Refractive index experiment/finding error on graphs

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a physics practical report concerning the refractive index of glass, specifically focusing on the experimental setup involving the measurement of incident and refractive angles of light. The original poster is analyzing the relationship between sin(ϴa) and sin(ϴg) and grappling with issues related to graphing and error calculation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to plot data according to Snell's law and is questioning the validity of their trend line and gradient calculations. They express concern over the accuracy of their measurements and the implications for calculating uncertainty.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging in a constructive dialogue, with one member requesting additional data to better understand the situation. There is acknowledgment of potential measurement inaccuracies and suggestions for including specific data points to improve the analysis.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of potential systematic errors in angle measurements and the need for clarity on the experimental setup. The original poster is also navigating the constraints of data format compatibility for sharing their measurements.

peanut111
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I'm writing a physics practical report on the refractive index of glass. We performed an experiment in which we measured the incident angle and the refractive angle of light entering a glass block. When plotting sin(ϴa) against sin(ϴg) with the y-intercept as 0

(to satisfy snell's law:
nasin(ϴa)=ngsin(ϴg)
sin(ϴa)=(ng/na)sin(ϴg)
where ng=refractive index of glass and na =refractive index of air.
This is the same form as y=mx)

it yields a line with a gradient equal to the refractive index of glass. We also have to calculate the error, using the minimum and maximum gradient method. However, my data would better fit a trend line without a y-intercept of 0, but when I give it this trend line the gradient is 1.1, which obviously can't be the refractive index of glass. My problem is, that when I add my maximum and minimum gradient trend lines to fine error, they are both less than the one I have. Is there any other way to find uncertainty in a graph?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hy peanut111, welcome to PF.
Can you show your measurement data? ehild
 
I've attached my data :)
 

Attachments

peanut111 said:
I've attached my data :)

I can not open xlsx files, can you convert them to xls or txt? or just type in some pairs of angles?
Are you sure you used the angles between the rays and the normal of the plane?

ehild
 
I hope this works for you :)

Also, I'm pretty sure I measured correctly, and the data correlates, it just works less well when the y-intercept is 0 because the maximum and minimum gradients are both less than the one I have.
 

Attachments

Thank you for the data. To tell the truth, the measurement was not accurate enough, and even there might have been some systematic error. It is rather difficult to measure angles with satisfactory accuracy. How did you measure them? What was the experimental set-up?

You should include the data for zero incidence. If you see the ray which enters normally to the surface, it should travel in the same direction. Adding the (0,0) point to both graphs it makes the results more acceptable.

ehild
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K