How Do You Determine the Angle That Maximizes Light Dispersion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chipotleaway
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dispersion Light
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the incident angle that maximizes light dispersion when light transitions from a medium with a wavelength-dependent refractive index to vacuum. The original poster interprets 'maximum dispersion' as the condition where a slight change in wavelength results in a significant change in the angle of refraction.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the interpretation of maximum dispersion and the relationship between incident angle and wavelength. There are attempts to differentiate functions related to the angles of refraction and dispersion, with questions about the correct variables and relationships to maximize.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various interpretations of the problem and the mathematical relationships involved. Some guidance has been provided regarding the use of Snell's law and the implications of approaching the critical angle, but no consensus has been reached on the specific angle that maximizes dispersion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of specific numerical values for wavelength, leading to assumptions about the range of wavelengths to consider, such as visible light. There are also discussions about the implications of the critical angle and its relationship to dispersion.

chipotleaway
Messages
174
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If light moves from a medium with a refractive index that is a function of wavelength, [\itex]n_1(\lambda)[/itex], to vacuum n_2=1, then dispersion will occur. Find the incident angle \theta_1 that will maximize dispersion.


The Attempt at a Solution


I'm interpreting 'maximum dispersion' as if we change the wavelength a little, then the angle of refraction \theta_2 should change a lot. So I think we trying to find the maximum of the function \frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda}, which means solving \frac{d^2\theta_2}{d\lambda^2}=0 for \theta_1.

Is the correction interpretation and approach? Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The question asks for the _angle_ which results in the most dispersion; your wavelength dependent index of refraction is the dispersion relationship.

So consider the total fan of light for a particular set of wavelengths - for example, the two wavelengths 400 nm and 700 nm. The rays are parallel as they approach the interface, but are "dispersed" by some angle when they leave. It is this "dispersion" angle which needs to be maximized.

You already know the angle of incidence which minimizes it: zero degrees.
 
chipotleaway said:
So I think we trying to find the maximum of the function \frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda}, which means solving \frac{d^2\theta_2}{d\lambda^2}=0 for \theta_1.
You are not trying to maximise \frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda} wrt λ.
 
So I should be maximizing the difference between the diffraction angles for each wavelengths?
 
chipotleaway said:
So I should be maximizing the difference between the diffraction angles for each wavelengths?
No. You are trying to maximise \frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda}, but not wrt λ. What is the variable for which you are trying to pick a value?
 
\theta_1, which would mean \frac{d}{d\theta_1}\frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda}?
 
chipotleaway said:
\theta_1, which would mean \frac{d}{d\theta_1}\frac{d\theta_2}{d\lambda}?
Yes.
 
the function i get is \frac{cos(\theta_1)(1-n^2sin^2(\theta_1))-n^2cos(\theta_1)sin^2(\theta_1)}{(1-n^2sin^2(\theta_1))^{3/2)}[\tex]. the numerator simplifies to cos(\theta) which implies the angle is 90 degrees which can't be right. i treated each variable as a constant when differentiating with respect to the other
 
chipotleaway said:
the function i get is \frac{cos(\theta_1)(1-n^2sin^2(\theta_1))-n^2cos(\theta_1)sin^2(\theta_1)}{(1-n^2sin^2(\theta_1))^{3/2)}[\tex]. the numerator simplifies to cos(\theta) which implies the angle is 90 degrees which can't be right. i treated each variable as a constant when differentiating with respect to the other
<br /> Fixing the LaTex:<br /> \frac{cos(\theta_1)(1-n^2\sin^2(\theta_1))-n^2\cos(\theta_1)sin^2(\theta_1)}{(1-n^2\sin^2(\theta_1))^\frac 32}<br /> I think you have a sign wrong there, but let&#039;s step back a bit. What do you get for ∂θ<sub>2</sub>/∂λ as a function of λ, θ<sub>1</sub> and n(λ)?
 
  • #10
Differentiating arcsin(n(/lambda)sin(\theta_1), I got \frac{sin(\theta_1)}{\sqrt(1-(n(\lambda)sin(\theta_1))^2}\frac{dn(\theta_2)}{d\lambda}.

ah, i seem to have forgotten the derivative term..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
chipotleaway said:
I got \frac{sin(\theta_1)}{\sqrt(1-(n(\lambda)sin(\theta_1))^2}\frac{dn(\lambda)}{d\lambda}.
(I corrected your d/dλ term.)
Right, now consider how that will behave as θ1 increases from 0.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #12
Sorry about the latex errors (i am posting from my phone not good with the small keyboard).

It increases, and does so at faster rate for the larger n is...just looking at the plot of the expression without dn/dλ, there's no upper bound
 
  • #13
Now compare with Snell's law ... is there a maximum angle of incidence?
 
  • #14
could you please elaborate? do you mean find the max. angle of incidence from the expression?
 
  • #15
Yes; start with Snell's law and find the maximum angle of incidence for a ray which exits the media ... do this for your shortest and longest wavelengths.

Then compare this result with the result of your calculations. Should these give the same results?
 
  • #16
oh so the max. angle at which the ray exits. Wouldnt that just be maximizing the function of the refracted angle against the incident angle?

there are no numbers given for wavelength so I'm not sure if we're to assume visible light or not
 
  • #17
Then just try a couple - 400 nm, 700 nm.
 
  • #18
chipotleaway said:
Sorry about the latex errors (i am posting from my phone not good with the small keyboard).

It increases, and does so at faster rate for the larger n is...just looking at the plot of the expression without dn/dλ, there's no upper bound
Right, so what incident angle maximises it? (This is not a local maximum. The slope is never 0.)
 
  • #19
haruspex said:
Right, so what incident angle maximises it? (This is not a local maximum. The slope is never 0.)

Taking n(λ)=1, the plot suggests it would be as larger an incident angle (x) in the plot as possible, which would be parallel to the boundary. But that's beyond the critical angle (and light along the boundary wouldn't be refracted or reflected, I don't think).

I also realized when trying to plot for larger n(λ) values, as it should be, that the incident angle must decrease as n(λ) does ot else you get negative square roots.
This doesn't make sense to me cause there shouldn't be restrictions on the incident angle.
 

Attachments

  • plot.JPG
    plot.JPG
    9.6 KB · Views: 694
  • #20
Max dispersion occurs as you near the critical angle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #21
So the best angle of dispersion is 'infinitely' close to the critical angle..?
 
  • #22
Test your hypothesis!
 
  • #23
chipotleaway said:
Taking n(λ)=1, the plot suggests it would be as larger an incident angle (x) in the plot as possible, which would be parallel to the boundary. But that's beyond the critical angle (and light along the boundary wouldn't be refracted or reflected, I don't think).
No, don't set n(λ)=1. That's what gave you a result beyond the critical angle. Look at this again:
\frac{sin(\theta_1)}{\sqrt(1-(n(\lambda)sin(\theta_1))^2)}\frac{dn(\theta_2)}{d\theta_1}.
As ##\theta_1## approaches the critical angle, what value does its sine tend to? What does that do to the denominator?
 
  • #24
is that an error in your derivative term?

letting the incident angle approach the critical angle which is arcsin(\frac{1}{\lambda}[\itex], i get a 0 in the square root and 1/n in the numerator. (from evaluating the limit)
 
  • #25
chipotleaway said:
is that an error in your derivative term?
Sorry, yes. The last bit should be dn/dλ, but it isn't important.
letting the incident angle approach the critical angle which is arcsin(\frac{1}{\lambda}[\itex], i get a 0 in the square root and 1/n in the numerator. (from evaluating the limit)
<br /> Exactly. So, as θ<sub>1</sub> increases towards the critical angle, the dispersion increases without limit. The maximum is therefore at the critical angle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
  • #26
Thank you!
 
  • #27
chipotleaway said:
Thank you!
You're welcome. Reaching for d/dx = 0 to find an extremum without thinking about absolute extrema is an easy trap to fall into. I went that way at first on this problem too.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K