The equation is the speed of light = wavelength * frequency right?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the frequency of blue light with a wavelength of 550 nanometers using the equation that relates the speed of light, wavelength, and frequency. The correct formula is frequency equals the speed of light divided by wavelength. Participants emphasize the importance of proper use of scientific notation and calculator functions, particularly regarding negative exponents. A key point is the need for careful handling of brackets in calculations to avoid syntax errors. Ultimately, the user realizes their mistake and expresses relief at solving the problem correctly.
AngelShare
Messages
208
Reaction score
0
If a blue light has a wavelength of 550 x 10^-9 (550 nanometers), what is the frequency of the light?

I've went over this again and again and yet I keep messing up somewhere...

The equation is the speed of light = wavelength * frequency right?

If I'm trying to find the frequency, the equation would be the speed of light / wavelength = frequency...am I still okay or have I already messed up?:smile:

Okay, if the speed of light in a vacuum (That right there confuses me already but I decided not to delve into it...I'm gettin' tired.:zzz: ) is 2.99792 * 10^8 and the wavelength is 550 * 10^-9...then I just need to fill in the equation.

2.99792 * 10^8/550 * 10^-9 = frequency

Aye, that's a complicated thing to solve... I'm getting no where near the choice answers...

5.45 x 10^14
3.568 E -7
5.5 x 10^-7
2.99 x 10^8


I tried solving that thing about four different ways and still didn't get it right...:bugeye:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
AngelShare said:
If a blue light has a wavelength of 550 x 10^-9 (550 nanometers), what is the frequency of the light?
I've went over this again and again and yet I keep messing up somewhere...
The equation is the speed of light = wavelength * frequency right?
If I'm trying to find the frequency, the equation would be the speed of light / wavelength = frequency...am I still okay or have I already messed up?:smile:
Okay, if the speed of light in a vacuum (That right there confuses me already but I decided not to delve into it...I'm gettin' tired.:zzz: ) is 2.99792 * 10^8 and the wavelength is 550 * 10^-9...then I just need to fill in the equation.
2.99792 * 10^8/550 * 10^-9 = frequency

You are right till now.

AngelShare said:
Aye, that's a complicated thing to solve... I'm getting no where near the choice answers...

It's not complicated to solve. Are you using a calculator to solve this? If so, remember to put the brackets properly when you are dividing.
 
Along the lines of what siddharth mentioned,

try 2.99792/550 * 108/10-9= 0.00545 * 1017

Be careful how one treats the base (powers of 10).

Discussion of scientific notation - http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/scinot.html
 
Actually, whoever choose those "distractors" was in a generous mood. Looking at the exponents pretty much gives the answer away.
 
siddharth: Are you using a calculator to solve this? If so, remember to put the brackets properly when you are dividing.

No, I tried but I kept getting "ERR: SYNTAX" and I'm guessing it had to do with the negative exponent. That's why I tried to solve it by hand.

Astronuc: try 2.99792/550 * 108/10-9= 0.00545 * 10^17

I believe that's one of the things I tried but I messed up the exponents. When dividing, I thought you were to subtract them...Oh wait, that'd still come to 17. Wow, I can't believe I made such a goofy mistake.:smile: Either way, that isn't one of the answers...

HallsofIvy: Looking at the exponents pretty much gives the answer away.

Aye, I figured this was a rather easy problem that I just wasn't getting for some odd reason...:shy:

I think I'll start this one over and try again, hopefully I'm not missing something that'll mess me up.:smile:
 
Never mind, got it...that was a stupid question.:blushing:
 
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