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!
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top