Viewing the wave properties of a macroscopic object

In summary, the conversation discusses the difficulty of observing the wavelength properties of a tennis ball due to its size and the possibility of using a black hole or wormhole to demonstrate its wave properties. It is clarified that black holes and wormholes are not ordinary objects or quantum particles and therefore cannot demonstrate these properties. The concept of length contraction is also brought up, but it is explained that it does not affect the width of an object and therefore would not help in passing the tennis ball through a small slit.
  • #1
Boltzman Oscillation
233
26
My textbook explained that it would be hard to see the wavelength properties of a tennis ball because we would have to find a very tiny slit in which to pass the tennis ball through. The wavelength of the tennis ball can be calculated using debroglie formula: wavelength = h/p

I was wondering if a black-hole would show these properties since a black-hole compresses everything through an infinitely small hole (I think, I've never taken astrophysics).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Boltzman Oscillation said:
I was wondering if a black-hole would show these properties

A black hole is not an ordinary object or a quantum particle, so this question doesn't really have any meaning.

Boltzman Oscillation said:
since a black-hole compresses everything through an infinitely small hole

I don't know what you mean by this.
 
  • #3
PeterDonis said:
A black hole is not an ordinary object or a quantum particle, so this question doesn't really have any meaning.
I don't know what you mean by this.
Sorry i probably meant wormhole and not black hole. A wormhole can get extremely small right? A tennis ball passing through it would show its wave properties because the size of the wormhole is smaller than the wavelenght of the tennis ball.
 
  • #4
Boltzman Oscillation said:
i probably meant wormhole and not black hole

A wormhole isn't an ordinary object or a quantum particle either, so the question isn't any more meaningful for a wormhole than for a black hole.

Boltzman Oscillation said:
A tennis ball passing through it would show its wave properties because the size of the wormhole is smaller than the wavelenght of the tennis ball.

A wormhole isn't a slit or diffraction grating either, so this isn't a valid analogy.
 
  • #5
Boltzman Oscillation said:
it would be hard to see the wavelength properties of a tennis ball because we would have to find a very tiny slit in which to pass the tennis ball through

Even more than that, it's because you can't pass a tennis ball through a very tiny slit. It won't go through. A tennis ball is not a single quantum particle. It's a conglomeration of something like ##10^{25}## quantum particles that are interacting with each other in a bound system.
 
  • #6
A wormhole is also a purely hypothetical concept, we don't know if they exist, and if they do we don't know their properties.

A double-slit experiment with a black hole would be somewhere between challenging and impossible, even if we ignore the problem that we can't produce them. If it is too small it emits too much Hawking radiation, which destroys coherence. If it is too large its gravitational influence will destroy coherence.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #7
PeterDonis said:
Even more than that, it's because you can't pass a tennis ball through a very tiny slit. It won't go through. A tennis ball is not a single quantum particle. It's a conglomeration of something like ##10^{25}## quantum particles that are interacting with each other in a bound system.

Alright, thank you for your answer sir. Would stretching the ball to where it can fit the slit be possible? Or does stretching the object not work? I would guess the stretching the ball to be able to fit that slit would probably break down the forces between the atoms and thus prevent me from even attempting to pass it through the slit?
 
  • #8
Boltzman Oscillation said:
I would guess the stretching the ball to be able to fit that slit would probably break down the forces between the atoms

"Stretching" would be a bad term for what this would amount to. You would be disassembling the ball into its constituent atoms, or at any rate into a huge number of pieces each of which had a small enough number of atoms to pass through the slit.
 
  • #9
PeterDonis said:
"Stretching" would be a bad term for what this would amount to. You would be disassembling the ball into its constituent atoms, or at any rate into a huge number of pieces each of which had a small enough number of atoms to pass through the slit.
Sorry for the late reply but from my introductory physics course I learned that objects moving at a very fast velocity stretch. Does this mean that if I threw a tennis ball with enough velocity to stretch it, would it fit past a small slit? Or am I understanding these equations incorrectly?

$$ L = \frac{L_o}{\gamma}$$
 
  • #10
Boltzman Oscillation said:
from my introductory physics course I learned that objects moving at a very fast velocity stretch

You have it backwards; objects moving very fast contract along their direction of motion. In the equation you give, ##\gamma > 1##, so ##L < L_o##.

Boltzman Oscillation said:
Does this mean that if I threw a tennis ball with enough velocity to stretch it, would it fit past a small slit?

Length contraction does not affect the directions perpendicular to the direction of motion, so it doesn't make the object narrower. Therefore it doesn't affect how an object fits through a slit.
 
  • #11
PeterDonis said:
You have it backwards; objects moving very fast contract along their direction of motion. In the equation you give, ##\gamma > 1##, so ##L < L_o##.
Length contraction does not affect the directions perpendicular to the direction of motion, so it doesn't make the object narrower. Therefore it doesn't affect how an object fits through a slit.
okay i will consider what you have told me. Thank you for helping me understand length contraction.
 

Related to Viewing the wave properties of a macroscopic object

1. What is the concept of wave properties in relation to macroscopic objects?

The concept of wave properties in relation to macroscopic objects refers to the idea that even large objects, such as a baseball or a car, can exhibit wave-like behavior under certain conditions. This means that they can display characteristics such as interference, diffraction, and superposition, which are typically associated with waves.

2. How is the wavelength of a macroscopic object determined?

The wavelength of a macroscopic object is determined by its momentum and mass, according to the de Broglie wavelength equation. This equation states that the wavelength is equal to Planck's constant divided by the momentum of the object.

3. Can all macroscopic objects exhibit wave properties?

No, not all macroscopic objects can exhibit wave properties. The de Broglie wavelength equation only applies to objects with a relatively small mass and high velocity, such as electrons and protons. Objects with larger masses, such as humans or buildings, do not exhibit wave-like behavior.

4. What are some real-world applications of studying the wave properties of macroscopic objects?

Studying the wave properties of macroscopic objects has various real-world applications. For example, it can help in understanding the behavior of particles in quantum mechanics, improving the precision of electron microscopes, and developing new technologies such as quantum computing and quantum encryption.

5. How does observing the wave properties of macroscopic objects challenge our understanding of classical physics?

Observing the wave properties of macroscopic objects challenges our understanding of classical physics because it goes against the traditional notion that objects can only behave as either particles or waves. This phenomenon highlights the limitations of classical physics and the need for a more comprehensive theory, such as quantum mechanics, to explain the behavior of matter.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
461
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
536
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
31
Views
860
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top