-1
$\begingroup$

Suppose a particle of mass m in special relativity. Suppose the de Broglie wave-length is (non-relativistic) case: $$\lambda=\dfrac{h}{p}=\dfrac{h}{mv}$$ In the case of RELATIVISTIC particle, the momentum is $p=m\gamma v$. Therefore a way to recast the de Broglie wavelength is: $$\lambda_{r}=\dfrac{h\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}{mv}$$ Suppose now that we focus on the kinetic energy. For a free particle, we get in the nonrelativistic case, $K.E.=T=p^2/2m$, and thus $p=\sqrt{2Tm}$, and so $$\lambda=\dfrac{h}{\sqrt{2Tm}}$$ I have a doubt concerting to the relativistic case. The natural election for the de Broglie wave-length in the relativistic case is well known: you take $T=E-mc^2$, and from $E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2$, by simple substitution of $E=T+mc^2$, you get $(pc)^2=T^2+2Tmc^2$, $$p=\sqrt{T^2/c^2+2Tm}=\sqrt{2Tm(1+T/2mc^2)}$$ or $$\lambda=\dfrac{h}{\sqrt{T^2/c^2+2Tm}}=\dfrac{h}{\sqrt{2Tm(1+T/2mc^2)}}$$ Well, I have seen a couple of places where the relativistic de Broglie wavelength for a kinetic colliding partice is assumed to be $$\lambda=\dfrac{hc}{T}=\dfrac{hc}{\sqrt{(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2}-mc^2}$$ Is this last relativistic consistent in certain limit (it seems is the ultra-relativistic case) to the previous one?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "better" or "worse"? $\endgroup$ – user174832 Mar 21 '18 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ Consistency...I can not guess why the author/s defined the relativistic de Broglie waveglength for colliding particles...with the P=T/c instead of $(Pc)^2=(T^2+2Tmc^2)$... $\endgroup$ – riemannium Mar 21 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Vocabulary term of the day "ultra-relativistic" regime. Occasionally also seen as "highly relativistic" and other variants. But if you are reading at an advanced level the authors probably expect you to be able to think like a physicist and that means paying attention to scale as it applies to the problem in front of you. $\endgroup$ – dmckee Mar 21 '18 at 17:39
  • $\begingroup$ OH, I see...If $T^2>>2Tmc^2$, I get the second expression. Oh, I was so dumb...However, how can it be to do the approximation and then reinsert the masses? $\endgroup$ – riemannium Mar 21 '18 at 18:02
0
$\begingroup$

Thinking about this answer: $$KE(rel)=(\gamma-1)mc^2$$ Thus, if T=KE(rel): $$\gamma=1+T/mc^2$$ If $T>>2mc^2>mc^2$: $$\gamma\approx T/mc^2$$ By the other hand, from the de Broglie fundamental relationship: $$\lambda=\dfrac{h}{p}=\dfrac{hc}{pc}=\dfrac{hc}{m\gamma v c}$$ and then, with $\gamma\approx T/mc^2$, and $v\approx c$ we obtain $$\lambda=\dfrac{h mc^3}{m T v c}=\dfrac{h c}{T}$$ From this last equation we get the above one from a simple use of the dispersion relationship. However, as the kinetic energy is much bigger than the rest mass, my doubt concerning the presence of mass remained...Until I did some numbers...

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.