Talk:Thermal de Broglie wavelength

Interparticle spacing

The average interparticle spacing is roughly (V/N)^1/3. Suppose we had a cube that was length L on each side, and the inside was divided into cubes of length s on each side, each little cube containing a particle, so we know that the average interparticle spacing is roughly s. The volume of the cube is V=L³, the number of particles in the cube is N=(L/s)³ so the average interparticle spacing is s=(V/N)^1/3.

YAng's paper

Hey can anyone send me Yang's paper? please, I need more info about this topic and i would really appreciate having that paper from the guy who wrote about it or someone who has access to that journal , would you please send it to linking_link at hotmail ??? thnx

hbar or h

First, I would suggest that hbar, not h, be used for all wikipedia physics articles. This is the standard in the physics community, and it tripped me up for a bit when I tried to use a formula from this page. However, I don't know what convention (if any) has been agreed upon as a wikipedia standard. Does anyone know where I should look for this?

Second, it appears that the de broglie wavelength quoted in this article for photon is incorrect, but that it would be correct if h were replaced by hbar. Can someone confirm this? Njerseyguy (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be flexible on h or hbar, using h when dealing with cyclic frequency, hbar when using angular frequency. One of the most common expressions is $E=h\nu$, for example. As for the photon thermal wavelength, I believe it is correct as it stands. (i.e. according to Yan and others). Please recheck your source, and if there's still a disagreement, give some explanation. PAR (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I see, especially comparing the Yan (Yan 2000) paper, the Thermal de Broglie wavelength for the photon (massless particle) is correct, with only h, not hbar, but the article's Thermal de Broglie wavelength for the massive particle is off by a factor of $2\pi$. So the article's Thermal de Broglie wavelength for the massive particle would be correct for h being replaced by hbar, in order to match the Yan (Yan 2000) paper.

So, the bottom line is that either: 1) The article's Thermal de Broglie wavelength for the photon (massless particle) is incorrect, and so is the Yan (Yan 2000) paper, as well as the article's expression for the general definition of the thermal wavelength; or 2) the article's Thermal de Broglie wavelength for the massive particle is incorrect. DWHalliday (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was erroneously edited yesterday, and I have fixed it. Please check it, ok? PAR (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks completely correct, now. Thanks. DWHalliday (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)