You are on page 1of 7

Youngs Double-Slit Experiment

Sarang Gupta, Milad Nabizada, Hanad Sharmarke SPH 4U Mr. Gorlick July. 20, 2012

SPH 4U

INTRODUCTION
Part 1: 1) Experiment introduction, Purpose The experiment that will be done to investigate Youngs famous, groundbreaking double-slit experiment includes the use of a helium neon laser as a light source, instead of the sun, as Young used. Along with the intense monochromatic light source, we will have pre-prepared double-slit slates with a known distance to make the experiment much easier than Youngs, who needed to use two pinholes in a piece of paper. By observing the phenomena of interference of the laser due to the double-slit, we will attempt to determine the wavelength of the light source by applying a known equation to measurements that will be taken in the lab. Then these trials will be compared to the actual value of the lasers wavelength. Purpose: to determine if the double-slit interference pattern is consistent with the wave theory of light. To observe both qualitatively and quantitatively two-dimensional interference patterns of light waves on a blank screen. To use a theoretical light equation to determine the wavelength of the light source and compare it to an actual value.

2) Societal relevance As described in many physics experiments, it is not a science that is confined to only a specific set of apparatus. The fundamentals of physics, and in this case, of interference patterns of waves, can be applied to many real life applications. Radio waves, as a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, can also undergo either constructive or destructive interference. In todays society, the most used type of waves from the spectrum during an average day (after visible light) is the low-frequency, lengthy radio waves. Interference of waves especially occurs in television broadcast signals, using an antenna to take in signals. The sun causes many interference problems, which has a very large electromagnetic field. Because of this, people are switching to satellite or cable, which use coaxial cables, being much less susceptible to interference. Although one cannot visually observe these interference patterns on an 1 average day, the phenomena still occurs and it is important to understand its effects on human society. Sometimes in our society it is important for destructive interference to occur. With the correct measurements and types of waves, scientists can cause destructive interference, and waves will cancel each other out. This works similarly in both sound waves and light waves. In some applications, sound needs to be canceled, such as in a car muffler. A car muffler would produce another sound that is out of phase with exhaust sound. Because they are out of phase, the two waves interfere destructively, which ends up cancelling the two waves. This phenomena shows the wide range of possibilities of a wave, either being a sound wave or a light wave. With this experiment, we saw both destructive (nodal points) 2 and constructive interference.
1

"Real-life applications - Interference."Science Clarified. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 July 2012. <http://www.scienceclarified.com/everyday/Real-Life-Physics-Vol-2/Interference-Real-lifeapplications.html#b>.
2

David, Isaiah. "How Mufflers Work | eHow.com." eHow | How to Videos, Articles & More - Discover the expert in you. eHow.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 July 2012. <http://www.ehow.com/howdoes_5364999_mufflers-work.html>.

SPH 4U

Part 2: 3) Hypothesis and predictions, calculation readiness Hypothesis: The wavelength of the light source should be 650 nm, as given by the manufacturer of the laser. Because it is the manufacturers established value, with an uncertainty of 10 nm, it can be considered to be our prediction for the experiment. However, we predict that the wavelength that we come up with after measuring various lengths and doing some calculations, will not be exactly 650 nm long. This is because of various sources of error that hinder the possibility of obtaining flawless results. Because of these, the experimental wavelength of the light source that is shown on the screen will not turn out to having the exact wavelength of the laser. Asides from the accuracy of the results, we believe that a wavelength near to the actual one can be found using the theoretical relationship for a two-point interference pattern. This prediction should come close to the actual value, if the experiment goes well. 4) Methods used to measure the predicted outcomes The hypothesized results will imminently be compared to the actual wavelength of the laser, which is 65010nm. Before we can get to this point, the set up of the laser and the double-slit must be done with low error. That is to say, there should be a low uncertainty when measuring the length, L, from the laser to the screen, and more importantly when measuring xtotal on the screen from the interference points. With the laser set up, the double slit must be placed steadily so that it does not move while the light source goes through it. When the light goes through the double slit, we should observe on the blank screen 3.0 m away an interference pattern. These patterns should be different for different separation distances, d, we use. In any case, when the array of points comes onto the screen, the number of fringes will be counted along with the length of the number, starting from zero. To get x, we can simply divide the number of fringes by the total x to get the distance between each fringe. The reason why we measured the distance between more than one nodal line is because it is more accurate and less uncertainty when measuring smaller distances. Now that we have all the known variables for the following mathematical relationship, we can determine the wavelength, , of the light source.

L = 3.0m, d = given on the reference sheet for the double-slit, x = measured

All calculations will be done in millimeters, and then the wavelength will be converted to nanometers to compare it to the actual value. With this done for each type of double-slit, we will obtain four different wavelengths for the light source. They should be different because of various sources of systematic and human error. The different doubleslit separations we will be using are (in mm): d = 0.132, 0.176, 0.35, and 0.70. The average will then be calculated of all four wavelengths and that should be our final wavelength that can be analyzed with the actual value of 650nm.

SPH 4U

MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE Materials Solid state laser diode (650nm) Multiple-slit plate Meter stick Plain white paper Rectangular box Tape Textbook (as a support) Book (as a support) Slit plate reference sheet with data on the distance between pairs of slits being used. Procedure 1. Stick the plain white paper on the rectangular box with tape so that it is flat and smooth. This will be the screen on which the laser will be pointed at. 2. On a long flat surface measure 3.0 metres (your L value) and mark the beginning and end of this distance on the surface with a pencil. 3. On one end of the distance place the screen made in step 1 and on the other end the slit plate. 4. Use the textbook to prop the laser up and the book to prop the slit plate up. Note, the slit plate will be held during the experiment, not on its own as it cannot remain upright. 5. Shine the laser through the double slits with the following d values: 0.132, 0.176, 0.35, and 0.70. Check these from the reference sheet to see which slit on the slit plate corresponds to the distances. Record these in the Data collection table. 6. For each different pair of double slits on the screen there will be an interference pattern visible. Mark 8 bright fringes on the screen, starting at 0. 7. Measure the distance from fringe 0 to fringe 8. Record this on the Data Collection table as xT. Divide this value by the number of fringes that were counted (8) on the screen. This will give you x, which is the distance between the adjacent nodal lines on the screen. 8. Be sure to erase the marks you made in step 6 after you are done with each pair of slits in order to avoid confusing them with each other. 9. Use the mathematical relationship x/L = /d to calculate the wavelength of the laser being used by substituting all determined variables from Data collection table. 10. Compare the value of the given wavelength of the laser (written on the laser) with the experimental value that was calculated by performing an error analysis. RESULTS/OBSERVATIONS Data Collection Slit spacing, d (mm) 0.132 0.176 0.35 0.70 Table 1: Collection of data Length, L (m) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 xT, (mm) 106 95 43 24 Number of fringes (0-n) 8 8 8 8

Figure 1: Experiment set-up.

SPH 4U

DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION To determine the wavelength, , of the laser, we used the following mathematical relationship:

Where, x is the distance between adjacent nodal lines on the screen, d is the separation of the slits, L is the perpendicular distance from the slits to the screen, and is the wavelength of the wave. Note: The following calculations show the wavelength being determined for one double-slit separation value only; the rest are attached on a sheet called, Double-Slit Experiment Calculations. This can be found at the back. These calculations are done for the double slit where d = 0.132 mm. d = 0.132 mm L = 3.0 m = 3000mm xT = 106 mm # of fringes = 8 ?

x x x

= =

= 13.25 mm

= 5.83 x 10-4 mm

5.83 x 10 mm x 10 = 583 nm. the wavelength of the wave using d = 0.132mm is approximately 583 nm.

-4

Experiment

Separation between double slit, d (mm)

x (mm)

Wavelength, (nm)

Average wavelength (nm)

SPH 4U

1 2 3 4

0.132 0.176 0.35 0.70

13.25 11.875 5.375 3

583 697 627 700

652

Table 2: Analysis of results; determining wavelengths Analysis a) Compare the average results for the wavelength of the light source with the known value and calculate the experimental error. As shown on the calculation sheet attached at the back and in Table 2, the average wavelength was calculated to be approximately 652 nm for all four experiments of different double slits. The actual wavelength is 650 10 nm. The results experimental wavelength, as you can see, is very close to the actual result. With the uncertainty on the laser of plus/minus 10 nm, our result becomes even more accurate as it lies within that uncertainty range. The percentage error was calculated to be approximately 0.31%, which is almost close to 100% accuracy. However, the precision error is calculated to be 9 %. This means that our range, from 583nm to 700nm, was very large. The data points we obtained were not very precise, as they were scattered over a large data range. This means that there were certain sources of error when taking measurements for each particular double-slit experiment, which will be described in the next step. Evaluation a) What are the factors that contribute to the error in the measurement of the wavelength of the laser light? By analyzing both the experimental and the precision errors, it appears that there were not many systematic errors that hindered our overall result. The average wavelength of all the experiments with the different double slits turned out to be very close to the actual value, with an error of only 0.31%. Our experimental value fits well with the actual result due to its uncertainty of 10 nm, which means that the actual wavelength could have been anywhere from 640 to 660 nm, which encompasses our experimental result comfortably. However, because the precision error seems to stand out, there were probably errors that were involved when taking results from each double-slit experiment that occurred for one, but not the other. Since they were not consistently high or consistently low, but rather scattered across the actual value, the error would not have been a part of all the experiments alike. Each experiment would have had its unique sources of error that caused the value to be too high or too low. For example, in the 0.176 mm double-slit separation, the measurements taken for x may not have been as accurate as possible due to the blurriness of the points on the screen. This would have made it harder for one of us to measure the distance between 8 fringes. The same goes for if the fringes are too small and not spread out at a large enough distance to measure accurately with less uncertainty. Another source of error was the unbalanced hold on the double-slit plate. Because taking measurement of the distance on the screen takes a while to do, it can start to become difficult when it comes to holding the plate evenly steady for that much time. Movements of the plate may have

SPH 4U caused a difference in the x value between the 8 fringes on the screen, which would have led to a lower or higher distance value than actually expected. b) Are there methods that you might use to reduce error, given that the wavelength of the laser light is known to at least four significant figures? One method that can be used to reduce error is the improvement of the equipment. The double slit was required to be held in ones hand while the experiment was being done. This had to be done steadily for a long time so that the measurements can be taken on the screen. Instead of holding the double slit, one can somehow combine it with the laser system, so that it can be stable while the light source goes through. This can be put on top of the laser, while overhanging down in front of it as sort of a visor on a hockey helmet. We predict that the wavelength can be more precise that way since the laser beam would not move around as much thus reducing error while calculating the x value. Moreover, with more time we could have moved the screen even farther back to see if the laser effects of interference showed better if it were farther away. We could have also taken more trials. Having more results could lead to a better precision analysis which could determine whether or not the results are consistent in relation to the actual value. If the wavelength of the laser is known to four significant figures then we would have to measure x and the length, L, with a better precision ruler. This would lower the uncertainty in our calculations and can lead us to a better result with four significant figures. Conclusion In general, Youngs experiment was conducted as planned. Our predictions were correct, that one is able to determine, using mathematical relationships, the wavelength of a wave. The question that was found in the purpose: is the double slit interference pattern consistent with the wave theory of light? was also able to be answered. According to our calculations and the low error, the interference patterns are consistent with the wave theory of light. Our hypothesis was correct in that we stated that the predicted wavelength should be approximately 650nm long and that the wavelength was possible to be determined only by a simple experiment by experimentally obtaining three of the four unknown variables. Not only did we quantitatively measure the lengths of various unknowns, the effects of wave interference were shown on the screen; the middle line was the most intense, and the farther lines were less. This conduction of Youngs more complex double-slit experiment still conveys the idea of determining accurate wavelengths by observation and by using a common mathematical relationship of two dimensional interference of waves.

You might also like