Thin film interference formulae

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the thin film interference formula, specifically addressing the conditions for destructive interference. The user correctly identifies that destructive interference occurs when \(\delta = (2m + 1)\pi\) and attempts to derive the film thickness \(t\) using the equation \(\delta = \frac{4nt\pi}{\lambda} - \pi\). The confusion arises in the interpretation of the integer parameter \(m\), leading to two equivalent expressions for thickness: \(t = \frac{\lambda(m + 1)}{2n}\) and \(t = \frac{m\lambda}{2n}\). The resolution indicates that both expressions can be reconciled by adjusting the value of \(m\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of thin film interference principles
  • Familiarity with the refractive index (n)
  • Knowledge of wave optics and phase differences
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the thin film interference equations in detail
  • Explore the impact of varying the refractive index on interference patterns
  • Learn about constructive interference conditions in thin films
  • Investigate practical applications of thin film interference in optics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focusing on optics, as well as anyone interested in understanding the principles of thin film interference and its applications in technology.

khaos89
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am trying to understand thin film (in air) interference but I have a problem:

I know we have destructive interference when \delta=(2m+1)\pi.

Now i can try to calculate the thickness of the film to get it, so

since \delta =\frac{4nt\pi}{\lambda} - \pi where t is the thickness,

I come to \delta=(2m+1)\pi=\frac{4nt\pi}{\lambda} - \pi

that leads me to t=\frac{\lambda(m+1)}{2n} instead of
t=\frac{m\lambda}{2n}

(n is the refractive index and m is the integer parameter)

Where am I wrong?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Why do you think you're wrong?
 
Thank you for your answer, I think I am wrong because my book's solution is t=\frac{m\lambda}{2n}
 
khaos89 said:
Thank you for your answer, I think I am wrong because my book's solution is t=\frac{m\lambda}{2n}
The answers are essentially equivalent. (You can always start with m = -1 in your version.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
13K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K