A strange optics (or math) problem

In summary, the conversation discusses a physics exercise that involves calculating the difference in screen illuminations between two screens at different distances from a source. The book's answer is ~0.4m, but the person is getting ~-0.4m instead. They discuss possible mistakes in their equations and the proper use of Pythagoras' theorem. Eventually, it is determined that the correct answer is x=2.414 and x+1=3.414. The book's answer of x=0.4 is incorrect.
  • #1
mAtUxAz
2
0
Hello everyone, I was reading a physics book and found an exercise. This time I faced with a really strange one! I can't find out what I am doing wrong! I am really good at physics and math, but sometimes I fail as many people do... :smile:
The answer in the book says ~0.4m, but I am unable to get it (instead of it, I get ~ -0.4m)
I am attaching a Word document with my solution.

I will be looking forward to getting the right solution!
 

Attachments

  • SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM.doc
    46.5 KB · Views: 341
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
Think a bit about what the sign means.

Then try multiplying through by -x2 rather then just x2.
 
  • #3
Are you sure that your book is correct?
 
  • #4
DrewD said:
Are you sure that your book is correct?

No, the answer is right. When I put in the 0.4m as R (or 0.16 as R^2) I get correctly - the E1 screen illumination is two times better than E2. Looks like there is a mistake in my own equations, but I can't find where, as it looks like that it must be like that!
 
  • #5
If the distance to the first screen is 0.41m, then the distance to the second one is 1.41 m.
The ratio of their squares will be about 2/0.16.
How is this equal to 2?

Maybe you misunderstood something about the notations in the original problem?
 
  • #6
mAtUxAz said:
No, the answer is right. When I put in the 0.4m as R (or 0.16 as R^2) I get correctly - the E1 screen illumination is two times better than E2. Looks like there is a mistake in my own equations, but I can't find where, as it looks like that it must be like that!


The equation you used does not apply to a flat screen, the distance from the top edge of the flat screen to the source is different from the center to see this apply Pythagoras. They assume spheres, so -.41m refers to the same sphere as .41m. x is the radius of a sphere with center at the source. You never said what your second distance is. I find the relationship holds for spheres of .41 and .58. That is -.41 and 1+(-.41) as well as 2.14 and 3.14

Again x=-.41 indicates the same sphere as x= .41 so those are the same solution.
 
  • #7
Integral said:
The equation you used does not apply to a flat screen, the distance from the top edge of the flat screen to the source is different from the center to see this apply Pythagoras. They assume spheres, so -.41m refers to the same sphere as .41m. x is the radius of a sphere with center at the source. You never said what your second distance is. I find the relationship holds for spheres of .41 and .58. That is -.41 and 1+(-.41) as well as 2.14 and 3.14

Again x=-.41 indicates the same sphere as x= .41 so those are the same solution.
I doubt it would go to so difficult maths. It's more likely that they want to just approximate equal distance.
 
  • #8
If the problem has been properly presented, and E1 and E2 represent the energy per unit area on the screens, and the screens are very small compared to the distances from the source (or spherical), and the source is a point source, the two possible answers are x=[itex]1-\sqrt{2}[/itex] and [itex]1+\sqrt{2}[/itex] or about -0.414 and 2.414 for the position of the first screen and x+1=0.586 and 3.414 for the second screen. From the diagram, x is positive, so x=2.414 and x+1=3.414. The answer x=0.4 is wrong.
 

Related to A strange optics (or math) problem

1. What is the problem and why is it considered strange?

The problem involves a combination of optics or math principles that may seem counterintuitive or unexpected, leading to its classification as "strange."

2. Can you explain the problem in simple terms?

The problem typically involves a scenario where light is passing through or reflecting off of various objects or surfaces, and the goal is to determine the resulting path of the light. It often requires the use of mathematical equations and concepts to solve.

3. What are some real-world applications of this problem?

The principles involved in the problem have practical applications in fields such as physics, engineering, and optics. For example, understanding the behavior of light can help with the design of optical instruments and devices, or in the development of new technologies such as fiber optics.

4. Are there any common misconceptions about this problem?

One common misconception is that the problem is solely based on optics or light, when in fact it may also involve mathematical concepts and calculations. Another misconception is that the problem has only one correct solution, when in reality there may be multiple valid approaches and answers.

5. How can this problem be solved?

This problem can be solved by applying relevant principles and equations from optics and/or math, and using critical thinking and problem-solving skills. It may also involve experimentation and data analysis to verify the solution.

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top