what were plank's and einstien's contributions to the study of energy and frequency
217422
We're not here to do your homework for you, but I don't mind pointing you in the right direction.\n\nStart out by spelling the names correctly - I think you're interested in the contributions of Max Planck and Albert Einstein, not "Walk the" Plank and some other guy I've never heard of named Einstien.\n\nSince both are Nobel Prize winners, a good place to start your research would be with their official biographies at the Nobel Prize homepage - see the links below for those:\n\nYou'll find lots more information at the Wikipedia encyclopedic entry for each of these two famous German-born scientists - I've linked those sites below as well.\n\nRead the bios - then do your own homework!
172308
greater frequency = greater energy\ngreater energy = shorter wavelength\ngreater wavelength= lower frequency
362613
Well we have\n\nwavelength = h/momentum = h/mv = h/m(.0131c)\n\nwhere h is plank's constant and c is speed of light.\nso substitute and calculate.
455160
Energy can go from place A to place B (think about sound and light)\nEnergy can go from object A to object B (think about a collision)\n\nTh
245931
It was first proposed by the Ancient Greeks, then expounded upon by Newton, then again by Einstein, and most recently by our friend Hawking.\n\nHere is what Einstein proposed:\n\nEinstein proposed that light was not a continuous wave, but consisted of localized particles. As Einstein wrote in the introduction to a March, 1905 paper, "According to the assumption to be contemplated here, when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole."\n\nHope that helps.
217752
The energy of the incoming photons is given by Planck's relationship:  energy = Planck's constant * frequency.\n\nYou are given the wavelength, not the frequency, so you need to know that for any wave, the wavespeed = frequency * wavelength, so frequency = wavespeed/wavelength.  For photons, wavespeed = c.\n\nh = 6.626068 × 10^-34 34 m^2 kg / s (Planck's constant)\nc = 2.998 × 10^8 m / s (speed of light)\nwavelength = 48.2 x 10^-9 m (given in problem)\n\nPutting this together, the energy of each incoming photon is:\n\nE_photon = h*c/(48.2 x 10^-9 m) = 4.121 x 10^-18 J\n\nThe outgoing electron has kinetic energy = 1/2 * m * v^2.  You are given both m and v:\n\nE_electron = 1/2 * 9.109 x 10^-31 kg * (2.371 x 10^6 m/s)^2 \nE_electron = 2.56 x 10^-18 J\n\nThe ionization energy is the difference in energy between the incoming photon and the kinetic energy of the outgoing electron.  Because the question asks for the energy in joules per mole, we must multiply the energy difference for a single photon/electron pair by Avagadro's number:\n\nE_ionization = (E_photon - E_electron)* N_A\n\nE_ionization = (4.121 x 10^-18 J -2.56 x 10^-18 J)*6.022 x 10^23 mol^-1\n\nE_ionization = 9.4 x 10^5 J/mol = 940 kJ/mol
465917
The formula expanded a bit is: E (joules or kg*m²/s²) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2\n\nE is Energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.  \n\nCheck out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%3Dmc%C2%B2\n\nOff the subject, but an important reply to Fresh Prince and those of the same mind:\n\nYou seem pretty mad.  It is unfortunate that "[we] people disgust [you]."  It does not diminish Einstein’s discovery to say God created the highly balanced universe which is made up of this mathematic formula as well as all formulas - discovered and undiscovered.  Einstein was doing wonderful work in unlocking the mysteries of Creation - he was a genius among geniuses\n\nEinstein himself believed in a "god / creator" - not the God of the Bible, but a Creator nonetheless.  He was not closed - he acknowledged that the universe is so finely balanced on finite mathematical principals, there is a higher intelligence governing things that we cannot comprehend.  He spent his life exploring the wonder of what has been created and set before mankind.  Please cast aside your disgust.  No one is taking credit away from Einstein - or you.  \n\nRegarding religion, Einstein said: "The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."\n\nWhen asked: "[Do] You accept the historical Jesus?" \n\nHe replied: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."\n\nNo, Einstein did not believe in God as Christians believe.  But he recognized the order of the universe as a signpost to a higher being.  The point is, there is no cause to be "disgusted" by ideas outside your paradigm.  I am not disgusted with you.\n\nTake a hint from Einstein - the consummate scientist who believed in a Creator: "...science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  I will not be blind, so please do not be the former.  Take a look from another perspective; you may learn something of value.\n\nRemember, you may be angry with God, deny God, ignore God, and not care to inquire with an open mind, but God loves you anyway.\n\nHave a blessed day, my friend (that is a positive statement, please take it as such).
356407
hahaha very funny i have the same physics book nice try to get someone to do ur hw.  The tarzan one is fun.  If you need help though try http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html its a pretty helpful site.
110743
Well, this was one aspect of my research thesis in Physics of about 10 years ago. The big picture is quite wide, so let's focus on a particular property of classical thermodynamics that is challenged by the chaotic behavior of certain systems: the equipartition of energy.\nClassical thermodynamics tells us that, providing enough time, a system goes to equipartition, i.e. its energy is apportioned in equal parts along all the degrees of freedom. It is well known that the equipartition law has been disproved by quantum mechanics, but until some years ago it was believed a necessary consequence of classical mechanics.\nThe news is that the recent studies (including my little contribution) have shown that there are certain systems for which, under given conditions, neither classical mechanics prescribe the equipartition of energy.\nA class of such systems is constituted by the nonlinear Hamiltonian lattices, that is, N-dimensional spring/mass chains with nonlinear springs. To make it simple, consider that some solid gasses have their atoms stuffed in crystals that can be modeled as such lattices.\nThese systems are classified as chaotic (or also stochastic) for mathematical reasons too complex to be explained here.\nSuppose you freeze Helium at the point that it solidifies. Then you have such a crystal. Its degrees of freedom are the harmonic modes of oscillation of the crystal (just like the harmonic sounds in a guitar string). From the equipartition law one should expect that, after waiting some time, all harmonics go to the same energy. But this is not the case: most energy remains instead concentrated in the lower harmonics. The effect is stronger as the temperature decreases.\nObviously these results are mainly obtained thanks to computer simulations, because the involved equations have no analytic solution.\nSurprisingly, some of these results match with the prediction of quantum mechanics. This is clearly a debated issue but it suggests anyway that the "old-fashioned" classical mechanics has still something to say in modern physics!\n\nLater addition (in relation to the "Additional Details" above): yes, of course I'm speaking of deterministic chaos here, in the mathematical sense (thought it was obvious).
295613
In the begining it was considered that the wave-function psi is merely an auxiliary mathematical quantity employed to facilitate computations relative to experimental results. This is true to certain extent in certain cases, e.g., in calculating intensity of the waves scattered by a crystal in the direction of the detector; but it does not seem reasonable to introduce an isolated mathematical function without enquiring into its physical significance. \n\nSchrodinger himself attempted the physical interpretation of psi in terms of charge-density. In the experiment of diffraction of electrons (like X-rays diffraction), one might use the optical analogy to arrive at the physical significance of psi. In any electromagnetic system if A is the amplitude of the wave, then the energy density, i.e., energy per unit volume is equal to A^2, so that the number of photons per unit volume, i.e., photon density is equal to (A^2)/[h(nu)], where h(nu) is the energy of a photon. This means that the photon density is proportional to A^2 as h(nu) is constant. \n\nBy analogy, if psi is the amplitude of the matter wave at any point in space, then the number of material particles per unit volume, i.e., the particle density must be proportional to (psi)^2. Thus, the SQUARE OF ABSOLUTE VALUE OF psi IS A MEASURE OF THE PARTICLE DENSITY.
17209
A good place to start will be to look at the following websites \n\nThermal Energy and States of Matter\nhttp://www.pschweigerphysics.com/thermenergy.html\n\nThermal Energy\nhttp://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/physics17/chapter6/chapter6.html\n\nThermodynamics and Thermal Physics guides\nhttp://physics.about.com/cs/thermodynamics/\n\nIf your doing a project you might look into "Ocean Thermal energy conservation" as a topic.\n\nOcean Thermal energy conservation is used to generate electricity using the temperature difference of seawater at different depths
99063
I beleive this is the one:\n\nhttp://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~braslavs/Biophysics/Articles/Wei%20Zhang/Rosensweig2002.pdf
508150
These are terms to describe theoretical objects.  \n\nA particle has no dimensions, like a point in geometry.  In physics, we can say that this particle has any mass we choose, but by making it dimensionless, we don't have to worry about other physics phenomena like moment of inertia (important in rotational physics).\n\nA rigid body is made up of more than one point.  We're concerned with things like lever arms where length is important.  We say that it is rigid, so that we can ignore other physical attributes of real objects -- which are not really perfectly rigid, but have different degrees of rigidity.  A wood plank may have more "give" than a steel beam.  But by saying that the object in a physics problem is rigid, we don't worry about these degrees.  We assume that it is perfectly rigid.
523747
i think that if you categorise it  under physics/biology/chemistry, you might get a better response.\n\nnevertheless:\n\nhttp://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/bjpinchbeck/bjscience.html
277917
Ready?\n\nIn 1900 two theoretical Physicists, Rayleigh and Jeans were working on Black body radiation. A black body is something that re-emits all the radiation it absorbs. They tried to calculate the spectrum of the radiation coming out of a  container who's walls are all black. The frequencies should have been the same, but instead they were yucho. The high frequencies were favored despite theory. "untraviolet catastrophe".\n\nA year later Max Plank figured out that Rayleigh and Jeans assumption that the energy seeped in and out of the box in a perfectly continuous way was Wack.\n\nPlank said the energy moved in descrete packets he called quanta, \n\n"Electromagnetic radiation oscillation v times a second turns out to be made up of a whole number of packets of energy, each amount hv where h is Planck's constant." \n\n"The value of hi is 6.63 x 10 -34 joule-seconds"\n\nHappy mom's day\n\n(love this sh*t)
262391
Yes, Richard Feynman suggested this way back when. \n\nThe original paper is available here: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v76/i6/p749_1\n\nWithout a subscription you'll only be able to read the abstract.
320131
Well the energy is equal to planck's constant times the frequency, so that would be 6.62 x 10^-34 times the frequency which would be 5.96 x 10^14 Hz, so your answer is 3.95 x 10^-19 Joules