Finding the incidence angle for refraction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the angle of incidence for a light ray refracting from one medium to another, with given indices of refraction and an angle of refraction of 76 degrees. The application of Snell's Law reveals that the calculated sine value exceeds 1, indicating a domain error, which suggests that refraction at this angle is impossible. Participants clarify that the scenario relates to the critical angle and emphasize that if light can travel in one direction, it should also be able to reverse its path, adhering to Snell's Law. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding maximum angles of refraction and the conditions under which total internal reflection occurs. Ultimately, the impossibility of achieving refraction at 76 degrees is confirmed due to its relation to the critical angle.
SirBerr
Messages
9
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am to find the angle of incidence of a light ray before it undergoes refraction. Light is refracted in the second medium at an angle of 76 degrees measured from the normal. The second index of refraction is 1.386. The index of refraction for the initial or first medium is 1.336.

Homework Equations



Snell's Law n1sin(theta 1) = n2 sin (theta 2)

The Attempt at a Solution



I worked through Snell's Law and found that sin ( theta one) is 1.006 . When I attempt to take the inverse SIN for the angle, I get domain error because the value is greater than 1.

This can't be internal reflection because the second medium has a higher index of refraction than the first?

All help is appreciated! Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Although this is not total internal reflection, the situation here is related to the critical angle.

If a ray of light refracts going from material 1 to material 2, then that ray should be "reversible". That is, light should be able to travel the same path in the reversed direction from material 2 back into material 1.

So, for the reversed path in your problem, the ray would start in material 2 and have an angle of incidence of 76 degrees. How is 76 degrees related to the critical angle for going from material 2 to material 1?

Another way to look at the problem is to consider the light going from material 1 into material 2 with greater and greater angles of incidence in material 1. As you increase the angle of incidence in material 1, what happens to the angle of refraction in material 2? What would you let the angle of incidence be to find the greatest possible angle of refraction in material 2? How does this maximum angle of refraction compare with 76 degrees?
 
TSny said:
Although this is not total internal reflection, the situation here is related to the critical angle.

If a ray of light refracts going from material 1 to material 2, then that ray should be "reversible". That is, light should be able to travel the same path in the reversed direction from material 2 back into material 1.

So, for the reversed path in your problem, the ray would start in material 2 and have an angle of incidence of 76 degrees. How is 76 degrees related to the critical angle for going from material 2 to material 1?

Another way to look at the problem is to consider the light going from material 1 into material 2 with greater and greater angles of incidence in material 1. As you increase the angle of incidence in material 1, what happens to the angle of refraction in material 2? What would you let the angle of incidence be to find the greatest possible angle of refraction in material 2? How does this maximum angle of refraction compare with 76 degrees?

I noticed you left reversible in quotations. Why must we address a reversible ray when the ray is not physically going from a high medium to a lower medium of index?

I can see what you're saying as the incidence angle is increased, I even did some online simulators, but I cannot grasp as to why this occurs. I thought this type of reflection only occurred again when going from a high index to a low index.
 
SirBerr said:
I noticed you left reversible in quotations. Why must we address a reversible ray when the ray is not physically going from a high medium to a lower medium of index?

If a ray of light is possible in one direction, then the reversed ray must also be possible. (Both rays will satisfy Snell's law). See the attached picture. So, if you can show that the reversed ray is impossible, that means the original ray is impossible. That's why you can't get an answer with your calculator.
I can see what you're saying as the incidence angle is increased, I even did some online simulators, but I cannot grasp as to why this occurs. I thought this type of reflection only occurred again when going from a high index to a low index.
We're not talking about reflection here, just refraction in going from medium 1 to medium 2. There is a greatest value that θ2 can be. If 76o is greater than that maximum possible angle of refraction, then it's impossible for a ray to be refracted at 76o. So, that's another way to see why your calculator is giving an error.
 

Attachments

  • Reversed Ray.jpg
    Reversed Ray.jpg
    8.8 KB · Views: 644
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 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top