Talk:Wave-particle duality: Difference between revisions
imported>Paul Wormer (→Davisson-Germer + solid: new section) |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (→Revert of intro para fixes: new section) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
You write "solid matter" for particles like electrons. Confusion is possible, because we have also solid, liquid, and gaseous matter. An electron beam is neither of the three, which is why I used the (admittedly fairly technical) terminology "particles with non-zero rest mass".--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 21:23, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | You write "solid matter" for particles like electrons. Confusion is possible, because we have also solid, liquid, and gaseous matter. An electron beam is neither of the three, which is why I used the (admittedly fairly technical) terminology "particles with non-zero rest mass".--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 21:23, 22 April 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Revert of intro para fixes == | |||
Is there some particular reason the fixes to the into para were reverted in [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Wave-particle_duality&diff=100317234&oldid=100317209 this edit]? According to [[CZ:Article Mechanics#Opening section]] "we '''bold''' the title of the article in the first sentence". [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 00:45, 23 April 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 23:45, 22 April 2008
De Broglie theory
As I remember the history of quantum mechanics (I write this from memory, I have no access to my books) Einstein (1905) postulated light quanta (later called photons) and De Broglie (1924) postulated in his thesis waves for matter (particles like electrons with non-zero rest mass). Compton showed that light momentum could be transferred into particle momentum (Xray scattering on nearly free hydrogen atoms). The present article is not in agreement with my memory, so who is right? --Paul Wormer 21:28, 21 April 2008 (CDT)
- Hi Paul,
- So you are saying that statement that Compton developed his work in particle momentum from DeBroglie is in error. Checking my sources now.--Thomas Simmons 19:31, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
- No, error is much too strong a word. I don't remember all the details, but I remember Compton scattering (photons scattered off hydrogens) and I'm pretty sure that De Broglie was the first to see the wave character of matter (i.e., electrons and protons, I believe that neutrons were not known yet in 1924). I do not remember how Compton came to do his experiments, could well be that he was inspired by De Broglie's work. --Paul Wormer 20:19, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Davisson-Germer + solid
Thomas you write,
Davisson and Germer's research in 1927[3] firmly established the wave-mechanics theory underlying current understanding of the wave nature of light.
As I recall, Davisson and Germer's results proved unambiguously the wave nature of matter (they ran electrons—matter—through crystals in the same way as Bragg sr. had done with X-rays—a form of light—in the early 1910s. D&G saw the same kind of electron diffraction patterns as Bragg saw earlier with his X-rays).
You write "solid matter" for particles like electrons. Confusion is possible, because we have also solid, liquid, and gaseous matter. An electron beam is neither of the three, which is why I used the (admittedly fairly technical) terminology "particles with non-zero rest mass".--Paul Wormer 21:23, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Revert of intro para fixes
Is there some particular reason the fixes to the into para were reverted in this edit? According to CZ:Article Mechanics#Opening section "we bold the title of the article in the first sentence". J. Noel Chiappa 00:45, 23 April 2008 (CDT)