Young's double slit experiment (prob density)

Broken]As I said before, there is no need to relate the probability density to the interference pattern. The question simply asks you to derive the fringe separation using the results obtained in part (a). This can be done without using the probability density.In summary, the conversation is about a problem involving finding the probability density at point D and relating it to the interference maxima equation. The conversation covers steps for finding the probability density and how it is related to the interference equation. The final solution involves deriving the fringe separation without using the probability density.
  • #1
t_n_p
595
0

Homework Statement



http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1395/40941671kx8.jpg [Broken]
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/982/82443157pt9.jpg [Broken]

Homework Equations



http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4523/60192566ie7.jpg [Broken]

The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not sure where to start with this one. I've searched through textbooks and the internet and have not found anything that helps me remotely show the Pr density at D. Would appreciate it if someone could give me a start and help guide me through.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
One could start by finding the difference in path lengths between the 1D and 2D
 
  • #3
I can't see how. Both paths seem to travel the same length in the first two sections and differ in the third section. I can't see how you can quantitatively evaulate distance though..
 
  • #4
bump?
 
  • #5
up to the top.

I still need help on this one!
 
  • #6
Hi t_n_p,

Sorry I completely missed your post, you should have PM'd me. After re-reading the question, it is a lot simpler than it first seems. Notice that the second wavefunction is given in terms of the phase difference, in other words, you are already given the difference in phase between the two waves so there no need to calculate the difference in path.

All you need to do is superimpose the two wavefunctions and then find the probability density.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Sorry didn't want to bug you via PM!

You say superimpose, so I want to add wavefunction 1 to wavefunction 2? I don't really understand where to go from here on...
 
  • #8
t_n_p said:
Sorry didn't want to bug you via PM!

You say superimpose, so I want to add wavefunction 1 to wavefunction 2? I don't really understand where to go from here on...
Correct, so

[tex]\psi_1+\psi_2 = A+Ae^{i\phi} = A\left(1+e^{i\phi}\right)[/tex]

And,

[tex]P = \left(\psi_1+\psi_2\right)\overline{\left(\psi_1+\psi_2\right)}[/tex]

(multiplication by the complex conjugate).
 
  • #9
Is that P, supposed to be "roh" the symbol for probabilty density?
 
  • #10
t_n_p said:
Is that P, supposed to be "roh" the symbol for probabilty density?
Yes, P is the probability density.
 
  • #11
what's with that bar over the second bracketed term?
Anyhow, where does the cos come in?

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5425/75948148ho4.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
t_n_p said:
what's with that bar over the second bracketed term?
The bar represents the complex conjugate of the bracket, as I said previously.
t_n_p said:
Anyhow, where does the cos come in?
You can write the solution in terms of real cosine as opposed to complex exponentials.
t_n_p said:
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5425/75948148ho4.jpg [Broken]
[/URL]
No, that isn't correct you multiply the original wavefunction by the complex conjugate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
my bad, somehow missed that...

complex conjugate = A - Ae^(-iφ)?

then
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/6237/29152244fb6.jpg [Broken]

my gut feeling tells me I'm wrong because I can't see how I can extract any form of those 2 relevant equations in the original post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
t_n_p said:
complex conjugate = A - Ae^(-iφ)?
Not quite, complex conjugation means that you only reverse the sign of the imaginary part,

[tex]\overline{\psi_1+\psi_2} = A\left(1+e^{-i\varphi}\right)[/tex]
 
  • #15
Of course, I should have known.

So using that conjugate above and expanding gives me..
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/2008/36482179rk6.jpg [Broken]

Now I can see how I can covert the middle term into a cos term to give me the equation below (using the relevant formula given in the original post), but I'm unsure how to proceed with the last term..
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/1821/38229117kb9.jpg [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Correct. It may be useful to note that,

[tex]e^{-a}\cdot e^a = e^{-a+a} = e^0 = 1 \hspace{1cm}\forall a[/tex]
 
  • #17
lol, sometimes I look past the easy things...

my only issue now, is that I have
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9929/60512908gp9.jpg [Broken]

and the formula states
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/1535/94298372xw7.jpg [Broken]

the only difference having my cos term as cos (φ) and the formula stating cos (2φ). Is it possible to simply halve only the 2φ term?

Also I noticed that A is an absolute value, so should my values of A that appear throughout my working also appear with modulus signs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
HINT:

[tex]\cos^2\theta = \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\cos\left(2\theta\right)\right) \Rightarrow \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\cos\left(\theta\right)\right) = \cos^2\left(\frac{\theta}{2}\right)[/tex]
 
  • #19
Got it! Thanks a WHOLE lot!

There's another follow on question..
Show that interference maxima is given by
http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/8347/72975778fp6.jpg [Broken]

Ignoring part c) for the time being, how exactly is pr density related to the interference maxima equation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
hmmm, still don't get it. :confused:
 
  • #22
t_n_p said:
hmmm, still don't get it. :confused:
What specifically don't you understand?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
how the prob density equation just found is related to the interference equation.
 
  • #24
t_n_p said:
how the prob density equation just found is related to the interference equation.
There's no need to relate the probability density to the interference pattern, the question simply asks you to derive the fringe separation, which can be done without using the probability density.
 
  • #25
hmm? It says "Using the results obtained in (a) [The pr density part], show that the interference maxima are given by..."
 
  • #26
t_n_p said:
hmm? It says "Using the results obtained in (a) [The pr density part], show that the interference maxima are given by..."
Okay, how does the maxima relate to [itex]\rho[/itex]? What is a maxima?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Hootenanny said:
Okay, how does the maxima relate to [itex]\rho[/itex]? What is a maxima?

So derive [itex]\rho[/itex] in terms of [itex]\psi[/itex] and set to zero?
What about A (imaginary number?)
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Also, where would lambda come from?
 
  • #29
t_n_p said:
So derive [itex]\rho[/itex] in terms of [itex]\psi[/itex] and set to zero?
Who would one set [itex]\rho[/itex] to zero? Wouldn't a maxima occur when [itex]\rho[/itex] is greatest?
t_n_p said:
What about A (imaginary number?)
What is the maximum value of [itex]\rho[/itex]?
 
  • #30
Hootenanny said:
Who would one set [itex]\rho[/itex] to zero? Wouldn't a maxima occur when [itex]\rho[/itex] is greatest?

What is the maximum value of [itex]\rho[/itex]?

The maximum value of [itex]\rho[/itex] is 1, or at least that is what I think. But where to from there?
 
  • #31
t_n_p said:
The maximum value of [itex]\rho[/itex] is 1, or at least that is what I think.
No it isn't :wink:
 
  • #32
Hootenanny said:
No it isn't :wink:

infinity?

:confused::confused::confused:
 
  • #33
What is the maximum value of [itex]\cos^2\theta[/itex]?
 
  • #34
Hootenanny said:
What is the maximum value of [itex]\cos^2\theta[/itex]?

1!
 
  • #35
t_n_p said:
1!
Correct, therefore the maximum value of [itex]\rho[/itex] is...?
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
695
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
687
Replies
1
Views
959
Replies
3
Views
895
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
105
Views
4K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top