Which wave would you observe first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jewilki1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wave
AI Thread Summary
When lightning strikes, it releases energy that can be observed as visible light and sound waves (thunder). The speed of light is approximately 3 x 10^8 m/s, while the speed of sound in air is around 350 m/s. Given a distance of 10 km, calculations show that light will reach an observer almost instantaneously compared to sound. Using the formula t = d/v, it is clear that the time taken for light to travel 10 km is negligible compared to that for sound. Therefore, the visible light from the lightning strike would be observed first.
jewilki1
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
when lightning occurs in the sky, energy is released through the electronic relaxation of nitrogen. This energy can be observed as visible light and can be heard as sound waves (thunder). If you were 10 km from the lightning strike, which wave would you observe first? You must justify your answer and must include a calculation(s). Assume that the sound has a frequency of 100 Hz and and a wavelength 3.5 m. Assume that the visible light has a wavelength of 510 nm.

This comes from problems of the day. We get no solutions, but we have to use these to study for tests. Could you please help me set up these equations. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Help

Well there is a few equations you would use here being
velocity=distance/time
velocity=frequency * lambda
so you would find the speed of both, then you would rearrange velocity=distance/time and see which has the smallest time
Cheers
Kyle
 
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