A question relating to frequency i think a 10 year could do this but i cant lol

  • Thread starter Thread starter physical101
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequency Year
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around converting wavenumbers to wavelength, specifically addressing a wavenumber of 400 cm-1. The original poster attempts to derive the wavelength in nanometers but encounters a discrepancy in their calculations, leading to confusion about the correct conversion factors and units.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conversion of wavenumbers to frequency and subsequently to wavelength, questioning the unit conversions involved. Some participants suggest that the original poster may have misapplied the conversion factors, particularly regarding the relationship between nanometers and meters.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the calculations and unit conversions. Some participants have offered insights into potential errors, while others are clarifying the definitions and relationships between the units involved. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being examined, and no consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of using consistent units throughout the calculations, with some emphasizing the need to convert the speed of light into meters per second rather than centimeters per second. There is also a mention of varying educational backgrounds influencing understanding.

physical101
Messages
41
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I want to convert wavenumbers into wavelength. The wavenumber is 400cm-1 and i used the expression v=vbar*c to get the frequency in Hz to be 1.2*10^13, I also remembered to convert c into cm/s so that frequency is in its SI units (seconds). I then simply thought that I could use the expression lambda=c/v to get the answer i require and then multiply that answer by 1*10^9 to get my answer in nm instead of ms. I know the answer should be
2500nm but i get 25000nm. Why do i have this factor of 10? where did it come from?

Homework Equations



i began with vbar=400 cm-1

so then i said that

v=vbar*c

v=400*3*10^10

v=1.2*10^13 Hz

I then said that

lambda nm=(c/v)*1*10^9

lambda=(3*10^8/1.2*10^13)1*10^9

lambda = 25000 nm when it should be 2500nm or 2.5um

The Attempt at a Solution



Please see above

I know this forum is used mainly by graduates who set each other calculus based challenges but any help for a simple folk like me would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You would need to convert to m/s for SI units; not cm/s.
 
i thought that because vbar is equal to 400cm-1 that I would need to convert the speed of light to 3*10^10 so that its units become cm/s so that the cm cancel and leave the SI unit for frequency which is seconds? Is that where i went wrong?
 
i got it now like a fool the nm is not 1*10^-9 but 1*10^-8, please post tho if u think I am still wrong
 
1 nm = 1*10^-9 m

I get 25000nm as well (assuming wavenumber means 1/wavelength)
 
I only read as far as the "convert to cm" and assumed that was the problem.
I don't understand why you are using the speed of light and the wave equation to do this.
If the wavenumber in 400 cm-1, that is all the information you need.
This equals 40000m-1
1/400000 = wavelength in meters
=0.000025m
=25000nm
 
http://imgwe.com/accessbee/27/1.png I'm[/URL] 30 and I still don't know this. It depends where your learn. You could be learning it from asia or the Caribbean. imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K