Research‌‌Question:‌  ‌
How‌‌does‌‌changing‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌incidence‌‌on‌‌a‌‌surface‌‌affect‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌of‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌light-‌‌
 
provided‌‌the‌‌surface‌‌is‌‌a‌‌dielectric‌‌and‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌measured‌‌through‌‌a‌‌polarizer?‌   ‌ ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Title:‌  ‌
An‌‌Electric‌‌Field‌‌Approach‌‌to‌‌the‌‌Brewster‌‌Angle‌‌Phenomenon‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
Subject:‌‌Physics‌  ‌
 ‌
Word‌‌Count:‌‌3913‌  ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 1‌  ‌

Table‌‌of‌‌Contents‌  ‌
1. Introduction‌  ‌ 2‌  ‌

2. Background‌‌Research‌  ‌  ‌

2.1. Experimental‌‌Setup‌  ‌ 3‌  ‌

2.2. Brewster‌‌Angle‌  ‌ 4‌  ‌

2.3. Electromagnetic‌‌Wave‌‌Interaction‌‌with‌‌Dielectrics‌  ‌ 4‌  ‌

2.4. Modifying‌‌Fresnel's‌‌Equation:‌‌Relationship‌‌Between‌‌
   ‌

Incident‌‌Angle‌‌and‌‌Reflection‌‌Intensity‌  ‌ 6‌  ‌

3. Experiment‌  ‌  ‌

3.1. Hypothesis‌  ‌ 7‌  ‌

3.2. Variables‌  ‌ 9‌  ‌

3.3. Safety‌‌Precautions‌  ‌ 9‌  ‌

3.4. Required‌‌Materials‌  ‌ 9‌  ‌

3.5. Control‌‌Variables‌  ‌ 10‌  ‌

3.6. Experimental‌‌Method‌  ‌ 11‌  ‌

3.7. Data‌‌Analysis‌  ‌ 13‌  ‌

4. Evaluation‌  ‌ 16‌  ‌

5. Conclusion‌  ‌ 19‌  ‌

6. Work‌‌Cited‌  ‌ 20‌  ‌

7. Appendix‌‌
   ‌  ‌

7.1. A:‌‌Experimental‌‌Data‌  ‌ 22‌  ‌

 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 ‌
 2‌  ‌

Research‌‌Question:‌  ‌
 ‌
How‌‌does‌‌changing‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌incidence‌‌on‌‌a‌‌surface‌‌affect‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌of‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌light-‌‌
 

provided‌‌the‌‌surface‌‌is‌‌a‌‌dielectric‌‌and‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌measured‌‌through‌‌a‌‌polarizer?‌  ‌

 ‌

Introduction:‌  ‌

In‌  ‌this‌  ‌essay‌  ‌I ‌ ‌will‌  ‌be‌  ‌investigating‌  ‌the‌  ‌relationship‌‌

  between‌‌
  the‌‌
  angle‌‌
  of‌‌
  incidence‌‌
  and‌‌
  the‌‌
 

reflection‌‌
  intensity‌‌
  of‌‌
  light,‌‌
  provided‌‌
  that‌‌
  light‌‌
  is‌‌
  reflected‌‌
  from‌‌
  a ‌‌dielectric‌‌
  and‌‌
  is‌‌
  filtered‌‌
  through‌‌
  a ‌‌

polariser.‌  ‌Polarisers‌  ‌are‌  ‌useful‌  ‌in‌  ‌photography‌  ‌for‌  ‌taking‌  ‌pictures‌  ‌of‌  ‌buildings‌  ‌and‌  ‌water‌  ‌bodies.‌‌
 

However,‌‌
  the‌‌
  problem‌‌
  with‌‌
  using‌‌
  polarising‌‌
  filters,‌‌
  on‌‌
  camera‌‌
  lenses,‌‌
  is‌‌
  that‌‌
  they‌‌
 work‌‌
 differently‌‌
 at‌‌
 

different‌‌
  angles,‌‌
  making‌‌
 it‌‌
 difficult‌‌
 to‌‌
 capture‌‌
 images‌‌
 at‌‌
 a ‌‌prefered‌‌
 angle.‌‌
 Researching‌‌
 the‌‌
 relationship‌‌
 

between‌  ‌the‌  ‌angle‌  ‌and‌  ‌reflection‌  ‌intensity,‌  ‌in‌  ‌theory,‌  ‌could‌  ‌be‌  ‌a ‌ ‌stepping‌  ‌stone‌  ‌in‌  ‌making‌  ‌more‌‌
 

efficient‌‌polarisers‌‌for‌‌cameras‌‌that‌‌would‌‌enhance‌‌the‌‌quality‌‌of‌‌photos.‌  ‌

 ‌

This‌‌investigation‌‌explores‌‌the‌‌Brewster‌‌Angle‌‌Phenomenon,‌‌which‌‌provides‌‌a‌‌specific‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌
 

of‌‌light‌‌-‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌angle,‌‌that‌‌causes‌‌the‌‌least‌‌amount‌‌of‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌when‌‌the‌‌light‌‌is‌‌
 

polarised.‌‌This‌‌phenomenon‌‌will‌‌be‌‌explored‌‌experimentally,‌‌where‌‌I‌‌will‌‌independently‌‌change‌‌the‌‌
 

incident‌‌angle‌‌to‌‌measure‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌using‌‌a‌‌light‌‌sensor.‌‌Additionally,‌‌background‌‌
 

research‌‌will‌‌be‌‌conducted‌‌to‌‌evaluate‌‌the‌‌data‌‌from‌‌the‌‌experiment.‌‌I‌‌will‌‌be‌‌extending‌‌my‌ 

knowledge‌‌from‌‌‘Waves’‌‌(topic‌‌-‌‌4‌‌in‌‌the‌‌IB‌‌physics‌‌syllabus)‌‌to‌‌explore‌‌the‌‌behaviour‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌
 

field‌‌component‌‌in‌‌the‌‌phenomenon.‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 3‌  ‌

Background‌‌Research:‌  ‌

Experimental‌‌Setup:‌  ‌

 ‌

The‌‌experimental‌‌setup‌‌consists‌‌of‌‌a‌‌light‌‌source,‌‌polariser,‌‌a‌‌glass‌‌block‌‌of‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌1.55,‌‌and‌‌
 

a‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌as‌‌illustrated‌‌in‌‌figure‌‌1.0.‌‌These‌‌are‌‌arranged‌‌in‌‌a‌‌way‌‌to‌‌cause‌‌specular‌‌reflection,‌‌
 

where‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌is‌‌equal‌‌to‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌angle,‌‌θ1 = θ2 ,‌‌and‌‌it‌‌is‌‌assumed‌‌that‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌
 

occurs‌‌with‌‌limited‌‌scattering‌‌of‌‌light,‌‌i.e.‌‌diffuse‌‌reflection.‌  ‌

The‌‌reflected‌‌ray‌‌will‌‌be‌‌filtered‌‌through‌‌a‌‌polariser.‌‌Polarisers‌‌have‌‌crystal‌‌grids‌‌that‌‌run‌‌parallel‌‌to‌‌
 

its‌‌surface,‌‌and‌‌these‌p
‌ arallel‌‌grids‌‌should‌‌be‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌surface‌,‌‌as‌‌illustrated‌‌
 

in‌‌figure‌‌1.0‌‌(G
‌ regersen)‌.‌‌A‌‌glass‌‌block‌‌is‌‌a‌‌dielectric,‌‌meaning‌‌-‌‌it‌‌has‌‌an‌‌emissivity‌‌of‌‌zero‌(ε = 0)

and‌‌is‌‌a‌‌poor‌‌conductor‌‌of‌‌electricity‌‌(D
‌ ominguez)‌.  ‌‌ ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 4‌  ‌

The‌‌Brewster‌‌Angle:‌  ‌

 ‌

The‌‌brewster‌‌angle,‌‌θb , ‌is‌‌an‌‌incident‌‌angle,‌‌where‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌the‌‌lowest,‌‌provided‌‌that‌‌
 

the‌‌ray‌‌is‌‌reflected‌‌from‌‌a‌‌dielectric‌‌surface,‌‌and‌‌polarised.‌‌Sir.‌‌David‌‌Brewster‌‌discovered‌‌-‌‌this‌‌
 

occurs‌‌when‌‌the‌‌r‌ eflected‌‌ray‌‌(r)‌‌is‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌transmitted‌‌ray‌‌(t)‌‌(‌ Britannica)‌.‌‌This‌‌

 

phenomenon‌‌is‌‌illustrated‌‌in‌‌figure‌‌1.2‌‌where‌‌r‌‌is‌‌at‌‌90° to‌‌t.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

Electromagnetic‌‌Wave‌‌Interaction‌‌with‌‌Dielectrics:‌  ‌

Light‌‌is‌‌a‌‌transverse‌‌electromagnetic‌‌wave,‌‌where‌‌the‌‌
 

oscillation‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌field‌‌generates‌‌an‌‌orthogonal‌‌
 

magnetic‌‌field.‌‌When‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌oscillation‌‌of‌‌an‌‌
 

electric‌‌field,‌‌a‌‌vector,‌‌cannot‌‌be‌‌predicted‌‌it‌‌is‌‌called‌‌
 

unpolarised‌‌(Caltech).‌‌An‌‌electric‌‌field‌‌can‌‌be‌‌
 

separated‌‌into‌‌two‌‌polarisation‌‌components,‌‌the‌‌
 

electric‌‌parallel,‌‌E || (electric‌‌field‌‌that‌‌goes‌‌parallel‌‌to‌‌
 

the‌‌paper)‌‌and‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌perpendicular‌‌E ⊥ (electric‌‌
 

field‌‌that‌‌goes‌‌in‌‌and‌‌out‌‌of‌‌the‌‌paper).‌  ‌

As‌‌stated‌‌above,‌‌in‌‌the‌‌experimental‌‌setup,‌‌the‌‌polariser‌‌will‌‌be‌‌placed‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌
 

surface,‌‌which‌‌will‌‌cause‌‌the‌‌E ⊥ polarisation‌‌component‌‌to‌‌be‌‌filtered.‌‌Therefore,‌‌only‌‌the‌‌E ||
 5‌  ‌

component‌‌will‌‌compose‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌of‌‌light.‌‌In‌‌order‌‌to‌‌keep‌‌focus‌‌on‌‌the‌‌research‌‌
 

question‌‌I‌‌have‌‌omitted‌‌my‌‌research‌‌of‌‌the‌‌E ⊥ polarisation‌‌component.‌  ‌

The‌‌E || electric‌‌field,‌‌is‌‌a‌‌vector‌‌and‌‌can‌‌be‌‌decomposed‌‌into‌‌horizontal‌‌(‌E x|| )‌‌and‌‌vertical‌‌(‌E y|| )

components,‌‌as‌‌illustrated‌‌in‌‌figure‌‌1.3.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

On‌‌an‌‌atomic‌‌level,‌‌an‌‌electric‌‌field,‌‌likewise‌‌
 

E || ,‌‌contains‌‌electron‌‌oscillations.‌‌These‌‌
 

oscillations‌‌are‌‌caused‌‌by‌‌the‌‌restoring‌‌forces‌‌
 

between‌‌the‌‌positive‌‌core‌‌ions‌‌and‌‌negatively‌‌
 

charged‌‌electrons‌‌(Nature).‌‌
  

Figure‌‌1.4‌‌illustrates‌‌the‌‌restoring‌‌force‌‌using‌‌
 

springs,‌‌where‌‌electron‌‌oscillations‌‌are‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌
 

of‌‌the‌‌EM‌‌wave.‌‌The‌‌figure‌‌1.4‌‌also‌‌illustrates‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌radiation‌‌
 

generated‌‌by‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌moment‌‌between‌‌the‌‌positive‌‌ion‌‌and‌‌
 

electron,‌‌as‌‌signified‌‌by‌‌the‌‌red‌‌curves.‌‌
   ‌

When‌‌an‌‌EM‌‌wave‌‌is‌‌incident‌‌on‌‌a‌‌dielectric‌‌surface‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌
 

radiation‌‌lines‌‌up‌‌with‌‌the‌‌refracted‌‌ray,‌‌and‌‌the‌‌electron‌‌oscillations‌‌
 

are‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌it.‌‌Components‌‌of‌‌these‌‌perpendicular‌‌
 

oscillations‌‌are‌‌then‌‌reflected‌‌to‌‌compose‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌(Shestopaloff).‌‌An‌‌illustration‌‌of‌‌this‌‌
 

is‌‌shown‌‌in‌‌figure‌‌1.5‌‌where‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌radiation‌‌coincides‌‌with‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌transmitted‌‌ray‌‌(t).‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 6‌  ‌

Modifying‌‌Fresnel's‌‌Equation‌‌-‌‌Relationship‌‌Between‌‌Incident‌‌Angle‌‌and‌‌Reflection‌‌Intensity:‌  ‌

Fresnel's‌‌equations‌‌are‌‌derived‌‌from‌‌Maxwell's‌‌equations‌‌which‌‌describe‌‌the‌‌behavior‌‌of‌‌light‌‌based‌‌
 

on‌‌the‌‌relationships‌‌between‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌fields(‌MIT‌‌OpenCourseWare‌).‌‌Fresnel's‌‌equation‌‌gives‌‌the‌‌
 

reflection‌‌coefficient‌‌‌(r|| ), ‌the‌‌ratio‌‌between‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌electric‌‌parallel‌‌field,‌‌(E r|| ) and‌‌incident‌‌

 

electric‌‌field‌(E i|| ) as‌‌suggested‌‌by‌‌equation‌‌1.0.‌‌

   ‌

rE ||   =
E r||
=
−
tan(θ1 θ3 ) (Eugene‌‌eq.‌‌4.43)‌‌-(1.0)‌  ‌
E i|| tan(θ1 +θ3 )   ‌

 ‌
Where‌‌θ1 is‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle,‌‌and‌‌θ3 is‌‌the‌‌refracted‌‌angle.‌‌This‌‌is‌‌a‌‌Fresnel's‌‌equation,‌‌out‌‌of‌‌4,‌‌
 

where‌‌the‌‌‘‌E || ’‌‌can‌‌sometimes‌‌be‌‌presented‌‌as‌‌‘p’‌‌(signifying‌‌polarisation)‌‌(Eugene).‌‌However,‌‌I ‌‌

opted‌‌for‌‌the‌‌‘‌E || ’‌‌representation‌‌as‌‌it‌‌enhances‌‌understanding.‌‌I‌‌also‌‌omitted‌‌3‌‌of‌‌the‌‌4‌‌Fresnel's‌ 

equations‌‌to‌‌maintain‌‌appropriateness.‌  ‌

Reflection‌‌intensity‌‌(Ri ) ‌is‌‌equal‌‌to‌‌the‌‌square‌‌of‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌coefficient‌‌‌(rE || ) .‌‌‌This‌‌is‌‌because‌‌the‌‌

 

intensity‌‌(I) ‌is‌‌equal‌‌to‌‌the‌‌amplitude‌‌squared‌‌multiplied‌‌by‌‌a‌‌constant‌‌(k) (Tsokos).‌‌The‌‌amplitude‌‌is‌‌

 

the‌‌maximum‌‌field‌‌strength‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌field,‌‌and‌‌can‌‌be‌‌replaced‌‌by‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌field‌‌(E) ‌giving‌‌
 

I = k E 2 (lumenlearning).‌‌As‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌the‌‌ratio‌‌between‌‌the‌‌intensities‌‌and‌‌the‌‌
 

reflection‌‌coefficient‌‌the‌‌ratio‌‌between‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌fields‌‌(lumenlearning).‌‌Equation‌‌1.1‌‌describes‌‌the‌‌
 

relationship‌‌between‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌and‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle,‌‌taking‌‌into‌‌consideration‌‌all‌‌
 

arrangements‌‌made:‌  ‌

tan(θ −θ )
Ri = ( tan(θ1 +θ 3) )2   ‌ -(1.1)‌  ‌
1 3

Where,‌‌θ1 is‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle,‌‌and‌‌θ3 ‌is‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌refraction‌‌and‌‌can‌‌be‌‌found‌‌by‌‌isolating‌‌it‌‌

 

using‌‌the‌‌Snell’s‌‌law,‌‌equation‌‌1.2:‌  ‌

sinθ
θ3 = arcsin( 1.551 )    ‌ (tsokos)-(1.2)‌  ‌

 ‌
Where‌‌1.55‌‌is‌‌the‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌of‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌in‌‌the‌‌experiment.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 7‌  ‌

Experiment:‌  ‌

Hypothesis:‌  ‌

As‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle‌(θ1 ) approaches‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌angle‌(θb ) there‌‌will‌‌be‌‌a‌‌decrease‌‌in‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌

 

intensity.‌‌When‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌is‌‌increased‌‌over‌‌θb the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌should‌‌decrease.‌‌This‌‌is‌‌
 

provided‌‌that‌‌reflection‌‌is‌‌filtered‌‌through‌‌a‌‌polarizer‌‌placed‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌reflecting‌‌dielectric‌‌
 

surface.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

Theory‌‌Behind‌‌Hypothesis:‌  ‌

From‌‌the‌‌background‌‌research‌‌we‌‌know‌‌that‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌angle‌‌occurs‌‌when‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌ray‌‌(r)‌‌is‌‌
 

perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌transmitted‌‌ray‌‌(t).‌‌This‌‌is‌‌when‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌the‌‌lowest‌‌for‌‌the‌‌E || components‌‌
 

of‌‌the‌‌electromagnetic‌‌wave.‌‌Figure‌‌2.0‌‌illustrates‌‌when‌‌r‌‌is‌‌90° to‌‌t.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

When‌‌the‌‌incident-electric-parallel‌‌field‌‌(E i|| ) is‌‌refracted,‌‌it‌‌changes‌‌direction‌‌to‌‌the‌‌

 

transmitted-electric-parallel‌‌field‌‌(E t|| ) ,‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌t‌.‌‌‌When‌‌the‌r‌ ‌‌is‌‌90° to‌t‌‌‌then‌‌E t|| coincides‌‌or‌‌

 

is‌‌parallel‌‌to‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌r.‌‌The‌‌E t|| oscillates‌‌in‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌r,‌‌neither‌‌the‌‌vertical‌‌nor‌‌the‌‌

 

horizontal‌‌component‌‌compose‌‌light,‌‌as‌‌no‌‌electric‌‌field‌‌is‌‌propagating‌‌along‌‌it.‌  ‌

This‌‌is‌‌different‌‌when‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌between‌r‌ ‌‌and‌t‌‌‌is‌‌not‌‌90° as‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌component‌‌of‌‌the‌‌E t|| ,‌‌either‌‌

 

vertical‌‌or‌‌horizontal‌‌composing‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌electric‌‌fields.‌  ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 8‌  ‌

 ‌

  ‌ ‌

Figure‌‌2.1‌‌illustrates‌‌the‌‌behaviour‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌fields‌‌E || and‌‌E ⊥ ‌as‌‌they‌‌are‌‌reflected.‌‌In‌‌figure‌‌

 

2.1(a)‌‌and‌‌2.1(c)‌‌there‌‌is‌‌alway‌‌a‌‌component‌‌of‌‌E || incident‌‌on‌‌the‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌planes,‌‌whilst‌‌only‌‌at‌‌
 

2.1(b)‌‌there‌‌is‌‌no‌‌E || component,‌‌suggesting‌‌that‌‌at‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌angle‌‌no‌‌E || field‌‌is‌‌reflected.‌‌

   ‌

 ‌

Additionally,‌‌since‌‌we‌‌know‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Brewster‌‌angle‌‌is‌‌when‌t‌‌‌is‌‌90° to‌r‌ ,‌‌‌I‌‌can‌‌use‌‌Snell’s‌‌Law‌‌to‌‌find‌‌

 

the‌‌angle‌‌at‌‌which‌‌it‌‌occurs.‌‌Refer‌‌to‌‌figure‌‌2.0‌‌for‌‌angles.‌‌
   ‌

θ2 + θ3 + π2   = π   ‌  ‌
−
θ2 =   π2   θ3   ‌ As angle between ref lected and transmitted  = 90 = π   ‌
* −
1 sin( π2   θ2 ) = 1.55 sinθ3   ‌  ‌
−
sin π2  cosθ3 cos π2  sinθ3 = 1.55 sinθ3   ‌ From‌‌Snell’s‌‌law‌‌eq.1.2‌  ‌

*
1 cosθ3 = 1.55 sinθ3   ‌
1
 ‌
 ‌
θ3 = arctan( 1.55 )  = 0.573 rad    ‌  ‌
−
θ2 = π /2   0.573    ‌  ‌
−
θ2 = π /2   0.573    ‌  ‌
≈
θ2 1 rad    ‌  ‌
≈
⇒ θ2 = θ1  57 degrees   ‌ Reflection‌‌Angle‌‌=‌‌Incident‌‌Angle‌  ‌

 ‌

Therefore,‌‌I‌‌predict‌‌that‌‌the‌‌lowest‌‌intensity‌‌will‌‌be‌‌around‌‌57° .   ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 9‌  ‌

Independent‌‌Variable:‌‌‌In‌‌the‌‌experiment,‌‌the‌‌independent‌‌variable‌‌is‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌incidence‌‌measured‌‌
 

in‌‌degrees(‌θ)  .‌‌The‌‌variable‌‌is‌‌continuous,‌‌therefore‌‌can‌‌be‌‌measured‌‌using‌‌a‌‌protractor.‌‌The‌‌angle‌‌
 

will‌‌be‌‌increased‌‌from‌‌15° to‌‌80° with‌‌increments‌‌of‌‌5° .   ‌

 ‌
Dependent‌‌Variable:‌‌‌In‌‌the‌‌experiment,‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌the‌‌dependent‌‌variable,‌‌and‌‌can‌‌be‌‌
 

·
measured‌‌in‌‌lux.‌‌Lux‌‌is‌‌the‌‌S.I.‌‌unit‌‌for‌‌illuminance,‌‌lx‌‌(lumens‌‌per‌‌square‌‌metre,‌‌lm m−2 ),‌
  ‌and‌‌will‌‌
 

be‌‌measured‌‌using‌‌the‌‌Vernier‌‌Light‌‌Sensor.‌‌The‌s‌ ensor‌‌provides‌‌data‌‌that‌‌is‌‌1‌‌decimal‌‌place‌‌‌which‌‌
 

is‌‌limited‌‌but‌‌adequate‌‌for‌‌analysis‌‌(Vernier).‌  ‌

 ‌
Safety‌‌Precautions:‌  ‌

There‌‌are‌‌no‌‌major‌‌safety‌‌concerns‌‌to‌‌the‌‌experiment‌‌however‌‌it‌‌is‌‌advised‌‌to‌‌work‌‌with‌‌caution‌‌when‌‌
 

the‌‌experiment‌‌room‌‌is‌‌dark,‌‌as‌‌this‌‌increases‌‌the‌‌chance‌‌of‌‌tripping,‌‌or‌‌mistakenly‌‌hitting‌‌something‌‌
 

in‌‌a‌‌lab.‌‌Additionally,‌‌it‌‌is‌‌advised‌‌that‌‌the‌‌light‌‌source‌‌is‌‌handled‌‌with‌‌caution‌‌due‌‌to‌‌its‌‌heating‌‌
 

effects,‌‌as‌‌the‌‌experimenter‌‌might‌‌be‌‌moving‌‌it‌‌to‌‌change‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌incidence.‌‌Lastly,‌‌it‌‌is‌‌advised‌‌
 

that‌‌the‌‌glass‌‌block‌‌used‌‌for‌‌reflection‌‌is‌‌handled‌‌with‌‌care‌‌as‌‌dropping‌‌it‌‌might‌‌shatter‌‌it.‌  ‌

 ‌
Material‌‌Required:‌  ‌
Vernier‌‌Light‌‌Intensity‌‌Meter‌  ‌ Printed‌‌Protractor‌  ‌

Unpolarised‌‌Light‌‌Source‌  ‌ Single‌‌Slit‌‌
   ‌

12V‌‌Power‌‌Supply‌  ‌ Vernier‌‌software‌‌to‌‌measure‌‌intensity‌  ‌

1.5x1.5‌‌inch‌‌Polarizer‌  ‌ Glass‌‌block‌‌with‌‌~1.55‌‌refractive‌‌index‌  ‌
 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 10‌  ‌

Table‌‌1:‌‌Control‌‌Variables‌  ‌

Variables‌  ‌ Errors‌‌
   ‌ Solutions‌‌
   ‌

Polariser‌‌
  The‌‌polariser‌‌should‌‌be‌‌placed‌‌perpendicular‌‌
  Find‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌polarisation‌‌
 
Placement‌  ‌ to‌‌the‌d
‌ ielectric‌‌surface.‌‌An‌‌error‌‌will‌‌
  and‌‌maintain‌‌placement.‌‌Re-check‌‌  
significantly‌‌affect‌‌the‌‌data.‌  ‌ placement‌‌after‌e‌ very‌‌trial.‌  ‌

Indoor‌‌
  The‌‌intensity‌‌meter‌‌should‌‌only‌‌sense‌‌the‌‌
  ‌Any‌‌other‌‌emitter‌‌of‌‌light‌‌should‌‌be‌‌  
Lighting‌  ‌ reflection‌‌during‌‌the‌‌experiment,‌‌any‌‌other‌‌  turned‌‌off‌‌or‌‌kept‌‌at‌‌low‌‌intensity.‌  ‌
form‌‌should‌‌be‌‌avoided‌  ‌

Dielectric‌‌  Dielectric‌‌surfaces‌‌should‌‌be‌‌the‌‌same‌‌during‌‌
  Add‌‌a‌‌note‌‌on‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌glass‌‌
 
Surface‌  ‌ trials.‌‌The‌‌surface‌‌should‌‌have‌‌minimum‌‌   block.‌M‌ ake‌‌sure‌‌a‌‌glass‌‌block‌‌with‌‌
 
scratches‌‌to‌‌avoid‌‌diffuse‌‌reflection.‌‌
   ‌ no‌‌scratches‌‌is‌‌used.‌  ‌

Power‌‌of‌  Steady‌‌power‌‌supply‌‌is‌‌important‌‌to‌‌avoid‌‌
  Use‌‌a‌‌power‌‌source.‌‌In‌‌my‌‌
 
Light‌‌
  fluctuating‌‌incident‌‌intensities.‌  ‌ experiment‌‌the‌‌voltage‌‌was‌‌set‌‌to‌‌
 
Source‌  ‌ 12V.‌‌
   ‌

Light‌‌
  The‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌should‌‌be‌‌calibrated‌‌to‌‌zero‌‌
  Calibrate‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌with‌‌dark‌‌
 
Sensor‌‌   ‌ in‌‌the‌‌given‌‌lighting‌‌condition‌‌and‌‌then‌‌used‌‌
  room‌‌and‌‌make‌‌sure‌‌this‌‌stays‌‌
 
in‌‌the‌‌experiment.‌  ‌ constant‌  ‌

Software‌  ‌ A‌‌consistent‌‌use‌‌of‌‌software‌‌is‌‌advised‌‌to‌‌
  I‌‌used‌‌the‌‌Vernier‌‌software‌‌available‌‌
 
avoid‌‌technical‌‌errors‌‌as‌‌different‌‌programs‌‌   for‌‌free‌‌on‌‌their‌‌website‌  ‌
might‌‌work‌‌differently.‌‌An‌‌app‌‌from‌‌the‌‌  
sensor‌‌producer‌‌is‌‌advised.‌  ‌

Air‌‌Density‌  ‌ Air‌‌density‌‌affects‌‌the‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌of‌‌the‌‌  By‌‌collecting‌‌data‌‌on‌‌the‌‌same‌‌day‌‌

 
first‌‌medium‌‌i.e.‌‌air.‌‌This‌‌should‌‌be‌‌avoided‌‌  this‌‌can‌‌be‌‌avoided.‌‌It‌‌is‌‌also‌‌
 
as‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌of‌‌medium‌‌theoretically‌‌   assumed‌‌that‌‌the‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌of‌‌
 
impacts‌‌the‌‌data.‌  ‌ the‌‌room‌‌is‌‌1.‌‌
   ‌
 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 11‌  ‌

Experiment‌‌Method:‌  ‌

1. My‌‌apparatus‌‌was‌‌set‌‌up‌‌like‌‌shown‌‌in‌‌the‌‌above‌‌figure‌‌1.0‌  ‌

2. The‌‌voltage‌‌supplied‌‌was‌‌kept‌‌constant‌‌using‌‌a‌‌12V‌‌power‌‌supply‌‌and‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌was‌‌changed‌‌
 

manually.‌‌
   ‌

3. A‌‌single‌‌slit‌‌was‌‌placed‌‌in‌‌front‌‌of‌‌the‌‌light‌‌source‌‌to‌‌direct‌‌the‌‌light‌‌towards‌‌the‌‌glass‌‌
   ‌

4. The‌‌polarizer‌‌was‌‌taped‌‌to‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌meter‌‌in‌‌a‌‌way‌‌that‌‌the‌‌polarization‌‌was‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌
 

the‌‌glass‌‌block‌  ‌

5. An‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌15° was‌‌created‌‌by‌‌placing‌‌the‌‌block‌‌at‌‌90° to‌‌the‌‌normal‌  ‌

6. Lab‌‌was‌‌made‌‌completely‌‌dark‌  ‌

7. Intensity‌‌was‌‌measured‌‌digitally‌‌using‌‌an‌‌intensity‌‌meter‌‌and‌‌recorded‌‌in‌‌a‌‌table‌‌(note‌‌that‌‌single‌‌
 

slit‌‌diffraction‌‌might‌‌occur‌‌however‌‌the‌‌central‌‌maxima‌‌should‌‌be‌‌used‌‌for‌‌measurement)‌  ‌

8. Steps‌‌6‌‌and‌‌7‌‌were‌‌repeated‌‌with‌‌an‌‌increase‌‌in‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌5‌‌degree‌‌using‌‌the‌‌printed‌‌
 

protractor‌‌until‌‌I‌‌reached‌‌an‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌of‌‌80‌‌degree.‌  ‌

9. These‌‌sets‌‌of‌‌data‌‌collections‌‌were‌‌repeated‌‌5‌‌times‌‌to‌‌avoid‌‌uncertainties.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

Data‌‌Collection:‌  ‌

Sample‌‌of‌‌Raw‌‌Data‌  ‌

 ‌ Measurements‌‌of‌‌Reflection‌‌Intensity‌‌-‌‌Trails(lx)‌  ‌
°
Angle‌‌(‌ )‌
   ‌
1‌  ‌ 2‌  ‌ 3‌  ‌ 4‌  ‌ 5‌  ‌
15‌  2.0‌  2.4‌  1.8‌  1.7‌  2.0‌ 
20‌  1.7‌  1.8‌  1.7‌  1.5‌  1.7‌ 
...‌  ‌ ...‌  ‌ ...‌  ‌ ...‌  ‌ ...‌  ‌ ...‌  ‌
(See‌‌appendix‌‌A‌‌for‌‌full‌‌data‌‌collection)‌  ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 12‌  ‌

Calculations:‌ 

Table‌‌2:‌‌Calculation‌‌Examples‌  ‌

Avg.‌‌Reflection‌‌Intensity‌  ‌ 5
∑ T railn i.e.‌ ‌For‌ ‌20°   ‌
1.7+1.8+1.7+1.5+1.7
Avg.  Intensity  =   n=1
5  ‌ 5 = 1.7‌‌lux‌  ‌

Measurement‌‌Uncertainty‌  ‌ Measurement‌‌Uncertainty‌‌=‌‌average‌‌- ‌‌ i.e.‌ ‌For‌‌20°   ‌

trial‌‌with‌‌largest‌‌difference‌  ‌ 1.7‌‌-‌‌1.5‌‌=‌‌±0.2‌  ‌

Percentage‌‌Uncertainty‌  ‌ M easurement U ncertainty

×  100    ‌ ‌ i.e.‌ ‌For‌‌20°   ‌
Average 0.2
1.7 ×  100 = 12%    ‌ ‌

Derivative‌‌of‌‌Reflection‌‌  ΔIntensity i.e.‌‌for‌‌15‌‌to‌‌20‌  ‌

Intensity‌‌in‌‌terms‌‌of‌‌Angle‌‌
dR
  ΔAngle
 ‌ 2.0−1.7
−
15−20 = 0.6   ‌
( dθ )   ‌
 ‌

Processed‌‌Data:‌  ‌

Table‌‌3:‌‌Experimental‌‌Data‌‌Representing‌‌the‌‌Relationship‌‌Between‌‌Incident‌‌Angle‌‌and‌‌Reflection‌‌
 
Intensity‌  ‌

°
Angle‌‌(‌ )‌
   ‌ Avg.‌‌Reflection‌‌
Intensity‌‌(lx)‌  ‌
  Measurement‌‌   Percentage‌‌
 
Uncertainty‌‌(±)‌  ‌ Uncertainty‌‌
 
Derivative‌‌of‌‌Reflection‌‌ 
Intensity‌‌in‌‌terms‌‌of‌‌Angle‌‌
 
dR
(%)‌  ‌ dθ   ‌

15‌  ‌ 2.0‌  ‌ 0.4‌  ‌ 20‌  ‌ -0.06‌  ‌

20‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌ 12‌  ‌ -0.06‌  ‌

25‌  ‌ 1.4‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌ 14‌  ‌ -0.05‌  ‌

30‌  ‌ 1.2‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 21‌  ‌ -0.05‌  ‌

35‌  ‌ 1.0‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 33‌  ‌ -0.05‌  ‌

40‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌ 29‌  ‌ -0.06‌  ‌

45‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 0.1‌  ‌ 33‌  ‌ -0.06‌  ‌

50‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ -0.03‌  ‌

55‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.02‌  ‌

60‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.11‌  ‌

65‌  ‌ 0.6‌  ‌ 0.1‌  ‌ 16‌  ‌ 0.32‌  ‌

70‌  ‌ 2.6‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌ 19‌  ‌ 0.63‌  ‌

75‌  ‌ 6.8‌  ‌ 1.9‌  ‌ 28‌  ‌ 0.96‌  ‌

80‌  ‌ 13.7‌  ‌ 4.5‌  ‌ 33‌  ‌ 1.21‌  ‌

 13‌  ‌

Data‌‌Analysis:‌

 ‌

In‌‌graph‌‌3.0‌‌the‌‌data‌‌points‌‌signify‌‌the‌‌processed‌‌data‌‌(from‌‌table‌‌3)‌‌and‌‌the‌‌curve‌‌signifies‌‌the‌‌curve‌‌
 

of‌‌best‌‌fit‌‌created‌‌by‌‌modifying‌‌equation‌‌1.1,‌‌from‌‌the‌‌background‌‌research.‌‌Note‌‌that‌‌equation‌‌1.1‌‌
 
2π
was‌‌graphed‌‌in‌‌degrees‌‌and‌‌all‌‌value‌‌of‌‌θ were‌‌multiplied‌‌by‌‌360 ≈ 0.0174  ,‌‌or‌‌ ≈ 57.3 ,‌‌  
360
2π

(depending‌‌on‌‌type).‌  ‌

Ri = (
−
tan(θ1 arcsin(
sinθ1
1.55 ))
)2   ‌
‌(modified‌‌equation‌‌1.1‌‌with‌‌Snell's‌‌Law)‌‌-(3.0)‌  ‌
sinθ1
tan(θ1 +arcsin( 1.55
))

Error‌‌bars‌‌in‌‌the‌‌graph‌‌represent‌‌the‌‌measurement‌‌uncertainty,‌‌the‌‌highest‌‌being‌‌±4.5‌‌for‌‌80°  .‌‌There‌‌
 

is‌‌a‌‌large‌‌difference‌‌between‌‌the‌‌measurement‌‌uncertainties‌‌of‌‌different‌‌trials,‌‌i.e‌‌±0.3‌‌for‌‌80°  ‌where‌‌
 

the‌‌difference‌‌between‌ ‌±0.3‌‌and‌‌±4.5‌‌is‌‌high,‌‌however‌‌the‌‌relative‌‌uncertainty‌‌is‌‌rather‌‌consistent,‌‌
 

with‌‌the‌‌highest‌‌being‌‌33%.‌‌The‌‌high‌‌relative‌‌uncertainty‌‌suggests‌‌that‌‌the‌‌collected‌‌data‌‌is‌‌very‌‌close‌‌
 

to‌‌its‌‌measurement‌‌uncertainty,‌‌suggesting‌‌that‌‌the‌‌limitations‌‌of‌‌the‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌to‌‌measure‌‌only‌‌1 ‌‌

decimal‌‌place‌‌impacted‌‌the‌‌reliability‌‌of‌‌the‌‌collected‌‌data.‌‌Furthermore,‌‌as‌‌I‌‌attempted‌‌to‌‌measure‌‌
 

the‌‌low‌‌intensity‌‌values‌‌it‌‌was‌‌inevitable‌‌that‌‌I‌‌would‌‌not‌‌encounter‌‌high‌‌relative‌‌uncertainties.‌‌
 
 14‌  ‌

Therefore,‌‌a‌‌relative‌‌uncertainty‌‌of‌‌33%‌‌is‌‌good‌‌considering‌‌low‌‌data‌‌values,‌‌and‌‌sensor‌‌limitations.‌  ‌

The‌‌curve‌‌of‌‌best‌‌fit‌‌modifies‌‌the‌‌theoretical‌‌curve‌‌made‌‌by‌‌equation‌‌1.1‌‌by‌‌adding‌‌variable‌‌A‌‌for‌‌
 

vertical‌‌stretch,‌‌B‌‌for‌‌horizontal‌‌stretch‌‌and‌‌C‌‌for‌‌vertical‌‌translation.‌‌Using‌‌these‌‌variables‌‌with‌‌
 

constant‌‌integers‌‌to‌‌modify‌‌the‌‌curve‌‌gives‌‌a‌‌correlation‌‌of‌‌0.9987.‌‌This‌‌curve‌‌passes‌‌through‌‌10/14‌‌
 

error‌‌bars‌‌while‌‌being‌‌very‌‌close‌‌to‌ ‌4.‌‌This‌‌suggests‌‌a‌‌high‌‌correlation‌‌and‌‌that‌‌the‌‌relationship‌‌
 

between‌‌the‌‌dependent‌‌and‌‌independent‌‌variables‌‌is‌‌close‌‌to‌‌the‌‌theoretical‌‌model.‌‌I‌‌used‌‌a‌‌graphic‌‌
 

calculator,‌‌logger‌‌pro,‌‌to‌‌calculate‌‌this‌‌quickly‌‌by‌‌using‌‌the‌‌error‌‌bars‌‌(measurement‌‌uncertainties)‌‌
 

from‌‌the‌‌data,‌‌this‌‌would‌‌take‌‌me‌‌an‌‌unrealistically‌‌long‌‌time‌‌to‌‌do‌‌manually‌‌(Vernier).‌  ‌

All‌‌the‌‌modifying‌‌variables:‌‌A,‌‌B‌‌and‌‌C‌‌suggest‌‌some‌‌form‌‌of‌‌systematic‌‌error.‌‌A=‌‌0.8‌‌suggesting‌‌
 

that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌dilation‌‌in‌‌the‌‌vertical‌‌component‌‌against‌‌the‌‌theoretical‌‌model.‌‌B‌‌is‌‌around‌‌1,‌‌therefore‌‌
 

there‌‌is‌‌no‌‌horizontal‌‌dilation‌‌(as‌‌it‌‌is‌‌multiplying).‌‌C‌‌is‌‌zero‌‌suggesting‌‌there‌‌is‌‌no‌‌vertical‌‌
 

translation.‌

 ‌

Graph‌‌3.1‌‌compares‌‌the‌‌theoretical‌‌(in‌‌red)‌‌and‌‌experimental‌‌(in‌‌black)‌‌curve,‌‌suggesting‌‌that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌
 

a‌‌lower‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌measured‌‌by‌‌the‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌when‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌initially,‌‌and‌‌higher‌‌at‌‌the‌‌
 

end.‌‌The‌‌theoretical‌‌curve‌‌is‌‌modeled‌‌using‌‌equation‌‌3.0‌‌without‌‌any‌‌variable‌‌modifiers.‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌
 15‌  ‌

Since‌‌the‌‌correlation‌‌of‌‌a‌‌curve‌‌does‌‌not‌‌present‌‌a‌‌relative‌‌relationship‌‌I‌‌applied‌‌a‌‌derivative‌‌form‌‌to‌‌
 
dR
show‌‌the‌‌relationship.‌‌In‌‌table‌‌3,‌‌the‌‌column,‌‌‘‌ dθ ’‌‌presents‌‌the‌‌calculated‌‌derivatives‌‌using‌‌a‌‌slope‌‌
 

method.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

In‌‌graph‌‌3.2‌‌the‌‌x-intercept‌‌after‌‌connecting‌‌the‌‌last‌‌negative‌‌value‌‌(55,‌‌-0.03)‌‌and‌‌the‌‌first‌‌positive‌‌
 

value‌‌(60,‌‌0.02)‌‌gives‌‌the‌‌the‌‌point‌‌(53,‌‌0),‌‌suggesting‌‌the‌‌lowest‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌value‌‌is‌‌at‌‌
 

around‌‌53°  .‌‌Before‌‌this‌‌point,‌‌all‌‌the‌‌values‌‌are‌‌in‌‌the‌‌negative‌‌quadrant‌‌(i.e‌‌x < 53 )‌‌suggesting‌‌a ‌‌

negative‌‌relationship‌‌between‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌and‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌before‌‌53°  .‌  ‌

After‌‌(53,‌‌0)‌‌the‌‌points‌‌are‌‌in‌‌the‌‌positive‌‌quadrant,‌‌(i.e‌‌x > 53 ),‌‌suggesting‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌

 

correlation‌‌between‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌and‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌after‌‌53°  .‌‌
   ‌

Additionally,‌‌the‌‌derivative‌‌magnitude‌‌above‌‌53°  is‌‌also‌‌greater‌‌than‌‌the‌‌magnitude‌‌below,‌‌suggesting‌‌
 

the‌‌magnitude‌‌of‌‌the‌‌positive‌‌correlation‌‌is‌‌greater‌‌than‌‌the‌‌negative.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 16‌  ‌

Evaluation‌  ‌

The‌‌data‌‌analysis‌‌suggests‌‌that‌‌the‌‌Brewster‌‌angle‌‌is‌‌53°  (θb = 53° )  as‌‌the‌‌lowest‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌

 

occurs‌‌at‌‌this‌‌incident‌‌angle.‌‌There‌‌is‌‌a‌‌negative‌‌relationship‌‌between‌‌the‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌and‌‌reflection‌‌
 

intensity‌‌before‌‌θb and‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌relationship‌‌after‌‌θb .‌‌Provided‌‌that‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌is‌‌filtered‌‌

 

through‌‌a‌‌polariser‌‌placed‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌surface.‌‌
   ‌

This‌‌answers‌‌the‌‌research‌‌question‌‌and‌‌validates‌‌my‌‌hypothesis‌‌being‌‌partially‌‌correct.‌‌In‌‌my‌‌
 

hypothesis‌‌I‌‌had‌‌predicted‌‌a‌‌similar‌‌relationship,‌‌however‌‌I‌‌had‌‌predicted‌‌θb to‌‌be‌‌at‌‌57° .   ‌

First‌‌I‌‌will‌‌discuss‌‌the‌‌scientific‌‌principle‌‌to‌‌back‌‌my‌‌data.‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌

 ‌

On‌‌the‌‌molecular‌‌level‌‌electrons‌‌oscillate,‌‌along‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌field,‌‌perpendicular‌‌to‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌  ‌

transverse‌‌electromagnetic‌‌(EM)‌‌wave‌‌-‌‌light.‌‌A‌‌dipole‌‌moment‌‌is‌‌created,‌‌creating‌‌dipole‌‌radiation‌‌
 

that‌‌is‌‌in‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌EM‌‌wave‌‌(Elbhari).‌‌Figure‌‌4.1‌‌illustrates‌‌this.‌  ‌

 ‌

Dielectric‌‌surfaces‌‌like‌‌glass‌‌have‌‌silica‌‌matrix‌‌composites‌‌which‌‌have‌‌molecules‌‌bound‌‌in‌‌a‌‌tight‌‌
 

matrix‌‌causing‌‌low‌‌emissivity‌‌and‌‌no‌‌conduction(Prasad).‌‌A‌‌dipole‌‌moment‌‌occurs‌‌when‌‌light‌‌is‌‌
 

incident‌‌on‌‌it,‌‌particularly‌‌because‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electric‌‌field‌‌of‌‌light.‌‌
   ‌
 17‌  ‌

 ‌

Figure‌‌4.2‌‌illustrates‌‌that,‌‌when‌‌light‌‌is‌‌incident‌‌on‌‌the‌‌surface‌‌at‌‌an‌‌angle‌‌that‌‌is‌n
‌ ot‌‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌
 

angle,‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌radiation‌‌lines‌‌up‌‌with‌‌the‌‌transmitted‌‌ray,‌‌and‌‌causes‌‌electron‌‌oscillation‌‌in‌‌the‌‌
 

direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌ray‌‌(figure‌‌4.2).‌‌The‌‌p‌‌arrow‌‌shows‌‌the‌‌E || ,‌‌the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌electron‌‌
 

oscillation.‌‌Since‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌vertical‌‌component‌‌of‌‌the‌‌E || ,‌‌there‌‌is‌‌some‌‌light‌‌that‌‌is‌‌sensed‌‌by‌‌the‌‌
 

light‌‌sensor,‌‌as‌‌suggested‌‌at‌θi < θb and‌‌θr > θb ‌in‌‌the‌‌experiment.‌‌However,‌‌this‌‌does‌‌not‌‌work‌‌with‌ 

surfaces‌‌that‌‌conduct‌‌electricity‌‌as‌‌the‌‌dipole‌‌radiation‌‌causes‌‌multiple‌‌electrons,‌‌due‌‌to‌‌the‌‌nature‌‌of‌‌
 

a‌‌conductive‌‌material,‌‌to‌‌oscillate‌‌the‌‌negative‌‌electron‌‌to‌‌generate‌‌reflection.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

When‌‌the‌‌angle‌‌between‌‌the‌‌reflected‌‌ray‌‌(r)‌‌and‌‌and‌‌transmitted‌‌ray‌‌(t)‌‌is‌‌90° the‌‌direction‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
 

dipole‌‌radiation‌‌and‌‌electron‌‌oscillation‌‌is‌‌also‌‌90° .  This‌‌causes‌‌no‌‌electron‌‌to‌‌oscillate‌‌along‌‌the‌‌E r||  ‌

component‌‌resulting‌‌in‌‌no‌‌intensity‌‌measured‌‌by‌‌the‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌at‌‌θb .   ‌
 18‌  ‌

 ‌

Figure‌‌4.4‌‌shows‌‌specular‌‌reflection‌‌causing‌‌most‌‌of‌‌the‌‌light‌‌to‌‌be‌‌reflected‌‌and‌‌diffuse‌‌causing‌‌very‌‌
 

little,‌‌at‌‌the‌‌cost‌‌of‌‌diffusion‌‌or‌‌scattering.‌‌Perhaps,‌‌this‌‌occurred‌‌during‌‌the‌‌experiment‌‌as‌‌the‌‌glass‌‌
 

blocks‌‌used‌‌had‌‌scratches‌‌and‌‌were‌‌not‌‌totally‌‌smooth.‌‌This‌‌provides‌‌a‌‌reason‌‌for‌‌the‌‌0.8‌‌value‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
 

vertical‌‌modifier‌‌‘A’‌‌as‌‌discussed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌data‌‌analysis.‌‌This‌‌caused‌‌a‌‌systematic‌‌error‌‌in‌‌the‌‌
 

experiment.‌‌
   ‌

In‌‌addition‌‌to‌‌this,‌‌two‌‌reflections‌‌occurred,‌‌one‌‌between‌‌the‌‌air‌‌and‌‌the‌‌glass‌‌and‌‌another‌‌inside‌‌the‌‌
 

glass‌‌and‌‌air.‌‌This‌‌caused‌‌two‌‌reflected‌‌points‌‌and‌‌might‌‌have‌‌caused‌‌random‌‌error‌‌during‌‌the‌‌trials.‌‌
 

This‌‌might‌‌have‌‌occurred‌‌in‌‌the‌‌last‌‌trial‌‌causing‌‌high‌‌measurement‌‌uncertainty‌‌resulting‌‌in‌‌high‌‌error‌‌
 

bars,‌‌as‌‌mistakenly‌‌the‌‌other‌‌reflection‌‌point‌‌was‌‌measured.‌  ‌

Another‌‌systematic‌‌error‌‌could‌‌have‌‌occurred‌‌if‌‌the‌‌polariser‌‌was‌‌not‌‌placed‌‌perfectly‌‌perpendicular‌‌
 

to‌‌the‌‌dielectric‌‌surface.‌‌An‌‌angle‌‌would‌‌have‌‌caused‌‌the‌‌E || field‌‌to‌‌approach‌‌the‌‌polarizer‌‌at‌‌a ‌‌

different‌‌angle‌‌resulting‌‌in‌‌a‌‌horizontal‌‌translation‌‌of‌‌the‌‌data‌‌or‌‌curve.‌‌This‌‌is‌‌something‌‌difficult‌‌to‌‌
 

analyse‌‌because‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌recorded‌‌was‌‌zero‌‌at‌‌three‌‌different‌‌points.‌‌Additionally,‌‌the‌‌light‌‌sensor‌‌
 

did‌‌not‌‌record‌‌data‌‌over‌‌1‌‌decimal‌‌point‌‌which‌‌caused‌‌the‌‌data‌‌to‌‌be‌‌limited‌‌with‌‌high‌‌percentage‌‌
 

uncertainty‌‌as‌‌the‌‌measurement‌‌uncertainties‌‌were‌‌close‌‌to‌‌the‌‌data‌‌collected‌‌itself.‌‌
   ‌

Additionally,‌‌had‌‌I‌‌opted‌‌for‌‌2°  increments,‌‌which‌‌would‌‌have‌‌been‌‌rather‌‌difficult‌‌(as‌‌compare‌‌to‌‌5°  

)‌‌it‌‌would‌‌have‌‌increased‌‌the‌‌accuracy‌‌of‌‌the‌‌data.‌‌This‌‌would‌‌also‌‌have‌‌compensated‌‌for‌‌the‌‌sensor‌‌
 

limitations,‌‌reducing‌‌random‌‌error.‌‌As‌‌this‌‌would‌‌be‌‌difficult,‌‌this‌‌could‌‌have‌‌been‌‌done‌‌at‌‌the‌‌
 

predicted‌‌domain‌‌of‌‌50° −  60°  .‌‌   ‌

 19‌  ‌

Conclusion:‌  ‌

This‌‌experiment‌‌answers‌‌the‌‌research‌‌question‌‌suggesting‌‌that‌‌there‌‌is‌‌a‌‌decrease‌‌in‌‌reflection‌‌
 

intensity‌‌before‌‌53• , ‌and‌‌an‌‌increase‌‌after.‌‌The‌‌relationship‌‌between‌‌the‌‌independent‌‌incident‌‌angle,‌‌
 

θ1 and‌‌dependent‌‌reflection‌‌intensity,‌‌Ri ‌can‌‌be‌‌defined‌‌using‌‌the‌‌equation:‌‌
   ‌

tan(θ −θ )
Ri = ( tan(θ1 +θ 3) )2   ‌
1 3

Where,‌‌θ3 ‌is‌‌the‌‌refracted‌‌angle‌‌and‌‌can‌‌be‌‌computed‌‌using‌‌Snell's‌‌law.‌‌It‌‌will‌‌be‌‌wise‌‌not‌‌to‌‌
 

implement‌‌it‌‌directly‌‌because‌‌the‌‌refractive‌‌index‌‌changes‌‌with‌‌medium‌‌and‌‌Snell's‌‌law‌‌constitutes‌‌it.‌   ‌ ‌

 ‌

Overall‌‌this‌‌experiment‌‌suggests‌‌the‌‌lowest‌‌intensity‌‌is‌‌near‌‌53• ,‌‌meaning‌‌that‌‌if‌‌one‌‌has‌‌to‌‌take‌‌
 

pictures‌‌of‌‌glass‌‌buildings‌‌or‌‌water‌‌bodies‌‌it‌‌is‌‌advisable‌‌to‌‌take‌‌the‌‌picture‌‌at‌‌this‌‌angle.‌‌This‌‌would‌‌
 

help‌‌decrease‌‌the‌‌glare‌‌or‌‌the‌‌brightness‌‌in‌‌the‌‌picture‌‌and‌‌give‌‌better‌‌results.‌‌Additionally,‌‌from‌‌the‌‌
 

evaluation,‌‌one‌‌could‌‌also‌‌focus‌‌the‌‌camera‌‌at‌‌an‌‌incident‌‌angle‌‌less‌‌than‌‌53• from‌‌the‌‌normal‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
 

water‌‌body‌‌as‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌intensity‌‌there‌‌is‌‌also‌‌low.‌‌However,‌‌it‌‌won't‌‌be‌‌advisable‌‌to‌‌go‌‌above‌‌this‌‌
 

angle‌‌as‌‌the‌‌polariser‌‌will‌‌not‌‌be‌‌effective,‌‌because‌‌from‌‌the‌‌evaluation‌‌we‌‌know‌‌that‌‌the‌‌reflection‌‌
 

intensity‌‌increases‌‌above‌‌this‌‌angle.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

There‌‌are‌‌multiple‌‌limitations‌‌to‌‌this‌‌solution‌‌as‌‌the‌‌brewster‌‌angle‌‌is‌‌dependent‌‌on‌‌the‌‌refractive‌‌
 

index‌‌of‌‌the‌‌surface‌‌which‌‌changes‌‌with‌‌different‌‌surfaces,‌‌and‌‌the‌‌surface‌‌itself‌‌needs‌‌to‌‌be‌‌a ‌‌

dielectric.‌‌Therefore,‌‌using‌‌a‌‌polariser‌‌may‌‌not‌‌be‌‌effective‌‌while‌‌taking‌‌pictures‌‌of‌‌metallic‌‌surfaces.‌‌
 

In‌‌addition‌‌to‌‌that‌‌the‌‌experiment‌‌itself‌‌had‌‌many‌‌limitations‌‌in‌‌research‌‌due‌‌to‌‌low‌‌precision‌‌of‌‌the‌‌
 

light‌‌sensor,‌‌systematic‌‌and‌‌random‌‌errors,‌‌as‌‌discussed‌‌in‌‌the‌‌evaluation.‌‌This‌‌might‌‌deviate‌‌the‌‌
 

lowest‌‌angle‌‌quite‌‌a‌‌bit.‌‌However,‌‌the‌‌strength‌‌in‌‌this‌‌essay‌‌was‌‌its‌‌closeness‌‌to‌‌the‌‌theoretical‌‌
 

predictions‌‌and‌‌curves.‌‌In‌‌addition‌‌to‌‌that,‌‌the‌‌sources‌‌used‌‌throughout‌‌the‌‌essay‌‌to‌‌build‌‌its‌‌scientific‌‌
 

knowledge‌‌were‌‌well‌‌known,‌‌such‌‌as‌‌Fresnel's‌‌equation‌‌and‌‌the‌‌famous‌‌Optics‌‌book‌‌by‌‌Eugene.‌‌
   ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 20‌  ‌

Works‌‌Cited‌  ‌

Dominguez,‌‌Ramon‌‌Paniagua,‌‌et‌‌al.‌‌"Generalized‌‌Brewster‌‌Effect‌‌in‌‌Dielectric‌‌ 

Metasurfaces."‌N
‌ ature.com‌,‌‌nature,‌‌19‌‌Jan.‌‌2016,‌‌ 

www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10362.pdf?origin=ppub.‌  ‌

DrPhysicsA,‌‌performer.‌F
‌ resnel‌‌Equations:‌‌Deriving‌‌the‌‌Equations‌.‌‌Youtube.com,‌‌2013.‌  ‌

Elbahri,‌‌Mady.‌‌"Photoswitchable‌‌molecular‌‌dipole‌‌antennas‌‌with‌‌tailored‌‌coherent‌‌coupling‌ 

in‌‌glassy‌‌composite."‌N
‌ ature‌.‌‌Nature.comm‌,‌‌https://doi.org/10.1038/lsa.2015.89.‌‌ 

Accessed‌‌July‌‌2015.‌  ‌

Elert,‌‌Glenn.‌‌"The‌‌Physics‌‌Hypertextbook."‌P
‌ hysics.info‌,‌‌Opus‌‌in‌‌Profectus,‌‌ 

physics.info/intensity/.‌  ‌

Feynman,‌‌Richard.‌‌"Polarization."‌‌California‌‌Institute‌‌of‌‌Technology,‌‌1952,‌‌California,‌‌US.‌‌ 

Lecture.‌  ‌

Gregersen,‌‌Erik,‌‌editor.‌‌"Brewster's‌‌Law."‌‌Encyclopedia‌‌Britannica‌,‌‌Britannica,‌‌26‌‌Oct.‌‌2016,‌‌ 

www.britannica.com/science/Brewsters-law.‌  ‌

Hecht,‌‌Eugene.‌O
‌ ptics‌.‌‌Estados‌‌Unidos,‌‌Addison‌‌Wesley,‌‌2002.‌  ‌

Lewin,‌‌Walter,‌‌performer.‌8‌ .03‌‌-‌‌Lect‌‌18‌‌-‌‌Index‌‌of‌‌Refraction,‌‌Reflection,‌‌Fresnel‌‌Equations,‌‌ 

Brewster‌‌Angle‌.‌‌Youtube,‌‌2015.‌‌Youtube.com‌,‌‌ 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D1z6t2z168&ab_channel=LecturesbyWalterLewin.The‌

ywillmakeyou%E2%99%A5Physics.‌‌Accessed‌‌11‌‌Feb.‌‌2015.‌  ‌

Lumen.‌‌"The‌‌Electric‌‌Field‌‌Revisited."‌‌Lumenlearning.com‌,‌‌ 

courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-physics/chapter/the-electric-field-revisited/.‌  ‌

MIT‌‌OpenCourseWare,‌‌editor.‌‌"Boundary‌‌conditions‌‌for‌‌electromagnetic‌‌fields."‌‌ 

Libretexts.org‌,‌‌20‌‌Jan.‌‌2021,‌‌ 

phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Electricity_and_Magnetism/Book%3A_Electromagn‌
 21‌  ‌

etics_and_Applications_(Staelin)/02%3A_Introduction_to_Electrodynamics/2.06%3‌

A_Boundary_conditions_for_electromagnetic_fields.‌  ‌

Nabighian,‌‌Misac‌‌N.‌‌"Electromagnetic‌‌Theory‌‌for‌‌Geophysical‌‌Application."‌‌Theory‌,‌‌Tulsa,‌‌ 

Society‌‌of‌‌Exploration‌‌Geophysicists,‌‌1988,‌‌pp.‌‌147-90.‌  ‌

Narayan,‌‌Eswara‌‌Prasad,‌‌et‌‌al.‌A
‌ erospace‌‌Materials‌‌and‌‌Material‌‌Technologies:‌‌Aerospace‌‌ 

Materials‌.‌‌Place‌‌of‌‌publication‌‌not‌‌identified,‌‌Springer,‌‌2016.‌  ‌

Shestopaloff,‌‌Yuri‌‌K.‌‌"Polarization‌‌Invariants."‌‌SegmentSoft‌‌Research‌,‌‌3‌‌Oct.‌‌2011.‌‌ 

Polarization‌‌invariants‌‌and‌‌retrieval‌‌of‌‌surface‌‌parameters‌‌using‌‌polarization‌‌ 

measurements‌‌in‌‌remote‌‌sensing‌‌applications.‌  ‌

Tick‌‌Links,‌‌performer.‌E
‌ nergy,‌‌Power‌‌and‌‌Intensity‌‌of‌‌Waves‌.‌‌Youtube,‌‌2016.‌  ‌

Tsokos,‌‌K.‌‌A.‌P
‌ hysics‌‌for‌‌the‌‌IB‌‌Diploma:‌‌Exam‌‌Preparation‌‌Guide‌.‌‌2nd‌‌ed.,‌‌Cambridge,‌‌
 

Cambridge‌‌UP,‌‌2016.‌  ‌

University‌‌of‌‌Kiel.‌‌"Fresnel‌‌Equations."‌‌Tf.uni-kiel.de‌,‌‌University‌‌of‌‌Kiel,‌‌ 

www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/admat_en/kap_5/backbone/r5_2_2.html.‌  ‌

Vernier.‌‌"How‌‌do‌‌you‌‌calculate‌‌linear‌‌fits‌‌in‌‌Logger‌‌Pro."‌H
‌ ow‌‌do‌‌you‌‌calculate‌‌linear‌‌fits‌‌in‌‌ 

Logger‌‌Pro‌,‌‌Vernier.com,‌‌18‌‌Mar.‌‌2020,‌‌www.vernier.com/til/1869.‌  ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌

 ‌
 22‌  ‌

Appendix‌‌A ‌ ‌

Appendix‌‌A:‌‌Experimental‌‌Results‌  ‌

°
Angle‌‌(‌ )‌
   ‌ Reflection‌‌Intensity‌‌(lx)‌‌-‌‌Trails‌  ‌ Average‌‌Intensity‌‌
  Uncertainty‌‌(±)‌  ‌

(lx)‌  ‌
1‌  ‌ 2‌  ‌ 3‌  ‌ 4‌  ‌ 5‌  ‌

15‌  ‌ 2.0‌  ‌ 2.4‌  ‌ 1.8‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 2.0‌  ‌ 2.0‌  ‌ 0.4‌  ‌

20‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 1.8‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 1.5‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 1.7‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌

25‌  ‌ 1.5‌  ‌ 1.2‌  ‌ 1.4‌  ‌ 1.3‌  ‌ 1.4‌  ‌ 1.4‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌

30‌  ‌ 1.2‌  ‌ 1.3‌  ‌ 1.1‌  ‌ 0.9‌  ‌ 1.3‌  ‌ 1.2‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌

35‌  ‌ 0.9‌  ‌ 1.1‌  ‌ 0.9‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 1.1‌  ‌ 1.0‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌

40‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 1.0‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌

45‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 0.6‌  ‌ 0.1‌  ‌ 0.2‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌

50‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌

55‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌

60‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌ 0.0‌  ‌

65‌  ‌ 0.7‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌ 0.9‌  ‌ 0.6‌  ‌ 0.6‌  ‌ 0.3‌  ‌

70‌  ‌ 3.1‌  ‌ 2.4‌  ‌ 2.1‌  ‌ 2.5‌  ‌ 3.1‌  ‌ 2.6‌  ‌ 0.5‌  ‌

75‌  ‌ 6.5‌  ‌ 6.7‌  ‌ 6.5‌  ‌ 5.7‌  ‌ 8.6‌  ‌ 6.8‌  ‌ 1.9‌  ‌

80‌  ‌ 14.7‌  ‌ 9.4‌  ‌ 13.9‌  ‌ 16.2‌  ‌ 14.5‌  ‌ 13.7‌  ‌ 4.5‌  ‌

 ‌