Quote:

In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength will be a function of Planck's constant (6.626 \times 10^{-34} joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person. Given the enormous momentum of a person compared with the very tiny Planck constant, the wavelength of a person would be so small (on the order of 10^−35 meters or smaller) as to be undetectable by any current measurement tools. On the other hand, many small particles (such as typical electrons in everyday materials) have a very low momentum compared to macroscopic objects. In this case, the de Broglie wavelength may be large enough that the particle's wave-like nature gives observable effects.

---

Finally, the Copenhagen Interpretation states (well, among the many things it states) that wave functions have no effect on macroscopic behaviour.

Dude I think I just blew my mind 

Quote:

It does have an amplitude and (roughly) the square of the amplitude at one point gives you a density of probability at that point.

---

zouden said:

Well, consider this: when an object is heated, the atoms move around (vibrate). When more heat is applied, the amplitude of these vibrations increase, until they are moving so much the object turns into a liquid, then a gas.

But the wave function of an object (which I say is a separate thing to physical vibration) has no amplitude, only wavelength. The wavelength decreases as the energy of the object increases. This is an entirely different relationship to what atoms do when they are heated, and for that reason I think they are different things.

In any case... in your original post you made a reference to the vibrations of the earth. One presumes that these vibrations are very slow, resonating through the mantle. But the quantum wave function of the earth would be much faster, and the wavelengths too small to measure.

From the wikipedia article on the de Broglie equation:

Quote:

In de Broglie's equation an electron's wavelength will be a function of Planck's constant (6.626 \times 10^{-34} joule-seconds) divided by the object's momentum (nonrelativistically, its mass multiplied by its velocity). When this momentum is very large (relative to Planck's constant), then an object's wavelength is very small. This is the case with every-day objects, such as a person. Given the enormous momentum of a person compared with the very tiny Planck constant, the wavelength of a person would be so small (on the order of 10^−35 meters or smaller) as to be undetectable by any current measurement tools. On the other hand, many small particles (such as typical electrons in everyday materials) have a very low momentum compared to macroscopic objects. In this case, the de Broglie wavelength may be large enough that the particle's wave-like nature gives observable effects.

---

Finally, the Copenhagen Interpretation states (well, among the many things it states) that wave functions have no effect on macroscopic behaviour.

Dude I think I just blew my mind 

---