CUET UG Physics Booster Test 2-Dual Nature of Matter and De Broglie
📌 Answers are locked once submitted — results and explanations appear at the end.
QUESTION 1 OF 20
Dual nature of radiation statements
1. Both descriptions are essential to fully explain human vision.
2. The gathering and focusing mechanism by the eye lens uses the wave picture.
3. Absorption of light by the retina's rods and cones uses the photon picture.
4. The wave picture alone can fully describe all light-matter interactions.
QUESTION 2 OF 20
Match List I with List II based on experimental phenomena
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| 1. Interference | a. Validated by wave picture |
| 2. Photoelectric effect | b. Validated by photon picture |
| 3. Polarization | c. Validated by wave picture |
| 4. Compton effect | d. Validated by photon picture |
QUESTION 3 OF 20
In reasoning about the symmetrical character of nature, de Broglie logically inferred that
QUESTION 4 OF 20
Incorrect statement about de Broglie's bold hypothesis
QUESTION 5 OF 20
If the momentum p of a given particle is doubled, what happens to its initial de Broglie wavelength λ₁?
QUESTION 6 OF 20
Correct statements about h in the de Broglie equation
1. It acts as the mathematical link relating the wave attribute λ to the particle attribute p.
2. Its value is 6.626 × 10⁻³⁴ J s.
3. It is a universal constant, independent of the nature of the material particle.
4. Its value changes proportionally depending on the mass of the material.
QUESTION 7 OF 20
The de Broglie wavelength λ expressed explicitly in terms of mass m and speed v is:
QUESTION 8 OF 20
The mathematical relation λ = h/p clearly indicates:
1. The left-hand side expresses a pure wave attribute.
2. The right-hand side contains a typical particle attribute.
3. The dual aspect of matter is inherently integrated.
4. Mass is directly proportional to the generated wavelength.
QUESTION 9 OF 20
For a photon, the equation λ = h/p maps to its dual properties as:
QUESTION 10 OF 20
When confirming the applicability of the de Broglie relation to a photon
QUESTION 11 OF 20
Incorrect statement about moving macroscopic objects
QUESTION 12 OF 20
Calculate the de Broglie wavelength for a ball of mass 0.150 kg travelling at 30.0 m/s.
(h = 6.63 × 10⁻³⁴ J s)
QUESTION 13 OF 20
The typical ratio of the de Broglie wavelength of an electron moving at 10⁶ m/s to a macroscopic ball moving at 30 m/s is of the order:
QUESTION 14 OF 20
Match List I with List II based on the comparison provided in the text
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| 1. Electron wavelength order | a. 10⁻¹⁰ meters (comparable to X-rays) |
| 2. Macroscopic ball wavelength order | b. 10⁻³⁴ meters |
| 3. Electron momentum scale | c. 10⁻²⁴ kg m/s |
| 4. Macroscopic ball momentum scale | d. 10⁰ kg m/s |
QUESTION 15 OF 20
Regarding Erwin Schrodinger's fundamental contributions:
1. He developed de Broglie's initial idea into a full-fledged quantum theory.
2. His developed theory is commonly known as wave mechanics.
3. His work relies fundamentally on the wave nature of matter.
4. He personally proved the particle nature of the photon via X-ray scattering.
QUESTION 16 OF 20
In 1929, the Nobel Prize in Physics was officially awarded to Louis de Broglie because
QUESTION 17 OF 20
Compton experiment statements
1. It involved the scattering of X-rays from electrons.
2. The experiment took place in the year 1924.
3. It confirmed the particle-like behaviour of electromagnetic light.
4. It directly proved that macroscopic matter has measurable wave properties.
QUESTION 18 OF 20
Correct statements about measuring matter waves experimentally
1. Measurable matter wavelengths are typically of the order of atomic-planes spacing.
2. Wave character is significantly measurable mainly for sub-atomic particles.
3. Electrons exhibit wavelengths comparable to X-ray wavelengths.
4. They are easily measurable for moving macroscopic 0.150 kg balls.
QUESTION 19 OF 20
The meaningful velocity and the unmeaningful velocity associated with a matter wave are respectively:
QUESTION 20 OF 20
Incorrect statement about free electrons in a metal
Test Complete!
Answer Review
1 Dual nature of radiation statements
1. Both descriptions are essential to fully explain human vision.
2. The gathering and focusing mechanism by the eye lens uses the wave picture.
3. Absorption of light by the retina's rods and cones uses the photon picture.
4. The wave picture alone can fully describe all light-matter interactions.
�� Human vision requires both wave and particle descriptions. �� Lens action is explained by wave optics. �� Retinal absorption involves photons.
- Statement 1 is correct because complete understanding of vision requires both wave and particle aspects of light. → Statement 2 is correct because image formation and focusing by the eye lens are explained using wave optics. → Statement 3 is correct because rods and cones absorb light through photon interactions. → Statement 4 is incorrect because many light-matter interactions require the photon picture.
- �� Statement 4 → Wave theory alone cannot explain photoelectric-type absorption processes.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement claiming wave theory alone explains all interactions.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- Lens = Wave, Retina = Photon
2 Match List I with List II based on experimental phenomena
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| 1. Interference | a. Validated by wave picture |
| 2. Photoelectric effect | b. Validated by photon picture |
| 3. Polarization | c. Validated by wave picture |
| 4. Compton effect | d. Validated by photon picture |
�� Interference and polarization support wave nature. �� Photoelectric and Compton effects support particle nature. �� Both pictures are necessary.
Correct matching: List I — List II 1. Interference — a. Validated by wave picture 2. Photoelectric effect — b. Validated by photon picture 3. Polarization — c. Validated by wave picture 4. Compton effect — d. Validated by photon picture → Therefore Option A is correct.
- �� Options B, C and D contain incorrect associations between phenomena and their interpretations.
Used
- �� Option Grouping
Application:
- �� Match each phenomenon with the theory that successfully explains it.
Final Logic:
- �� Only Option A provides all correct pairings.
- IP = Wave, PC = Photon (Interference/Polarization vs Photoelectric/Compton)
3 In reasoning about the symmetrical character of nature, de Broglie logically inferred that
�� de Broglie used symmetry arguments. �� Radiation shows wave-particle duality. �� Matter should also possess duality.
- de Broglie reasoned that if radiation possesses both wave and particle characteristics, matter should also exhibit a dual nature. → This led to the matter-wave hypothesis. → Hence option D is correct.
- �� Option A → Not part of de Broglie's reasoning.
- �� Option B → Opposite of de Broglie's proposal.
- �� Option C → Contradicts the symmetry argument.
Used
- �� Contextual/Tonal Matching
Application:
- �� Recall the logical basis of de Broglie's hypothesis.
Final Logic:
- �� Radiation duality inspired matter duality.
- Radiation Dual → Matter Dual
4 Incorrect statement about de Broglie's bold hypothesis
�� Compton effect concerned photons. �� Matter-wave verification came later. �� de Broglie's hypothesis was proposed in 1924.
- Compton scattering verified the particle nature of light, not the wave nature of matter. → Experimental verification of matter waves was later provided through electron diffraction experiments. → Therefore option C is correct.
- �� Option A → Correct statement.
- �� Option B → Correct description of the hypothesis.
- �� Option D → Correct basis of de Broglie's reasoning.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Distinguish photon experiments from matter-wave experiments.
Final Logic:
- �� Compton scattering did not verify matter waves.
- Compton → Light, Davisson-Germer → Matter
5 If the momentum p of a given particle is doubled, what happens to its initial de Broglie wavelength λ₁?
�� λ = h/p. �� Wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum. �� Doubling momentum halves wavelength.
- Initially: λ₁ = h/p After doubling momentum: λ₂ = h/(2p) = λ₁/2 = 0.5 λ₁ → Therefore option B is correct.
- �� Option A → Indicates direct proportionality.
- �� Option C → Would require fourfold momentum.
- �� Option D → Opposite trend.
Used
- �� Substitution
Application:
- �� Apply λ = h/p.
Final Logic:
- �� Doubling p halves λ.
- More Momentum → Less Wavelength
6 Correct statements about h in the de Broglie equation
1. It acts as the mathematical link relating the wave attribute λ to the particle attribute p.
2. Its value is 6.626 × 10⁻³⁴ J s.
3. It is a universal constant, independent of the nature of the material particle.
4. Its value changes proportionally depending on the mass of the material.
�� h links wave and particle properties. �� h is universal. �� h does not depend on mass.
- Statement 1 is correct because h connects wavelength and momentum. → Statement 2 is correct because h = 6.626 × 10⁻³⁴ J s. → Statement 3 is correct because h is a universal constant. → Statement 4 is incorrect because h never changes with particle mass.
- �� Statement 4 → Contradicts the definition of a universal constant.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement assigning variability to Planck's constant.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- h = Universal Bridge
7 The de Broglie wavelength λ expressed explicitly in terms of mass m and speed v is:
�� p = mv. �� λ = h/p. �� Substitute momentum.
- Using: λ = h/p and p = mv Therefore: λ = h/mv = h(mv)⁻¹ → Hence option D is correct.
- �� Option A → Incorrect dimensions.
- �� Option B → Uses addition instead of multiplication.
- �� Option C → Incorrect arrangement.
Used
- �� Substitution
Application:
- �� Replace p by mv.
Final Logic:
- �� λ = h/mv.
- Matter Wave = h/mv
8 The mathematical relation λ = h/p clearly indicates:
1. The left-hand side expresses a pure wave attribute.
2. The right-hand side contains a typical particle attribute.
3. The dual aspect of matter is inherently integrated.
4. Mass is directly proportional to the generated wavelength.
�� λ is a wave property. �� p is a particle property. �� Equation unifies both aspects.
- Statement 1 is correct because wavelength is a wave characteristic. → Statement 2 is correct because momentum is a particle characteristic. → Statement 3 is correct because the equation combines wave and particle ideas. → Statement 4 is incorrect since wavelength is inversely proportional to momentum and mass.
- �� Statement 4 → Increasing mass decreases wavelength.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement contradicting λ = h/p.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- λ = Wave, p = Particle
9 For a photon, the equation λ = h/p maps to its dual properties as:
�� λ represents wave nature. �� p represents particle nature. �� Photon exhibits both.
- In λ = h/p, λ denotes wavelength (wave property) and p denotes momentum (particle property). → Therefore option A correctly identifies the dual aspects.
- �� Option B → Reverses the meanings.
- �� Option C → Not represented in the equation.
- �� Option D → Not represented in the equation.
Used
- �� Contextual/Tonal Matching
Application:
- �� Identify the physical significance of λ and p.
Final Logic:
- �� Wavelength corresponds to wave nature and momentum to particle nature.
- λ → Wave, p → Particle
10 When confirming the applicability of the de Broglie relation to a photon
�� Photon momentum p = hν/c. �� Apply λ = h/p. �� Obtained wavelength equals EM wavelength.
- Using: λ = h/p and p = hν/c Therefore: λ = h/(hν/c) = c/ν → This is exactly the electromagnetic wavelength of the photon. → Hence option B is correct.
- �� Option A → Photons possess momentum and finite wavelength.
- �� Option C → Momentum remains finite.
- �� Option D → Not the conclusion obtained from the derivation.
Used
- �� Substitution
Application:
- �� Substitute photon momentum into de Broglie's relation.
Final Logic:
- �� λ = c/ν, identical to electromagnetic wavelength.
- Photon: λ = h/p = c/ν
11 Incorrect statement about moving macroscopic objects
�� Macroscopic objects have very large momentum. �� Their de Broglie wavelengths are extremely small. �� Observable diffraction is practically impossible.
- According to de Broglie's relation: λ = h/p → Macroscopic objects possess very large mass and momentum, making λ extremely small. → Such tiny wavelengths cannot produce observable diffraction effects in everyday life. → Therefore option B is correct.
- �� Option A → Correct. Large mass results in extremely small wavelength.
- �� Option C → Correct. Their wavelengths are beyond practical measurement.
- �� Option D → Correct. The de Broglie hypothesis applies to all moving particles.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Identify the statement contradicting the consequences of extremely small de Broglie wavelengths.
Final Logic:
- �� Macroscopic objects do not exhibit observable diffraction in daily life.
- Big Mass → Invisible Wave
12 Calculate the de Broglie wavelength for a ball of mass 0.150 kg travelling at 30.0 m/s.
(h = 6.63 × 10⁻³⁴ J s)
�� Use λ = h/mv. �� Calculate momentum first. �� Substitute numerical values.
- Momentum: p = mv = 0.150 × 30 = 4.5 kg m s⁻¹ → Therefore: λ = h/p = (6.63 × 10⁻³⁴)/4.5 = 1.47 × 10⁻³⁴ m → Hence option A is correct.
- �� Option B → One order smaller than calculated.
- �� Option C → One order larger than calculated.
- �� Option D → Two orders larger than calculated.
Used
- �� Substitution
Application:
- �� Apply λ = h/mv directly.
Final Logic:
- �� λ = 1.47 × 10⁻³⁴ m.
- Matter Wave = h/mv
13 The typical ratio of the de Broglie wavelength of an electron moving at 10⁶ m/s to a macroscopic ball moving at 30 m/s is of the order:
�� Electron wavelength ≈ 10⁻¹⁰ m. �� Ball wavelength ≈ 10⁻³⁴ m. �� Ratio is enormous.
- Typical electron wavelength: ≈ 10⁻¹⁰ m → Typical macroscopic ball wavelength: ≈ 10⁻³⁴ m → Ratio: 10⁻¹⁰ / 10⁻³⁴ = 10²⁴ → Therefore option C is correct.
- �� Option A → Far too small.
- �� Option B → Inverse ratio.
- �� Option D → Completely incorrect scale.
Used
- �� Dimensional/Unit Analysis
Application:
- �� Compare wavelength orders of magnitude.
Final Logic:
- �� Electron wavelengths exceed macroscopic wavelengths by about 10²⁴.
- Electron Wave ≫ Ball Wave
14 Match List I with List II based on the comparison provided in the text
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| 1. Electron wavelength order | a. 10⁻¹⁰ meters (comparable to X-rays) |
| 2. Macroscopic ball wavelength order | b. 10⁻³⁴ meters |
| 3. Electron momentum scale | c. 10⁻²⁴ kg m/s |
| 4. Macroscopic ball momentum scale | d. 10⁰ kg m/s |
�� Electrons have measurable wavelengths. �� Macroscopic wavelengths are extremely small. �� Momentum scales differ greatly.
Correct Match: List I — List II 1. Electron wavelength order — a. 10⁻¹⁰ meters (comparable to X-rays) 2. Macroscopic ball wavelength order — b. 10⁻³⁴ meters 3. Electron momentum scale — c. 10⁻²⁴ kg m/s 4. Macroscopic ball momentum scale — d. 10⁰ kg m/s → Hence option A is correct.
- �� Options B, C and D contain incorrect associations of wavelength and momentum scales.
Used
- �� Option Grouping
Application:
- �� Match physical quantities with their correct orders of magnitude.
Final Logic:
- �� Only Option A gives all correct pairings.
- Electron: 10⁻¹⁰ m, Ball: 10⁻³⁴ m
15 Regarding Erwin Schrodinger's fundamental contributions:
1. He developed de Broglie's initial idea into a full-fledged quantum theory.
2. His developed theory is commonly known as wave mechanics.
3. His work relies fundamentally on the wave nature of matter.
4. He personally proved the particle nature of the photon via X-ray scattering.
�� Schrodinger developed wave mechanics. �� Based on de Broglie's matter waves. �� Compton performed X-ray scattering studies.
- Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct. → Statement 4 is incorrect because the particle nature of light through X-ray scattering was established by Compton, not Schrodinger.
- �� Statement 4 → Related to Compton effect, not Schrodinger's contribution.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement belonging to another scientist.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 correctly describe Schrodinger's work.
- Schrodinger = Wave Mechanics
16 In 1929, the Nobel Prize in Physics was officially awarded to Louis de Broglie because
�� de Broglie proposed matter waves. �� Nobel Prize awarded in 1929. �� Recognition of wave nature of electrons.
- Louis de Broglie proposed that moving particles possess wave properties. → This revolutionary hypothesis led to the concept of matter waves. → He received the 1929 Nobel Prize for this contribution.
- �� Option B → Related to photoelectric studies.
- �� Option C → General relativity was Einstein's work.
- �� Option D → Associated with Millikan's measurements.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Identify the contribution specifically linked to de Broglie.
Final Logic:
- �� Nobel Prize recognized the wave nature of electrons.
- de Broglie → Nobel 1929
17 Compton experiment statements
1. It involved the scattering of X-rays from electrons.
2. The experiment took place in the year 1924.
3. It confirmed the particle-like behaviour of electromagnetic light.
4. It directly proved that macroscopic matter has measurable wave properties.
�� X-rays scattered from electrons. �� Conducted in 1924. �� Confirmed photon nature.
- Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct. → Statement 4 is incorrect because Compton scattering concerns photon behaviour, not measurable matter waves of macroscopic objects.
- �� Statement 4 → Not demonstrated by Compton's experiment.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement unrelated to Compton scattering.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- Compton = X-rays + Photons
18 Correct statements about measuring matter waves experimentally
1. Measurable matter wavelengths are typically of the order of atomic-planes spacing.
2. Wave character is significantly measurable mainly for sub-atomic particles.
3. Electrons exhibit wavelengths comparable to X-ray wavelengths.
4. They are easily measurable for moving macroscopic 0.150 kg balls.
�� Electron wavelengths are comparable to atomic spacing. �� Matter-wave effects are significant for microscopic particles. �� Macroscopic wavelengths are too small.
- Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct. → Statement 4 is incorrect because the wavelength of a 0.150 kg ball is around 10⁻³⁴ m, making it impossible to measure practically.
- �� Statement 4 → Macroscopic matter waves are unobservable.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Remove the statement contradicting de Broglie wavelength magnitudes.
Final Logic:
- �� Statements 1, 2 and 3 are correct.
- Electron λ ≈ Atomic Spacing
19 The meaningful velocity and the unmeaningful velocity associated with a matter wave are respectively:
�� Group velocity represents particle motion. �� Phase velocity lacks direct physical significance. �� Wave packets travel with group velocity.
- Group velocity is physically meaningful because it equals the velocity of the particle. → Phase velocity does not correspond to observable transport of matter. → Therefore option D is correct.
- �� Option A → Incorrect classification.
- �� Option B → Reversed relationship.
- �� Option C → Not the standard matter-wave interpretation.
Used
- �� Contextual/Tonal Matching
Application:
- �� Recall physical significance of matter-wave velocities.
Final Logic:
- �� Group velocity is meaningful; phase velocity is not.
- Group = Real, Phase = Formal
20 Incorrect statement about free electrons in a metal
�� Electrons obey quantum statistics. �� Pauli exclusion principle is important. �� Maxwell distribution is not applicable.
- Free electrons in metals obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, not Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. → The difference arises because electrons are fermions and obey Pauli's exclusion principle. → Therefore option B is incorrect.
- �� Option A → Correct statement.
- �� Option C → Correct explanation.
- �� Option D → Correct consequence of energy distribution.
Used
- �� Elimination
Application:
- �� Identify the statement contradicting quantum statistics.
Final Logic:
- �� Metal electrons do not follow the usual Maxwell distribution.
- Electrons → Fermi, Not Maxwell
