Correct Formula for "No Fringe Condition" (Michelson Interferometer)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the "No Fringe Formation" condition in Michelson Interferometers, highlighting two distinct formulas derived from different textbooks. The first formula, derived from the equation 2dcostheta=n*λ(1), results in d= λ(1)λ(2)/(4∆λ). The second formula, based on 2d=nλ(1)=n'λ(2), yields d= λ(1)λ(2)/(2∆λ). The consensus is that the first formula is correct for determining the separation of mirrors where no fringe is observed, while the second formula indicates the distance for maximum fringe visibility with closely spaced wavelengths.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Michelson Interferometer principles
  • Familiarity with wave interference and fringe formation
  • Knowledge of wavelength differences and their impact on interference patterns
  • Basic algebra for manipulating equations in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Michelson Interferometer equations in detail
  • Explore the impact of wavelength differences on fringe visibility
  • Investigate practical applications of the Michelson Interferometer in spectroscopy
  • Learn about the cyclical nature of fringe patterns with varying mirror separations
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, optical engineers, and researchers interested in wave interference and the practical applications of interferometry in experimental setups.

warhammer
Messages
164
Reaction score
33
In two different textbooks, there are two different formulas with different derivation styles for the "No Fringe Formation" Condition.

In approach (a), they use an amalgamation of bright and dark for 2 wavelengths having very minute difference in the following manner:

2dcostheta=n*λ(1) -------- (1)

2dcostheta= (n+1/2)*λ(2) ----------- (2)

Subtracting both the equations we get, n=λ(2)/(2(∆λ))

Now using this value of 'n' for small angles in (1) we get d= λ(1)λ(2)/(4∆λ)

This is one formula.

In the other textbook they have used another approach to calculate the separation 'd' in order to gauge after what distance fringe vanishes. Here they considered a bright of nth order and another bright for (n+1)th order. So proceeding in similar fashion as above (for small angles etc.)

2d=nλ(1)=n'λ(2) where n'=n+1

Thus n=λ(2)/{(λ(1)-λ(2)}

Using above value of n, we eventually get

d= λ(1)λ(2)/(2∆λ).

This is the other formula.

Now I would greatly appreciate if someone would help me understand which is the correct one because I used both of them and they apply for different questions which are of the type- "find separation of mirrors for which there is no fringe observed".

Both have a distinction of 1/2.
 
Science news on Phys.org
The first one is the correct one as far as I can tell. The second one gives the distance for which you will observe the maximum amount of fringes with two closely spaced wavelengths.
This phenomenon will be cyclical, in that you can have ## 2d=n \lambda_a=(n+3/2) \lambda_b ##, and I think that will give ## d=(3/4)(\lambda_a \lambda_b)/\Delta \lambda ##, etc. (Edit: Yes, I did the algebra=it does indeed give this result).
In college we did this with the 5890 and 5896 (angstroms) lines of sodium, and the fringes come and go periodically as one of the mirrors is moved.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: warhammer
Charles Link said:
The first one is the correct one as far as I can tell. The second one gives the distance for which you will observe the maximum amount of fringes with two closely spaced wavelengths.
This phenomenon will be cyclical, in that you can have ## 2d=n \lambda_a=(n+3/2) \lambda_b ##, and I think that will give ## d=(3/4)(\lambda_a \lambda_b)/\Delta \lambda ##, etc. (Edit: Yes, I did the algebra=it does indeed give this result).
In college we did this with the 5890 and 5896 (angstroms) lines of sodium, and the fringes come and go periodically as one of the mirrors is moved.
Thank you so much for your response sir. I was also inclined towards the first one but in both the textbooks I am still unable to understand/gauge why the authors have used the distinct formulae in same type of questions 😕 But I guess I will stick with the first one only
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K