Wavelengths / film / reflected light

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem involving thin film interference, specifically related to a magnesium fluoride (MgF2) coating on a camera lens. The original poster is tasked with determining the three longest wavelengths of light that are intensified in the reflected light from the film, given its thickness and refractive index.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conditions for constructive and destructive interference, questioning the original poster's understanding of the problem setup. There are attempts to clarify the role of the index of refraction of both the coating and the lens, with some participants suggesting that the index of refraction of the lens is likely greater than that of the coating.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing hints and clarifications regarding the phase shift upon reflection and the correct formulas for interference. There is recognition of the need to derive the correct conditions for constructive interference, and some participants express confusion about how to incorporate these concepts into their calculations.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the index of refraction of the lens, which is not provided in the problem statement. Participants are also navigating the implications of phase shifts in their calculations, which adds complexity to their understanding of the interference conditions.

Color_of_Cyan
Messages
386
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A film of MgF2 (n = 1.38) having thickness 1.44 x 10-5 cm is used to coat a camera lens.
What are the three longest wavelengths that are intensified in the reflected light? (Enter your answers from smallest to largest.)


Homework Equations


λn = λ/n

n = index of refrection

for constructive interference:
2t = (m + 1/2)λn
2nt = (m + 1/2)λ

destructive interference:
2nt = mλ

The Attempt at a Solution


Honestly have no idea what the question is asking...

not sure how to combine them, not sure how to find 3 biggest wavelengths

not sure if it is constructive interference or not soo

2nt = (m + 1/2)λ

2(1.38m)(0.000000144m) = (0 + 1/2)λ

(2)(1.38m)(0.000000144m) / (1/2) = λ

λ = 795 nano meters (for m = 0)

^^ Yet says it is wrong

All I can think of is to change m to 1, 2, 3 etc but don't think it works.



Suggestions??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Color_of_Cyan said:
for constructive interference:
2t = (m + 1/2)λn
2nt = (m + 1/2)λ
This assumes that the index of refraction of the lens is less than that of the coating. What's the index of refraction of the lens?
 
It actually doesn't say it just says it for the coating.

I don't know how to find it either, any hints??
 
Last edited:
I would assume that the index of refraction of the lens (presumably glass) is greater than that of the coating. How would that change your approach?
 
I don't really understand what you are trying to imply...

Would I have to use the index of refraction of the lens instead?

( I read that for crown glass, it would be n = 1.52 instead. Is this supposed to be "given" to you ? )
 
Realize that there is a λ/2 phase shift upon reflection from a surface with higher index of refraction. So it matters. As I said before, just assume that the index of refraction of the lens is greater than that of the coating. That's all you need to know.
 
Doc Al said:
Realize that there is a λ/2 phase shift upon reflection from a surface with higher index of refraction. So it matters. As I said before, just assume that the index of refraction of the lens is greater than that of the coating. That's all you need to know.
I can't see how that is supposed to help :rolleyes:

I seriously can't find any way how to incorporate the phase shift in the problem.


Also is it right that you DO get each of the big wavelengths with m equal to 0, 1, 2, etc?
 
Color_of_Cyan said:
for constructive interference:
2t = (m + 1/2)λn
2nt = (m + 1/2)λ

destructive interference:
2nt = mλ

You cited wrong conditions for constructive and destructive interference in the reflected light.
2nt = (m + 1/2)λ refers to destructive interference (minimum reflectance) and 2nt = mλ for the constructive one (maximum reflectance). The problem asks the wavelengths where constructive interference occurs.
Calculate lambda for m=1, 2, 3.

ehild
 
Color_of_Cyan said:
I can't see how that is supposed to help :rolleyes:

I seriously can't find any way how to incorporate the phase shift in the problem.
You need to review how the formula for thin film interference is derived. Whether there is a phase shift on reflection at each surface depends on the relative index of refraction. Assuming that the index of refraction of the coating is less than that of the lens (a reasonable assumption), then your equation for constructive interference is wrong. (As ehild points out, your version describes the condition for destructive interference. But do not simply copy the formula--understand how it is derived and then you'll be good to go no matter what kind of thin film is used.)
Also is it right that you DO get each of the big wavelengths with m equal to 0, 1, 2, etc?
Yes, that's the right idea. But first get the correct formula.
 
  • #10
ehild said:
You cited wrong conditions for constructive and destructive interference in the reflected light.
2nt = (m + 1/2)λ refers to destructive interference (minimum reflectance) and 2nt = mλ for the constructive one (maximum reflectance). The problem asks the wavelengths where constructive interference occurs.
Calculate lambda for m=1, 2, 3.

ehild
Thank you, I got it now, and I also got another problem right that I had wrong because of you saying this too !

Doc Al said:
You need to review how the formula for thin film interference is derived. Whether there is a phase shift on reflection at each surface depends on the relative index of refraction. Assuming that the index of refraction of the coating is less than that of the lens (a reasonable assumption), then your equation for constructive interference is wrong. (As ehild points out, your version describes the condition for destructive interference. But do not simply copy the formula--understand how it is derived and then you'll be good to go no matter what kind of thin film is used.)
Blah, I blame my book for not seeing that. Then again I sort of glanced over it too.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K