A problem involving thin film interference

Click For 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!
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
865
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K