Diffraction grating, distances between maxima

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a diffraction grating with a specified line density and distances, where two wavelengths of light are used to determine the separation between second-order maxima on a screen. The context is within the subject area of wave optics, specifically diffraction patterns.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss calculating the angular distances for each wavelength to find the positions of the maxima. There is a focus on the method of taking differences between these positions to find the separation on the screen.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided feedback on the approach, suggesting that the method of calculating angular distances is valid but may require clarification on how to accurately determine the separation between the maxima. There is an acknowledgment of the need to consider the small angle approximation in the context of the angles obtained.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with the angles being small enough for the sine and tangent approximations to hold true, indicating a need for careful consideration of the assumptions made in the calculations.

TheKShaugh
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A grating has a line density of 1010 cm−1, and a screen perpendicular to the ray that makes the central peak of the diffraction pattern is 2.5 m from the grating. If light of two wavelengths, 590 nm and 680 nm, passes through the grating, what is the separation on the (flat) screen between the second-order maxima for the two wavelengths?

Homework Equations



dsin\theta = m \lambda

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought I would find the angular distance to the second order maxima covered by each wavelength:

\theta = arcsin(\frac{2 \lambda}{d}) where d is \frac{1}{1010}\times 10^{-2}

Then I would take the difference, and plug it into the equation sin\theta = \frac{y}{L} and solve for y. This gives me the wrong answer but I don't see why this wouldn't work. Can anyone see my mistake?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheKShaugh said:

Homework Statement



A grating has a line density of 1010 cm−1, and a screen perpendicular to the ray that makes the central peak of the diffraction pattern is 2.5 m from the grating. If light of two wavelengths, 590 nm and 680 nm, passes through the grating, what is the separation on the (flat) screen between the second-order maxima for the two wavelengths?

Homework Equations



dsin\theta = m \lambda

The Attempt at a Solution



I thought I would find the angular distance to the second order maxima covered by each wavelength:

\theta = arcsin(\frac{2 \lambda}{d}) where d is \frac{1}{1010}\times 10^{-2}

Then I would take the difference, and plug it into the equation sin\theta = \frac{y}{L} and solve for y.

Take the difference of what?
You have two wavelengths, two angles and two y positions. You need the separation between the positions, that is, the difference of the y-s.
 
ehild said:
Take the difference of what?
You have two wavelengths, two angles and two y positions. You need the separation between the positions, that is, the difference of the y-s.

What I meant was that I would solve for the angular spread of the second order maxima for one wavelength, then the other, and the take the difference of those two values. What I get should be the angular distance between the two maxima. I could then use the equation I gave in my OP and solve. This gives the same answer that I got: 2.5sin(7.896)-2.5sin(6.845) The idea is that if I calculate the angle to one maxima, I should be able to tell what vertical distance it covers. Then I can do the same for the other maxima, and take the difference between those two distances as the distance from one maxima to another.
 
It is a good method, what result did you get? In principle, the distance of the maximum from the centre is L tan(θ). If θ is really small, the sine and the tangent are nearly equal. But the angles you got are not small enough.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K