Why is Refracted Angle > Incident Angle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dunkaroos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Angles Refraction
AI Thread Summary
When light transitions from a denser to a less dense medium, the refracted angle is greater than the incident angle due to the increase in velocity and wavelength, while frequency remains constant. This phenomenon is explained by Snell's law, which relates the angles to the indices of refraction of the two media. The bending of light can also be illustrated using Huygens' principle, which shows how the wavefronts change direction at the boundary. As the wavefronts encounter the boundary, their shape alters, leading to the observed increase in the refracted angle. Understanding these concepts clarifies why the refracted angle exceeds the incident angle in this context.
Dunkaroos
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Why is it that the refracted angle > the incident when light moves from a more dense material to a less dense?

Is there any way to explain why the angle would be greater?

I know the velocity would increase.
Wavelenght increases.
Frequency remains the same.
Correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dunkaroos said:
Why is it that the refracted angle > the incident when light moves from a more dense material to a less dense?

Is there any way to explain why the angle would be greater?
Are you familiar with Snell's law?

I know the velocity would increase.
Wavelenght increases.
Frequency remains the same.
Correct?
Correct.
 
And as you look at the explanation of Snell's law, think about how the shape of the light wavefront changes as it hits the boundary at an angle. Make a sketch of the wavefront as it changes directions at the boundary, and be accurate in your representation of the change in wavelength near the boundary on both sides...
 
I understand it matematically but Snell's law but is there another way to explain it?
 
Berkeman was simply referring to the derivetion of Snell's law , not the final eqn.
Using Huygens constructions for wavefronts, one can clearly see why the ray bends towards the normal ( since frequenc
y is conserved in both mediums).
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
7K
Back
Top