A certain metal with work function of Φ = 1.7 eV is illuminated in vacuum by 1.4 x 10-6 W of light with a wavelength of λ = 600 nm. 1)How many photons per second, N, are incident on the metal? N = photons per second Submit 2)What is KEmax, the maximum kinetic energy of the electron that is emitted from the metal? KEmax = eV

1) n = 4.47*10^12 photons

2) K = 0.25 eV

Explanation:

This is a problem about the photoelectric effect.

1) In order to calculate the number of photons that impact the metal, you take into account the power of the light, which is given by:

    (1)

Furthermore you calculate the energy of a photon with a wavelength of 600nm, by using the following formula:

        (2)

c: speed of light = 3*10^8 m/s

h: Planck's constant = 6.626*10^-34 Js

λ: wavelength = 600*10^-9 m

You replace the values of the parameters in the equation (2):

Next, you calculate the quotient between the power of the light (equation (1)) and the energy of the photon:

The number of photons is 4.47*10^12

2) The kinetic energy of the electrons emitted by the metal is given by the following formula:

    (3)

Ep: energy of the photons

Φ: work function of the metal = 1.7 eV

You first convert the energy of the photons to eV:

You replace in the equation (3):

The kinetic energy of the electrons emitted by the metal is 0.25 eV

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation:

i am pretty sure it is c because when people are closer together, they cannot move as freely. picture being in a mostly full elevator, for instance. the people are right next to you, and you can barely move.