Pyrex glass rod is immersed into wesson oil

  • Thread starter Thread starter henry2221
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Glass Oil Rod
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the optical effects observed when a Pyrex glass rod is immersed in Wesson oil, particularly how light behaves as it passes through both mediums. Key concepts include Snell's Law, which describes the bending of light at the interface between materials with different refractive indices. When the refractive indices of the glass and oil are equal, light does not bend, making the rod appear "invisible." The visibility of bubbles is explained by the difference in refractive indices between the fluid and the air inside the bubbles, causing light to bend and become visible. Understanding these principles is essential for demonstrating the optical phenomena involved in this experiment.
henry2221
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Physics news on Phys.org
henry2221 said:
I want to show the math of what happens when the pyrex glass rod is immersed into wesson oil making the bend in light identical, but I don't know where to start? Suggestions? Or equations you believe I should focus on?

Have you had Snell's Law yet? If so, consider the angle that a light ray makes to the normal to the surface of the rod both before entering the glass and after, when the index of refraction is the same on both sides of the surface. How does that differ from how the light ray travels in simply passing through the oil?
 
dynamicsolo said:
Have you had Snell's Law yet? If so, consider the angle that a light ray makes to the normal to the surface of the rod both before entering the glass and after, when the index of refraction is the same on both sides of the surface. How does that differ from how the light ray travels in simply passing through the oil?

No, but I've googled it and found out the relation that:

refraction1 * angle1 = refraction2 * angle2


refraction1 / refraction2 = wave velo.2 / wave velo.1

thus if the refraction of two things are equal where

refractoin1 = refraction2

thus it having both equal each other the thing would equal 1=1 which causes no bend in light... however this does not explain why it looks to be invisible? for example why are bubbles visible when it itself is a clear object without color? someone please explain...
 
henry2221 said:
... having both equal each other the thing would equal 1=1 which causes no bend in light... however this does not explain why it looks to be invisible? for example why are bubbles visible when it itself is a clear object without color? someone please explain...

The rod becomes "invisible" because there is no change in the direction of the light rays passing from the oil to the glass and back out to the oil, just as if there were no rod there at all. (Actually, slight variations in the refraction just at the surface where the oil density is disturbed by the presence of the rod will allow the edges of the rod to be just discernible.)

The difference with bubbles is that they are not solid objects, but "chambers" filled with air, surrounded by the fluid (water or whatever). So light will be passing from the fluid (with some index of refraction n > 1) to the air within the bubble (n very nearly equal to 1) and back into the fluid. The path of the light ray is disturbed, so you are able to see bubbles.
 
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