Refractive-Index
Refractive-Index
Refractive-Index
Introduction
∗
Vol.25, No.4, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-020-0972-4
Method
a = θ1 + θ2 and δ = i + r − a. (1)
The usual misconception The usual misconception is that the relation between i and δ is
is that the relation quadratic. But from the above equation, we can see that it is
between i and δ is not quadratic. For example, plotting δ Vs i for a = 70◦ , μ =
quadratic.
1.45 (refer to Figure 3) clearly shows the highly non-linear nature
of the relation. So despite δm being unique for a given prism,
when found graphically by plotting the values of i and δ from an
experiment, there is a possibility that at different times one may
find a variation. The reason is, had the relation between δ and i
been quadratic, a minimum of three points would be sufficient to
uniquely define the curve and hence the point of minimum. But
due to the highly non-linear nature of the relation, trying to locate
the minimum of the curve with few experimental points is the Despite δm being unique
reason for the variation. Further, the probability to experimentally for a given prism, when
observe the point of minimum deviation is very low since this found graphically by
plotting the values of i
can happen only if by chance, while varying, i takes the value and δ from an
corresponding to δm . So to locate δm with more accuracy, several experiment, there is a
experimental points around and nearer to the point of minimum possibility that at
different times one may
is required, that too in very small steps. But the best would be
find a variation.
to devise a technique to make the minimum an experimentally
observable point. To do that we first require to understand what
happens at the minimum.
Since i can vary only from 0◦ to 90◦ and similarly for r, we get:
i = r ⇒ θ1 = θ2
as the condition for the minimum. This condition can also be
easily achieved by doing ray tracing if we have the knowledge
that there is only one minimum. Since it is observed from the
graph in Figure 3 that there is only one minimum, if i r then
there will be two angle of incidences for which δ is minimum,
a contradiction so i = r. Let im be the incident angle for δm .
Since θ1 = θ2 from eq(1), θ1 = a/2 = θ2 and im = (δm + a)/2.
Substituting in (2) gives
a
δm = 2 sin−1 μ sin − a,
2
which is a constant for a given prism. So when i = im we see the
refracted ray inside the prism forms an isosceles triangle with the
vertex A and emerges with r = im . It is this property we have used,
to devise this technique to experimentally observe the minimum.
Acknowledgment
Suggested Reading
[1] Eugene Hecht, Optics, Pearson Global Edition, pp.99–201, 2017.