Thin film / interference question

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a double-slit interference setup where a thin transparent coating on the screen is causing destructive interference, preventing the observation of the expected interference pattern. The original poster seeks to determine the minimum thickness of the coating that must be removed to restore the interference pattern.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the minimum thickness of the coating that needs to be removed by using the relationship between the wavelength, slit separation, and the refractive index. Some participants question the assumptions regarding the thickness of the coating and the distance between the slits.

Discussion Status

Participants have provided feedback on the original poster's calculations, with some confirming the correctness of the derivation while also raising questions about the parameters involved, such as the distance between the slits and the actual thickness of the coating. There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions made in the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the actual thickness of the coating, as the problem specifies a minimum thickness without providing explicit details. The refractive index of the screen material is also under consideration, which may affect the outcome.

whatislifehue
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Monochromatic laser light is shown through a double-slit apparatus with a slit separation of onto a screen, but no
interference pattern is seen because the thin transparent coating (index of refraction n=1.35) on the screen is creating a thin-film destructive interference effect. This is known because when the light is shown on an old uncoated screen, they saw an interference pattern with the first bright fringe deflected at an angle of 3º.Find the minimum thickness of coating that needs to be scrubbed off so that the interference pattern for that light will
appear as brightly on the screen as if it were uncoated (i.e. no destructive interference at all).

Homework Equations


dsin(\theta) = m\lambda \\<br /> t = \frac{\lambda}{2n} (constructive)\\<br /> t = \frac{\lambda}{4n} (destructive)<br /> <br />

The Attempt at a Solution


We know that m = 1 at theta = 3 degrees since that's where the first interference pattern is, so the first equation becomes lambda = d*sin(theta). Plug in lambda = d*sin(theta) into t = lambda / 4*n to find the thickness at which destructive interference occurs, so t = d*sin(theta)/(4*n) (where n = 1.35) and get 106.6 nm. If 106.6nm of the coating is removed, then constructive interference on the film will occur, so 106.6nm has to be removed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Your derivation looks correct , but what is the distance between the slits?
And it is not sure that the coating has lambda/(4n) thickness.
 
ehild said:
Welcome to PF!

Your derivation looks correct , but what is the distance between the slits?
And it is not sure that the coating has lambda/(4n) thickness.
Hi, thanks!

Woops, sorry I forgot to include the thickness. The thickness is 1.1x10^-5 m. And you make a good point that the coating might not have lambda/(4n) thickness, but the problem doesn't say how thick the layer is. It only says the minimum thickness so I assume that it is greater than 106.6nm
 
Your result is correct that 106.6 nm should be removed (supposing the refractive index of the screen material is greater than 1.35. Hopefully, it is.)
 

Similar threads

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