ratio where
against
critical angle
.
Research Question:
To verify Snells Law by showing that the ratio of the sin value of incident angle to the sine of
refracted angle is a constant and is equal to the refractive index of the glass, by measuring the
respective angle made by the bent light ray to the normal at the point of bending when a light ray is
projected trough a glass block at different angle.
Variables:
Independent Variable: the incident angles
. More values of
is produced by first drawing markings using protractor and then radial lines
from the center O through the respective markings are made to help with light ray projection. During
the projection of the light ray, we make sure that the ray is always at the center of and parallel to the
respective radial line so that the angle made by ray to the normal is the same as that by the radial line.
After the light is on, we make radial lines for each of the markings so that we can measure
from
respective radial lines using a protractor. As precaution measures in collecting the data,
Diagram:
Procedure:
A wide white paper is let to spread flat on a wide table. A dot O as the point of refraction is drawn on
the centre of the paper and then a long straight line named the boundary line is drawn through it such
that it is almost perpendicular to one side of the paper. From referenced at the line, ticks showing
angles
, whose measurement start from the line, from 0 to 90 of interval 10 (except for angle 82)
are made using a big protractor and a sharp mechanical pencil Then, straight lines radiating from O
through the ticks are drawn. Another long straight line is drawn perpendicular to the first one and is
considered the normal line.
A glass block is put on the paper such that point O touches one of its sides and that side fully touches
the boundary line(as in the diagram).
Following the methods for controlling variables and for collecting data stated up above, the procedure
continues. At angle of incident,
of
.
Data Collection and Processing
10.0 6.00 0.1740.009 0.1050.009
20.0 13.5 0.3420.008 0.2330.008
30.0 19.0 0.5000.008 0.3260.008
40.0 26.0 0.6430.007 0.4380.008
50.0 30.5 0.7660.006 0.5080.008
60.0 36.5 0.8660.004 0.5950.007
70.0 39.0 0.9400.003 0.6290.007
80.0 41.0 0.9850.002 0.6560.007
82.0 41.5 0.9900.001 0.6630.007
Sample Calculations:
1. For
2. Uncertainty for :
By using
(
We get
And hence
(eq. 1)
For and :
From (eq. 1) and
(
)
(
)
y = 0.6796x - 0.0072
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.800
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
s
i
n
(
t
h
e
t
a
_
r
)
sin (theta_i)
Y=0.670
*the centroid, C of the graph:
(
)
(
)
From the graph and from the equation
The gradient, m, of the graph:
We get is the gradient m of the graph, hence
Uncertainty of n, as from the graph,
Where max gradient,
And minimum gradient,
Mean gradient
Hence
Conclusion and Evaluation
The refractive index , n, of the glass is the ratio of the sine value of incident angle to the sine value of
angle of refraction and holds a constant value which is equal to 1.50
The theoretical refractive index
1
is 1.50 so percentage error,
| |
| |
Since all %Error < ,
The result is acceptable since the results are within the range of possible values of i.e.
within the uncertainty. From the small value of y-intercept from this graph, it shows that the
systematic error in this experiment is little.
The green dotted vertical straight line from the graph showing
gets higher, the closer if the gap between each marking. As it gets very close it is hard to
make the marking and measure the angle using protractor.
1
http://www.ehow.com/how_6737304_determine-refractive-index-glass-block.html
So, Since the dispersion increases by length travelled, we need to minimize the length travelled prior
to second bend. So, we need to project the light ray as close as possible to the glass block.
As the
gets higher, the closer if the gap between each marking. As it gets very close it is hard to
make the marking and measure the angle using protractor. The lines r we made radiating from the
refraction point O to the respective markings are too short for a highly sensitive and accurate
measurement of
increases
(as in the diagram):