Calculating the Minimum Thickness of a Thin-Film for Destructive Interference

  • Thread starter Thread starter BoogieL80
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interference
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the minimum thickness of a gasoline film for destructive interference of yellow and violet light. The participant is confused about the application of the interference conditions, particularly regarding the extra half-wavelength phase shift at the air-gasoline interface. They correctly calculated the wavelengths of yellow and violet light in gasoline but struggled with the formula for thickness, initially using 2t + 1/2 wavelength instead of the correct path difference equation. Clarification was provided that the total path difference should be 2t - λ/2 for destructive interference, leading to the conclusion that t should equal λ/4 for the color not seen. The participant continues to seek help due to discrepancies with their webassign results.
BoogieL80
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
I feel really lost in this interference stuff. I'm also having trouble with the following problem:

A mixture of yellow light (wavelength = 584 nm in vacuum) and violet light (wavelength = 408 nm in vacuum) falls perpendicularly on a film of gasoline that is floating on a puddle of water. For both wavelengths, the refractive index of gasoline is n = 1.40 and that of water is n = 1.33. What is the minimum nonzero thickness of the film in a spot that looks the following colors because of destructive interference?

What makes matters worse for this problem is there is even an example of this type of problem in my book. However, I used the formula wavelengthfilm = wavelengthvacuum / n and figured out that the wavelength of yellow in the gasoline is 417 nm and for violet is 291 nm. The problem also said that the color is caused by destructive interference. So in my mind this would mean that 2t + 1/2 wavelengthfilm = conditions for destructive wavelenth. I figured it was 2t since wave 2 traveled extra distance. In the end this would mean that for a miniumum nonzero thickness of film my formula would equal t= 1/2 * wavelength film. However webbassign is saying my answers are incorrect. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
2t = half wavelength IS the condition for destructive interference here.
(there is no extra 1/2 wavelength at reflections from a faster material)

But then t = 1/4 wavelength , for the color that is NOT seen.
 
Last edited:
So I guess I'm suppose to assume that all of the other colors show up due to constructive interference?
 
?? In this problem, there's Yellow light and Violet light.

Sorry, I mis-read the question earlier ...

The TOP reflection (air-gasoline) is from material in which the wave is slower.
So it has an extra half-wavelength (Electric field is flipped on reflection)
But light is faster in the water, so the bottom reflection (gasoline-water)
does NOT have an extra half-wavelength.

The total path difference is therefore 2t - lambda/2 ...
which equals lambda/2 for destructive interference.

Sorry again for my mis-reading of the gasoline n .
 
Well that's kind of where I was before. I calculated, for example, the wavelength for yellow to be 417nm (584nm/1.40 = 417nm). I tried diving that wavelength by 2 and got 208nm. However, my webassign is saying that is incorrect...
 
Thread 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
8K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K