Refraction Of Light

Name: Lhavanesh A/L Kunalan

Theory:
The transmission of light between two different mediums across a boundary is
followed by a change in the speed and wavelength of the light. Hence, this
results in the change of the direction of light which is known as refraction. In
conjunction with that, Snell’s Law quantifies the relationship between the angle
of incidence beam and the angle of refracted beam when it passes through two
different mediums as following ; n1.sin tita1 = n2.sin tita2 where n1 is the index of
refraction of medium 1 , n2 is the index of refraction of medium 1 , tita1 is the
angle of incidence between the ray and normal line and n2 is the angle that the
light beam falls with respect to the normal line in medium 2. In short, the index
of refraction is obtained by dividing the sin value of incident angle with the sin
value of refracted angle. The wave direction changes as it’s travelling between
two different mediums because different medium has different optical density
which slows down the velocity of waves. In accordance with Snell’s law the
value of optical density can be formulated as angle of incident divided by angle
of refraction.

Aim
To investigate the relationship between the angle of incidence and the angle of
refraction when light ray passes through mediums of different optical densities
which is air, acrylic and water and implying Snell’s law to determine the value
of refractive index of respective medium.
Apparatus
 Hudson Light Box Set
 Protractor
 A4 paper
 Ruler
 Acrylic
 Container filled with water

Hudson Light Box Set

Protractor

Ruler
Experiment Methods
 An A4 paper was placed on table and a line is drawn at the middle of the
paper that represents normal line.
 Another line is drawn perpendicular as well to normal line to set
boundary between two different mediums.
 A rectangular acrylic shape was placed along with the Hodson light box
set to ensure light beam projected passes through it.
 The light box was set up to emit a single thin beam of light.
 The light box set was then adjusted to ensure its displaced 10o from the
normal line.
 The deviation of refracted angle from the normal line is measured using
protractor.
 Measurements of refracted angle is then taken subsequently by setting
the angle of incidence in intervals of 100 by marking two dots on the
incident ray and refracted ray.
 The results obtained are then recorded into a table which includes the
angle of incidence, angle of refraction, sin I, sin r and the refractive
index, n
 The tabulated data is then used to plot a graph of sin I vs sin r.
 Steps above are then repeated with container filled of water as a
medium with different optical density.
Results
Refractive index = sin I (angle of incidence) / sin r (angle of refraction)

Acrylic
Incident Refracted Sin I Sin r Refractive
angle angle index
10 16 0.174 0.277 0.63
20 37 0.342 0.602 0.57
30 49 0.5 0.755 0.66
40 73 0.643 0.956 0.67
50 - 0.766 - -
60 - 0.866 - -

Water
Incident angle Refracted angle Sin I Sin r Refractive index
10 9.5 0.174 0.165 1.05
20 20.5 0.342 0.350 0.98
30 29 0.5 0.485 1.03
40 39 0.643 0.629 1.02
50 48.5 0.766 0.749 1.02
60 59 0.866 0.86 1.01
Data Analysis

0.7
Arcyclic
0.6 f(x) = 0.648065045182399 x

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Graph 1

water
0.9
0.8 f(x) = 0.983166627937679 x

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Graph 2
Experimental error percentage
Experiment 1:
Experimental value of refractive index: 0.633
Calculated value: 0.648
Percentage of error = (calculated value – experimental value) / (experimental
value) x 100 %
Percentage of error = 2.37%

Experiment 2:
Experimental value of refractive index: 1.02
Calculated value: 0.9832
Experimental error percentage: (| 0.983-1.02|)/ 1.02 x 100%
= 3.63%

Data Analysis
Theoretically it is indispensable that the corresponding data proved that the
value of refractive index can be evaluated by using the gradient of the graph.
Commensurate with the Snell’s Law that utters n1 sin I = n2 sin r, it can be
strongly deduced that the constant from the graph of sin I against sin r is the
value of refractive index of acrylic and water respectively. Corresponding to
the data that has been tabulated, the refractive index of acrylic is 0.633 while
water has more distant refractive index of 1.02 compared to acrylic. Hence it
can be deciphered that the optical density of water is higher compared to
acrylic which causes light beams that enters water to bend more towards
normal line. Furthermore, it can construe that the velocity of light beam is
higher when it enters acrylic medium compared to the velocity of light beam
when it enters the water medium. The theoretical refractive index value is
0.648 and 0.983 respectively for acrylic and water. Moreover, there are
presence of experimental error where there’s variation of data as much as 2.37
% for acrylic and 3.63 % for water. Corresponding to that, the significant
deviation between the experimental value of refractive index and the
calculated value of refractive index suggests that there is presence of
experimental errors.
It is indisputable that there are many factors that instigate the occurrence of
experimental errors. First and foremost, the light beam that was emitted from
the configured light box was too thin and can be hardly seen. The small width
of light beam causes the angle of refraction to be less precise which affects the
data obtained. However, the following error can be rectified by placing slit with
bigger aperture, hence the light ray from the light box will be thicker and the
results of the experiment will be more accurate. Furthermore, the brightness
of the room which is not calibrated according to the experiment need also
causes the deviation between the experimental and calculated value for
refractive index of glass and acrylic. The surrounding of the room which is not
dark and quite illuminated with light causes the refracted ray to fall hardly on
the observable spectrum. In order to overcome the following error, the
experiment procedures should be executed in a covered dark room to hinder
external light sources that affect the visibility of refracted angle. Next,
rounding off data provided to a fixed significant figure too might contribute to
experimental errors. When the experimental values are rounded off to
standardize the data obtained, the data obtained is not accurate as there is
slight deviation in the data value. In contemplation of minimizing the error
marginal and increase the efficacy of experimental results, the experiment
should be repeated at least three times and the averaged value of the three
sets of data obtained might help in minimizing the inaccuracy range of the
experiment.

Hence, in nutshell the gradient of the graph of sin I against sin r gives off the
refractive index for both mediums. Thus, it can be ruled out that the refractive
index of acrylic and water medium can be determined by implying Snell’s law
which goes by n1 sin I = n1 sin r
Reference
 Mufy Physics E-Book unit 2
 https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/49-refraction-of-
light#:~:text=Light%20refracts%20whenever%20it%20travels,by%20a
%20change%20in%20speed.&text=light%20in%20water-,When%20light
%20travels%20from%20air%20into%20water%2C%20it%20slows
%20down,of%20direction%20is%20called%20refraction.
 https://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/science/refraction-
of-light-lab-report.html