Index of Refraction, reflection diminishment

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the percentage reduction in reflection from a glass lens coated with magnesium fluoride (MgF2) at different wavelengths. The key challenge is determining how the coating thickness affects reflection at 445 nm and 695 nm, given that the coating is optimized for 550 nm. Participants note that diminished reflection implies a reduction from the typical 7% reflection, and they highlight the complexities of calculating reflectance due to varying indices of refraction and the effects of destructive interference. The conversation emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of thin film optics to derive accurate formulas for reflectance. Overall, the problem illustrates the intricate relationship between coating thickness, wavelength, and reflection in optical systems.
Oijl
Messages
102
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A glass lens is coated on one side with a thin film of magnesium floride (MgF2) to reduce reflection from the lens surface. The index of refraction of MgF2 is 1.38; that of the glass is 1.50. Assume that the light is perpendicular to the lens surface and that the thickness of the coating is the least possible needed to eliminate the reflections of light of wavelength 550 nm at normal incidence.

hrw7_35-20.gif


(a) Calculate the percentage by which reflection is diminished by the coating at 445 nm.
(b) Calculate this percentage for a wavelength of 695 nm.

Homework Equations


maxima: 2L=(my)/n
minima: 2L=((m+0.5)y)/2

[y is lambda)


The Attempt at a Solution


What is meant (mathematically) by a diminished reflection?
This is an extension of a sample problem in my textbook; in the book, the problem is to find the thickness of MgF2 that'll minimize reflection (99.6nm). But the only equations I can think of relating to this system use the quantities: thickness of MgF2, n-air, n-MgF2, n-glass, wavelength, and integer m. It doesn't seem, to me, that any of these are what I should be comparing in the 99.6nm thickness and 445nm thickness situations in order to find the percentage by which reflection is diminished.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Diminished" here must mean reduction of reflection from the usual 7% or so of the light. This is quite a difficult problem! As wavelength varies away from the value for which the coating was optimized, the destructive interference of the two reflected waves will be imperfect because the coating thickness will not be exactly 1/4 wavelength. AND the amount of reflection at the two surfaces will not be equal (if it was equal at the optimum wavelength) due to variation in the index of refraction with wavelength. Interesting reading at
http://www.edmundoptics.com/technical-support/optics/anti-reflection-coatings/
and http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_2.htm
including graphs showing the "answer" for real optical coatings.
I don't see how you can calculate an accurate answer unless you assume equal reflection from the two surfaces and just do the destructive interference part. I don't know how to do even that - perhaps an integral over the sum of two sinusoidals, one phase shifted relative to the other by the double trip through the coating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not difficult to derive a formula for the reflectance of a thin film coating if you are familiar with the theory of thin layer optics, but it is not undergraduate level! You can find such expression as below under the topics "thin layer optics":

n0 is the refractive index of air, n0=1,
n1 is the refractive index of the layer, n1=1.38,
n2 is the refractive index of the glass substrate, n2=1.50,
\lambda is the wavelength, d is the thickness of the layer.


R=\frac{(n_0-n_1)^2(n_1+n_2)^2+(n_0+n_1)^2(n_1-n_2)^2+2(n_0-n_1)(n_1-n_2)\cos(4 \pi/\lambda\cdot n_1d)}{(n_0+n_1)^2(n_1+n_2)^2+(n_0-n_1)^2(n_1-n_2)^2+2(n_0-n_1)(n_1-n_2)\cos(4 \pi/\lambda\cdot n_1d)}

ehild
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K