anonymous
  • anonymous
Photons help
Physics
jamiebookeater
  • jamiebookeater
See more answers at brainly.com
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this
and thousands of other questions

aaronq
  • aaronq
use plancks equation: E=hc/lambda
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well use plank's equations.....however answer depends on geometry of molecule in case of part B & part C
anonymous
  • anonymous
how?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

.Sam.
  • .Sam.
They have given you the energy of \(E_2\), so by using equation \(E=hf\) and \(c=f \lambda\), we can form \[E_2=\frac{hc}{\lambda} \\ \\ \lambda=\frac{hc}{E_2}\] h=plank's constant c=speed of light \(E_2\)=energy Use that to find the wavelength at that energy
anonymous
  • anonymous
so is it 6.62*10^-34/3.2? hey what is c then?
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
"c" is the speed of light, which has a value of \(3 \times 10 ^8m/s\) and keep in mind that, E is not just 3.2, because its eV, you have to multiply by the charge too, \[\lambda=\frac{6.63 \times 10^{-3}(3 \times 10^8)}{3.2e}\]
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
the charge, e, is \(1.6 \times 10^{-19}C\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
so is the answer 1.24*10^-6
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
How do you get that? should be \[\lambda=\frac{6.63 \times 10^{-34}(3 \times 10^8)}{3.2(1.6 \times 10^{-19})}\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
ya and then i solved it using calculator...i got\[3.89 * 10^{-7}\]
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
That's the wavelength :)
anonymous
  • anonymous
and the unit of wavelength is Hz right
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
Hertz is for frequency, Wavelength is meter,
anonymous
  • anonymous
3.89∗10^(−7) meters ???
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
yes if you want to convert that into nanometers, then its \[(3.89 \times 10^{-7}) \times 10^9 = 389nm\]
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh ya thx...what abt 2nd one
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
The second one is referring to work function energy \(\phi\), work function is the minimum energy needed to remove an electron from a solid to a point immediately outside the solid surface. We express that by \[\phi=hf_o\] \(f_o\)= minimum frequency to cause a photoelectric emission
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
So the frequency plays a role here on the emission of photons.
.Sam.
  • .Sam.
I gotta go now, I'll leave it here, think about that :)
amistre64
  • amistre64
this is beyond my learning curve :) i can recall levers and rotations and such
anonymous
  • anonymous
haha thx tho
abb0t
  • abb0t
I would need to refresh my memory in modern physics. So no. Lol
anonymous
  • anonymous
haha ok.
abb0t
  • abb0t
@Frostbite might know.
anonymous
  • anonymous
well looks like audience is here...but the players are not. haha
anonymous
  • anonymous
I will make some researches and see if i can help :3
abb0t
  • abb0t
can't you use kirkchoffs laws here?
anonymous
  • anonymous
A couple of things... first, if you just plug in the energy E2, you're going to get the wrong answer. You instead need to use the energy difference E2-E0.
anonymous
  • anonymous
i really dont know how to do this...so if anyone can ex[lain it will be great
anonymous
  • anonymous
i do think we r using planck's equation and stuff here
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay here's way it works. This molecule has three energy levels that you're considering -- E0, E1, E2. These are the only energies it can have -- nothing in between. Photons are just traveling packets of energy. Therefore, if the atom is in the ground state E0, it might absorb a passing photon and be promoted up to a higher energy level. This will ONLY work, though, if the photon is carrying exactly as much energy as is required. If the photon has too much energy, it won't work. If it has too little, it won't work either. The amount of energy required to promote the atom from state E0 to state E2 is E2-E0.
anonymous
  • anonymous
For a photon, \[ E_{photon} = \frac{hc}{\lambda} \] or \[ \lambda = \frac{hc}{E_{photon}} \] This tells you that if you want to promote the atom from state E0 to state E2, you need a photon of wavelength \[ \lambda = \frac{hc}{E_2-E_0} \]
anonymous
  • anonymous
is this first answer?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes.
anonymous
  • anonymous
so the guy before who explained me the answer is wrong? we would need to include E2-E0 to get wavelength
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes. His equations weren't wrong but you need the energy difference, not just the energy of the excited state.
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh gotcha
anonymous
  • anonymous
For the second part, because the only allowed energies are E0, E1, and E2, the only possible promotions are from E0->E1, E0->E2, and E1->E2. Each transition has a particular energy difference. Therefore, each transition can be caused only by a photon of a precise energy. It is these photons that can be absorbed by your atom. Do you understand?
anonymous
  • anonymous
so energy photons absorbed are all of them?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Photons could only be absorbed if that have E = (E2-E0), E = (E1-E0), or E= (E2-E1).
anonymous
  • anonymous
ohk...so thats the second answer...what abt third one
anonymous
  • anonymous
The third is the reverse process. If the atom is in an excited state, it can only transition down in precise ways. That is, the only allowed downward transitions are E2->E1, E2->E0, and E1->E0. When an atom undergoes a downward transition, it emits a photon whose energy is equal to the energy difference of the transition.
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh so in last two answers we dont need any calculations and stuff?
anonymous
  • anonymous
No.
anonymous
  • anonymous
what abt work function...is it the same thing as absorbing and emitting photons
anonymous
  • anonymous
No. The work function is not related to your question at all. It is a separate effect.
anonymous
  • anonymous
nice thanks...
anonymous
  • anonymous
wish to give u 3 medals but just have 1
anonymous
  • anonymous
Quite alright, medals are not important.
anonymous
  • anonymous
exactly thx for explaining stuff

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.