Air wedge interference pattern after being filled with water

AI Thread Summary
Filling an air wedge with water alters the interference pattern due to the change in refractive index. The book states that the fringe spacing will increase, but calculations suggest it should decrease because the formula for fringe spacing incorporates the refractive index. Specifically, the derived formula for water indicates that the fringe spacing is inversely proportional to the refractive index, which is greater than one. This leads to the conclusion that a higher refractive index means a smaller fringe spacing. The discussion raises doubts about the accuracy of the book's explanation.
Andrew Tom
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Air wedge interference pattern after being filled with water
Relevant Equations
##x=\frac{\lambda}{2\tan \theta}##
An air wedge is illuminated with light and an interference pattern is produced. What will happen to the interference pattern when the air wedge is filled with water?

The answer given at the back of the book is that the fringe spacing of the interference pattern will increase, however my reasoning is leading me to the conclusion that it will decrease.

The derivation for fringe spacing given in the book for an air wedge shows that it is ##\frac{\lambda}{2\tan \theta}## where ##\theta## is the wedge angle. When I re-derived the formula using the same reasoning but for water with refractive index n I got the fringe spacing ##\frac{\lambda}{2n\tan\theta}##. So the fringe spacing will decrease because n>1 for water.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Andrew Tom said:
the interference pattern will increase
Are those the exact words? I don't know what that means.
 
haruspex said:
Are those the exact words? I don't know what that means.
Sorry it says the fringe spacing will increase.
 
Andrew Tom said:
Sorry it says the fringe spacing will increase.
I agree with you. A higher refractive index would mean you don't need to go so far along the wedge for the optical path length to increase by a wavelength.
 
haruspex said:
I agree with you. A higher refractive index would mean you don't need to go so far along the wedge for the optical path length to increase by a wavelength.
So is the book wrong?
 
Andrew Tom said:
So is the book wrong?
I would say so. Others may chip in.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top