Calculating Minimum Width for 5 Interference Maxima

AI Thread Summary
Ramon is calculating the minimum width of a screen needed to display five interference maxima from a double slit experiment using a coherent light source with a wavelength of 554 nm and a slit separation of 1.5 mm. The relevant equation is λ/s = w/D, where λ is the wavelength, s is the slit separation, w is the width between maxima, and D is the distance to the screen (90 cm). Initially, there was confusion regarding the number of maxima, as Ramon mistakenly considered ten instead of five. After clarification, he correctly identified that the calculation should yield four widths for the five maxima, leading to the correct answer. The problem highlights the importance of accurately interpreting the number of maxima in interference patterns.
msk172
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Ramon has a coherent light source with wavelength 554 nm. He wishes to send light through a double slit with slit separation of 1.5 mm to a screen 90 cm away. What is the minimum width of the screen if Ramon wants to display five interference maxima?


Homework Equations



λ/s = w/D

λ= wavelength (554nm - converted to 5.54e-4 mm)
s= slit separation (1.5mm - provided by question)
w= width between maxima (use 5w do to question asking for 5 interference maxima)
D= distance to screen (90cm - converted to 900mm provided by question)

The Attempt at a Solution



Given that three of the four variables are known values, this should be simple as plug and solve. For some reason it is not liking the answer I am providing. The left side of the equation is simply 5.54e-4 / 1.5 which one would set equal to 5w / 900. Where am I going wrong here? Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Follow up: Figured it out. Initially thought of the question as asking about 5 maxima per side (thus 10 total). One maxima in the center, two per side, 5 total. w * 4 yields correct value.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...

Similar threads

Back
Top