The Physics of Diraction

Dilen Sachania, Matthew Spear and Christopher Strange

Project Supervisor: Christoph Hombach

Group: 21

April 2013

Abstract This report outlines a series of experiment on the topic of diraction; we believe that through conducting dierent experiments we achieved our aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that is diraction. Specically we focused on light wave diraction through the use of a laser. We test some of our own ideas about the diraction of light such as the vector line equations of beam paths after mesh diraction. We believe we achieved our aim of developing our experimental skills, by learning from many mistakes, the most important being that experiments should be focused on reducing error. We also developed many transferable skills such as communication skills, advanced excel functions and statistics.

Contents
I II Introduction Experiments
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 7
8 8 8 9 9 10 11 13 13 13 14 14 15 15 18 18 18 19 19 20 20 22 22 22 23 23 24

1 Diraction Gratings 1.1 Aim . . . . . . . . 1.2 Background . . . . 1.3 Equipment . . . . 1.4 Method . . . . . . 1.5 Equation . . . . . 1.6 Analysis . . . . . .

2 Single Slit Diraction 2.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Background . . . . . 2.3 Equipment . . . . . 2.4 Method . . . . . . . 2.5 Equation . . . . . . 2.6 Analysis . . . . . . . 3 Double Slit Diraction 3.1 Aim . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Background . . . . . 3.3 Equipment . . . . . 3.4 Method . . . . . . . 3.5 Equation . . . . . . 3.6 Analysis . . . . . . . 4 Aperture Diraction 4.1 Aim . . . . . . . . 4.2 Background . . . . 4.3 Equipment . . . . 4.4 Method . . . . . . 4.5 Equation . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . . 1

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

4.6

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 26 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 29 30 31 32 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 37 37 38

5 Wire Diraction 5.1 Aim . . . . . 5.2 Equipment . 5.3 Method . . . 5.4 Equation . . 5.5 Analysis . . . 6 Mesh Diraction 6.1 Aim . . . . . 6.2 Equipment . 6.3 Method . . . 6.4 Equation . . 6.5 Analysis . . . 7 Angled Gratings 7.1 Aim . . . . . 7.2 Equipment . 7.3 Method . . . 7.4 Equation . . 7.5 Analysis . . . 8 Angled (x axis) 8.1 Aim . . . . 8.2 Equipment 8.3 Method . . 8.4 Equation . 8.5 Analysis . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

diraction gratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

III IV V

Conclusion References Appendix

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 41 44
45 45 45 46 48 48

9 Derivation of vector line equations 9.1 Single slit/double slit/grating diraction 9.1.1 Notation + assumptions . . . . . 9.1.2 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 Mesh diraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2.1 Mesh denition . . . . . . . . . .

9.3

9.2.2 Notation + assumptions . . . . . . . . 9.2.3 Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overlaid diraction gratings at an angle . . . 9.3.1 Overlaid diraction gratings denition 9.3.2 Notation + assumptions . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

48 50 51 51 51

Part I

Introduction

In our project we undertook the topic of Diraction in physics. Our aims for the project were to gain a deeper understanding of the subject area of diraction, furthermore we wanted to learn new experimental techniques and methods to develop our knowledge of physics. We planned to do this by carrying out a series of experiments. Diraction can be seen as the consequence when light waves encounter an object, it is observed in light waves bending around an obstacle or the spreading out of waves past small slits. Diraction occurs with all types of waves including water, sound and electromagnetic waves such as visible light. While diraction occurs whenever waves encounter an object its eects are much more pronounced whenever the wavelength is approximately the size of the object. When a wave propagates past the object or slits a complex pattern of dark and coloured areas can be produced, this eect was named by Thomas Young as interference. The eects of diraction were rst observed in 1665 by Francesco Maria Grimaldi, who named the eect of light breaking up into dierent directions as diraction. Isaac Newton also investigated diraction and attributed these eects to inection of light rays. Thomas Young was celebrated for his experiments on diraction in 1801; he conducted an experiment known as the double slit experiment which included two closely spaced slits with a monochromatic light source. Young explained the eects of his experiments with interference. He deduced from his experiment that light must propagate as a wave. The Huygens-Fresnel principle is a method of analysis applied to problems of wave propagation. In 1678 Huygens proposed that every point to which a luminous disturbance reaches becomes a source of a spherical wave, the sum of these secondary waves determines the form of the wave at any subsequent time. He assumed that the secondary wave travelled only in the forward direction; but this is not explained in his theory. Huygens was thus able to provide a qualitative explanation of linear wave propagation. However Huygens failed to explain the eects that occur when light encounters edges, apertures. Also Huygens theory of light traveling as a wave depended on a invisible medium called the ether.

Later in 1816, Fresnel, showed that his own theory of interference, together with Huygens theory of light could explain the propagation of light as a wave and the eects of light diraction. However to obtain agreement with his results he had to include additional arbitrary assumptions about the phase and amplitude of the secondary waves. Fresnel concluded that interference between beams of light could only be obtained if they were plane polarised. In other words polarised light waves having their oscillations directions orientated parallel to each other can combine to create interference, whereas those that are perpendicular to each other cannot interfere.

Part II

Experiments

Chapter 1

Diraction Gratings
1.1 Aim

The aim was to nd the wavelength of the laser using a diraction grating.

1.2

Background

Diraction gratings split and diract light into several beams travelling in dierent directions; the direction depends on the spaces between the grating and the wavelength. Gratings are most commonly used in monochromators and spectrometers. Diraction gratings were discovered by James Gregory, about a year after Newtons prism experiment, the phenomenon was still highly controversial. Gregory discovered diraction gratings by passing sunlight through a bird feather and observing the diraction patterns that were produced. In particular he observed the splitting of sunlight into the colours which comprise it. The rst practical diraction gratings were made by Joseph von Fraunhofer in 1820. He stretched ne parallel wires between two parallel rods. Diraction gratings are often used in monochromators, spectrometers, lasers, wavelength division multiplexing devices, optical pulse compressing devices, and many other optical instruments. Diraction gratings are most commonly used in everyday CDs and DVDs and can also be used to demonstrate diraction by reecting sunlight o them onto a white wall. Diraction gratings are also used to distribute evenly the front light of e-readers such as the Nook Simple Touch with GlowLight.

1.3

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Diraction grating slides (100, 300 and 600 lines/mm) Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Set square Blutack and tape

1.4

Method

The experiment consisted of three sets of data, with each set based on one of the three diraction gratings (100, 300 and 600 lines/mm). Within each set multiple measurements of grating-to-screen distance were taken ranging from 20 - 50 cm.

Figure 1.1: Ruler and set square.

The rst step was to set up the chosen diraction grating at the initial grating-to-screen distance of 20 cm, using a ruler attached to the bench and a set square to ensure the slide was in the correct position. Once the slide was in the correct position the distance between the two outermost visible maxima (on the screen) was measured. This was followed by counting and recording the number of visible maxima. Once all the data had been recorded the experiment was repeated incrementally at 1 cm intervals from 20 - 50 cm grating-to-screen distance. This method was repeated again for each of the other diraction gratings (100, 300 and 600 lines/mm).

1.5

Equation
n = d sin (1.1)

Therefore: d sin d opp = n n hyp

(1.2)

However we used: d sin = 1) d opp (M axM 1) hyp

1 2 (M axM

1 2

(1.3)

A value of n was not measured, however a value for the number of maxima visible on the screen was recorded, subtracting the central maximum and then halving would give us a theoretical maxima number (even if it was a non-integer) for that particular environment. Where n = maxima number, = wavelength, d = slit separation, = angle of laser beam, opp = distance from central maximum to relevant maxima, adj = slit to screen distance, hyp = slit to relevant maxima distance and M axM = number of maxima on screen.

10

1.6

Analysis

We obtained a reasonably large sample size of 93 readings, but the original experiment suered from widespread systematic errors as detailed below. It was incorrectly assumed from a preliminary experiment that all maxima were the same distance away from their closest neighbour. This skewed the results, leading to an overestimate of the bright fringe separation. The bright fringes appear at certain angles away from each other, which geometrically means that fringes tend to have larger separations between themselves the further away they are from the central maxima. Originally assuming that the fringes were all the same distance from each other led us to measure only the outermost fringes, thinking that it was possible to increase accuracy this way. However a solution was found; we counted the number of maxima on the board in the experiment, which implied the maxima number of a hypothetical fringe with a distance half of that measured. For example If there are nine fringes then one of them is the central maximum so minus one then divide by two to get the maxima number, in this case four. This x led to a huge increase in precision and accuracy. Number of data sets 3 Total sample size 93 Weighted mean 533 nm Standard error of mean 0.1 nm Uncertainty 1.41 %

Table 1.1: Basic descriptive statistics about the diraction gratings experiment. The actual labelled value given by the laser for the wavelength was 532 nm, 0.27 % lower than the calculated value, which is accurate. The skew of the data was 1.60 which shows that more values were larger than the mean than were smaller than it. Condence intervals 90% 1.28 99% 2.01 Table 1.2: Condence Intervals for diraction grating experiment.

11

There was quite a small standard deviation of 7.52 nm. There was an unexpected cluster, four consecutive points, of data that were between three and four standard deviations away from the mean, all skewed in the same direction, which implies some kind of unaccounted for systematic error. It should however be noted that later data sets were considerably less accurate that sets recorded rst because of the higher fractional error due to a lower number of visible maximas observed.

Figure 1.2: Data from the diraction gratings experiment. Calculated wavelengths of laser displayed alongside the labelled value, with error bars.

12

Chapter 2

Single Slit Diraction

2.1 Aim

The aim was to nd the slit width of the single slit using its diraction pattern.

2.2

Background

The diculty confronting Young when conducting the single slit experiment was the light sources available at the time, such as candles and lanterns. These light sources were not suitable as they could not serve as a coherent light source. Instead Young devised a method which involved using sunlight which entered the room through a pinhole in a window shutter, and then a mirror was used to direct light across the room. To obtain two sources of light he used a small paper card to break the light into two separate beams. Since two beams came from the same source they could be considered coming from two coherent light sources. Young predicted, the light waves from these two sources would interfere. This pattern could then be projected onto a screen where measurements could be taken to determine the wavelength of the light source.

13

2.3

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Single slit Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Set square Blutack and tape

2.4

Method

The experiment produced 4 sets of data at xed distances from the screen (35, 40, 45 and 50 cm). Each set contained measurements of the distance between the pairs of maxima. To begin with the single slit was placed and aligned on the laser rail with the slit-to-screen distance starting at 35 cm. A piece of paper was attached onto the screen and the central maxima was marked on with an X. The rest of the maxima (that tted on the paper) were marked with a +. The paper was then removed and taken into another room with better light conditions for measuring, allowing the markings to be seen more clearly. From week 2 onwards we followed this convention of recording the measurements from the paper in well lit conditions, in an attempt to reduce human errors. Next measurements were taken of the distance between each pair of maxima of the same order. The order of the measurements were taken working outwards (with the rst pair after the central maxima dened as of the rst order m = 1). The experiment was then repeated for further sets of data at the new slitto-screen distances (35, 40, 45 and 50 cm).

14

2.5

Equation
1 (n + ) = d sin 2 (2.1)

Therefore:
1 (n + 2 ) 1 hyp = (n + ) sin 2 opp

d=

(2.2)

Where n = maxima number, = wavelength, d = slit width, = angle of laser beam, opp = distance from central maximum to relevant maxima, adj = slit to screen distance, hyp = slit to relevant maxima distance.

2.6

Analysis

A very small sample size of 21 readings was obtained, but as we were plotting results as we went along, we saw good agreement between results and so justied not taking more readings. However we were plotting points using an equation that did not apply to single slit diraction. After correcting for this during processing more data should have been collected (as always). Number of data sets 4 Total sample size 21 Weighted mean 62.7 m Standard error of mean 0.1 m Uncertainty 12.52 %

Table 2.1: Basic descriptive statistics about the single slit experiment. It was wrongly assumed that the equation for single and double slit diraction was the same. A x of sorts was implemented by assuming that maxima occur directly between minima. It should be noted that there is no simple, accurate way to predict maxima positions for a single slit. However the assumption that maxima occur directly between minima is a close enough approximation for our purposes. Condence intervals 90% 2.82 99% 4.41 Table 2.2: Condence Intervals for single slit experiment.

15

The standard deviation was 7.85m, rather high as is shown in the uncertainty. This was down to the large fractional errors for small input data, which combined in quadrature. The slit to screen distance should have been larger to combat this. The skew was 2.95, caused by the high error rst maxima measurements, one of which was more than three standard deviations away from the weighted mean, quite odd for such a small sample size.

Figure 2.1: Data from the single slit experiment. Calculated slit widths of single slit displayed alongside the weighted mean, with error bars.

16

As can be seen in Figure ??, predictions of maxima positions using the weighted mean closely agree with the positions observed. It should again be stressed that there is no simple model that predicts maxima positions for single slit diraction. Hypothesis testing failed to reject the null hypothesis that the average dierence between measured and predicted maxima positions was zero. The 2 test implied a very bad t between values, but as visually they dont seem too bad, this suggests that some error was not accounted for.

Figure 2.2: Data from the single slit experiment. Calculated slit widths of single slit displayed alongside the weighted mean, with error bars.

17

Chapter 3

Double Slit Diraction

3.1 Aim

The aim of the experiment was to nd the slit separation of the double slit.

3.2

Background

The Double Slit experiment was rst conducted by Thomas Young in 1801; he was the rst person to provide strong evidence which supported the wave model of light. Youngs experiment was based upon the hypothesis that if light were wave like in nature then it should behave like ripples in a pond. When two waves are in step, they should combine to make a larger wave, however when two waves are out of step they should cancel out creating a at surface. The Double slit experiment consisted of a screen with two slits cut into it, with a monochromatic light source. The purpose of this was to measure the resulting impacts on the screen behind the two slits. The results of this experiment showed the patterns of interference which could only occur if the wave patterns were involved. As Young changed the distances between the slits to the screen, and the space between the silts, he observed that the light passing through the slits produced distinct bands of colour separated by dark regions.

18

At the time, Youngs experiment seemed to provided conclusive proof that light travelled in waves, which would mean a revitalisation of Huygens theory of light, which said that light waves propagated through an invisible medium, which at the time was coined the ether. However Youngs theory was not accepted at rst by his peers. Other events such as phenomena like the rainbow colours and Newtons rings, although explained by his work were not immediately obvious to many scientists at the time who rmly believed that light propagates as a stream of particles. Other experiments were later devised which demonstrated the wave like nature of light and interference eects.

3.3

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Double slit Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Set square

3.4

Method

The experiment consisted of 4 sets of data at varying distances from the screen. The distance between the pairs of maxima was measured and used to determine the separation between the double slit. The rst step was to stick graph paper up onto the screen and the point where the laser hit the graph paper was marked with an X. Next the double slit was put into the holder and then placed onto the laser rail. Due to the short range of pattern clarity, it was decided to pick random data points between the range of 75 - 85 cm slit-to-screen distance. So next the slide was placed onto the rail, the slit-to-screen distance was set and the maxima marked on the paper with horizontal lines. In recording the measurements of the distance between the pairs of maxima it is important ensure that the maxima are of the same order. In between each measurement the slide was taken o the rail to ensure that the values were chosen randomly. This experiment was then repeated at other random distances. 19

3.5

Equation
n = d sin (3.1)

d=

n hyp = n sin opp

(3.2)

Where n = maxima number, = wavelength, d = slit separation, = angle of laser beam, opp = distance from central maximum to relevant maxima, adj = slit to screen distance, hyp = slit to relevant maxima distance.

3.6

Analysis

A very large amount of data was collected for this experiment, 110 readings. There were no systematic errors, although there was suspiciously little agreement between the data. Number of data sets 4 Total sample size 110 Weighted mean 200 m Standard error of mean 0.07 m Uncertainty 9.00 %

Table 3.1: Basic descriptive statistics about the double slit experiment. It is noteworthy that other physics groups reported calculating similar values for the slit separation. Condence intervals 90% 2.82 99% 4.42 Table 3.2: Condence Intervals for double slit experiment.

20

There was some agreement between experimental data and theoretical predictions assuming that the separation was the average, mostly in sets two and three. Sets one and four did not look like they t the prediction much at all. See chart ve (in appendix, too big to t into this section).

Figure 3.1: Data from the double slit experiment. Calculated slit seperation of double slit displayed alongside the weighted mean, with error bars. Hypothesis testing failed to reject the null hypothesis that the average difference between the measured and theorised values was zero. The 2 test again suggested a very bad t, which as does not visually look like the case was likely down to underestimating errors.

21

Chapter 4

Aperture Diraction
4.1 Aim

The aim of the experiment was to nd the diameter of an aperture using its diraction pattern.

4.2

Background

When Light waves pass through a small circular hole and onto a screen, it can be seen that light passing through the hole interferes with itself. On the screen a circular diraction pattern can be observed. This diraction pattern is called the Airy Disc, it is the central bright spot, surrounded by a series of concentric rings of alternate dark and bright fringes. This type of diraction has many applications as the eye and many optical instruments have circular apertures. if the smearing of the image of the point source is larger than that produced by the inadequacies of the system, the image processing is said to be diraction limited.

22

4.3

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Circular aperture Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Blutack and tape

4.4

Method

The experiment consisted of 5 sets of data. Each set of data uses the same aperture at dierent distances to the screen. The rst step was to insert the aperture slide into the holder and x the graph paper into position on the screen so that the laser hit the centre of the paper. The point at which the laser hits the screen was then marked on to the graph paper with an X. Next the holder was placed onto the rail and the aperture-to-screen distance was set and xed in position. We picked values at random between the range of 96.6 - 102.2 cm aperture to screen distance which was selected based on the clarity of the diraction pattern. Once the aperture was in position the diraction pattern was recorded by marking every other maxima from the centre (e.g. 1st, 3rd, 5th etc . . . ) in both the vertical and horizontal directions either side of the central maxima. The rst ring from the central maxima is dened to be of the rst order. Once the diraction pattern had been recorded, both the vertical and horizontal distances between the pairs of maxima were measured. The reason for recording both the horizontal and vertical distances was so that the data could be averaged to increase accuracy. This method was repeated until an adequate amount data had been collected, which was after 4 dierent aperture-to-screen distances.

23

4.5

Equation
1 (n + k + ) = d sin 2 (4.1)

d=

(n + k + 1 1 hyp 2 ) = (n + k + ) sin 2 opp

(4.2)

Where k = 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . Where n = maxima number (recorded), = wavelength, d = aperture diameter, /theta = angle of laser beam, opp = distance from central maximum to relevant maxima, adj = slit to screen distance, hyp = slit to relevant maxima distance and k = an arbitrary maxima modier.

4.6

Analysis

A small sample size of 32 readings was obtained, however each reading took twice as long as other previous experiments, more could have been recorded in the allocated time. Every second maxima was recorded to maximise spread of collected data. It was assumed that the apertures bright ring diameter could be modelled as twice the relevant maxima position for a single slit. It was also initially assumed that the rst visible bright ring was maxima one and so on, however we suspected that the bright central maximum may have overlapped with other bright areas meaning that the visible bright disk we recorded may not have been maxima one but maxima two or three or even four. This was accounted for by calculating the diameter four times, rst assuming that what the maxima recorded really were true, then assuming that they were one o, then two o and then three o. This was further complicated by the fact that each data set could have been recorded dierently, for example set one could have recorded the true maxima, and set two could be one o.

24

Therefore weighted averages (and other relevant statistics) had to be calculated separately for each data set. These separate weighted averages and their standard errors could then also be taken as a data set, the weighted average of these weighted averages could then be calculated along with other useful information. The separate weighted averages were then used to model where the bright rings would occur, and the best models corresponding value for the diameter was used for each data set. Then the weighted mean of the values obtained through the models was used as the nal value. Number of data sets 5 Total sample size 32 Weighted mean 657 m Standard error of mean 1 m Uncertainty 6.75 %

Table 4.1: Basic descriptive statistics about the aperture diraction experiment. The 2 test was applied to each of the models and informed the choice of which model was the best for each particular data set. A few of the data sets had models that were convincingly accurate, but others seemed to indicate that there was some factor which was missed.

Figure 4.1: Data from the aperture diraction experiment. Calculated diameters of aperture displayed alongside the weighted mean, with error bars.

25

Chapter 5

Wire Diraction
5.1 Aim

The aim of the experiment was to nd the thickness of the wire in the slide by its diraction pattern.

5.2

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Wire slide Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Blutack and tape

26

5.3

Method

The experiment consisted of 11 sets of data taken for varying slide-to-screen distances. Each set of data contains 10 or more individual readings for each order of minima measured either side of the central maxima. To start with the slide containing the wire was placed in a holder with the wire parallel to the bench so that it would produce a vertical diraction pattern on the screen. Next the graph paper was attached to the screen, the point the laser hit the screen was marked with an X and orientation of the paper marked on. The holder was then placed on the rail and random slide-to-screen distances were selected. Again random values were used as the clarity varied depending on the slide-to-screen distance, the total range was 66.4 - 90.6 cm. The minima were marked with a horizontal line on either side of the central maxima. The pairs of minima were numbered on the paper for easy reference whilst measuring. The distance from the central maxima to an order of minima was recorded down separately for both the left and right sides of the diraction pattern. Since the wire was turned through 90 and was parallel to the bench creating a vertical diraction pattern, the right measurement was dened as towards the top of the graph paper. This method was then repeated at dierent slide-to-screen distances until an adequate amount of readings had been taken.

5.4

Equation
n = d sin (5.1)

d=

n hyp = n sin opp

(5.2)

Where n = maxima number, = wavelength, d = wire width, = angle of laser beam, opp = distance from central maximum to relevant maxima, adj = slit to screen distance, hyp = slit to relevant maxima distance.

27

5.5

Analysis

A large amount of data was collected for this experiment, especially considering that each data point required two measurements. Number of data sets 10 Total sample size 103 Weighted mean 81.9 m Standard error of mean 0.02 m Uncertainty 17.57 %

Table 5.1: Basic descriptive statistics about the wire diraction experiment. Minima were measured instead of maxima under the assumption that maxima were directly in between minima, in order to decrease error, leading to a marginal increase in precision but a decrease in accuracy. Condence intervals 90% 2.33 99% 3.65 Table 5.2: Condence intervals for wire diraction experiment. The results had a standard deviation of 14.4 m and a skew of 1.86. Apart from the rst reading of every data set, the results seemed to be very regular. Hypothesis testing and the 2 test suggest deep incompatibilities between measured and theorised x coordinate position. Maybe another model needs to be explored. See below.

Figure 5.1: Data from the wire diraction experiment. Calculated wire widths of the wire displayed alongside the weighted mean, with error bars.

28

Chapter 6

Mesh Diraction
6.1 Aim

The aim of the experiment was to test the theory of diraction patterns produced by a mesh at dierent distances.

6.2

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Mesh (two overlaid diraction gratings) Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Blutack and tape

29

6.3

Method

This experiment consisted of 2 sets of data. Each set of data was the coordinates of the maxima on the screen taken with varying mesh-to-screen distances. The rst grating was attached into the holder and the second xed perpendicular to the rst. The initial laser point was marked onto the graph paper with an X. Next the grating-to-screen distance was set. Since there were two gratings forming the mesh, the mesh-to-screen distance was taken to the grating closest to the laser. The diraction pattern produced was a grid of maxima which were marked on the graph paper with a +. Other important information like the orientation of the paper, the distance from screen and grating selection were recorded on the paper. Once the diraction pattern had been recorded, we dened a coordinate system. As mentioned before the central maxima is marked with an X. The central maximas composite order is dened as [0, 0] with all other coordinates in reference to this point in terms of x and y . The points were labeled in relation to the centre (an example would be the composite order for the maxima to the left of the central maxima, it would be [1, 0]). Measurements were taken (in centimetres) from the centre in both the x and y directions to mark position. To keep consistency in the order of writing down the coordinate we followed an anti-clockwise spiral system in sorting the coordinates. This experiment was repeated at dierent mesh-to-screen distances in order to model and predict the outcome.

30

6.4

Equation

If maxima with composite order (nh , nv ) Let: h = tan(arcsin( nh )) d1 (6.1)

v = tan(arcsin(

nv )) d2

(6.2)

x = z h

(6.3)

y = z v

(6.4)

Where adj is z coordinate and opp is x and y coordinate respectively.

(x, y, z ) = z (h , v , 1)

(6.5)

For a more detailed explanation see appendix.

31

6.5

Analysis

There was only 2 data sets measured with a sample size of 43. There was a source of systematic error present; the slit to screen distance was measured as the distance from the screen to the grating closest to the laser, but the model assumes that the distance between gratings is negligible, the grating closest to the screen would have given the best representation of the model. This was accounted for by assuming that the error on the slit to screen measurement was half a centimetre, which was justied by measuring the dierence in length from the rst and second slits, which was roughly a centimetre. Another systematic error was the uneven distribution of blu-tack on the grating closest to the screen, which would have been at a slight angle relative to the rst slit. As shown in the nal experiment and the diagram below, a grating at an angle relative to the laser beam can cause a curvature to form in the line of maxima. Furthermore the distance between the gratings was not negligibly small and probably caused a similar eect as described above as the rst grating diracts the laser, the beam splits, the beams which hit the edge of the second slit would be at a non-negligible angle, therefore also adding error. The eect of this error would be much larger than that of the previously described error. With the assumption of additional error on the slit to screen distance, the 2 test indicated a very good compatibility between theory and data for both the x and y axis predictions. Hypothesis testing however did not agree. The null hypothesis that the average dierence (for the x axis and then separately for the y axis) between measured and theoretical values was zero, was barely not rejected for the x axis (0.05 signicance for both x/y axis) and was rejected for the y axis. Considering the 2 test and the average dierence and the multiple nonnegligible systematic errors outlined above, the hypothesis test seems to be indicating a positively skewed systematic error(s) for both x and y coordinates. See below.

32

Figure 6.1: Data from the mesh diraction experiment sets 1 and 2.

33

Chapter 7

Angled Gratings
7.1 Aim

To determine the relationship between a pair of angled gratings and the diraction pattern they produce.

7.2

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser two overlaid diraction gratings at varying angles Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings

7.3

Method

This experiment consists of 6 sets of data. Each set of data is at the same grating-to-screen distance with a change in either angle or grating combination. The slides were set up with the rst grating placed in the holder with the slits perpendicular to the laser. The second grating was then xed onto the holder on the side closer to the screen with a 90 (measured angle) dened as the second grating being parallel to the bench. A plumb bob was used to ensure that the distribution of bluetack was even and the mesh was perpendicular to the laser.

34

The angle between the two gratings was dened as looking towards the gratings from the view point of the board, with the angle being measured from the horizontal. The measured angle was later used to calculate the angle from the vertical. It was also dened that clockwise was a positive angle and anti-clockwise a negative angle. Next the paper was stuck up onto the screen and the laser point was marked onto the screen with an X. The initial distance between the rst and second gratings was also taken. The slide holder and gratings were then place onto the rail. The remaining points were marked onto the graph paper with a +. When the diraction pattern was recorded the data kept with the conventions of the previous experiment with the use of same coordinate system and used the spiral ordering system with adjustments made for the skew of the grid changing. This experiment was repeated for a series of dierent angles and grating combinations.

7.4

Equation

See Appendix for derivation.

7.5

Analysis

A large amount of data (86) was collected for this experiment with considerably more sets (6) than the previous experiment. The same systematic errors that befell the above experiment also apply to this experiment with the exception of the uneven distribution of blu-tack which was corrected for using a plumb bob. Additional error due to not knowing the distance between the slits was accounted for similarly to the previously mentioned experiment. The 2 test for both the x and y coordinate predictions indicated a good t between measured and predicted values. Hypothesis testing failed to reject the null hypothesis that the average dierence between measured and predicted values is zero.

35

Chapter 8

Angled (x axis) diraction gratings

8.1 Aim

To nd a relationship between angle of a diraction grating and the bending of the diraction pattern.

8.2

Equipment

Green (532nm) class 2 laser Diraction grating slides (100, 300 and 600 lines/mm) Optical bench/range and rail Screen Graph paper Metre rule and 30cm ruler both with millimetre markings Blutack and tape

36

8.3

Method

This experiment contained 6 sets of data. Each set of data consisted of the grating at a dierent angle of skew. To start with the graph paper was attached to the screen and the laser point was marked on with an X. Next a single diraction grating was placed at 90 into the slide holder (with slits parallel to the bench), this allows for the angle of the slide to change on another axis to our previous experiment.

Figure 8.1: Example of curved diraction pattern of angled grating. In order to change the angle, the grating starts parallel to the screen. The distance from the screen to each corner of the slide holder was measured. In order to change the angle we increased the distance to the far side by 1cm which in turn reduced the near side by the same amount. The measurement is then taken by marking the remaining maxima with a +. The experiment was repeated for a variety of angles and grating types.

8.4

Equation

No equation used/found.

37

8.5

Analysis

There were not many conclusions that could be drawn from this small a data set (44) with such a small spread. It was found that over the range we covered the x coordinates were approximately the same as if there was zero rotation. Whilst rotated through a certain angle the change in x coordinates from when there was zero rotation appeared to be proportional to n. A theory that n was proportional to the dierence between the x coordinate at zero rotation and at an angle, was tested and appears not to be the case as the covariance (covar. for short) was -0.10 and the correlation coecient (correl. for short) was -0.29. It was also found that average y coordinates change with a particular theta, although the exact nature of the relationship has not been determined. The average y coordinate position for each angle increases as the angle increases. A direct proportionality may be possible as correl. is 0.778 but covar. is 0.065. Generally y is larger for a large absolute value of either the order or the x coordinate, implying the quantities are directly proportional. For n vs y covar. = 0.28 and correl. = 0.36, which is not promising. For x vs y covar. = 1.02 and correl. = 0.441, implying some kind of more complicated relationship than a simple probability. Furthermore a smaller slit distance produced a larger average y coordinate position, implying an inverse proportionality, but its only speculation as we changed slit distance only once.

38

Part III

Conclusion

39

Our aims for the project were to gain a deeper understanding of the subject area of diraction, furthermore we wanted to learn new experimental techniques and methods to develop our knowledge of physics. We planned to do this by carrying out a series of experiments. We believe that through conducting dierent experiments we achieved the aim of gaining a deeper understanding of the phenomenon that is diraction. Specically we focused on light wave diraction through the use of a laser. However this was not part of the original plan as we wanted to look into all aspects of diraction including particle diraction; this allowed us to test some of our own ideas about the diraction of light such as the vector line equations of beam paths after mesh diraction. We also believe we achieved our aim of developing our experimental skills, by learning from many mistakes, the most important being that experiments should be focused on reducing error. We also developed many transferable skills such as communication skills, advanced excel functions and statistics. Another important skill which will help us in A later years is the use of the L TEX typesetting system. Moreover we used other technologies to help with communications to enhance group work such as google drive. this was benecial as we could all edit a ocument at the same time without the need to meet up in the same location. Also using video conferencing tools such as Skype allowed us to communicate and work on the project during the Easter break. There were many improvements that could have been made throughout the project. The most important progression we could have achieved in the project was to start o with the aim of focusing on reducing the errors in each experiment. Also another improvement we could have implemented was to increase eciency by planning in more detail then we had been doing. To conclude we feel we have met our aims and developed many skills.

40

Part IV

References

41

Introduction: Authorship: Dr Rod Nave Title: Diraction Available at: Hyper physics www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/diracon.html Authorship: Andrew Zimmerman Jones Available at: About.com Education Physics http://physics.about.com/od/mathematicsofwaves/a/huygrnspriciple Diraction Gratings: Authorship: Dr Rod Nave Title: Diraction gratings Available at: Hyper physics www.hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/diracon.html Single Slit : Authorship: Michael W. Davidson [of Florida State University] Title: Thomas Youngs Double Slit experiment Available at: www.micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/ Double Slit Experiment: Authorship: Michael W. Davidson [of Florida State University] Title: Thomas Youngs Double Slit experiment Available at: www.micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/ Authorship: Anon Title: Lesson 58: Youngs Double Slit Experiment Available at : www.studyphysics.ca/newnotes/20/unit04light/chp1719light/lesson58.htm Aperture: Authorship: Anon Title: Diraction of a circular aperture Available at : www.physics.nus.edu.sg/.../experiments/diraction

42

Wire Diraction Authorship: Anon Title: Diraction with Hair or wire Available at: www.physicsed.bualostate.edu/pubs/StudentIndepStudy/EURP09/Young/Young.html

43

Part V

Appendix

44

Chapter 9

Derivation of vector line equations

9.1
9.1.1

Single slit/double slit/grating diraction

Notation + assumptions

Using the Cartesian coordinate system in three dimensions, dene the point where the laser strikes the slit(s) as (0, 0, 0). The unit vector i acts in the horizontal plane perpendicular to the beam of the laser striking the slit(s) and is positive to the right of the direction of travel of the beam. The unit vector j acts in the vertical plane perpendicular to the beam of the laser striking the slit(s) and is positive upwards. The vector k acts and is positive in the direction of the laser beam. Let maxima mean points where constructive interference occurs. Let n denote the order of the maxima, where n = 0 is dened as the central maximum (CM), n = 1 is dened as the rst maximum observed in the i direction after the CM, n = 2 is the second and so on. The rst maximum to the left of the CM would mean n = 1, the second n = 2 etcetera. Let denote the wavelength of the laser light. Let d denote slit separation. Let denote the angle at which maxima occurs, positive in i direction. opp = distance of maxima from the CM positive in the i direction (shown as y in diagram) = x coordinate of maxima. adj = slit to screen distance (shown as L in diagram) = z coordinate of maxima. The equation n = d sin is assumed to be true, which implies a nite number of maxima. For single slit equivalent 1 replace n with (n + 2 ).

45

9.1.2

Derivation
n = d sin (9.1)

Therefore: n = sin d

(9.2)

To nd x coordinate of maxima in terms of slit to screen distance. opp = tan adj

(9.3)

Where: n ) d

= arcsin(

(9.4)

opp n = tan(arcsin( )) adj d

(9.5)

Therefore: n )) d

opp = adj tan(arcsin(

(9.6)

46

Where opp = x, adj = z , and y coordinate is always 0. n )) d

x = z tan(arcsin(

(9.7)

Therefore the 3d vector line equations of the laser beams where maxima will occur is: n ))i + k ) d

M (tan(arcsin(

(9.8)

47

9.2
9.2.1

Mesh diraction
Mesh denition

Here we shall dene a mesh as two overlaid diraction gratings. The grating closest to the laser being xed horizontally and the grating closest to the screen xed vertically. The distance between gratings must be negligibly small so as to reduce diraction eects between gratings.

9.2.2

Notation + assumptions

Use the same denition of (0, 0, 0) in the Cartesian coordinate system and for as in the previous derivation. It is assumed that the diraction pattern will be the ordinary horizontal diraction pattern for which each horizontal maxima is diracted vertically by the second vertically positioned grating, to produce a diraction array. Assuming the diraction array model described above is true then the vector line equations of the laser beam after passing through the mesh can be using the above derivation, for the rst slit, then applying it again to those lines but vertically, using details of the second slit as appropriate. Let d1 denote the slit separation of the grating closest to the laser and d2 denote the slit separation of the slit closest to the screen. Let nh of a maximum denote the order of the maxima that corresponds to the rst slit. It can be thought of as the horizontal order. Conversely Let nv of a maximum denote the order of the maxima that corresponds to the second slit. It can be thought of as the vertical order. The i direction is positive for the horizontal order and the j direction is positive for the vertical order. Therefore each bright fringe in the array can be assigned a composite order in a coordinate form (horizontal order, vertical order). See g below.

48

For example the central maxima shown highlighted with a red ring would have composite order (0, 0), the other highlighted maxima would have composite orders as follows: White (2, 1), purple (1, 2), pink (4, 0), blue (2, 2), yellow (0, 3).

Figure 9.1: Mesh diraction pattern with marking.

49

9.2.3

Derivation

If maxima with composite order (nh , nv ). Let: nh )) d1 nv )) d2

h = tan(arcsin( v = tan(arcsin(

(9.9) (9.10)

Therefore: opp n = tan(arcsin( )) adj d opp = adj tan(arcsin( n )) d

(9.11) (9.12)

Therefore:

x = z h y = z v

(9.13) (9.14)

Where adj is z coordinate and opp is x and y coordinate respectively.

(x, y, z ) = z (h , v , 1)

(9.15)

Therefore the 3d vector line equations of the laser beams where maxima will occur is:

M (h i + v j + k )

(9.16)

50

9.3
9.3.1

Overlaid diraction gratings at an angle

Overlaid diraction gratings denition

Dene an overlaid diraction grating as a mesh, where the second grating is placed at an angle from the vertical.

9.3.2

Notation + assumptions

Use the same denition of (0, 0, 0) in the Cartesian coordinate system and for as in the previous two derivations. It is assumed that the diraction pattern will be similar to the mesh. The pattern formed by the rst slit, the horizontal one, will remain the same, each of those maxima will then be diracted at whatever angle the angle between the two slits. The resulting array can be imagined as the same as the mesh pattern but with each of the vertical diraction patterns rotated around the beam that it is diracting. Let d1 denote the slit separation of the grating closest to the laser and d2 denote the slit separation of the slit closest to the screen. Let nh of a maximum denote the order of the maxima that corresponds to the rst grating. It can be thought of as the horizontal order. Conversely Let nv of a maximum denote the order of the maxima that corresponds to the second grating. It can be thought of as the vertical order rotated through an angle, from the vertical, . The i direction is positive for the horizontal order and the j direction is positive for the vertical order before rotation. Therefore again similarly to the mesh each bright fringe in the array can be assigned a composite order in a coordinate form (horizontal order, vertical order). The dierence being that the coordinate system applies before rotation. If a particular maxima has a composite order (a, b) in one angle then although its position will be dierent at a dierent angle, its composite order will be the same. See g. The anticlockwise direction will be dened as positive so the diagram in g will be a negative angle.

51

Figure 9.2: If maxima with composite order (nh , nv ). Let: h = tan(arcsin( v = tan(arcsin( nh )) d1 nv )) d2 (9.17) (9.18)

52

Start o imagining the mesh situation, if the mesh is rotated a certain angle through a circle, then if turning anticlockwise is a positive angle and left to right is the positive x axis then the new x position is h h sin. Its the original the change caused by rotation. The new y position is easier to understand its simply h cos, the original multiplied by cos of the angle. The z coordinate always stays the same.

(x, y, z ) = z (h h sin, h cos, 1) M (h h sini, h cosj, k )

53