Solve Balmer's Formula for Wavelengths

  • Thread starter Thread starter elephantorz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around Balmer's formula and its application to a series of wavelengths. Participants are exploring how to derive a formula based on given numerical sequences of wavelengths in nanometers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to find a formula for the provided series of wavelengths and are questioning the interpretation of the variables in Balmer's formula. There is discussion about the method of "plug and chug" and the implications of varying values for m and n. Some suggest examining differences between successive numbers to identify patterns.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants expressing uncertainty about the relevance of Balmer's formula. Others are exploring alternative methods to derive a formula, indicating a productive exploration of different approaches without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that m may not always equal 1, and there is a suggestion that the first number in one of the series should be adjusted. The original poster expresses confusion about the instructions given by their professor.

elephantorz
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] Balmer's Formula.

1. I am to find the formula of each series of wavelengths:
  • 12500, 31.25, 13.90, 7.81, and 5.00 nm
  • 375, 900, 1575, 2400, 3375, and 4500 nm
***Also, n might not always equal 1.

2. [tex]\lambda[/tex] = [tex]\frac{94.18 nm} ({\frac{1}{m^{2}}) - (\frac{1}{n^{2}})}[/tex])
Where m = 1, 2, 3, ... and n = m+1, m+2, ...​
3. My prof said that all I had to do was plug and chug, but I am not exactly sure what she meant by that, and do I assume that m is just zero at times?
I want to know if there is a way I can do this mathematically? She told me to THINK squares, so I attempted to take the square root of the numbers.

Any guidance will be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I wanted to clarify since I seem to have found the second one, it is talking about finding a FORMULA, so Balmer's formula is really useless in a way.

If a Mod would rename this I would really appreciate it, rename it to: Finding Formula given a series.
 
And I just figured out the second one, what a waste of forum-space!

Thanks anyway!

:D
 
One way is to take differences between succesive numbers, and see if a pattern emerges.
Take the differences of the differences is that doesn't work. If the differences are constant after n steps the numbers can be produced with a n'th degree polynomial.

since the numbers are wavelengths, you could try the frequencies as well.

I think the first number from a needs to be 125.00
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K