MHB Solving for Slit Width-Wavelength Ratio at $\pm90°$ Diffraction Pattern

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining the ratio of slit width to wavelength for the first minima of a single-slit diffraction pattern at ±90°. The formula used is sin(θ) = nλ/a, with n set to 1 for the first minima. There is a debate about whether to use -90° for sin(θ), which would yield a negative ratio, but it is clarified that the sign can be associated with n, where positive n indicates minima to the right and negative n to the left of the central maximum. Ultimately, it is suggested to take the absolute value of the ratio, as negative values lack meaning in this context. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of understanding regarding the interpretation of the angles.
MermaidWonders
Messages
112
Reaction score
0
For what ratio of slit width to wavelength will the first minima of a single-slit diffraction pattern occur at $\pm 90°$?

The thing is, when I did it, I used the formula $sin\theta = \frac{n\lambda}{a}$, and used the fact that $m = 1$ and $\pm 90°$ to solve for $\frac{a}{\lambda}$. However, I don't know if we're supposed to plug in $-90°$ for $sin\theta$, because that would mean that our ratio of $\frac{n\lambda}{a}$ would be $-1$ as opposed to just $1$ (when $sin90°$ was plugged in)...
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
MermaidWonders said:
For what ratio of slit width to wavelength will the first minima of a single-slit diffraction pattern occur at $\pm 90°$?

The thing is, when I did it, I used the formula $sin\theta = \frac{n\lambda}{a}$, and used the fact that $m = 1$ and $\pm 90°$ to solve for $\frac{a}{\lambda}$. However, I don't know if we're supposed to plug in $-90°$ for $sin\theta$, because that would mean that our ratio of $\frac{n\lambda}{a}$ would be $-1$ as opposed to just $1$ (when $sin90°$ was plugged in)...
More or less we can take the sign of [math]sin( \theta )[/math] to be "attached" to the n. A positive n describes the nth minima to the right of the central maximum and a negative n describes the nth minima to the left of the central maximum.

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
More or less we can take the sign of [math]sin( \theta )[/math] to be "attached" to the n. A positive n describes the nth minima to the right of the central maximum and a negative n describes the nth minima to the left of the central maximum.

-Dan

OK, makes sense. So should I take the absolute value, since a negative ratio wouldn't be very meaningful in this context?
 
Last edited:
MermaidWonders said:
OK, makes sense. So should I take the absolute value, since a negative ratio wouldn't be very meaningful in this context?
Yup.

Double check the angle on the |n| = 1 interpretation I gave you. I might have screwed up left and right. But in the long run, no, it doesn't really matter.

-Dan
 
Yeah, OK, makes sense. Thanks so much!
 
I have been insisting to my statistics students that for probabilities, the rule is the number of significant figures is the number of digits past the leading zeros or leading nines. For example to give 4 significant figures for a probability: 0.000001234 and 0.99999991234 are the correct number of decimal places. That way the complementary probability can also be given to the same significant figures ( 0.999998766 and 0.00000008766 respectively). More generally if you have a value that...

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K