Resolution of distant light sources

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the distance at which a human eye can distinguish two car headlights 2.1 meters apart, considering diffraction effects. The relevant equation used is θ=(1.22*λ)/D, with a pupil diameter of 5.0 mm and a wavelength of 550 nm. Initial calculations yielded an implausible result of nearly 900 km, prompting the user to seek clarification on potential errors. Upon reevaluation, the user corrected their calculations to find a more reasonable distance of 15,648 meters. The importance of verifying the reasonableness of answers in physics problems is emphasized throughout the discussion.
grouper
Messages
52
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



How far away can a human eye distinguish two car headlights 2.1 m apart? Consider only diffraction effects and assume an eye pupil diameter of 5.0 mm and a wavelength of 550 nm. What is the minimum angular separation an eye could resolve when viewing two stars, considering only diffraction effects?

Homework Equations



θ=(1.22*λ)/D where D=diameter

The Attempt at a Solution



If θ=2sin-1(0.5d/l) where d=distance between objects and l=length/distance to objects, then θ=(1.22*λ)/D with λ550e-9 m and D=0.005 m and l=2.1 m yields l=8.9658e5 m. This is incorrect though and I'm not sure where I went wrong. Any help is appreciated, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
grouper said:

Homework Statement



How far away can a human eye distinguish two car headlights 2.1 m apart? Consider only diffraction effects and assume an eye pupil diameter of 5.0 mm and a wavelength of 550 nm. What is the minimum angular separation an eye could resolve when viewing two stars, considering only diffraction effects?

Homework Equations



θ=(1.22*λ)/D where D=diameter

The Attempt at a Solution



If θ=2sin-1(0.5d/l) where d=distance between objects and l=length/distance to objects, then θ=(1.22*λ)/D with λ550e-9 m and D=0.005 m and l=2.1 m yields l=8.9658e5 m.

That's almost 900 km. The first thing you should do when solving physics problems is to ask yourself whether the answer you obtained makes any sense. Is it reasonable?

grouper said:
This is incorrect though and I'm not sure where I went wrong. Any help is appreciated, thanks.

You must have made some sort of algebraic error somewhere. We can't really help you track it down unless if you show us the steps in your solution.
 
That's almost 900 km. The first thing you should do when solving physics problems is to ask yourself whether the answer you obtained makes any sense. Is it reasonable?

Yes, I recognized that my answer was way off. Which is why I was confused, because I couldn't find the mistake earlier in my work.

You must have made some sort of algebraic error somewhere.

And yes, I must have made some sort of calculator error because I just tried it again and got 15648 m, which is much more reasonable (and also the correct answer). Thanks for the help.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top