Question

I have a doubt in optics.
Where am I wrong?
When fish sees out of a pond,the bird appears at an apparent height which is greater than the real height,so it is always fooled by Refraction..so bird comes very near and fish still thinks its far away,and gets eaten.
But I don't agree with this,refraction should also happen with the bird..the bird should also see the fish at a higher height than the actual..so how does it get eaten in the end?

Answer 1

This video is actually the video lecture for my class. I'm not too good with explaining optics so hopefully this helps. Go to 12:33.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8PtyT5p-w&list=PLEgv6Adh3sJC-HztacmZMM5fB04XUmzH0

Answer 2

I am not talking about TIR here..just simple real depth apparent depth concept..:O

Answer 3

I wasn't talking about total internal reflection either. At that specific time there is an example of a fish in water.

Answer 4

didn't answer my question tbh. :|

Answer 5

I have one answer as of now which is satisfactory to certain level but don't know if its 100% correct or not.
"Birds are hunters therefore they know about Refraction phenomenon".

Answer 6

hmm, sorry then.
Wasn't that good with optics.

However my prof. did explain a more, I guess you could say, "real-life" application of eyes.

Hunters all have their eyes in front of their head. Prey are on the side. I know that's more of a tangent to your question than anything else but meh.

Answer 7

Birds dive straight into the water like a pelican or catch a fish on the surface like an Eagle thus no refraction. You wont see a bird catching a fish deep enough where refraction can occur. Some birds like flamingos wade into very shallow water and look straight down but in all cases the fish isn't deep enough for refraction to occur. But that was a very good question. I certainly enjoyed the response "Birds know about refraction"

Answer 8

@INeedHelpPlease?
The situation of bird and fish is not symmetrical.
Note that water is optically denser that air.

"When fish sees out of a pond,the bird appears at an apparent height which is greater than the real height..."

The analogous analysis for the bird would be - "the fish appears closer than it really is"

This ^^ can be proved using simple mathematics, take the initiative (if you want to) and I'll assist you along the way. :)

Answer 9

@Mashy

Answer 10

bcz it depends on the angle birds are at the top they see from a 90 degree which did not cause refraction......that's what i have and due to refraction if it happens with the bird the fish seems higher it's apparant depth seems less than it's actual depth,,,

Answer 11

in this case both the bird and the fish are happy because acc to fish the bird is far away and acc to the bird the fish is near to him and all that happens before the dive....after the bird dives.... it will be easier for the bird to eat the fish because it is near

Answer 12

As per attachment.

Answer 13

The fish appears NEARER, just like how the base of a bucket filled with water appears to be..

i really don't think these refraction phenomena matter here, cause when the bird comes very close to the water, and the fishes we are talking about are very near to the surface of the water, the refraction effects are too small and totally negligible..

Answer 14

if i help u then u help me. K?

Answer 15

A cunning bird will dive perpendicular to the water surface to hit the fish directly below, making refraction not an issue. Whether or not they do that I do not know.

Answer 16

Let's start a diving experiment..Any volunteers ?? :P