Solving Wavelength Frequency: 740nm Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter konartist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wavelength
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the frequency of 740nm light using the speed of light equation, c = (x)(v). The user struggles with unit conversions and understanding the frequency's unit of s^-1, questioning if m/s/m is valid. It is clarified that the meters cancel out, resulting in a frequency expressed in Hertz (Hz), which represents wave crests passing a point per second. The conversion of 740nm to meters is also confirmed as accurate. Ultimately, the focus is on correctly applying the formula and understanding the significance of frequency in terms of wave behavior.
konartist
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
The speed of light is 3.0 x 10^8 m/s, given the equation c=(x)(v) where v has the unit of s^-1 what is the frequency (v) for the wavelength (x) of 740nm light?

For some reason I'm not getting the right units; maybe someone can find my mistake:

3.0 x 10^8 m/s = 740nm(v)

740nm x (1m / 10^9) = 7.4x10^-7 m

3.0 x 10^8m/s = 7.4 x 10^-7 m /7.4 x 10^-7

(3.0 x 10^8m/s) / (7.4 x 10^-7m) = V

I seem to be having a problem with my units. Can you have m/s/m ?
What exactly does it mean v has the unit of s^-1 ??

Anyone explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
konartist said:
740nm x (1m / 10^9) = 7.4x10^-7 m
No need to put nm there. You've already substituted the value for the 'nano' part.

3.0 x 10^8m/s = 7.4 x 10^-7 m /7.4 x 10^-7
??

(3.0 x 10^8m/s) / (7.4 x 10^-7m) = V

That seems to be right.

I seem to be having a problem with my units. Can you have m/s/m ?
What exactly does it mean v has the unit of s^-1 ??
In a sense, the m's cancel, which leaves you with 1/s.

v is the frequency of light. In simple terms, it tells you how many wave crests (or troughs) pass a point in a second. It's a number divided by time. Since numbers are not physical quantities with units, you are left with 1/s. There's a name for 1/s; it's know as Hertz, abbreviated Hz.
 
Last edited:
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top