Simply use the formula E = h * frequency
h - Planck's constant and its value is 6.626 x 10-34 J s
As we plug 6 x 1012 Hz for frequency we get E in joule
So E = 3.9756 x 10-21 J
3.98 x 10 -21
Not a heck of a lot! Here's the number worked out:
Energy of a photon = 'h' times frequency
'h' = Planck's konstant = 6.626 x 10-34 Joule-second
For a 1000-Hz photon, E = (6.626 x 10-34) x (103) = 6.626 x 10-31 Joule =
0.0000000000000000000000000000006626 Joule.
One reason (of many) for why it's so small is the frequency you chose.
1000 Hz is comfortably in the middle of human hearing ... a much lower
frequency than any everyday electromagnetic wave of any kind.
You said "a photon of light". The lowest frequency that you can see with your eyes
is somewhat higher than 1000 Hz, and more like 400,000,000,000,000 Hz. (red light)
3.98 x 10^-21 - apex
The energy is 4,0419.10e-21 joule.
Energy per photon is proportional to frequency. That tells us that it's alsoinversely proportional to wavelength.So if Photon-A has wavelength of 400-nm, then wavelength of Photon-Bwith twice as much energy is 200-nm .
Yes, due to the energy of photons/electromagnetic particles being determined by the equations below: E= hv=hc(1/v)= hc/wavelength. Where E= energy, v= frequency in Hz, h= Planck's constant, c= speed of light Electrons have a very short wavelength, and a very high frequency, thus they have much more energy than a beam of light.
The photon (quantum) at gamma frequency has more energy than a photon at microwave frequency has. But you can easily generate a beam of microwaves carrying more energy than, for example, the gamma rays that enter your house from space. Just use a more powerful source of microwaves to generate more photons. No big deal. The one in your kitchen that you use to heat the leftover meatloaf pours out far more energy every second than gamma rays bring into your house, but each microwave photon carries much less energy than a gamma photon does.
-- I have to assume that the '520' figure is also a wavelength in nm.-- The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. That also meansthat the energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength. So the photonwith the greater wavelength has less energy.-- 720/520 = 1.385The shorter-wave photon has 38.5% more energy than the longer-wave one.-- 520/720 = 0.722The longer wave photon has 72.2% as much energy as the shorter-wave one has.
No, as energy is absorbed. When the reverse happens, the higher state to lower state, the electron is returning to its lower energy level ground state and energy is released in the form of a photon.
Photon energy is proportional to frequency ==> inversely proportional to wavelength.3 times the energy ==> 1/3 times the wavelength = 779/3 = 2592/3 nm
The longer the wavelength of light, the smaller its frequency, and the less energy there is for every photon.
Packet of energy refers to a quantized or definite amount of energy carried by a particle. This packet energy or lumps of energy depends on the wavelength which can be found from Planck's formula E=hf. This is the idea originally provided by Max Planck to explain Black Body Radiation and to solve Ultra-violate catastrophe which later on came out to be the inception of Quantum Mechanics.
Energy per photon is proportional to frequency. That tells us that it's alsoinversely proportional to wavelength.So if Photon-A has wavelength of 400-nm, then wavelength of Photon-Bwith twice as much energy is 200-nm .
Yes, due to the energy of photons/electromagnetic particles being determined by the equations below: E= hv=hc(1/v)= hc/wavelength. Where E= energy, v= frequency in Hz, h= Planck's constant, c= speed of light Electrons have a very short wavelength, and a very high frequency, thus they have much more energy than a beam of light.
An X-ray proton. This is so because the x-ray has much higher frequency and shorter waves.
The photon (quantum) at gamma frequency has more energy than a photon at microwave frequency has. But you can easily generate a beam of microwaves carrying more energy than, for example, the gamma rays that enter your house from space. Just use a more powerful source of microwaves to generate more photons. No big deal. The one in your kitchen that you use to heat the leftover meatloaf pours out far more energy every second than gamma rays bring into your house, but each microwave photon carries much less energy than a gamma photon does.
-- I have to assume that the '520' figure is also a wavelength in nm.-- The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. That also meansthat the energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength. So the photonwith the greater wavelength has less energy.-- 720/520 = 1.385The shorter-wave photon has 38.5% more energy than the longer-wave one.-- 520/720 = 0.722The longer wave photon has 72.2% as much energy as the shorter-wave one has.
I am not sure how much of a proof this is; but light energy is involved both in conservation of energy, and in conservation of momentum. A photon has both energy and momentum.I am not sure how much of a proof this is; but light energy is involved both in conservation of energy, and in conservation of momentum. A photon has both energy and momentum.I am not sure how much of a proof this is; but light energy is involved both in conservation of energy, and in conservation of momentum. A photon has both energy and momentum.I am not sure how much of a proof this is; but light energy is involved both in conservation of energy, and in conservation of momentum. A photon has both energy and momentum.
Well, first of all, protons don't make light. I think you mean 'photons'. A photon of ultraviolet light carries more energy than a photon of visible light, because it has a higher frequency / shorter wavelength.
No, as energy is absorbed. When the reverse happens, the higher state to lower state, the electron is returning to its lower energy level ground state and energy is released in the form of a photon.
Visible light has shorter wavelengths than microwaves. Microwaves, which might be considered the highest energy radio waves, have a longer wavelength (and a lower frequency) than visible light.