Analytical Chemistry UF: Comparing Wavelengths & Frequencies

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a question from an Analytical Chemistry final regarding the frequency difference between two wavelengths of the sodium D1 line in vacuum and air. One participant believed the frequency difference was zero, while others calculated it as 1.409x10^11 Hz. The key point raised is whether the change in wavelength is due to the speed of light differing in vacuum versus air, and if the frequency remains constant. The participant confirmed their understanding that frequency should not change despite the differing wavelengths. The conclusion affirms that the participant achieved a high score on the final exam.
WhoYaWitt
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Question 20 from our final I just took (Analytical Chemistry UF).

"You may recall that the wavelength of the sodium D1 line in vacuum is 589.7558nm. In air it becomes 589.5924nm. What is the difference in frequency for these two wavelengths."


I said 0. All the other people did the math for the two wavelengths and subtracted them and got 1.409x10^11 Hz.

The test was multiple choice so they were both potential responses.

Am I right in assuming that the difference in their wavelengths was due to the change in speed of light in a vacuum vs air? And that the frequency is supposed to be constant for both? Or is this not the same thing?

Thx!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Zero is the correct answer.
 


Sweet that gives me a 95 on the final and I needed a 93 to get the A :biggrin:
 


(and thanks for the reply as well)
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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