Question about a problem from 'Optics' by Eugene Hecht

In summary, the document discusses a specific problem from the book "Optics" by Eugene Hecht, highlighting the challenges encountered in understanding the concepts presented. It seeks clarification on the problem's intricacies and the application of optical principles, emphasizing the importance of grasping the underlying theories to solve it effectively.
  • #1
phymath7
48
4
Homework Statement
9.37* A thin uniform layer of water (n = 1.333) 25.0 nm thick exists
on top of a sheet of clear plastic (n = 1.59). At what incident angle will
the water strongly reflect blue light ( ##\lambda_{0}##= 460 nm)?
Relevant Equations
##2n_{f}dcos\theta_{t} =m\lambda_{0}##
##\theta_{t}## is the angle of refraction and m is the order of the fringe.
As the value of cos##\theta_{t}## comes out to be greater than 1 so I tried to calculate the minimum value of d the thickness of film which turned out to be approximately 173 nm. Which clearly reflects the fact that the thickness is not enough to produce the fringes. Am I right? Is the question erroneous? Because the wording of the question makes me feel confused about my answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
phymath7 said:
Homework Statement: 9.37* A thin uniform layer of water (n = 1.333) 25.0 nm thick exists
on top of a sheet of clear plastic (n = 1.59). At what incident angle will
the water strongly reflect blue light ( ##\lambda_{0}##= 460 nm)?
Relevant Equations: ##2n_{f}dcos\theta_{t} =m\lambda_{0}##
##\theta_{t}## is the angle of refraction and m is the order of the fringe.

As the value of cos##\theta_{t}## comes out to be greater than 1 so I tried to calculate the minimum value of d the thickness of film which turned out to be approximately 173 nm. Which clearly reflects the fact that the thickness is not enough to produce the fringes. Am I right? Is the question erroneous? Because the wording of the question makes me feel confused about my answer.
What is the context for the formula you quote? It does not seem appropriate for the question. It should involve all indices.
There are two reflections, one from the top of the water and one from the bottom. Depending on the path lengths, these will interfere constructively or destructively. Your task is to find the angle such that the path length difference maximises constructive interference.
 
  • #3
haruspex said:
What is the context for the formula you quote? It does not seem appropriate for the question. It should involve all indices.
There are two reflections, one from the top of the water and one from the bottom. Depending on the path lengths, these will interfere constructively or destructively. Your task is to find the angle such that the path length difference maximises constructive interference.
The context is the condition for constructive interference with thin film that is derived in the mentioned book of 5th edition.
 
  • #4
phymath7 said:
The context is the condition for constructive interference with thin film that is derived in the mentioned book of 5th edition.
Hmm… doesn’t look right to me. Isn't the path length ##2d\sec(\theta)##?
Please define all the variables.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
haruspex said:
Hmm… doesn’t look right to me. Isn't the path length ##2d\sec(\theta)##?
Please define all the variables.
Nope. Have a look at the book.
 
  • #6
phymath7 said:
Nope. Have a look at the book.
I do not have access to the book, so please define your variables.
I note that the question asks for angle of incidence, while you call ##\theta_t## the angle of refraction.
Does the book give answers? From a very simple-minded approach, I get 81.7° from vertical.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
The formula from the textbook looks right for the geometry shown below:
1702358821006.png

[Picture edited in order to correct the formula for the optical path difference.]

So, something is wrong with the numbers in the problem. The 25 nm thickness of water seems way too small.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes phymath7
  • #8
TSny said:
The formula from the textbook looks right for the geometry shown below:
View attachment 337092

So, something is wrong with the numbers in the problem. The 25 nm thickness of water seems way too small.
Ah, I forgot about the red path!
 
  • #9
haruspex said:
Ah, I forgot about the red path!
I did too at first!
 
  • #10
TSny said:
The formula from the textbook looks right for the geometry shown below:
View attachment 337092

So, something is wrong with the numbers in the problem. The 25 nm thickness of water seems way too small.
That's what I mentioned in the statement. I found the least thickness to be 173 nm. So 25 nm is not enough to produce fringe pattern? What about if the width was 200 nm. Would that be enough to answer the question(what about the order of the fringe)?
 
  • #11
Yes, 200 nm would give a decent result. Maybe the problem meant 250 nm instead of 25.0 nm. Who knows :oldsmile:

You can easily check how many orders (values of m) can occur.
 
  • #12
The value given in the instructor manual is obtained by using d=250 nm (46.356##^o ## for the angle of refraction) . Funny that they actually write 25 nm in the formula and then they obtain a result that is clearly obtained with 250 nm. It looks like a typo in the manual, after all.
 
  • Like
Likes phymath7 and TSny

FAQ: Question about a problem from 'Optics' by Eugene Hecht

What is the main focus of Eugene Hecht's "Optics" textbook?

The main focus of Eugene Hecht's "Optics" textbook is to provide a comprehensive understanding of both classical and modern optics. It covers fundamental principles such as wave theory, ray optics, and electromagnetic theory, as well as advanced topics like quantum optics and nonlinear optics.

How does Hecht explain the concept of wave-particle duality in optics?

Hecht explains the concept of wave-particle duality by discussing how light exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. He delves into historical experiments, such as the double-slit experiment, and theoretical frameworks, including quantum mechanics, to illustrate how light can behave as both waves and particles depending on the experimental context.

What are some key problem-solving strategies provided in the textbook?

The textbook emphasizes several problem-solving strategies, including the use of boundary conditions, the application of symmetry principles, and the implementation of mathematical tools like Fourier analysis. Hecht also encourages a systematic approach to breaking down complex problems into simpler, more manageable parts.

How does the textbook address the topic of interference and diffraction?

Hecht's textbook provides a detailed treatment of interference and diffraction, explaining these phenomena through the superposition principle and Huygens' principle. It includes mathematical derivations, illustrative diagrams, and practical examples to help students understand how wavefronts interact to produce interference patterns and how apertures and obstacles affect the propagation of light waves.

Are there any supplementary materials or resources provided in the textbook?

Yes, Eugene Hecht's "Optics" includes a variety of supplementary materials and resources. These often include problem sets with solutions, illustrative examples, and appendices that cover additional mathematical tools and physical constants. Some editions may also offer online resources or companion websites with further exercises and interactive content.

Similar threads

Back
Top