Simple Spectrometer and Spectroscopy Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a homework problem involving the calculation of wavelengths using a spectroscope with specific angles for first-order spectrum lines. The confusion arises from the observation of only two spectrum lines at different angles, leading to questions about the expected symmetry in diffraction patterns. Participants suggest that measurement error might be a factor, as the textbook problem appears atypical in its presentation. The solution involved averaging the angles to account for potential discrepancies. Ultimately, the issue highlights the complexities of practical measurements in spectroscopy.
SaintsTheMeta
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Two first-order spectrum lines are measured by a 9650line/cm spectroscope at angles, on each side of the center, of +26*38', +41*02' and -26*18', -40*27'. Calculate the wavelengths based on these data.

Homework Equations


\lambda= (d/m)sin(\theta)

The Attempt at a Solution



i know how to solve similar problems... nothing complicated. but I'm confused how there are only two different spectrum lines in this problem that can be seen with different angles on either side... i thought the incident ray would be oriented at 0 and would then be diffracted by the slits an equal amount up and down. IE if a ray diffracts so you see it at 30*, how could it not be -30*, in the downward direction? or would i for some reason use something like \Delta\theta and use the difference between two rays?

Thank you!

-Zach

edit...
Or is possible that there is some kind of error that the book (Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Giancoli 4th) would want to you take into account for and just count the similar opposite numbers as statistically equivalent?

or could it be a continuous spectrum from +26*38' to +41*02' and then another from -26*18' to -40*27'?

just brainstorming here... really at a loss, any input is greatly appreciated
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Usually with these measurements, you find the diffraction position on both sides.
This gives you (by addition) double the angle for (in this case) the 1st order.
Taking twice the angle in this way and dividing by two gives a more accurate value.
 
Yes that is what I ended up doing. I just turned it in. I ended up just chalking it up to measurement error, and averaged the two for the angle. That was just really out of character for the textbook. First problem in 35 Chapters I've seen that would have some kind of practical measurement error involved.

After handing it in, even my professor had no good answer for it and figured the same as you Stone.

Thanks for the input!
 
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanged 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