Seperation between central bright frindge and third dark frindge

  • Thread starter Thread starter crazyog
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the separation between the central bright fringe and the third dark fringe in a double-slit experiment. The user initially used the wrong formulas and confused the variables for slit separation and position on the screen. The correct approach involves using the equations for dark and bright fringes, ensuring the definitions of variables align with standard conventions. A small discrepancy in the calculated result was noted, attributed to the small angle approximation. Clarification on the definitions of variables helped resolve the confusion, leading to a better understanding of the problem.
crazyog
Messages
50
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two slits are separated by 2.00x10^-5 m. They are illuminated by a wavelength 5.60x10^-7m. If the distance from the slits to the screen is 6.00 m, what is the separation between the central bright fringe and the third dark fringe?
Answer: 0.421 m

Homework Equations


I thought I would use
d=(m+1/2)(lamba)*L/y for dark and then d=m(lamba)*L/y for bright

The third dark fringe would be m= 2 if it starts at 0, right?
so (2.5)(5.6x10^-7)(6)/(2.0x10^-5) = 0.42
buttt. what about the central bright fringe?
I plug in m = 0 and get 0 so 0.42-0 = 0.42

is this correct?



The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
crazyog said:

Homework Statement


Two slits are separated by 2.00x10^-5 m. They are illuminated by a wavelength 5.60x10^-7m. If the distance from the slits to the screen is 6.00 m, what is the separation between the central bright fringe and the third dark fringe?
Answer: 0.421 m

Homework Equations


I thought I would use
d=(m+1/2)(lamba)*L/y for dark and then d=m(lamba)*L/y for bright

The third dark fringe would be m= 2 if it starts at 0, right?
so (2.5)(5.6x10^-7)(6)/(2.0x10^-5) = 0.42
buttt. what about the central bright fringe?
I plug in m = 0 and get 0 so 0.42-0 = 0.42

is this correct?

That looks right to me. The difference 0.001m in your result and the given result is because you used the small angle approximation. If you had used the set of original formulas:

<br /> \begin{align}<br /> d\sin(\theta)&amp;=\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\lambda\nonumber\\<br /> \tan(\theta)&amp;=\frac{y}{L}\nonumber<br /> \end{align}<br />

to find y, there would have been no discrepancy. (Here d is the slit separation and y is the distance on the screen, which I believe is the way most books have it. My guess is that you got those two confused with each other when you did the algebra of your solution; in your equation it did not matter, but in some others it would.)
 
and L is the distance from the screen to the slits right?
what did I mix up then?
 
crazyog said:
and L is the distance from the screen to the slits right?
what did I mix up then?

I was just saying that in your original post, you set y=2\times 10^{-5} and you solved for d.

Now, I don't know what book you are using, so there's no way for me to know for sure what variables they use for what, but as far as I can remember, d always stands for the slit separation and y was always the position along the screen. Then your original post should have had d=2\times 10^{-5} and you would be solving for y.

In the small angle approximation, it turned out not to matter because of the form of the equation; but if they had asked for the angle, for example, you would use

d \sin\theta = m\lambda

for the bright fringe angles, and there it definitely would matter; in that equation, d has to be the slit separation!

So I was just suggesting you check the definitions of d and y to make sure you are following your book's definition.
 
oh ok, i understand now
thank you so much for your help! =)
 
Sure, glad to help!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top