Dispersion through an equilateral prism

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveM-
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dispersion Prism
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the angular dispersion "gamma" of white light passing through an equilateral prism with specific refractive indices for red and violet light. Participants emphasize the importance of applying Snell's law correctly to find the angles of refraction at both surfaces of the prism. There is a consensus that geometry is crucial for determining the correct incident angles at the second surface, rather than simply adding 45 degrees to the initial angles. Concerns arise regarding the closeness of the output angles for red and violet light, suggesting a potential oversight in calculations. Ultimately, the correct approach involves careful consideration of the angles relative to the prism's surface normals.
SteveM-
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


white light propagating in air is incident at 45 degrees on an equilateral prism Find the angular dispersion "gamma" of the outgoing beam if the prism has refractive indices n(red) = 1.582 and n(violet) = 1.633.
NOTE: "gamma" is just a variable for describing the angular dispersion.

Homework Equations


Snell's law n1sin(theta)=n2sin(theta)
adjusted for our purposes I came up with:

For incoming wight light:

n(air)sin(45) = n(red)*sin(theta(r1)) and n(air)sin(45) = n(violet)sin(theta(v))

solving these equations we can find our angles and use those to determine our outgoing theta for each wave:

n(red)sin(theta(r1)) = n(air)sin(theta(r2)) and


n(violet)sin(theta(v1))=n(air)sin(theta(v2))


The Attempt at a Solution



Well this seems like a simple plug and chuck, but the approach seems like it may be oversimplified, I think there may be some geometry somewhere that needs to be added, (i.e. should I add 45 degrees to the theta(r1) and use that degree value for the "theta(r1)" for the outgoing red beam angle?

Assuming I find the output angles then all I would need to do is take the difference of those angles to determine the angular dispersion "gamma"?

The given text available provides about half a paragraph talking about angular dispersion for the entire chapter on reflection and refraction, so if you guy's happen to know of any useful links I could refer to for FYI purposes, that would be appreciated as well, but in the mean time am I doing this correctly?

When I solved the numbers I basically got output angles of red and violate that were suspiciously close making the difference near zero... the only thing that seems correct is that my angle for red is above the angle for violate which is expected...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
SteveM- said:
For incoming wight light:

n(air)sin(45) = n(red)*sin(theta(r1)) and n(air)sin(45) = n(violet)sin(theta(v))
OK.

solving these equations we can find our angles and use those to determine our outgoing theta for each wave:

n(red)sin(theta(r1)) = n(air)sin(theta(r2)) and


n(violet)sin(theta(v1))=n(air)sin(theta(v2))
Instead of theta(r1) & theta(v1), which are angles with respect to the first surface normal, you need angles with respect to the second surface normal.


The Attempt at a Solution



Well this seems like a simple plug and chuck, but the approach seems like it may be oversimplified, I think there may be some geometry somewhere that needs to be added, (i.e. should I add 45 degrees to the theta(r1) and use that degree value for the "theta(r1)" for the outgoing red beam angle?
Yes, you'll need a bit of geometry to find the incident angles at the second surface. But why 45 degrees?
 
Right, that's the ambiguity that needed addressing, we'll in that case because this is a equilateral triangle the incident angle of the light on the interior of the prism should be equal the incoming angle being subtracted from the axis normal to the prism surface.

The reference of 45 degrees being added to the initial angle was purely arbitrary for example purposes.
 
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