/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11683838
Just somehow connect it back to "green energy" or "climate change" or some other bullshit woke science term and I guarantee you'll win. Simple as

>>11683843
ngl I would love to party with these people, looks fun

>>11683970

>>11683838
you can try to produce sonoluminescence. all you need is a tunable acoustic frequency generator (speaker), a carefully-made acrylic shell, and de-gassed water which you can make yourself with a vacuum pump. you could probably just buy a kit and make it seem like you made it, either to use this or to see how it work for your own setup.

the outline is like this: fill an acrylic cube/rectangular prism with the degassed water, apply the acoustic vibrations, and tune them around the value where you'd expect to see sonoluminescence at the center.

you'd need to do a separable differential equations calculation to solve for the antinodes of the 3D wave equation (which is where the bubble would appear), but you could learn this or simply look up a solution online.

if done correctly, just by applying a constant sound wave to the cube, you would produce a very faint light at the center. you'd definitely have to block out all background light because it's so faint, but it's possible to photograph (I did this in undergrad).

while it's not exactly "visually appealing" in the sense that it's pretty to look at, it's definitely appealing in the sense that it's a cool thing that you're even able to see. you're witnessing light that's produced by the rapid creation and compression of a gas bubble inside the water. the phenomenon is not even fully understood, which you could stress in the project.

an extension could be to try and analyze the color of the light produced to see if you can determine the equivalent wavelength of light that's produced in the bubble.

I have a photo of when I did this, I could try and dig it up if this sounded remotely interesting.

also, forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I don't see how your experiment would give you the refractive index. if you're calculating it from [math]n=\sqrt{\epsilon_r \mu_r}[/math], and using the permittivity that you get from the capicator, you're still missing the relative permeability. unless you just assume it to be ~1, which is fair.

however, you could also get the refractive index without the capicator by just measuring the reflectance of incident laser light and using the fresnel equations.