Optics: light refraction in prisms

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a problem involving light refraction in prisms, where a user questions the accuracy of their method compared to a textbook approximation. It is noted that the textbook may have assumed a different orientation of the prism relative to the wall, which could explain the discrepancies. The problem statement lacks clarity on this orientation issue. After further analysis, the user expresses understanding but seeks confirmation on whether the approximation would be acceptable for their specific scenario. The conversation highlights the importance of clear problem statements in optics discussions.
alingy1
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Could you please check the following problem?
The book made an approximation. I didn't in my method. But the difference seems considerable. Did I make a mistake?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 8.42.30 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 8.42.30 AM.png
    21.2 KB · Views: 545
  • Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 8.42.43 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 8.42.43 AM.png
    7.6 KB · Views: 545
  • Lol.jpg
    Lol.jpg
    9.5 KB · Views: 505
Physics news on Phys.org
Your analysis looks good. I think maybe the textbook was assuming a different relative orientation between the prism and the wall. See attached figure. But the problem statement is not clear on this point.
 

Attachments

  • prism.png
    prism.png
    3.6 KB · Views: 511
EDIT: I get it now.
But, would using that approximation be fine for my picture?
 

Thread 'Errors and significant figures'

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...
View full post »
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Is this an oversimplification? (treating a lens as a set of prisms)
Replies
10
Views
201
Lens Maker's Formula - Confusion in the derivation
Replies
15
Views
1K
Optical path difference between two reflected rays
Replies
4
Views
661
Calculate a radius of a circle on a screen
Replies
3
Views
1K
What is the refraction index of liver?
Replies
5
Views
2K
How do I find the refractive index in sugar solutions?
Replies
13
Views
4K
How do dark spot and tiny hole filters affect Fourier optics images?
Replies
4
Views
1K
How do I find refractive index uncertainties?
Replies
3
Views
4K
A When should I analyze optical problems using ray tracing vs. wavefront analysis?
Replies
12
Views
328
Light rays passing through a glass prism
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top