Diffraction Question: Find Slit Width & Angle θ

  • Thread starter Thread starter Amy Marie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diffraction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the slit width and angle θ for a single-slit diffraction pattern. The slit width was determined to be approximately 0.002828 m, using the relationship a(sin θ) = m(λ). However, the angle θ calculation was problematic, with suggestions that an incorrect equation may have been used for destructive interference. The correct equation for single-slit minima is affirmed to be a(sin θ) = m(λ), while confusion arose regarding the application of double-slit interference equations. The participant remains uncertain about the angle calculation despite confirming the slit width as accurate.
Amy Marie
Messages
13
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The distance between the first and fifth minima of a single-slit diffraction pattern is 0.350 mm with the screen 45.0 cm away from the slit, when light of wavelength 550 nm is used. (a) Find the slit width. (b) Calculate the angle θ of the first diffraction minimum

Homework Equations


a(sin θ) = m(λ)
a = slit width
λ = wavelength
θ = angle between ray and central axis
m = which minimum

The Attempt at a Solution


(a)
sin of angle θ to fifth minimum:
(5)(550 * 10[-9] m)/(a) = 0.00000275/a

By the small angle approximation, 0.00000275/a also gives the angle to the fifth minimum and the tangent of that angle.

Distance from center of diffraction pattern to fifth minimum:
[(0.00000275)(0.45 m)]/a = 0.0000012375/a

Distance from center of diffraction pattern to first minimum:
[(550*10[-9])(0.45 m)] = 0.0000002475/a

Solving for a:
0.000350 m = 0.0000012375/a - 0.0000002475/a
a = 0.002828 m

(b)
(0.002828 m)(sin θ) = 550 * 10[-9] m
sin θ = 0.000194 rad
θ = 0.000194 rad

When I checked, my answer for the slit width was correct, but the angle wasn't.
Can anyone please find what went wrong with the angle in part b?
Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you may have used an incorrect equation. For destructive interference, the equation should be
dsinΘ = (m + 1/2)λ​
this will yield a different value for the angle.

If I am correct, then I think that the anomaly of you having the correct answer for one component and yet not the other arises because conceptually the difference in slit produces both maximum and minimum fringes and their angles for the same value of d; so by calculating the maximum constructive interference angle you have the same distance as the minimum destructive interference angle.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Karamazov said:
I think you may have used an incorrect equation. For destructive interference, the equation should be
dsinΘ = (m + 1/2)λ​
this will yield a different value for the angle.

If I am correct, then I think that the anomaly of you having the correct answer for one component and yet not the other arises because conceptually the difference in slit produces both maximum and minimum fringes and their angles for the same value of d; so by calculating the maximum constructive interference angle you have the same distance as the minimum destructive interference angle.
I still couldn't get it to work, but thank you!
 
Ivan Karamazov said:
I think you may have used an incorrect equation. For destructive interference, the equation should be
dsinΘ = (m + 1/2)λ​


This equation is actually for double-slit destructive interference. ##a\sin\theta = m\lambda## is indeed the correct equation for single-slit minima. Since your slit width is correct, I'm not sure where your error lies since it looks like you calculated the angle correctly...​
 
Miles Whitmore said:

This equation is actually for double-slit destructive interference. ##a\sin\theta = m\lambda## is indeed the correct equation for single-slit minima. Since your slit width is correct, I'm not sure where your error lies since it looks like you calculated the angle correctly...​
Thank you for taking the time to look at this!
 
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 .
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...
Back
Top