How Does Refractive Index Variation Affect Mirage Visibility in a Desert?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Quantum Sphinx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quantitative Study
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the effects of varying refractive index on mirage visibility in a desert scenario involving a light source at a height H and an observer at height h. The main equations referenced include Snell's law and the trajectory of light, which is described as an arc cosh function. The participant is struggling with the integration limits and the implications of the refractive index being zero at ground level, questioning the validity of the problem statement. They seek clarification on the conditions necessary for a mirage to form, particularly regarding the angle of incidence and height. Overall, the thread highlights the complexities of applying optical principles to this specific scenario.
Quantum Sphinx
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Question:[/B] Imagine you are in a massive desert. There is a tower of height H. A light source at the top of the tower can emit light in all directions. You are a person whose eyes are at a height h (h<H) above the ground. The refractive index of the air varies as μ=kd where k is a positive constant and d is the distance above the ground.

  1. What is the minimum distance at which you will still be able to see the mirage.
  2. What is the minimum possible distance between you and the mirage.
  3. If the ray starts off making an angle α below the horizontal what is the condition that a mirage is created
(The 3 questions are independent)

2. Homework Equations :
snell's law

2. The attempt at a solution
My approach:
I started off by assuming an element of height dx at an elevation x above the ground. Then I assumed that the ray of light is incident at an angle of θ and that the angle of refraction isθ+dθ. the refractive index changes from μ(x+dx) to μ(x). So,

μ(x+dx)⋅sin⁡(θ)=μ(x)⋅sin⁡(θ+dθ)

Solving this gave me weird results. I think it was because I was unable to incorporate Total Internal Reflection into it.

If somebody could either point me in the right direction for solving the question or point out an error (if there is one) in the question (because I made the question myself) then I would be grateful.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Quantum Sphinx said:
Solving this gave me weird results.
Please post your working. It will be important to get the sign right in your first equation.

Edit: I get that the trajectory of the ray is an arc cosh function.
 
Last edited:
haruspex said:
Please post your working. It will be important to get the sign right in your first equation.

Edit: I get that the trajectory of the ray is an arc cosh function.

Like I said:
I started off by assuming an element of height dx at an elevation x above the ground. Then I assumed that the ray of light is incident at an angle of θ and that the angle of refraction isθ+dθ. the refractive index changes from μ(x+dx) to μ(x). So,

μ(x+dx)⋅sin⁡(θ)=μ(x)⋅sin⁡(θ+dθ)

That is the first equation.

Then -
μ⋅x⋅sin(θ) + μ⋅sin(θ)⋅dx = μ(x)⋅sin(θ)⋅cos(dθ) + μ(x)⋅cos(θ)⋅sin(dθ)
( assumptions - cos(dθ) = 1 and sin(dθ) = dθ )

which gives -
sin(θ)⋅dx = x⋅cos(θ)⋅dθ

dx/x = cot(θ)⋅dθ

Integrating,
[ln x] = [ ln |sin(θ)| ]

The problem comes in putting the limits. What limit should I use over [ ln |sin(θ)| ]. For question 1, the limits over [ln x] should be from H to h(I think).
 
Quantum Sphinx said:
The problem comes in putting the limits. What limit should I use over [ ln |sin(θ)| ]. For question 1, the limits over [ln x] should be from H to h(I think).
Very sorry - I was busy when I saw your reply and forgot to come back to it.

For a mirage to occur, what value of angle must be reached before what value of height?

Edit: just realized something about the problem statement. It implies the refractive index is zero at d=0. It cannot be less than 1, surely.
For the first two parts of the question, you need to look at how horizontal distance gets into the equation (x is your vertical distance).
 
Last edited:
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...
Back
Top