
#19
Jan613, 07:51 AM

P: 209

Indeed that would be, I could of sworn I was using the exact numbers  also depends on what you take for the planck's constant. I was using 6.63  though I'm guessing 6.626 would be better, I'll use a decent speed of light as well...
Thanks man! SK 



#20
Jan613, 08:45 AM

P: 209

Using the planck constant as 6.626*.... and the speed of light as 2.99*.... I get that
[tex]n\delta_{i}=8.0094[/tex] so maybe it's a dorbital of the n=8 level? 



#21
Jan613, 11:57 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 1,563

I have given you the result above. As you are still off, the values you use are still not exact enough. Maybe your conversion from J to eV for the h is not exact? You can already use the standard value of h=4.1356675...eVs directly. Also, there are numerous wavelength to energy converters around the internet, so you can crosscheck, whether your conversion is good or not.
You need at least two significant digits for the outcome to get an accurate result, so it is a good idea to use more than two significant digits for the constants you start with. You will spend much more time by tracking the mistakes in using numbers which are not exact enough than you safe by typing one or two numbers less. 



#22
Jan613, 02:49 PM

P: 209

Yeah I see now, I used more precise values for the constants and got your result. Though I'm not sure we'd get these constants to this degree of accuracy under examination conditions nor have we been told to expect to remember them to this degree! I'm guessing they were probably just looking for the correct application of physics.
I guess that'll do! Thanks again, SK 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Atomic radii of transition elements  Chemistry  0  
Looking up Atomic Transition Energies  Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics  6  
Numerical on excitation of atomic level  Advanced Physics Homework  0  
Waveform produced by an atomic transition  Quantum Physics  3  
Photon absorption and probability of atomic electron transition  Quantum Physics  3 