Wave Nature of Light through Interference and Diffraction Phenomena

Beltran, Louise Victoria C.1*, Arambulo, Ma. Regina N.2 and Manzano, Bryan Paul T.2
Department of Mining, Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
louisevbeltran@gmail.com*

Abstract
The wave nature of light was demonstrated through the interference and
diffraction phenomena by determining the relationship of the wavelength,
slit width and slit separation to the resulting interference and diffraction
patterns. A 650 nm laser diode was prepared to hit slits of different
configurations. The patterns produced were marked, measured and sketched
to scale. The acquired and calculated data, laser wavelength, slit width and
slit separation, were collected and were compared with the theoretical
values. The experimenters concluded that as the slit width increases, the
diffraction envelope becomes thinner and as the slit separation increases,
the fringe width decreases.
Keywords: Light, wave, interference, diffraction, slit width, slit separation

I. Introduction
Light displays a dual nature, as a particle and as a wave, depending on how it behaves and how it is
observed. The passing of light through very narrow slits shows interference, a characteristic of waves which is
caused by the overlap of two or more waves due to the principle of superposition.[1-2] The principle of
superposition states that the resulting motion of a wave function having two or more waves is obtained by
addition of wave functions (constructive interference), or through cancellation (destructive interference). [1-3]
This makes it appear that ideally, when light passes through a very narrow slit, light is only observed as a single
wave. But in reality, this is not the case. Slits have finite width, and the light waves passing through the finite slit
width emerge from different directions. The pattern produced by the interference of waves do not appear in a
single line, but in bright and dark fringes due to the principle of superposition. [2-3] Through the concept of
interference, the waves produce a diffraction pattern. Generally, diffraction happens when multiple light sources
strike a continuous area or barrier such as an aperture or an edge. [2].
Diffraction and interference are both due to interference in general, but to differentiate between them in the
experiment, diffraction is to be used in single-slit phenomenon, while interference is to be used in multiple slits
phenomena. [1]
The experiment aims to investigate the diffraction patterns through a single slit and a double slit, and to
quantitatively relate the patterns obtained respectively, to the slit widths. The patterns produced by single-slit
diffraction and double-slit diffraction are also sought to be differentiated. The experiment also aims to determine
the relationship of the diffraction pattern of a double-slit, with the slit separation.

II. Methodology
A. Single-slit Diffraction
The experimenters placed the single slit disk 3 cm in front of the 650 nm laser diode and set it to the 0.04
mm single slit width. the beam is adjusted in a way that it is centered on the slit. A white sheet is placed on a
distance L, 60 cm, from the slit disk. Boundaries of the dark fringes were marked on the white sheet while the
light is turned off. The distances between both first order and second order minima were measured and recorded.
The observed single slit diffraction pattern was then sketched to scale. Same procedures were done using the
0.02 mm and 0.08 mm slit width. The wavelength of the laser and the slit width were then calculated using the
recorded data. The calculated wavelength was then compared to the theoretical wavelength by solving for the
percent difference.
B. Double-slit interference: Calculating the slit width
For the double-slit interference, the experimenters kept the same set-up except the 0.04 mm single slit width.
A double slit disk with 0.04 mm slit width and slit separation varying from 0.125 to 0.75 mm was used to
replace the single slit width and then was used to observe the interference fringes and the diffraction envelope as
the slit separation changes. The experimenters set the disk to 0.04 mm slit width with 0.25 mm split separation
and adjust the laser in a way that the beam is centered on the slit. The slit to screen distance was measured (40
cm) was recorded. The lights were turned off and the experimenters marked the boundaries of the dark fringes.

The measured distances between both first and second minima were divided by two, and the data was used to
calculate the slit width and percent difference.
C. Double-slit interference: Changing the slit width and slit separation
The experimenters used the double slit interference pattern with 0.04mm slit width and 0.25 mm slit
separation and counted the number of interference fringes inside the central maximum. The measured width of
central maximum was divided by the number of interference fringes to find the fringe width. The same process
was done to the double slits with 0.04 mm slit width and 0.50 mm slit separation, 0.08 mm slit width and 0.25
mm slit separation and 0.08 mm slit width and 0.50 mm slit separation.

III. Results and Discussion

A. Single-slit diffraction
Table 1. Calculated wavelengths of different slit widths (L = 60 cm).
Slit width
0.002 cm

0.004 cm

Distance of 1st intensity minimum from center, y1

2.50 cm

1.24 cm

Experimental wavelength

8.33x10-5 cm

8.25x10-5 cm
6.5x10-5 cm

Theoretical wavelength
Percent difference

28.15 %

26.92%
8.29x10-5 cm

Mean wavelength

Figure 1. Single slit diffraction patterns up to m = 2.

_ _____ ________ _____ _

(a) 0.02 mm

_ __ ____ __ _

(b) 0.04 mm

_ __ _ _

(c) 0.08 mm

From the data of the 0.002 cm and 0.004 cm slit widths in Table 1 and the single-slit diffraction patterns, it
can be seen that the 1st intensity minimum move closer and closer to the center as the slit width increases which
is consistent with the equation

given that the slit-to-screen distance is constant. This means that the larger the slit width, the wider the
diffraction envelope is. Although the wavelength for the 0.008cm was not calculated, it can be seen in the figure
that the conclusion is still valid for the 0.008 cm. From the measurements obtained from the interference
patterns, the wavelength of the laser diode was calculated as seen in Table 1. The mean percent difference of the
experimental wavelength with respect to the theoretical wavelength (6.5x10-5 cm) is 27.54%.

Table 2. Data from diffraction pattern of 0.004 cm single slit (m=1 and m=2; L=60 cm)

m=1

m=2

1.24 cm

3.09 cm

Slit width

3.15x10-3 cm

2.53x10-3 cm

Wavelength

8.25x10-5 cm

1.03x10-4 cm

Distance of mth intensity minimum from center, ym

Experimental

Theoretical

Slit width

0.004 cm

Wavelength

6.5x10-5 cm

Percent Difference

Slit width

21.25%

36.75%

Wavelength

26.92%

58.46%

The location of the intensity minima of the 0.004 cm single-slit diffraction pattern was measured up to the 2 nd
order, then were used to calculate the experimental slit widths and wavelengths as seen in Table 2. The mean slit
width is 0.00284 cm and the mean wavelength is 9.275 x10-5 cm. The percent difference of the experimental
wavelength (at m=1) with respect to the theoretical wavelength (6.5x10 -5 cm) is 26.92%, while it is 58.46% at
m=2. The percent difference of the slit width at m=1 with respect to the theoretical slit width is 21.25%, while it
is 36.75% at m=2.
It can be seen from the percent difference that the experimental values are slightly deviated from the
theoretical values; these differences may be caused by defects in the equipment or mistakes in the set-up (e.g.
the slit-to-screen distance may not be constant throughout the experiment). Possible source of error would be the
entering of stray light into the slit.
B. Double-slit interference: Calculating the slit width
The interference fringes and diffraction envelope was observed while using 0.004 cm slit width and varying
slit separation (from 0.0125 cm to 0.075 cm). The pattern produced comprised of alternating bright and dark
fringes within the diffraction envelope. [1] From theory, the larger the slit width, the smaller the width of the
central maximum and the smaller the slit width, the wider the fringe width becomes. It was observed that there
are more interference fringes in the double-slit than in the single-slit diffraction pattern. It was also observed
that the higher the slit separation, the more number of fringes and the diffraction envelope gets more obvious.
Thus, the observations agree with the predictions from theory.
Table 3. Data from interference pattern of 0.004 cm double slit, d = 0.025 cm (L = 60.3 cm; = 6.5x10-5cm)
m=1

m=2

Distance of mth intensity minimum from center, ym

1.11 cm

2.35 cm

Experimental slit width

3.60x10-3 cm

3.41x10-3 cm

Theoretical slit width

Percent Difference

0.004 cm
10%

14.75%

Measurements were obtained from the interference pattern produced by a 0.004 cm slit width with d=0.025
cm and were used to calculate the slit width as seen in Table 3. The mean experimental width is 3.51x10 -3 cm,
and the mean percent difference is 12.25%. Possible sources of error would be the failure to identify the correct
location of the intensity minimum or the obstruction of stray light, which makes the pattern difficult to identify
or measure.
C. Double-slit interference: Changing the slit width and slit separation

Table 4. Data from double-slit interference patterns of different slit widths and slit separation

a = 0.004 cm

a = 0.008 cm

d = 0.025 cm

d = 0.050 cm

d = 0.050 cm

d = 0.025 cm

Number of Fringes

13

25

13

Width of central maximum

2 cm

2 cm

1 cm

1 cm

Width of Fringe

0.154 cm

0.08 cm

0.077 cm

0.143 cm

Figure 2. Central maxima of double interference patterns with their corresponding a and d.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

_________________________

(a) a = 0.004 cm; d = 0.025 cm

(b) a= 0.004 cm; d = 0.050 cm

_____________

_______

( c) a = 0.008 cm; d = 0.050 cm

(d) a = 0.008 cm; d = 0.025 cm

Data in Table 4 and the sketches show that the fringes found in the central maximum increases with the
separation distance, it also shows that the fringe width is almost equal for a given slit separation regardless of
slit width. The observation agrees with the equation

that for a constant slit-to-screen distance and given wavelength, the fringe width depends only on the slit
separation distance and not the slit width. [1] It can be observed that the width of the central maxima changes
with the slit width thus consistent with what is observed in part A. It can also be observed that the larger the slit
separation, the higher the number of fringes, the larger the fringe width. Therefore, the observed double-slit
interference is consistent with the theory.
If light were to behave as particles, there would be no dark fringes since there are no constructive and
destructive interferences.

IV. Conclusion
The single-slit diffraction part of the experiment successfully showed the dependence of the diffraction
pattern with the slit width. The diffraction envelope is proportional to the slit width since as the slit width
increases, the diffraction envelope also becomes wider. The patterns produced by the single-slit had less
interference fringes compared to the double-slit. The double-slit also showed equally spaced fringes with equal
width, unlike the single-slit.
In the first
, the results agree with the theory. The fringe width was inversely proportional to the slit
width. This means that the smaller the slit width, the larger the fringe width or the double-slit diffraction pattern
becomes. In the second double-slit diffraction experiment, the results showed that in the double-slit diffraction
pattern the fringes found in the central maximum increases with the separation distance. The results also showed
that the fringe width is almost equal for a given slit separation regardless of the slit width. Therefore, the results
agree to the theory that for a constant slit-to-screen distance and given wavelength, that the fringe width depends
only on the slit separation distance and not the slit width.
Conduction of the experiment in a closed area with no stray light that may interfere the laser is proposed.
The experiment can also be done in an ensured leveled ground for better acquisition of data and consistent slitto-screen distance.

V. Acknowledgement

The experimenters would like to acknowledge Mr. Ralph Aaron Aguinaldo for giving instructions on how to
conduct the experiment. The students also would like to acknowledge the National Institute of Physics for
providing the equipment used in conducting the experiment.

VI. References
[1] Interference and Diffraction, Physics 72.1 Lab Manual, National Institute of Physics, University of the
Philippines Diliman.
[2] H. Young and R. Freedman, University Physics, 13th ed., Pearson Addison-Wesley, USA (2012)
[3] P. Tipler and G. Mosca, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, 5th ed., W.H. Freeman & Co., USA (2008)