If bhor's quantisation postulate is a basic law of nature, it should be equally valid for the case of planetary motion also.why then do we never speak of quantisation of orbits of planets around the sun?

The quantisation postulate is required to keep the wave functions of the particles in phase. However, for large objects or objects with large mass, the wavelength of the wave function is so small, that the wave nature is not experienced.

But, you are correct. The quantisation postulate still applies.

You can calculate the wavelength with De Broglie's formulae

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestThe quantisation postulate is required to keep the wave functions of the particles in phase. However, for large objects or objects with large mass, the wavelength of the wave function is so small, that the wave nature is not experienced.

But, you are correct. The quantisation postulate still applies.

You can calculate the wavelength with De Broglie's formulae

Log in to reply