Diffraction Experiment - Comparing theory with my data

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on analyzing data from a two-slit diffraction experiment, where the observed minima are shifted towards the origin compared to theoretical predictions. The user expresses uncertainty about the accuracy of their results, suspecting potential errors in measurement. Other participants suggest verifying the values for slit separation and wavelength, as these factors significantly influence the diffraction pattern. The user is less concerned about the minima not being at zero, attributing this to imperfect intensity measurements. Overall, the conversation emphasizes the importance of accurate experimental parameters in diffraction analysis.
poonintoon
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Not sure if this is the right forum for this but I am analysing the data for the diffraction experiment I have just done (laser source at two slit diffraction grating) and have got the graph (similar to this http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys273/williams06/TwoSlit.jpg" ).
However all the minima for my data have been shifted towards the origin when compared to the theoretical plot. I have been racking my brains but can't think of any convincing reasons why this could happen other than the fact that I got bad results.
The minima are also not at zero but I am less concerned about this since I am assuming this is just down to not getting perfect intensity.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
poonintoon said:
However all the minima for my data have been shifted towards the origin when compared to the theoretical plot.
Have you double-checked your values for slit separation and wavelength? (These would obviously affect the width of the pattern.)
 
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 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
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...
Back
Top