From: blueskypenguin 2008-02-28 11:23 am (UTC)
| (Link)
|
My first instinct was a), and since you've ruled out the others so certainly, I'd go for that. Sorry, quantum theory isn't my strong point.
| From: wolodymyr 2008-02-28 08:31 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
You are right, simplicity wins, and thank you for that icon.
| From: a_pawson 2008-02-28 12:10 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I would say a) and c) are true.a) is true as it is simple application of the equation E=hc/λ The electron may fall back to ground state via n=2, but you cannot assume that and have been given no information to suggest it will happen by that mechanism.b) is false, the wavelength would be longer. Again it is simple application of the same equationc) is true since the electron has been moved to a higher orbitald) is false as the electron is now further from the nucleus, the force of electrostatic attraction is lower e) is false since there us a level n=2 between n=3 and the ground state
| From: uberjason 2008-02-28 04:06 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Your problem with (a) was that it wouldn't necessarily go from n=3 back to n=1 directly. This is a reasonable concern, but I think (a) was trying to imply that it would simply go from n=3 back to n=1 directly. Given this, you can take (a) as true.
| From: wolodymyr 2008-02-28 08:10 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
It is true, and I was reading too much in. Dude, it's just, we spent one third of class talking about the ain't-necessarily-so-ness of A! Thanks for helping me return to more casual and multiple-choice-friendly reason.
| From: invaderxan 2008-02-28 11:44 pm (UTC)
| (Link)
|
There isn't technically enough information to say if a is true. If you assume that the electron jumps directly between n=1 and n=3 (for example, if the transition to n=2 is forbidden), then it is true. Just FYI, where the emitted photons are the same frequency as those absorbed like this, it's known as 'resonance fluorescence'... |