A vessel with fluids of two different refractive indices

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the apparent depth of a vessel containing two fluids with different refractive indices: √2 for the upper fluid and n for the lower fluid. The key formula derived is apparent depth = d/√2 + d/n, where d represents the real depth. Participants clarify the addition of depths when refraction occurs at the interface of the two media, emphasizing the importance of understanding the observer's position relative to the fluids. The final expression for apparent depth is confirmed as √2d/n + d/√2.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of refractive indices and their effects on light propagation
  • Familiarity with the concept of apparent depth in optics
  • Basic knowledge of ray diagrams in physics
  • Proficiency in algebraic manipulation of equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of refraction and Snell's Law
  • Learn how to construct and interpret ray diagrams for optical scenarios
  • Explore the concept of apparent depth in different media
  • Investigate the effects of varying refractive indices on light behavior
USEFUL FOR

Students studying optics, physics educators, and anyone interested in the practical applications of refractive indices in fluid mechanics.

Vriska
Messages
138
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


both filled to height h in the vessel of length 2h. one has refractive index root 2 and the bottom fluid has refractive index n. find the apparent depth of vessel.

Homework Equations


n = real depth/apparent depth

The Attempt at a Solution


what these guys have done :

apparent depth = d/sqrt(2) + d/n

I don't get it, how do you add depths like these esp. when refraction happens at medium n and medium sqrt(2).?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you were in the medium of refractive index ##\sqrt 2##, what would be the apparent depth of the other medium?
 
Orodruin said:
If you were in the medium of refractive index ##\sqrt 2##, what would be the apparent depth of the other medium?

if I were at the bottom of interface at distance d, the apparent depth would be d*##\sqrt 2## /n. my guess was I'd add this to the ##\frac{d} {\sqrt 2}##, that's wrong apparently
 
Vriska said:
if I were at the bottom of interface at distance d, the apparent depth would be d*√2/n
Right.
Vriska said:
my guess was I'd add this to the d/√2
No. Adapt your correct answer above to the situation in which the observer is just under the surface of the upper fluid, then compare it with an object that really is at that depth in such a fluid. How would that be seen from just above that fluid?
 
I
haruspex said:
Right.

No. Adapt your correct answer above to the situation in which the observer is just under the surface of the upper fluid, then compare it with an object that really is at that depth in such a fluid. How would that be seen from just above that fluid?

just under the upper fluid? Then thered be no refraction right?
 
haruspex said:
Right.

No. Adapt your correct answer above to the situation in which the observer is just under the surface of the upper fluid, then compare it with an object that really is at that depth in such a fluid. How would that be seen from just above that fluid?

okay mathematically : change in depth due to medium 2 = d- sqrt(2)d/n, due to medium 1 = d - d/sqrt(2), total change in depth is 2d - sqrt(2)d/n - d/sqrt(2) this is subtracted from total depth to get apparent depth . = sqrt(2)d/n +d/sqrt 2. wrong answer, right?
 
Vriska said:
just under the upper fluid?
Just under the (upper) surface of the upper fluid.
 
haruspex said:
Just under the (upper) surface of the upper fluid.

okay real depth at supper surface of upper fluid is d + d*sqrt(2)/n

so sqrt 2 = d +d*sqrt(2)/apparent depth. ad =d(n+sqrt2)/n*sqrt2. thanks! BTW, would you happen to know if the method used in the book make sense?
 
Vriska said:
would you happen to know if the method used in the book make sense?
Maybe, but I cannot think of a simple argument to support it. When in doubt, draw ray diagrams.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
856
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
690
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K