think if the quickest way between points a and b is a straight line and particle x moves between a and b in exactly 1 second using the course of a straight line, wouldnt particle z need to travel at a greater speed in order to travel as a wave and still cover the same amount of distance in the same about of time?? and an even greater speed for higher frequencies?
2007-10-19 23:10:18 · 5 answers · asked by Danny 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
1st two answers just spit out the mathematical formula (which doesn't explain anything). 3rd answer recognized a problem - but did nothing to answer your question.
First, take it on faith that light (indeed, all electromagnetic radiation, or EMR) *always* travels at the speed of light. This is true of radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, etc. etc. Thus, a beam of light, regardless of its frequency, travels at the speed of light.
2nd, our graphical depiction of EMR waves is *descriptive* of its physical properties, but is *not* really a physical depiction of the EMR. In other words, if you had a microscope that could view individual photons, they would not be oscillating up and down as they traveled along.
Let me try to put it another way: light does *not* travel up and down (along a sine wave) as it travels forward. It travels in a straight line at the speed of light. It has *inherently* a frequency (or several frequencies), but the graphical depiction of frequency is *not* a graphical depiction of light's travel though space!
The same is true of electricity. In fact, this provides an excellent example. AC electricity travels through wires without the individual electrons moving up and down in a sine wave! The frequency of electricity is a variation in the *voltage*, one specific property of the electrical signal, and is not a variation in the physical travel path of the electrons making up the electricity.
Light is analogous to this. The *frequency* of light, as depicted in a wave diagram, does *not* depict the *travel path* of light, but rather an entirely different physical aspect of the light.
In other words, light does not *travel* in waves (as water, for example). Rather, the waves are a physical aspect of the light that is separate from its manner, or path, of travel.
Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com
2007-10-20 00:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speed of light = Wavelength * Frequency
So if the frequency increases, the wavelength decreases, and vice-versa. But the speed always remains constant.
2007-10-19 23:16:57 · answer #2 · answered by al 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's just terribly clear that you don't have a clue about the wave/particle duality of light. Take a couple of Physics classes so that you understand that a photon (which is a particle) is equivalent to an electromagnetic wavefront (which is -not- a particle).
Doug
2007-10-19 23:38:28 · answer #3 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Electron. by way of fact the mass of proton is bigger than that of electron. subsequently in accordance to formaula KE= a million/2 x m x v^2, its Kinetic capability would be greater pondering their means capability to be comparable. it relatively is why the full capability (PE + KE) would be better for proton than for electron. Now wavelength is inversely proportional to capability. it relatively is why electron has have been given bigger wavelength on an identical velocity.
2016-10-07 06:41:53 · answer #4 · answered by courcelle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Velocity=frequency x wavelength. Frequency goes up, wavelength goes down, velocity remains constant.
2007-10-19 23:16:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋