A problem involving thin film interference

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the phase changes that occur during thin film interference when light transitions between media of different refractive indices. It explains that a phase change of λ/2 occurs at both the air-plate and plate-glass interfaces, leading to a cancellation of phase changes and establishing the condition for constructive interference. The derived formula for the minimum non-zero thickness of the film is t = λ/(2n_F). In a reversed scenario, where no phase change occurs at the interfaces, the same condition for constructive interference applies, confirming the consistency of the reasoning. Overall, the reasoning presented is validated as correct.
lorenz0
Messages
151
Reaction score
28
Homework Statement
A blue (##\lambda=450nm##) beam of light hits a glass plate with ##n_g=1.5##. Calculate the minimum thickness that a plate with refractive index ##n_F=1.33##, that must be placed between the air and the glass to produce the maximum intensity reflected in the blue, should have. How much would this thickness have to be if the light was coming from the glass towards the air?
Relevant Equations
##\lambda_{medium}=\frac{\lambda}{n_{medium}}##
I know that every time that light goes from traveling through a medium with lower refractive index to one with a higher refractive index the reflected light undergoes a ##\frac{\lambda}{2}## phase change. Since this happens both at the air-plate and plate-glass interfaces we have that the phase changes cancel each other out and the condition for constructive interference is (where ##t## denotes the thickness of the plate): ##2t=m \lambda_{plate}\Leftrightarrow 2t=m\frac{\lambda}{n_F}\Leftrightarrow t=\frac{m\lambda}{2n_F}## so the minimum (non-zero) thickness is ##t=\frac{\lambda}{2n_F}.##

In the second scenario the situation is reversed and there is no ##\frac{\lambda}{2}## phase change for both the glass-plate interface and the plate-air interface and so the condition for constructive interference again reads ##2t=m \lambda_{plate}## and we get the same result as before.

Is this correct? I still have to fully grasp this phenomenon and I would like to have feedback on the way I have reasoned about this problem, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your reasoning is correct.
 
  • Like
Likes lorenz0 and Charles Link
kuruman said:
Your reasoning is correct.
Thanks!
 
Thread 'Struggling to make relation between elastic force and height'
Hello guys this is what I tried so far. I used the UTS to calculate the force it needs when the rope tears. My idea was to make a relationship/ function that would give me the force depending on height. Yeah i couldnt find a way to solve it. I also thought about how I could use hooks law (how it was given to me in my script) with the thought of instead of having two part of a rope id have one singular rope from the middle to the top where I could find the difference in height. But the...
I treat this question as two cases of Doppler effect. (1) When the sound wave travels from bat to moth Speed of sound = 222 x 1.5 = 333 m/s Frequency received by moth: $$f_1=\frac{333+v}{333}\times 222$$ (2) When the sound wave is reflected from moth back to bat Frequency received by bat (moth as source and bat as observer): $$f_2=\frac{333}{333-v}\times f_1$$ $$230.3=\frac{333}{333-v}\times \frac{333+v}{333}\times 222$$ Solving this equation, I get ##v=6.1## m/s but the answer key is...
Back
Top