Thin film interference formulae

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the topic of thin film interference, specifically the conditions for destructive interference and the calculation of film thickness in air. Participants explore the mathematical relationships involved in determining the thickness based on interference conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the condition for destructive interference as \(\delta=(2m+1)\pi\) and attempts to derive the thickness formula, leading to \(t=\frac{\lambda(m+1)}{2n}\).
  • Another participant questions the reasoning behind the first participant's belief that they are wrong.
  • A third participant expresses concern about their understanding, citing a book's solution of \(t=\frac{m\lambda}{2n}\) as the correct answer.
  • A later reply suggests that the two thickness expressions are essentially equivalent, proposing that starting with \(m = -1\) in the first version could reconcile the difference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct formula for thickness, as there are competing interpretations of the mathematical derivation and its relation to established solutions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the definitions of parameters such as \(n\) (refractive index) and \(\lambda\) (wavelength), and the implications of choosing different integer values for \(m\) in the context of interference conditions.

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
14K
  • · 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