Chemistry- Electronic Transitions Urgent help

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between light color and energy changes in various metals, specifically sodium, barium, calcium, strontium, lithium, potassium, and copper (II). Participants note that the color of light emitted by these metals is linked to their electron configurations and energy transitions. There is some ambiguity regarding whether the question refers to the flame color or the inherent color of the cations. Clarification is sought on how color correlates with energy levels. Understanding these concepts is crucial for determining which metal exhibits the largest energy change.
p.ella
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
the energies of light quanta increase gradually as the color of light changes. Of the following metals, which has the largest energy change: sodium, barium, calcium, strontium, lithium, potassium, and copper (ll)



I need this within half an hour :cry:



I'm guessing it has something to do within the electron configuration, like 2s and stuff, but I don't know how to do that

PLEASE HELP! IT'S URGENT!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No need for electron configuration. They all have known, distinct colors. How does the color depend on the energy?

Question is slightly ambiguous to me, as it probably refers to the flame color, not to the color of the cation itself, but it doesn't say anything about flame.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Thoughts on Introduction to Chemistry fourth Edition by Bauer?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Help with Atomic Calcium Electron Configurations
Replies
11
Views
3K
Regular chemistry electron configuration help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry: Electron Configuration of Manganese Cation
Replies
8
Views
56K
AI meets Chemistry in solving electronic Schrödinger equation
Replies
0
Views
2K
What Do Flame Tests Reveal About Sodium and Chloride?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Chemistry- Electron Affinity very confused
Replies
1
Views
3K
Can you help with Electron Dot Structures for these 6 compounds?
Replies
5
Views
17K
Why Do Different Electron Transitions Emit Different Spectral Lines?
Replies
1
Views
4K
Electrons energy levels do not change with molecular bonding
Replies
13
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top