Approximately what is the smallest detail observable with a microscope that uses ultraviolet light of frequency 1. 72 x 1015 hz?
1 answer:
The wavelength, which represents the size of the smallest detectable detail that uses ultraviolet light , is calculated as follows: 3× / 1.72×
or approximately 1.74×
m.
The distance between the two positive, two negative, or two minimal points on the waveform is known as the wavelength of the wave. The following formula expresses the relationship between the frequency and wavelength of light:
f = c / λ
where, f = frequency of light
c = speed of light
λ = wavelength of light
Given data = f = 1.72×Hz
Therefore, λ = 3× / 1.72×
λ = 1.74×m
The wavelength, which represents the size of the smallest detectable detail that uses ultraviolet light , is calculated as follows: 3× / 1.72×
or approximately 1.74×
m.
Learn more about light here;
#SPJ4
You might be interested in
Answer:
a)
b) See the proof below
c)
Explanation:
Part a
For this case we have the following differential equation:
With the initial condition
We can rewrite the differential equation like this:
And if we integrate both sides we got:
Where is a constant. If we apply exponential for both sides we got:
Using the initial condition we got:
So then our solution for the differential equation is given by:
For the half life we know that we need to find the value of t for where we have if we use this condition we have:
Applying natural log we have this:
And then the value of t would be:
And using the fact that we have this:
Part b
For this case we need to show that the solution on part a can be written as:
For this case we have the following model:
If we replace the value of k obtained from part a we got:
And we can rewrite this expression like this:
And we can cancel the exponential with the natural log and we have this:
Part c
For this case we want to find the value of t when we have remaining
So we can use the following equation:
Simplifying we got:
We can apply natural log on both sides and we got:
And if we solve for t we got:
We can rewrite this expression like this:
Using properties of natural logs we got: