Calculating Wavelength in Water for Electromagnetic Radiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter chibi_lenne
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To calculate the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation in water, the formula used is wavelength(med) = wavelength(vac)/n, where n is the index of refraction for water, which is 1.33. Given a frequency of 5.00 x 10^14 Hz, the wavelength in a vacuum is calculated to be 600 nm. Dividing this by the index of refraction results in a wavelength of approximately 451 nm in water. The discussion emphasizes that the frequency remains constant while the wavelength decreases in a medium compared to a vacuum. This clarification helped resolve confusion regarding the calculations.
chibi_lenne
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Seriously, if I didn't need physics I probably wouldn't take it.I've don the work for this one problem, but then I'm not sure if it's the right formula for what I need. Here's what I have so far(the parts in bold are the work I've done)

10. An electromagnetic radiation has a frequency of 5.00 x 10^14Hz.
b) Calculate its wavelength in water.

Given: wavelength = 0.6 x 10^-6m or 600nm
n = 1.33 for water​
Required: wavelength(med)
Analysis: c=(f)(wavelength{vac}) and c=(n)(wavelength{med})

therefore wavelength(vac) = (n)(wavelength{med}) and​
wavelength(med) = wavelength(vac)/n​
Solution: wavelength(med) = (0.6 x 10^-6m)/1.33
= 4.51 x 10^-7 or 451 nm​
Now I get looking at this and I'm not sure if that's exactly how I go about doing this or if this is what I'm supposed to do for finding the index of refraction (which comes later) Please help, my brain is fried.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. Remember, the wavelength of any frequency of light is always longest in a vacuum, shorter in a medium. Frequecy of the light stays constant.
 
Yay, thanks so much that was just driving me nuts
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top