Double Slit Diffraction

Sam Schick, Andrew Kruse Our goal in this experiment was to use what we know about the wave nature of light to calculate the size of various slits by shining a laser through them and observing the diffraction pattern. We also generated a model for the single slit diffraction envelope around multiple slit diffraction patterns. In this experiment we saw that slits with a known size and spacing followed the pattern we expected for light of the given wavelength. We then used the Igor model of such a pattern to find the spacing between two slits that we don't already know. The formula for intensity from multiple slit diffraction is;

where I0 is the maximum intensity, a is the size of an individual slit, L is the distance to the screen, k=2/, and x is the space between two slits. We had an optics bench, a light sensor, an aperture bracket, a rotary motion sensor, a linear translator, a slit accessory set, a 633 nm laser, and a ScientificWorkshop interface. We set up the laser at one end of the optics bench and the linear translator at the other, then mounted the light sensor and aperture bracket on the linear translator. We connected the light sensor to Datastudio through the interface, and attached one of the slit wheels in front of the laser. We then measured the distance between the slits and the light sensor, and adjusted the height of both so that they were in line. The light sensor could not read values that were too high, and would cut them off, so before we measured anything for each setting on the slit disk we calibrated the aperture and the gain to try to make the readings get as close to that maximum as possible without going over. Once it was calibrated, we started recording data in datastudio and slowly moved the light sensor across the linear translator to record the diffraction pattern. We saved each slit as a seperate run in Datastudio, naming them as the slit size and number of slits followed by _1 for the first trial, _2 for the second, etc. we took those files and loaded them into the Igor program. We used Igor to generate curves that described the diffraction pattern of each of these individual data sets and for the single slit envelope around those patterns. This gave us values for the size of a slit that should give such a pattern if our intensity formula was correct. This matched for the known slits and gave us a value for the unknown ones.

Single Slit Envelope for Two .04 mm Slits .5 mm apart

This was the single slit envelope generated by Igor with the combined data from both of our trials. Igor gave the slit width as .0436. while the uncertainty in that term was large, it was an uncertainty in Igors fit as opposed to in something physically significant, and is unimportant. Below are the size and seperation of the slits paired with Igors approximation of their size. The envelope method was clearly more consistent. While occasionally generating the curve for the actual diffraction pattern would be dead on, without being able to give Igor more variables (ie, set distance at 95 and only ask about slit width or vice versa) it was unable to consistently give the right answer. Despite the lab manual saying that we should input 0 for the 0% intensity but not set it at that value, if that value was not set Igor returned negative values for the .08 mm slits. However both methods, as you can see on the graphs, had huge uncertainty values in the distance, suggesting that we were correct to assume d>>a in the calculations. Slit Actual Slit Igor Slit Width Igor Envelope Igor Distance Igor Envelope Seperation Width (mm) (mm) Slit Width (mm) Estimate (cm) Distance (mm) Estimate(cm) .5 .25 .4 .25 .04 .04 .08 .08 .04 .091 .08 .107 .0436 .0352 .0774 .0781 95 230.9 95 129.5 109.5 186.1 96.6 95.8

Double Slit Diffraction Pattern for .08 mm slits separated by .4 mm

Single Slit Diffraction Pattern

For the single slits, the envelope approximation was just a chunkier model of the same curve, so we took the average of the slit width given by each individual curve. The graph above is for a .08 mm slit; we took the slit width given by this Igor curve, .0779 mm, and averaged it with the other curve we had for a .08 mm slit, which gave the width as .0736 mm. (.0779+.0736)/2=.0758 mm. This average is the value I gave in the table below. Actual Slit Width (mm) .02 .04 .08 .16 Igor Slit Width (mm) .0158 .0373 .0758 .153

As with the double slit data, the uncertainty in Igors number refer only to the curve it generated, and as such are not useful to us.

Multiple Slit Diffraction Pattern

Above is the three slit diffraction pattern. Like for the double slit, we used the averages of the curves around the actual diffraction patterns and the envelope generated by the combined data to find two different estimates for a and d. Igor slit estimate Igor envelope slit Igor distance Igor envelope (mm) estimate (mm) estimate (cm) distance estimate (cm) 3 slit 4 slit 5 slit .0876 .231 .0821 .0545 .0595 .0355 98.1 476 207 136 149 93.5

When set to determine only one variable, the Igor model was consistently able to create a curve that matched our data. However, when trying to determine multiple variables it was considerably less accurate, especially for the multiple slit tests. Because of this, as the number of slits increased, the single slit envelope became more and more clearly the better tool to use both for determining distance and slit width. While it is still not clear to me that Igors uncertainties had any physical significance, the very large uncertainty in the distance did suggest that d>>a was a good assumption to make to simplify our formula. Comments; the Igor directions were slightly confusing, and at times just seemed wrong. The curves were clearly more accurate if you actually set %0 at 0 instead of just suggesting it; often if you didn't the 0 line of the curve would be above half your data. Because of this I ended up basically guessing which variables I was and wasn't supposed to set depending on what we were testing for at any given time.