Experimentally Finding the Index of

Refraction of a Glass Prism via a

Twyman-Green Interferometer

C REATED AND PERFORMED BY B RIAN HALLEE

Performed Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Historical Background
The specific set-up used in our experiment is known as the Twyman-

Green Interferometer named after its discoverers: Frank Twyman and

Arthur Green. The two scientists (an engineer and chemist, respectively)

introduced the apparatus in 1916 in order to expand what is known as a

Michelson interferometer to measure the refraction properties of lenses and

prisms.1 Hence, it is important to first touch this foundational experiment

before moving to our own apparatus. While the mathematics and physics of

the contraption will be explained thoroughly in the following theory section, it

is worthwhile to note that this optical device has made advances and tested

predictions made in a slew of areas outside the realms of strict optics. Albert

Michelson devised the experiment in 1881 in order to observe fringes in light

waves theoretically known to occur.2 At this point in the 19th century, the

scientific masses were still largely, if not entirely, convinced that light was

strictly a wave. Thomas Young had successfully proved this (to a point)

utilizing his double-slit experiment. While in reality Young simply used a

slip of card and a light beam to demonstrate light interference, a slightly

more involved technique eventually won the honor of wielding his name.

This was a primitive interferometry experiment that allowed light to enter in

though two different slits, interfere, and hit a photo-sensitive plate that

displayed the differing levels of intensity along a horizontal axis.3 Thus,

Michelson expanded on this idea and developed an apparatus that was to be

dynamic in that the fringes could be moved or altered in some controlled

Page | 1
manner. It uses a mix of perfect mirrors and half-silvered mirrors to achieve

a merging to two separate light beams right at the point of detection on a

screen. As such, the interferometer is actually a broad term for a slew of

lenses and mirrors (with a light-source included) that together generates an

interference pattern on a screen. With such a relatively simple set of lenses,

physicists have been able to use it to experimentally test special relativity,

discover the hyperfine structure, measure lunar tidal effects, and most

importantly standardize the meter based upon the speed of light. Perhaps

the most interesting use of his interferometry included the partnership of

Edward Morely (1887) in attempting to prove or disprove the aluminiferous

aether thought to be the medium for allowing light to pass through space

(very much analogous to airs role in sound waves). The upper limit on lights

speed was still hotly debated at this time. Thus, Michelson and Morley

applied interferometry to the issue by attempting to measure a delay in light

beams meeting at a point. This was accomplished by assessing fringe shifts

where, if the aether was stationary relative to the sun, the Earths motion

should produce a shift of roughly 4% of a single fringe. While the initial

experiments the two men underwent utilized equipment with far too much

inaccuracy to ever measure the aether, the procedure was quickly improved

by Michelson and other scientists who inadvertently led the experiment to be

labeled The Most Famous Failed Experiment. This was naturally due to the

fact that no aether need exist to propagate electromagnetic waves. Taking

the Michelson-interferometer notion one step further, the Twyman-Green

Page | 2
interferometer replaces the adjustable mirror with a glass prism that can be

tuned to force the light to pass through more of its glass. After passing

through the glass, the light returns via a stationary mirror. Frank Twyman, an

electrical engineer by trade, met up with Alfred Green who was the lead

foreman at the optical shop at the University of Liverpool.4 Together they

expanded the Michelson interferometer to measure properties such as the

index of refraction for different materials (We use a BK7 glass prism in our

own experiment). Another difference between the two was Twymans strict

use of a point source of light (e.g. laser) while the Michelson apparatus is

able to be used with either a point source or extended source of light.

Overall, these pioneering interferometry scientists have introduced a whole

new standard of accuracy in measurements and have applied that accuracy

to many diverse fields.

Theoretical Basis

The physics behind the Twyman Green interferometer lies entirely in

introductory and modern optics. As previously noted, the interferometer

is, in fact, a blanket-term for the arrangement of lenses, apertures, the light

source and screen (See figure 2 on the following page). While our specific

equipment will be more deeply described in the apparatus section of this

report, it is fitting to briefly describe the theory of how these individual

pieces form a very precise tool when brought together. Firstly, the light

source must be in a special form denoted as collimated. It need not

Page | 3
necessarily take the form of a laser. However, this is typically the more

convenient and cost-effective option, and it is the source of choice in our own

experiment. The word collimated simply denotes the rays (or paths of

photons) of light are parallel and facing in the same direction, and the

process is depicted in figure 1. The collimation is achieved by passing the

rays of light through a converging lens that causes the light to converge to a

point. After meeting at this point, the rays will begin to diverge and enter a

projection lens that is strategically placed a known distance from the point

depending on its focal length. After passing through this second lens, the

beams will be absolutely parallel to each other and can be justly classified as

collimated. As depicted in figure 2, once formed, this collimated beam of

light is split apart by a special device set at the center of the apparatus. This

is a carefully constructed perfectly flat piece of glass with a thin film of silver

on the right side. This silver acts to send the beam in two separate

directions by reflecting any rays that interact with a silver particle. Silver acts

as a perfect mirror. Consequently, considering the glass is positioned 45

with respect to the incoming beam, the beam is reflected 90 upward

toward a mirror. The remaining beam passes through the splitter unimpeded

towards the prism. If the silvered glass is manufactured correctly, this will

split the beam almost exactly in half. The ultimate purpose of this separation

is to have the two beams interfere again at the detector (or screen) shown in

figure 2 in order to observe the constructive and destructive interference via

Page | 4
fringe forming. Our Twyman-Green interferometer introduces more

complexity than seen in the figure above by passing the unimpeded beam

through a glass prism before reaching the mirror. The prism itself deserves a

distinctive amount of attention in order to understand how its index of

refraction can be determined from this experiment, and how it determines

the interference effects detected after the beams have been amalgamated.

As depicted in figure 3, the unimpeded beam actually enters into a triangular

prism at a 45 angle relative to the normal of the face. The figure gives a

depiction of the prism and its effects when placed at two different depths in

the beam. The separation distance is denoted by the variable x . You can

easily infer from figure 3 that when a beam is forced to travel through more

glass, it travels a lesser distance overall than one that travels through less.

The double arrows in the figure depict the fact that once the beam hits the

mirror it will undergo perfect reflection and travel the exact same path in the

opposite direction. We have, thus far, treated the fact that light is perfectly

reflected by a mirror as an axiom. This is due to the fact that it simply

makes classical mechanical sense, and there is little mathematical theory to

be applied to a flat mirror. However, it is not exactly clear how light

undergoes a change in direction (as depicted in figure 3) upon entering and

exiting solid glass. Thus, we have arrived at the point where mathematical

rigor need be introduced to our interferometer. The law governing the

behavior of light at the junction of two materials is known as Snells Law, and

Page | 5
it was derived by Willebrord Snellius in 1621 who was the first to place the

phenomenon in strict mathematical

terms. It is written as follows:

( 2) (eqn. 1)
( 1)=n2sin
n1sin

Figure 3: The prism and mirror replacing the

right mirror in figure 2 The thetas in Snells Law represent

Source: Lab Handout Packet the angles between the light beam

and the normal of the appropriate medium. The n-

values represent what is dubbed the index of

Figure
Figure 1: 2: The left side Inteferometer. The
A Michelson
depicts a collimated beam refraction of the medium. It is a
Twyman-Green variant places a glass prism in
of light.
front of the right mirror.
fundamental constant that differs with
pg
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interferometer.svg every material. Therefore, referring

to figure 3, light passing through the prism in the top-state would have a 1

= and a 2 = . Naturally, if the indexes of refraction and/or incidence

angles are known, equation 1 allows you to isolate a single variable and

observe how the light will respond to the medium change. Thus, Snells Law

suggests that path-change is the norm for light at junctions of two mediums

of different indexes of refraction (Which is the case for glass/air), and gives

reasoning as to why this is the case in figure 3. Now that a basic theory has

been applied to the prism arrangement, it is imperative to bestow

mathematical order to the interference of the beams once they meet again

Page | 6
at the detector (or screen, in our case). The beam that was simply reflected

90 and reflected again to the screen will have traveled a vastly different

distance (in terms of wavelengths) than the beam that enters the prism.

Thus, holistically, it would seem that physics would require us to have our

interferometer calibrated and positioned to accuracy on the order of

nanometers. This would be an arduous, if not impossible, task for

undergraduates to partake in. However, if we exploit the wave-like property

of light we can arrive at a solution that rests on what is known as

constructive and destructive interference. This phenomenon, depicted in

figure 4, occurs in wave propagation when two waves interfere at particular

phase-differences. If both waves are in phase

they will exhibit constructive interference

shown by the light peaks in figure 4. Waves

become out of phase when they meet after

having traveled paths that lead them to

become half a wavelength out of step with

each other. Thus, peaks meet troughs and the

entire wave is canceled perfectly.

Consolidating this notion mathematically, we

arrive at the formula below:

Figure 4: The constructive and

destructive interference of ripples r 2r 1 =m (eqn. 2)
in a water tank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Two
-point-interference-ripple-tank.JPG

Page | 7
 R1 & R2 = The distance light travels in that specific path before being
detected
m = The total number of fringes displayed or detected
= The wavelength of the laser

Equation 2 describes the fact that when two waves meet, if their traveled-

path difference is exactly equal to an integer number of wavelengths

(denoted by m) the resulting wave is one of constructive interference. In our

experiment, we are focused on observing how an increased amount of prism

glass will affect the fringes on the detector. It has been qualitatively shown

via figure 2 that this causes the path to increase in distance traveled. Thus,

we are actually concerned with the change in path difference after the initial

path difference. Therefore, we can take equation 2 one step further as

L= m (eqn. 3)

where L represents the change in path difference over the course of our

experiment, and m denotes the number of integer wavelengths the path

difference spans. This, of course, means m is the exact amount of bright

fringes that are detected or displayed over the procedure, and that fact will

come in handy when it comes time to gather data from our experiment. After

deriving equation 3, we no longer care about the beam that doesnt pass

through the prism, as its path length is of no significance and it simply serves

as a control beam to interfere with our prism beam. Armed with this

equation, we can apply it solely to the geometry of figure 3, and use Snells

law to come up with the index of refraction of our prism. We have mentioned

Page | 8
the fact that the prism can be placed further into the beam, but we have yet

to give any inclination as to how this is achieved. In our experiment, as with

most Twyman-Green interferometers, the prism is clamped onto a table that

is coupled to a micrometer-driven, 1-direction translation arm that can move

the prism with a precision of approximately 0.25 m. Considering the

wavelength of red laser light is in the range of 600-700 nm, adjustments on

the order of micrometers is absolutely necessary. Using figure 3 as our

reference, we can find the distance light travels in the two instances of the

prism by using the variables given in the diagram as follows:

Path Distance ( Top )=2( x +nL1+ + d ) (eqn. 4)

Path Distance ( Bottom )=2( nL2 +d ) (eqn. 5)

x = Distance from the defined origin of the prism

n = Index of refraction of the glass
L1 = The distance light travels in the top instance in the prism
L2 = The distance light travels in the original instance in the prism
= The slightly additional distance light travels from the top-instance
of the prism to the reflecting mirror
d = The distance from the prism to the reflecting mirror

The reason for the multiplication by two in the above two equations is due to

the fact that after reflection the light travels the exact same path through

the prism. Thus, in order to fully account for the path change this doubling-

back must be accounted for. Now considering the prism is the only dynamic

piece in our experiment, it is also the only segment that contributes to the

Page | 9
path-length change of the light. Thus, we can substitute equations 4 and 5

into equation 3 by subtracting them as follows:

2( x+ nL1 + +d )2( nL2 +d )=2( x+ nL1 + +dnL2d)

2( x +n( L1L2 ) ) = L= m (eqn. 6)

Using the geometry of the prism in figure 2 and some trigonometric

identities, we can achieve the following equation for L:

2
n x n xsin ( )
L= x (eqn. 7)
cos ( ) cos ( )

Finally, after substituting equation 7 into equation 6 and rearranging terms to

solve for n, we achieve a relatively simple equation governing the index of

refraction for our prism:

(
2
n=
2 m
2 x )
+1 +1 (eqn. 8)

Thus, the measurement of the index of refraction boils down to two variables

which are all very easy to measure with a proper Twyman-Green apparatus.

The wavelength () is treated as a given considering practically all laser

manufacturers print the wavelength direction on the device to roughly 4-5

significant figures. The distance the prism moved from the defined origin

(x) is measured by keeping track of the number of micrometers moved on

the micrometer. For equation 8 to work correctly, both x and must be in

Page | 10
meters. Finally, perhaps the most troublesome aspect of this experiment is

achieving a value for m. In our experiment, the detector in figure 2 is

replaced by a paper screen where we are able to visibly depict the

interference fringes with the naked eye. The value for m is acquired by

observing how many bright fringes move across a reference point over the

course of the prism movement.

Equation 8 was entirely developed resting on our own geometry and

experimental assumptions (such as the assumption that the prism is truly 45

degrees to the incoming beam). While there is nothing inherently wrong with

our derivation, it is fitting to compare it with empirical data that is long-

accepted in the community for the borosilicate crown glass (BK7) used to

form our prism. This reference takes the form of an equation known as the

Sellmeier Equation, and it was developed as an empirical relationship

between the refractive index and wavelength for a transparent medium by

W. Sellmeier in 1871.5 The equation is shown below:

2 B 1 2 B 2 2 B3 2
n =1+ 2 + + (eqn. 9)
C1 2C 2 2C 3

The constants B# and C# are experimentally determined coefficients that are

unique to the transparent medium. Luckily, large databases have been

compiled on the coefficients of numerous mediums, and BK7 is one of the

most defined and accurately studied mediums of them all. Therefore, due to

the faith we hold in the accuracy of our lasers wavelength and the ideal

Page | 11
nature of the Sellmeier Equation, we can comfortably use this as the

standard for refraction index in order to determine if our procedure or

calculations are faulty using our theoretically-derived equation 8.

Apparatus

The Twyman-Green interferometer

we utilized deviated slightly from

the ideal interferometer

described in the previous section.

The actual set-up used in our

experiment can be viewed in

figure 5, and we will describe

each component starting from the

top. First, the entire

interferometer was slot-mounted

onto a shock-absorbing, air-

equipped, auto-leveling table.

This ensured that all the components were directly in line with one another

and slight bumps or vibrations would not disturb the interference to any

significant degree. The laser device we utilized was mounted to the table,

Page | 12
and emitted a strong collimated red laser beam with a frequency of

623.8nm. This light was fed into a steering mirror that was placed at a 45

angle with respect to the incoming beam. This mirror was a perfectly

flat reflecting mirror that re-routed all incoming light 90 to the right. In

order to ensure near-perfect collimation, the beam was then fed into an

objective lens with a small enough focal length to be utilized for a

microscope. This caused any non-parallel beams to diverge to a point that

was exactly a focal length away from the projection lens. Once the rays

reached the projection lens they were perfectly collimated. The key

difference in our apparatus with respect to the ones previously mentioned is

the angle at which the half-silvered beam splitter was oriented. While the

exact angle with respect to the incoming beam was unknown to us, the

splitter did not deflect the beam in a right angle. Fortunately, the apparatus

was constructed prior to our arrival, as this saved us from guessing how the

beam reflected off of this splitter. This also caused the screen to be

positioned at an odd angle (roughly 45 ) as depicted in figure 5. Unlike

the detector shown in figure 2, we utilized a paper screen which was

hoisted using an arm that clamed directly to the table. The fringes observed

with this screen were roughly 1-2 mm in size. Thus, no magnification or extra

lenses were needed in order to count the fringes over the course of the

experiment. As mentioned earlier, the prism seen in figure 5 was mounted

Page | 13
 on a table that was adjustable to move in a translational direction using a

micrometer arm. After setting some arbitrary origin as zero on the

micrometer, the knob on the device was twisted in order to cause the light

beam to pass through more glass. The device was pre-constructed to ensure

the face of the prism met the beam at a perfect 45 angle. Following the

prism, a flat reflecting mirror is required to contain the beam and pass it

back through the prism and return it to the splitter. All of the individual

components make up the interferometer as a whole, and cause the beam to

be near-perfectly contained within the device after exciting the light source.

Procedure

Figure 5: The schematic for our own Twyman-

Green Interferometer
Considering the device was fully constructed an

Source: Lab Handout Packet operational before arrival, the procedure

required to undergo the experiment was relatively simple and uninvolved.

The first step included making sure that all the components seen in figure 5

were indeed in their proper arrangement on the table. This does not,

however, infer that any adjustments were to be made to the components if

they were skewed as the alignments and positions are extremely precise.

Consequently, an unjust perturbation of a single lens or mirror could

potentially destroy the delicate fringing effects needed to analyze the prism.

After ensuring the quality of the apparatus, the laser device was switched on

and a few seconds passed to allow for the device to warm up. Once the

beam was visible on the screen, the micrometer was twisted until the arm

Page | 14
was locked at zero. At this point, the experiment could begin. Located on the

screen was a tiny, but easily discernable, black dot that was used as a

reference point for the passage of bright fringes. The screen was adjusted

slightly so that once the micrometer was set to zero, the dot rested on a

bright fringe. After this was completed, the micrometer was turned slowly so

that the number of fringes that passed by the dot could be tallied in the head

of the experimenter. After reaching a certain amount, the procedure was

stopped, and the number of fringes and distance on the micrometer were

both recorded in a notebook. The micrometers knob repeated every 25m.

Thus, four complete turns on the device signified a 100m change in

distance of the prism from its origin. The meter could be read to an accuracy

of roughly 0.25m (250 nm). Thus, the prism distance garnered accuracy

very close to the order of the beams wavelength. This procedure was

followed four times in order to reach fringes of 100, 150, 200, and 250. A

simple time-saving trick after reaching the 100th fringe is to record the

number displayed on the micrometer and how many turns after that number

it takes for the meter to return to the origin. Thus, the experimenter is able

to resume counting where they left off by returning to this point instead of

repeating the fringes already counted. Once the distances were logged for

each fringe count, the experiment was completed and the laser was powered

down. In order to resolve the refraction index for the prism, calculations

using the Sellmeier equation and equation 8 were used as demonstrated in

the following section.

Page | 15
Sample Calculations

Although there are very few intermediate steps to undertake in order

to achieve an experimental value for the refraction index, equation 8 is

delicate in that all the units must be in their fundamental form. Thus, we will

work towards this via a sample calculation using the data from our first run

(100 fringes). The raw data from all four of our runs can be viewed in either

the appendix of this report, or the Excel spreadsheet on the accompanying

disc. After reaching 100 fringes, the micrometer read 22.0m. After turning

clockwise and reaching the first zero, the knob made 2 complete cycles

before reaching the origin. Thus, the total distance for this run (x) was

25 m
22 m + =22 m+50 m=72 m
2turns turn (1)

As mentioned, the units must be in fundamental form for equation 8 to work.

We convert the answer found in (1) to meters as follows:

72 m( 106 m
1 m )=7.2 x 105 m (2)

Obviously, m is 100 considering that was the limit of our procedure.

Therefore, the only remaining variable is the wavelength of the beam. As

mentioned in the apparatus section, the manufacturer of our laser light

source has concluded that the emitted beams wavelength is 632.8 nm.

Page | 16
Utilizing a similar procedure as (2), we achieve this value in meters as

follows:

623.8 nm ( 109 m
1 nm )=6.238 x 107 m (3)

We now have all the variables in their necessary form to apply equation 8 to

our first run. The procedure is shown below:

n=
2 (
2 100 fringes ( 6.238 x 107 m) + 1 2 +1=
7.2 x 105 m ) 1.505029 (4)

Now, considering that natural air has a refraction index of roughly 1, this

seems reasonable. However, as stated, the truest comparison against known

empirical data comes with the Sellmeier equation. The company Schott

glass maintains a database that includes the Sellmeier coefficients for BK7

glass. These coefficients are located in the appendix of this report, and they

will be utilized to perform the calculation needed to derive the accepted

value of BK7s refraction index. Because of the operations performed in each

term of the equation, it will be broken up into three steps below, and

recombined to finally solve for the index. A final note of interest is the fact

that the Sellmeier equation was constructed assuming the wavelength to be

in m. Thus, a quick calculation used to convert (3) into micrometers is

shown below:

Page | 17
 6
6.238 x 107 m( 10 m
1m )=0.6238 m (5)

Using (5) and the first two Sellmeier coefficients, we solve for the first term:

B 1 2 ( 1.039612 )(0.6238 m)2

= =1.055428154 (6)
2C 1 (0.6238 m)20.006001

The second term is found similarly:

B 2 2 ( 0.231792 )(0.6238 m)2

= =0.243989454 (7)
2C 2 (0.6238 m)20.020018

And finally the third term:

B3 2 ( 1.010469 )(0.6238 m)2

= =.003922328 (8)
2C 3 (0.6238 m)2103.5607

Combining (6), (7), and (8), and adding 1 we achieve the accepted Sellmeier

value (equation 9) for BK7 as follows:

2
n sellmeier =1+1.055428154+ 0.243989454+.003922328=2.29549528 (9)

Finally, the refraction index is found by taking the square root of (9):

n sellmeier= 2.29549528=1.515089 (10)

This comes very close to the value we found in (4) using just one run. In the

following section, we will be concerned with the deviation of our run values

Page | 18
from (10). Thus, it is fitting to introduce the equations used to find these

deviations and to perform a sample calculation using run 1. The equation for

% deviation is shown below:

n runnsellmeier
Deviation= 100 (11)
nrun

Applying (11) to run 1, we achieve a % deviation as follows:

1.5050291.515089
Deviationrun 1= 100 =0.664013 (12)
1.505029

Lastly, it will be important to average all the runs together in order to negate

any minor observation errors when reading the micrometer. The average of

any set of values is found using the following formula:

xn
Average =x= 0 (13)
n

In (13), x represents a value in the series and n is the total number of values

taken into consideration. Thus, using the four n-values found (see Appendix

Raw Data) and applying (13) to them, we find the average refraction index

of our experiment as such:

1
nexp = ( 1.505029+1.505029+1.505983+1.505792 )=1.5054581 (14)
4

Page | 19
Discussion

Overall, the four experimental runs produced a very precise set of

results for the refraction index of our prism. All the indexes were within one

thousandth of each other, so we can be sure that our procedure was, at the

very least, uniform. Using (11) from the previous section we can quickly find

the percent deviation of each run in order to potentially develop trends or

factors that lead us to the values we garnered.

1.5050291.515089
Deviationrun 1= 100 =0.664013
1.505029

1.5050291.515089
Deviationrun 2= 100 =0.664013
1.505029

1.5059831.515089
Deviationrun 3= 100 =0.601034
1.505983

1.5057921.515089
Deviationrun 4= 100 =0.613648
1.505792

Although the deviations are relatively small, it is important to remember the

precision of the average interferometer. Thus, all error must be duly

accounted for. Firstly, I remain convinced that a single fringe was missed

while counting the first 100 fringes. Assuming this is true, the true m for the

first run is 101. I feel this is the case due for two reasons. First, I did

subconsciously feel as though I missed a fringe over the course of my first

Page | 20
run. Likewise, if you repeat (4) using m = 101, the refraction index more

closely resembles that of the Sellmeier result:

(
2
2 101 fringes
nrun 1=
2 5
( 7
) )
6.238 x 10 m +1 +1=1.510518
7.2 x 10 m

This value only deviates roughly 0.3% from the Sellmeier value, effectively

cutting the previous deviation in half. Considering that I marked the location

of each stopping point and returned to it after plotting the data, one missed

fringe early on is automatically resonated throughout all the data points.

Thus, 50% of the deviation of each experimental run is likely due to this one

missed fringe.

When observing the deviation between different runs, we can observe a

small trend as the number of fringes is increased. The refraction index

increases by roughly a thousandth upon reaching 200 fringes. My hypothesis

is that the further the prism intruded on the beam, the more possibility there

was for the beam to pass through glass imperfections and impurities. These

may have caused the actual refraction index to increase, which also caused

the experimental index to more closely approach the Sellmeier value. We

can observe a more accurate deviation value by taking the average

refraction index found in (14) and applying (11) to it as follows:

1.5054811.515089
Deviation= 100 =0.64
1.505481

Page | 21
The reason a problem exists with such a small deviation is the fact that the

index of refraction is inherently a small varying number. In fact, almost all

refractive materials have indices that lie between 1 and 2.5. Likewise, some

materials such as oxygen, helium, and nitrogen exhibit indices that vary only

in the ten-thousandth place! This is also the case for some of the organic

alcohols such as Acetone and ethanol.6 Consequently, the accuracy of

measuring the refractive index is of utmost importance as it requires many

significant figures to separate one material from another.

Nonetheless, while the Sellmeier equation is empirically based, some experts

continue to argue as to what the true value is for Borosilicate crown glass.

For example, a center for occupational research in Texas gives a value of

1.50917 for a red laser with wavelength of 640nm7. While our value still

undershoots this index by roughly four hundredths, it exhibits less than half

the deviation of the Sellmeier value, and suggests that not all BK7 glass is

made exactly the same and that experts still argue over its true value.

Referring back to equations 2 and 3, we have yet to mention the implications

if such properties such as the lasers wavelength was not treated as a given

at the start of the experiment. If this was the case, we could use equation

three to experimentally arrive at the wavelength by counting the number of

fringes and the distance it took to achieve them. Naturally, the wavelength

would only be as precise as the tool used to measure L. This is due to

the fact that m is an integer with an infinite set of significant figures. Thus,

Page | 22
we would not be at a total loss if the manufacturer had not stated the

wavelength, so long as we were equipped with a precise micrometer.

Theoretically, we could also reverse this situation by utilizing equation 2 to

solve for a distance change if the wavelength is known. If we removed the

prism from our apparatus, we would again be dealing with a Michelson

interferometer. With this, we could measure a distance by moving the mirror

in the direction of the beam and counting the fringes. In this way, using

equation 2, distances that are comparable to a wavelength of light can be

measured with ease, and this is precisely how the interferometer plays such

a crucial role in bestowing a large degree of accuracy to distances and their

subsequent applications.

In summary, due to the properties of light being so delicately small and

easily perturbed, the Michelson and Twyman-Green interferometers are able

to exploit interference to shed light on these properties, and apply their

precision to other seemingly unrelated variables. This experiment proved

that light, even at its abhorrently high speed, is able to be easily

manipulated through refractive and reflective materials, and the properties

of alteration (the index of refraction) are able to be solved for using simple

theoretical geometry and derived fundamental laws such as Snells law.

Lastly, we proved that equations governing this experiment can be

rearranged to indirectly measure infinitesimal properties such as the

wavelength of light or distances on the order of nanometers.

Page | 23
Works Cited
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Tywman-Green Interferometer. Retrieved
November 18, 2010, from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611419/Twyman-Green-
interferometer

Hugh D. Young, R. A. (2007). University Physics. Pearson Addison-Wesley.

Menzies, A. (1960). Frank Twyman 1876-1959. In T. R. Society, Biographical Memoirs

(pp. 269-279). Royal Society Publishing.

Polyanskiy, M. (2008-2010). Refractive Index Database. Retrieved November 28,

2010, from RefractiveIndex.info: http://refractiveindex.info/

Scheider, W. (1986). Do the "Double Slit" Experiment the Way it Was Originally
Done. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from CavendishScience:
http://cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

University of Tennessee: Knoxville. (n.d.). Michelson Interferometer. Retrieved

November 18, 2010, from University of Tennessee:
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m5/Interferometers.htm

Page | 24
Endnotes

Page | 25
Appendix Raw Data

x (Raw)
Measuremen # of x n-
m t (m) Turns (m) exp % Dev
1.5050 0.6640
100 22 2 72 29 13
1.5050 0.6640
150 8 4 108 29 13
143.7 1.5059 0.6010
200 18.75 5 5 83 34
179.7 1.5057 0.6136
250 4.75 7 5 92 48

1.039612
n - sell B1: 12
0.231792
term 1 Term 2 Term 3 n^2 n-sell B2: 344
-
1.0554281 0.2439894 0.00392232 2.295495 1.5150891 1.010469
54 54 8 28 99 B3: 45
0.006000
C1: 699
0.020017
C2: 914
103.5606
C3: 53

n - exp 1.5054
(AVG) 581
Final % Dev 0.64 %

Page | 26
Appendix Disc Contents

Root Directory

Lab 6 Inteferometry Experiment.doc

o The official Microsoft Word 2003 format lab report

concerning the Interferometry Experiment

Interferometry Lab Data.xls

o The Microsoft Excel worksheet that contains the raw data

taken during the course of the experiment. The
spreadsheet also contains operated-on data such as the
final values, deviations, and Sellmeier values found in the
Appendix (Raw Data) section of this report

Fig1.gif

o The collimated beam diagram found on page 3

Fig2.gif

o The Michelson Interferometer diagram found on page 4

Fig3.jpg

o The prism diagram found on page 5

Fig4.jpg

o The interference ripples picture found on page 6

Fig5.gif

o The Twyman-Green diagram found on page 11

Page | 27
1 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Tywman-Green Interferometer. Retrieved November
18, 2010, from Encyclopaedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611419/Twyman-Green-interferometer

2
University of Tennessee: Knoxville. (n.d.). Michelson Interferometer. Retrieved November
18, 2010, from University of Tennessee:
http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/optics421/modules/m5/Interferometers.htm

Scheider, W. (1986). Do the "Double Slit" Experiment the Way it Was Originally Done.
Retrieved November 18, 2010, from CavendishScience:
http://cavendishscience.org/phys/tyoung/tyoung.htm

Menzies, A. (1960). Frank Twyman 1876-1959. In T. R. Society, Biographical Memoirs (pp.

269-279). Royal Society Publishing.

W. Sellmeier, Zur Erklrung der abnormen Farbenfolge im Spectrum einiger

Substanzen, Annalen der Physik und Chemie 219, 272-282 (1871).
6

Polyanskiy, M. (2008-2010). Refractive Index Database. Retrieved November 28, 2010,

from RefractiveIndex.info: http://refractiveindex.info/

Pedrotti, Leno. Prisms to Deviate Light by Refraction. Prisms. Texas: The Center for
Occupational Research and Development, 1987.
Hugh D. Young, R. A. (2007). University Physics. Pearson Addison-Wesley.