Interference in thin films; confusion regarding geometry

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interference of light in thin films, specifically focusing on the geometry of an angled air wedge between two films. Participants express confusion regarding the application of equations and the assumptions made in the context of normal incidence and varying thickness.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the justification for using an angled air wedge while claiming that all incident rays must be normal to the interfaces, suggesting a potential contradiction in the book's approach.
  • Concerns are raised about the application of the equation ##2t = m\lambda## in example problem 35.4, particularly regarding the changing thickness of the air wedge along its length and whether the thickness depends on the chosen value of ##m##.
  • Another participant clarifies that the equation indicates the positions where cancellation or enhancement occurs, implying a need to interpret the equation's context correctly.
  • There is uncertainty about whether both ##t## and ##\lambda## in the equation refer to characteristics of the second material, with one participant seeking confirmation on this point.
  • Responses indicate that the wavelength used in the calculations pertains to the air wedge, leading to further clarification needs regarding the term "second material."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the equations and concepts presented in the book, indicating that multiple competing views remain and the discussion is unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings regarding the assumptions of normal incidence and the implications of varying thickness in the air wedge, which may affect the application of the equations discussed.

rtareen
Messages
162
Reaction score
32
Instead of talking about the simple of case of reflection interference due to a single film, this book starts off with two films with an angled air wedge between them. They talk about the "thickness", ##t##, of the wedge, but this thickness varies along the length of the films (Figure 35.`12). This is and something else is causing me confusion when it comes to the example problems at the end.

Firstly, all of this is impossible because the book itself says that we are restricting discussion to normal incident rays. But you can see in figure 35.12 that the incident ray from the air wedge approaching the second glass film is not normal. Is this all just an approximation? How is it justified? I don't see how you can introduce this angled air wedge problem when you just proclaimed that all incident rays must be normal to the interfaces.

Second, in example problem 35.4, we use the equation ##2t = m\lambda## to try and find the positions along the length where there will be destructive reflection. But the problem is that the thickness of the air wedge is changing with each position, yet we use the same equation ##x = m(1.25 mm)## for each position when the thickness is changing with position. Or does the thickness depend on which value of ##m## you choose? That would make sense.

Finally, the book doesn't really say it, but when we talk about the equation ##2t = m\lambda##, both ##t## and ##\lambda## are characteristics of the second material only right? Thats what I think. Because were looking at how many wavelengths the ray travels through the thickess of the second material twice, right? The book doesn't say this clearly, and I want to confirm if this is right.
 

Attachments

Science news on Phys.org
Yes m numbers the successive dark fringes as you surmise.
The wavelength is the wavelength in the wedge of air between the slides ( I don't know what you mean by the "second material")
 
rtareen said:
Summary:: Question is regarding example problem 35.4. I attached the entire section for background.

Or does the thickness depend on which value of m you choose? That would make sense.
I think you must have read this wrong and then confusion set in. The equation is telling you the values of t where you get cancellation or enhancement. That's all there is to it. It's one of those 'inside out' statements that they throw at you at times.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I think you must have read this wrong and then confusion set in. The equation is telling you the values of t where you get cancellation or enhancement. That's all there is to it. It's one of those 'inside out' statements that they throw at you at times.
I can understand that. Thank you!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
hutchphd said:
Yes m numbers the successive dark fringes as you surmise.
The wavelength is the wavelength in the wedge of air between the slides ( I don't know what you mean by the "second material")
Thank you~
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K