Why is my fringe width formula half the correct value?

8 replies · 4K views · last reply
cupid.callin
Messages
1,130
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Diagram of interference fringes on a vertical line with labels Dark, Bright, Dark, Central Bright, Dark, Bright, Dark from top to bottom, and arrows marked λD/2d between adjacent positions and 3λD/2d spanning three of them.



so here i have shown the distances of two dark fringes ...

from here ... fringe width is [tex]\frac{\lambda L}{2d}[/tex]
L is distance of screen ... d is distance b/w 2 fringes.

but fringe width is [tex]\frac{\lambda L}{d}[/tex] , right ?

What mistake am i making?
 
Attachments
  • Diagram of a vertical screen with horizontal lines marking fringes labelled from top to bottom: Dark, Bright, Dark, Central Bright, Dark, Bright, Dark. Arrows on the left and centre show spacings labelled 3λD/2d and λD/2d.
    Untitled.png
    4.7 KB · Views: 586
Last edited:
i wrote it above

by using formula of distance of dark fringe ...

fringe width comes out to be ... [tex] \frac{\lambda L}{2d}[/tex]

but fringe width is [tex] \frac{\lambda L}{d}[/tex]

so why am i getting wrong answer
 
The fringe width is the distance between the centres of alternate dark(or bright) fringes.
Lamda D/d as marked on your diagram goes from the centre of a bright fringe to the centre of an adjacent dark fringe in other words you have marked in half the fringe width.
 
So you mean this is fringe width ??
Diagram of interference fringes as horizontal lines labelled from top to bottom: Dark, Bright, Dark, Central Bright, Dark, Bright, Dark, with red arrow marked fringe width λD/d and black arrows marked λD/2d and 3λD/2d beside the pattern.

well this looks satisfying
 
Attachments
  • Diagram of a double-slit interference pattern with horizontal fringes labelled from top to bottom: Dark, Bright, Dark, Central Bright, Dark, Bright, Dark, with fringe width lambda D/d marked in red and lambda D/2d and 3 lambda D/2d marked in black on the left.
    Untitled.png
    5.3 KB · Views: 733
cupid.callin said:
So you mean this is fringe width ??
Diagram of interference fringes stacked vertically: labelled Dark, Bright, Dark, Central Bright, Dark, Bright, Dark, with a red arrow marked fringe width λD/d and black arrows marked λD/2d and 3λD/2d.

well this looks satisfying

You have now marked the fringe width correctly.
 
are you sure?
because fringe width means "width of 1 fringe"
but (as you said) i have marked width of 2 fringes
 
I did not say you marked in the width of two fringes I said you marked in the width of half a fringe.The fringe width as marked above in red is correct since it goes from the centre of a bright fringe to the centre of an adjacent bright fringe.
Look at a graph of how the intensity varies smoothly across an interference pattern and this should clarify things for you.