GRE question: Young's Double Slit Experiment

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the wavelength of light in a Young's Double Slit Experiment with slits spaced 0.1 mm apart and a screen distance of 1 m. The calculated wavelength using the small angle approximation yields 2000 nm, while the solution manual incorrectly states the answer as 5000 Angstroms. The correct formula applied is λ = (d/l) * y, leading to a wavelength of 2000 nm, confirming the user's calculation as accurate and highlighting a potential error in the solution manual.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Young's Double Slit Experiment
  • Familiarity with the small angle approximation in trigonometry
  • Knowledge of wavelength calculations in physics
  • Basic grasp of units conversion (nm to Angstroms)
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the principles of Young's Double Slit Experiment
  • Learn about the small angle approximation in physics
  • Study wavelength calculations and their applications in optics
  • Explore unit conversions between nanometers and Angstroms
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on wave optics, educators teaching the principles of interference, and anyone interested in experimental physics methodologies.

AriAstronomer
Messages
46
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Consider a young double slit experiments where the two slits are spaced d = 0.1mm apart. If when the screen is at a distance of l=1m the first bright maximum is displaced y = 2cm from the central maximum, then find the wavelength of the light.


Homework Equations


dsin(theta) = m(lambda)


The Attempt at a Solution


I use the small angle approximation, tanx = sinx = x = y/D.
dy/D = m(lambda), where d = 0.1mm, D = 1m, y = .02m, m=1, and I get lambda = 2000nm, but the solution manual says that the answer is 5000Angstroms. They say lambda =[ d/l ]*(dy) = [(10^-4)/2 ]*(10^-2), but I don't really see where they're getting these numbers from. Any idea?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nope, but your solution is perfectly correct. The author probably screwed up and used the wrong numbers in writing the answer key.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K