Talk:Compton wavelength

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh The talk about uncertainty in the article is highly misleading. For one thing, it perpetuates a very simple-minded notion of where the uncertainty relation comes from, a notion that has confused many a student into thinking that quantum uncertainty is all about the practicalities of the measurement process. But more importantly, it concludes something that's basically incorrect--that it's impossible to localize a particle to a size scale smaller than its compton wavelength. One look at the formula for the wave function for the 1s orbital in a gold atom would dispel this myth. It also completely misses the basic importance of the Compton wavelength in the history of science. The Compton wavelength notion came about from the realization that light scattering from a free electron could be thought of as the interaction of two particles.

[edit] Compton length for one Planck mass

"The Compton length for one Planck mass is equal to the Planck length times 2 pi, and is also equal to the Schwarzschild radius times pi."

m = mC / lC

m is the mass

mC is the constant of proportionality

lC is the compton wavelength

Mass is inversely proportional to the Compton wavelength. The constant of proportionality, mC, is about 2.2102188e-42 kg.m

[edit] Compton wavelength of the electron

This page says the Compton wavelength of the electron is .39 times 10^-12 meters. Everyone else says it's about 2.42 times 10^-13 meters. So, I'm going to change this, to keep people from getting a wrong figure. But, as the above comment suggests, more careful thought needs to be put into this page. John Baez 22:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If one computes the Compton wavelength via the formula quoted in this very article (or any textbook), one finds that h/mc is equal to about 2.4 x 10^(-12) m, not 2.4 x 10^(-13) m. Sigh. I fixed the value in this article. Michael Richmond, 12 January 2006

If one looks at the fact that Planck's constant has the dimensions of angulanr momentum and writes down an angular momentum espression of the form m x r x v = h (Planck's constant) and then evaluates this at v=c. One obtains an expression m x r = h/c . It can be seen that "r" the radius of the implied rotor, is identical to the Compton Wavelength assiciated with the given mass.

Taking this a bit farther one may  note that in this way of looking at the situation, Mass is a force at a distance from the center of a rotor and h/c can be considered as perhaps a constant of nature, some sort of universal torque.  Additionally, mass and radius would be interchangeble values such that at a value of (h/c)^1/2 , they would have identical absolute values of approximately 4.7 x 10^-19 which could be considered as possibly being the radius of a fundamental particle of nature, which has been previously unsuspected.

It is also possible that "mass" then may well be a force, perhaps that component of the angular momentum of the given body which is so directed as to oppose motion in any direction. there seems alsi to be a possible implication that all fundamental particles may be rotating

at the speed of light.  Dean L. Sinclair October 16, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.20.182 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rest mass vs. rest energy

"The Compton wavelength can be thought of as a fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle, taking quantum mechanics and special relativity into account. This depends on the mass m of the particle."

I disagree. It depends on the rest energy of the particle, not the mass.

$\lambda_C = {h c \over E_{rest}}$