantum physics, which deals perfectly with this.
664927
First, can a subatomic particle appear to be in two places at once?\n\nAccording to Quantum Theory, the answer is yes, because in order to know where a particle is, we have to measure its position, but the very act of measuring its position will alter the particle's behavior. So in effect we can never be sure where it is exactly. So in this sense, we may get measurements that give results that says the particle is here and there (this is the Uncertainty Principle).\n\nOf course, this is NOT new to quantum theory. So what's new? Someone mentioned "quantum entanglement" and "quantum teleportation". These are some of the new topics in quantum theory.\n\nPS - there is no such thing as Aether quantum dynamics or\n Auto dynamics, and Bohr's quantum mechanics is alive and well. The only addition we've added to Bohr's theory is the concept of electron cloud (i.e. a probability cloud) around the nucleus of an atom rather than electron orbits.
586760
Ready?\n\nIn 1900 two theoretical Physicists, Rayleigh and Jeans were working on Black body radiation. A black body is something that re-emits all the radiation it absorbs. They tried to calculate the spectrum of the radiation coming out of a  container who's walls are all black. The frequencies should have been the same, but instead they were yucho. The high frequencies were favored despite theory. "untraviolet catastrophe".\n\nA year later Max Plank figured out that Rayleigh and Jeans assumption that the energy seeped in and out of the box in a perfectly continuous way was Wack.\n\nPlank said the energy moved in descrete packets he called quanta, \n\n"Electromagnetic radiation oscillation v times a second turns out to be made up of a whole number of packets of energy, each amount hv where h is Planck's constant." \n\n"The value of hi is 6.63 x 10 -34 joule-seconds"\n\nHappy mom's day\n\n(love this sh*t)
737785
I'll let you do the calculation, but the equation you need is:\n\nE = hc/lambda \n\nwhere h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light in m/s and lambda is the wavelength of the light (in meters). You can find the rest of the numbers in your text book, I'm sure...
69398
In some sense, it could be made up of individual particles.  But if you break down the particles far enough, they start to take on properties of waves as well as particles.  But the question is, if they are waves, what is there to do the waving?\n\nIf we observe the particles very closely, we can determine their exact positions - but the more precisely we determine their positions, the less we know about their momentum!  We can only draw a graph to represent the probability of a given particle's momentum _if_ it happened to be at a particular position, and there does not seem to be any way to exactly predict what its position or momentum might be at any given point in time, without measuring it.\n\nSo it could be that matter does not exist at all, unless it is being measured, or observed.  Could it be that what matter is made up of is...mind?
36596
That's a big "if", that's some car!\n\nOK, I'll go there:\n\nThe photons in the forward direction could not escape thre filaments so they'd build up there, but the filaments would not blow because they'd be infinite mass.  Boring answer, really.  Nothing would happen.
191834
when on eis at the speed of light, v=c:\n\n\nV = c(wavelength shift/wavelength)    \n        \n     where:  c = velocity of light\n\n name of the person is both Grocer and Grover, as v is replacable with c at the speed of light.
164646
You mean a 'frequency of 5.10^12Hz'\n\nCan you work it out yourself?:\n\nRemember that the speed (v) of the wave is 3×10^8 m/s,\nand that the wavelength is given by v/f\n\n[Edit: Darn, Kirchwey - don't do Glow's homework for her! ;-) ]
626652
the lowest frequency, like low-band radio has a wavelength of about 2-300ft, but theoretically if you could produce EM waves at frequencies much lower then that, you could get wavelenghts of even light years in length, but that's not very practical to do, i doubt if its even possible.
801633
Hi, \n\nThat's too much like real work, but think about it like breaking pool balls in classical, and wave interference with quantum. \n\nHope that helps, \nMatt
836806
Are you referencing the time dependency of the Schroedinger equation?  Or are you implying quantization of time?
297054
heres the info:\n\nNobody has ever managed to ride a beam of light, although Einstein in his youth imagined what it might be like to do so. Such thinking eventually lead to the special theory of relativity. Although it is still impossible for anyone to travel on a light ray, physicists have managed to stop a laser beam in its tracks! This amazing result builds on earlier work by a research group led by Lene Hau in which light was slowed to 38 miles per hour.\n     Light in a medium travels somewhat slower than 300,000 kilometers per second, its speed in a vacuum. This effect, known as refraction, is responsible for the bending of light in passing from one medium to another. In an ultracold gas of sodium atoms, the index of fraction varies significantly with the frequency of light. The gas is normally opaque, but when the sodium atoms are bathed with secondary "controlling" laser light of a particular frequency, the medium becomes transparent and light can pass through it. Due to the varying index of refraction, a primary laser pulse slows down when it enters the gas. It also becomes greatly compressed. A pulse with a length of one kilometer gets squeezed into a tiny unit one one-thousandth of a meter in length. When the light pulse exits the region of sodium atoms, it expands back to its original length zooming off at 300,000 kilometers per second again. \n     To bring the light to a standstill, Dr. Hau and her co-workers turn off the secondary controlling laser light after the impinging laser beam has entered the ultra cold sample. The medium becomes opaque. One would think that the laser pulse would be absorbed by the sodium atoms. Instead, the information about the light wave is encoded in the atoms. When the controlling laser light is turned back on, the atoms reconstruct the laser beam. It continues its propagation though medium and then out the sample. If the time during which the beam is halted is not too long, the shape of the reconstructed beam coincides to a high degree with the original shape.\n     Imagine a train one kilometer in length consisting of thousands of cars traveling at 300,000 kilometers per second. Suddenly, the track becomes rough, causing the front engine and subsequent cars to come to a screeching slowdown. With the train now moving at 38 miles per hour, the cars pile up and are crushed to the size of an ant. Then a magician snaps her finger and the train disappears but leaves an imprint on the dirt between the tracks. With a second snap of the finger, the imprint vanishes while the ant-sized train reappears and moves forward at 38 miles per hour again. Then the train encounters smooth track. The engine speeds off at 300,000 kilometers per second, and as subsequent cars enter the smooth track region, they too rapidly speed off so that the entire accordion-like structure unfolds. Remarkably, little damage to the train occurs.\n     "Impossible!" You say. Well, in the case of a train, it is impossible because the deformation of metal is an irreversible process. But light is more accommodating and can be stretched or compressed more readily. Still, Dr. Hau's team has done what seems to be magical. Why isn't the light absorbed and lost? How can the atomic information reconstruct the beam? Why isn't the beam greatly distorted when it leaves the sample? The answers to these questions reside in the miracles of quantum mechanics, the dynamics that control the microscopic world of atoms and their interactions with light.\n     A major technological breakthrough has occurred. If low cost means are found to manipulate light in the above manner, then computers and communications will be revolutionized. One can imagine using light instead of electrons to perform computational processes. Such photonic machines would calculate at many times the rate of current computers.