Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
incident
angle, i/
36.0
35.0
52.0
41.0
57.0
13.0
46.0
i /
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
refracted angle, r/
r1
r2
r3
r4
r5
22.0
20.0
31.0
25.0
34.0
6.0
30.0
23.0
22.0
30.0
25.0
34.0
9.0
30.0
23.0
20.0
32.0
22.0
29.0
6.0
29.0
24.0
20.0
31.0
25.0
32.0
7.0
29.0
25.0
21.0
33.0
24.0
31.0
8.0
31.0
r /
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
average
refracted
angle, rav /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
23.4
20.6
31.4
24.2
32.0
7.2
29.8
rav /
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
1
sin i
sin r
0.588
0.574
0.788
0.656
0.839
0.225
0.643
0.391
0.358
0.521
0.407
0.530
0.122
0.500
sin i / sin r
1.50
1.60
1.51
1.61
1.58
1.85
1.29
= 23.4
= 1.5
Calculating the sines of incident and average refracted angles and the ratio between them:
Each of the results mentioned above was obtained with the use of scientific calculator.
no. of
observation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
sin i
i + i
0.588
0.574
0.788
0.656
0.839
0.225
0.719
37.0
36.0
53.0
42.0
58.0
14.0
47.0
sin (i +
i)
0.602
0.588
0.799
0.669
0.848
0.242
0.731
sin i
sin r
r + r
0.014
0.014
0.011
0.013
0.009
0.017
0.012
0.391
0.358
0.521
0.407
0.530
0.122
0.500
24.9
21.6
32.9
25.7
34.5
8.7
30.8
sin (r +
r)
0.421
0.368
0.543
0.434
0.566
0.151
0.512
sin r
0.030
0.010
0.022
0.027
0.036
0.029
0.012
Calculating the uncertainty of the sines of incident and average refracted angles:
The uncertainties are calculated with the use of following formula:
y = f(x + x) f(x)
Hence:
i = sin(i + i) sin(i)
i = sin(36.0 + 1.0) sin(36.0) = sin(37.0) sin(36.0) = 0.602 0.588 = 0.014
r = sin(r + r) sin(r)
r = sin(32.0 + 2.5) sin(32.0) = sin(34.5) sin(32.0) = 0.556 0.530 = 0.036
sin i /
sin r
1.50
1.60
1.51
1.61
1.58
1.85
1.44
sin i
/ sin r
0.153
0.083
0.085
0.139
0.127
0.584
0.059
0.500
sin r
0.400
y = 0.694x - 0.031
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
sin i
From the graph we can see, that the values of sine of incident and refracted angles increase
proportionally, as the points are located along the straight line.
The line, which is a trend line of the graph, does not cross the origin as is passes 0.031 below.
By adding equation of trend line I found the slope of graph, which is equal to reversed value of
refractive index, if uncertainties are neglected.
There is one point, however, that coordinates are (0.719, 0.500) what located it slightly above the
trend line.
0.500
y = 0.7719x - 0.0812
0.400
sin r
y = 0.5573x + 0.0259
0.300
max line
Linear (min line)
0.200
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
sin i
To add min and max lines, the exact values of refracted angles uncertainties were used.
In order to calculate the Y coordinates of min line, I added the uncertainty of sin(7.2) to the Y
coordinate of the first point and subtracted the uncertainty of sin(32.0) from the Y coordinate of
the last point. The X coordinates remained unchanged. As a result, I obtained the line with the slope
equal to 0.5573.
In an analogous way I added the max line. I subtracted the uncertainty of sin(7.2) from the Y
coordinate of the first point and added the uncertainty of sin(32.0) to the Y coordinate of the last
point. The X coordinates remained unchanged. As a result, I obtained the line with the slope equal to
0.7719.
The slopes of both max and min line were found through the equation of the lines, which were
added to the graph.
5
= 1.794
m max = 0.7719
n min =
= 1.296
The value of refractive index is found by calculating the reversed value of the slope of the trend line
of the graph.
n =
= 1.441
The refractive index uncertainty is calculated with the use of formula given below:
n=
= 0.125
Hence, the final value of glass refractive index investigated through this experiment, rounded to two
decimal places, is equivalent to:
n = 1.44 0.12
= 0.467986
According to trigonometric tables, the most accurate angle corresponding to the value of sine I
obtained is 28. Among the measurements I have taken, however, the angle of refraction equals to
30 in this case. Therefore, the calculations revealed a significant random error.
Moreover, despite the fact that I marked the area, where the glass block was initially placed, with a
propelling pencil in order to hold the same location throughout the whole experiment, it might have
not been enough to prevent an error. It is due to the fact that the glass block was not fixed and got
displaced several times. The marking is always a little greater than dimensions of the glass block,
thus its position might have been slightly shifted.
In order to reduce the possibility of error, the glass block should be fixed to the board or stuck to the
paper in order to avoid potential displacement. Another possible solution is using a glass block that
has greater dimensions, so that its weight increased and as a result the block cannot be moved that
easily.
Besides, the pins were fixed manually during the observation. It is possible, that they were not
located exactly on a straight line, due to lack of human precision.
In order to make the measurements more accurate, a beam of colour light can be used. Thus the
error caused by deficiency of human sight is reduced, as the pins no longer need to be observed
through the glass. Instead, they only need to be fixed on the line, which is created by the light beam.
Using a board made of a softer material, for example cork one instead of wooden, would also help to
reduce possible errors. The experiment would be then easier to conduct, as the pins would be fixed
to the board in much more stable way and thus less likely to get detached from the wood.
Furthermore, all seven observations were made on the same piece of paper. As a result, the marked
points were very close to each other, what led to confusion and might have caused less accurate
results of the refracted angle measurements.
Therefore one piece of paper three observations should be taken at the outmost. It would make the
results more clear and lead to greater accuracy of measurements.
All in all, these possible errors affected the final result only to a limited extent, as it is not that far
from the actual value. Perhaps the greatest strength of this experiment was that each measurement
was taken five times. In this way the random error, particularly evident in the aforementioned
observation 7, was reduced. Also a precise protractor, with a smallest division equal to 1,
contributed to the reliable results that were obtained. Not only was reading of the angle sizes easy,
but also the uncertainty of each reading was 0.5 and combined from two ends gave the total
uncertainty of the measurements equal to 1, which is relatively small. The fact that one protractor
was used throughout the experiment caused that the systematic error it includes, if any, remained
constant for all measurements. Finally, the use of the same set of identical pins and the same glass
block ensured that specific properties of these objects, such as the size of the pins, and the shape
and refractive index of the glass block, were maintained. Even if seemingly identical objects had
been used, these properties might have been slightly different, and affected the results.