Optics Problem: What am I doing wrong?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the apparent radius of a luminous star surrounded by a uniform atmosphere. The original poster used the lens maker's equation but arrived at an incorrect apparent radius of 2.313 x 10^8 m. Other participants provided alternative calculations, with one arriving at 3.18 x 10^8 m using similar methods. They emphasized the importance of considering the relationship between the star's radius, the atmosphere's radius, and the index of refraction, noting that the apparent radius should be based on the condition R2 > nR1. The consensus suggests that the correct approach leads to an apparent radius of 3.17 x 10^8 m.
xenogizmo
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Hey Everyone..
I'm having trouble with this question, I think I have this question figured out but my answer is coming out incorrect... Tell me if there is a flaw in my logic.. question is:

"Suppose that a luminous star of radius R1=1.74×108 m is surrounded by a uniform atmosphere extending up to a radius R2=4.28×108 m and with index of refraction n=1.82. When the sphere is viewed from a location far away in vacuum, what is its apparent radius?"

What I did was consider the outer edge of the atmosphere a spherical refracting surface.. and using the equation: n1/P + n2/q = (n2-n1)/R
(sorry for not using latex)

And then I took a point from the star's surface, and take the distance form the atmosphere to that point the image distance (where P is just R2 - R1).
I also took n1 as 1.82 and n2 as 1 since it's just vacuum.. and according to the sign conventions the radius should be negative..

After I got the image distance (which was negative, a virtual image), I subtracted it's absolute value from R2, and that should be apparent radius. Am I wrong?

Thx,
Xeno
 
Physics news on Phys.org
btw, the answer I got when I did this was 2.313x10^8 m

there's a hint on that question but it made sense to me.. Here it is just in case: "What is special about the case R2 > n*R1? "
 
Ideas anyone?
 
Suppose that a luminous star of radius R1=1.74×108 m is surrounded by a uniform atmosphere extending up to a radius R2=4.28×108 m and with index of refraction n=1.82. When the sphere is viewed from a location far away in vacuum, what is its apparent radius?"

What I did was consider the outer edge of the atmosphere a spherical refracting surface.. and using the equation: n1/P + n2/q = (n2-n1)/R
(sorry for not using latex)[\quote]

I got a different answer (3.18 x 10^8) using the same method as yours. Although this might not be correct, retry the problem precisely.
 
GeneralChemTutor said:
Suppose that a luminous star of radius R1=1.74×108 m is surrounded by a uniform atmosphere extending up to a radius R2=4.28×108 m and with index of refraction n=1.82. When the sphere is viewed from a location far away in vacuum, what is its apparent radius?"

[\quote]

I got a different answer (3.18 x 10^8)

This is an other approach, with the same result as yours. See attached picture.

Consider the ray emerging from a surface point S of the star. It is refracted at the edge of the atmosphere, and travels toward the observer. He sees that point at the apparent distance d from the center of the star.

d=R_2 \sin {\alpha}

We have the relation

\frac{sin{\beta}}{\sin{\gamma}}=\frac{R_1}{R_2}

between the angles of the yellow triangle.

According to Snell's law,

n \sin{\beta} = \sin{\alpha}

These result in

\sin{\alpha} = \frac{R_1}{R_2} n \sin {\gamma}

The apparent radius of the star is obtained with the maximum of sin(alpha).

R_{ap} = R_2 (\sin{\alpha})_{max}

This can be R2 if nR1 is greater than or equal to R2. Otherwise it is nR1, when gamma = pi/2.

nR1 = 1.74×108*1.82 = 3.17×108 m. This is less than R2, so Rap = 3.17×108 m.

ehild
 
Last edited:
I found the original problem online and it seems that they wanted the answer in your form, since one had to incorporate the given R2>nR1
 
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 '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