Overview:

Once, when interning at the University of Warsaw, I noticed

that a laser was used to measure the photoluminescence and
reflectivity of the MBE structures that were grown in the lab. By
manipulating various aspects of the laser (such as the intensity and
wavelength), an optimal condition was created in order to measure
the MBE structures. After observing the ability of a laser to act as a
measuring device, I decided to conduct an experiment myself to
further explore this idea. After doing some research, I stumbled
upon a MIT undergraduate lab assignment that involved the
measurement of a strand of hair using a laser. After building the
measurement device (quantum micrometer) and recreating the
experiment myself, I was slightly disappointed because I did not
have the tools to check and see how accurate my measurements
were. Thus, I decided to conduct an alternative experiment in order
to determine the extent to which the quantum micrometer was
accurate and what factors affected this accuracy.
The purpose of this investigation is to, first, design an
apparatus that takes advantage of Youngs double slit experiment in
order to measure small objects that are typically difficult to measure
by conventional toolssuch as graphite that is used in mechanical
pencils and to, second, evaluate how the accuracy of these
measurements are affected by the change in the value of L
(distance of the apparatus from the screen).
Background:
In the early 19th century, Thomas Young first proved the wavelike nature of light using his infamous double slit experiment. In his
original experiment, Young shined a point source of light across two
narrow slits and observed the pattern produced on a screen. Under
the common assumption that light contained particles, he expected
that two bright lined would appear on the screen. However, in his
experiment, Young discovered a series of bright lines (interference
patterns) on the screen instead. He postulated that this was
because light had wave like properties and hence, when
encountering a barrier, spreads out and produces interference
patterns (like when two rocks are thrown into a puddle of water)
because of diffraction. (Giancoli)

Figure 1: A schematic of Youngs double slit experiment that shows how the light
waves interact to produce the interference patterns on a screen (Wikipedia:
Youngs Interference Experiment cite)

Youngs Experiment was further used to determine the

wavelength of sunlight. In order to do this, he had to ensure that the
sunlight falling on the two slits was coherent. Then, he simply had to
make measurement on the interference pattern that was projected
onto the screen in order determine the wavelength of the light. The
following equation was used for the experiment:
dx
=
mL
In this equation, lambda is the wavelength, d is the slit separation, x
is the distance from the central maxima to the desired order of the
interference, m is the order of the interference, and L is the distance
between the slits and the screen.

Figure 2: A schematic highlighting the meaning of the variables represented in

Youngs equation.

F
igure 3: A graph showing the order of interference fringes (m) produced by the
double slit experiment. Here, the central maxima is the brightest fringe, where
m=0

The Quantum Micrometer is a modified version of the double

slit experiment that takes advantage of Youngs equation to
calculate the thickness of small objects whose diameter is within
an order magnitude of the laser light used. In this set-up, the
object acts as the barrier between the two slits.

Figure 4: A diagram depicting the general concept behind the quantum

micrometer and its relation to the double slit experiment.

Therefore, in order to find the value of the thickness of the object,

one needs to calculate the value of d in Youngs Equation.
Research Question:
How is the accuracy of a self-designed quantum micrometer
affected by the change in distance between the apparatus from the
screen?
Hypothesis:
I predict that as L increases, the accuracy of the
measurements will also increase (this means that there is a lower
percent error). This is because, according to Youngs equation, the

interference fringes spread out (because x increases) as L increases.

Hence, it makes it easier to distinguish the individual bright fringes,
thus, improving the accuracy of the measurement.
Variables
In this investigation, the independent variable is the distance
between the apparatus and the screen (measured in meters). In
particular, the values that will be implemented are: 2.0 m, 2.5 m,
3.0 m, 3.5 m, and 4.0 m. I will be using the help of measuring tape
in order to change the length of the micrometer from the screen.
The dependent variable is the accuracy of the micrometer.
This will be measured by taking the difference between the
calculated value of the width of various pieces of lead using the
apparatus and the actual known thickness of the lead, dividing it by
the known thickness and then multiplying it by 100.
dcalculated dactual
*100

dcalculated

The result obtained will be the percent error of the micrometer,

where lower values evaluate to higher accuracy.
The table below identifies some of the variables that will be
controlled in this investigation:
Table 1: A table that lists the various control variables, highlights why it should be
controlled, and outlines how it will be kept controlled.

Controll
ed
Variable
Power of
the laser

Amount
of light
exposur
e
Distance
between
the laser
and the
slits

Why should it be controlled?

How is it controlled

It might be easier to see the

diffraction pattern with some
lasers compared to others.
Hence, the measurements
might be more accurate for
the more powerful lasers,
which will end up altering the
data.
Greater exposure to light
makes it harder to see the
diffraction patterns on the
screen. Thus, it will hinder the
accuracy of the
measurements.
Varying this value might affect
the visibility of the
interference fringes on the
screen, which will
consequently affect the
accuracy of the
measurements.

Using the same laser

(with the same power)
throughout the
experiment

No lights will be turned

on during the
measurements and all
the blinds will be closed
completely
The stand on which the
laser is placed will be
attached to the device
that contains the pieces
of lead so that the
distance remains
constant.

Method:
In order to build the apparatus, the following materials were used:
PM laser 303 (5 mw power and 532 nm wavelength)
Lego NXT motor
CD
Varying thicknesses of graphite for mechanical pencils (0.3
mm, 0.5 mm, 0.7 mm, 0.9 mm)
Cardboard
Tape
Paper
Lego NXT pieces
The procedure for building the micrometer is described below:
1) Take a CD and attach a paper circle (with a larger diameter) on
top of it
2) Cut four square holes in the paper circle that is not attached
to the CD

Figure 5: A diagram of step 2 of the procedure described above

3) Using tape, attach the one piece of graphite on top of each

hole and label its thickness
4) Build a stand with legos and attach the motor to this stand.
Then, attach the CD to the motor so that it can rotate
5) Using cardboard, create a stand for the laser so that its beam
directly falls on top of the piece of graphite

Figure 6: Two images showing the quantum micrometer used in this

investigation

Figure 7: A third image that provides a horizontal view of the quantum

micrometer

Experimental Setup:
In order to measure the thickness of the various pieces of
graphite, the following experimental setup was used:

Figure 8: A diagram of the experimental setup with (a) depicting the general
layout, (b) showing how the interference patterns will be measured on the screen,
and (c) showing how the laser will go through the various pieces of graphite.

As seen by the schematic, the micrometer is placed a certain

distance (L) from the screen and a laser beam is incident upon a
piece of graphite (whose thickness is known). This creates an
interference pattern on the screen. Using a pencil, a person marks
the location of the central maxima and the location of the desired
order of interference. Then, using a standard ruler, the distance
between the two marks is measured and recorded along with the
value of the order of interference.
The thickness of the pencil graphite can be calculated using the
following rearranged version of Youngs Equation:

mL
x

In this investigation, 5 values for the independent variables will be

used. This means that the length between the micrometer and the
wall will be altered 5 times. For each of these different lengths,
measurements for four different widths of pencil graphite will be
conducted. For each individual pencil lead, 5 different values for the
order of interference will be used and hence, 5 measurements for
the value of x will be obtained. In total, this will sum up to 100 data
points.

Measurement and Uncertainties:

In this investigation, four quantities need to be known in order
to calculate the width of the piece of lead experimentally. These
quantities are: the wavelength, the order of interference, the
distance from the central maxima to the chosen order of
interference, and the distance between the screen and the slits (the
independent variable). The value of the wavelength can be found by
referring to labels on the laser. Furthermore, one can simply choose
a fringe at random and count the number of fringes between it and
the central maxima in order to calculate the order of interference.
Then, using a ruler, the distance between the central maxima and
the chosen fringe can be calculated. Lastly, the distance between
the apparatus and the screen will be changed using measuring tape.
The table below outlines the units and uncertainties of the each of
the quantities:
Table 2: A table that describes the unit of measurement and uncertainty of various
quantities in this experiment

Quantity
Wavelength of laser
Order of interference (m)
Distance from central
maxima to order of
interference
Distance between screen
and the micrometer
Lead thickness (actual)

Unit of
Measurement
Nanometers (nm)
No unit
Meters (m)

Uncertainty

Meters (m)

0.005 m

Millimeter (mm)

Unknown

10 nm
1
5 x 10-4 m

Data:
Table 3: A table that contains all the raw data collected during this investigation

Lengt
h (m)

0.005
m

Lead
Thickne
ss (mm)

0.3

0.5
4.000

0.7

Order of
Interferen
ce

Distance from
central
maxima (cm)
0.05 cm

Thickness Percent
Calculate Error
d (mm)
(Absolute
value)

1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3

6.65
12.25
20.05
29.20
39.60
3.90
8.20
11.50
19.10
22.40
3.10
5.50
8.30

0.32
0.35
0.32
0.29
0.27
0.55
0.52
0.56
0.45
0.48
0.69
0.77
0.77

6.25
13.65
5.78
2.91
11.65
8.36
3.67
9.93
12.19
5.26
1.97
9.54
8.99

0.9

0.3

0.5
3.500
0.7

0.9

0.3

0.5
3.000
0.7

0.9

4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1

11.05
15.20
2.20
4.60
7.05
9.65
12.50
5.15
10.75
16.70
23.90
30.60
4.70
9.50
14.95
18.90
25.05
2.65
5.85
8.75
12.00
15.10
2.10
4.10
6.50
8.70
11.20
6.50
12.20
18.40
23.50
28.20
3.50
8.05
12.45
18.10
21.50
2.65
5.05
7.85
10.90
18.10
2.90
5.10
7.85
10.90
12.10
6.00

0.77
0.70
0.97
0.93
0.91
0.88
0.85
0.36
0.35
0.33
0.31
0.30
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.39
0.37
0.70
0.64
0.64
0.62
0.62
0.89
0.91
0.86
0.86
0.83
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.27
0.28
0.46
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.37
0.60
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.44
0.55
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.66
0.22

9.13
0.00
6.95
2.73
0.61
2.03
5.73
17.02
13.40
10.31
3.73
1.40
26.21
27.55
33.82
26.88
34.53
0.38
9.96
9.65
12.78
13.53
1.50
0.91
4.73
5.13
8.27
22.18
14.66
15.29
10.43
6.02
9.65
26.10
30.01
41.76
34.71
16.23
10.75
14.77
19.52
58.77
63.53
43.80
47.56
53.67
36.47
35.34

0.3

0.5
2.500
0.7

0.9

0.3

0.5
2.000
0.7

0.9

2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5

10.90
16.35
21.80
28.20
3.80
8.30
13.20
17.40
21.50
2.70
5.45
8.00
11.05
14.00
1.75
3.80
5.90
8.95
9.85
5.35
9.80
14.05
21.55
25.00
3.60
7.00
10.20
14.60
19.20
1.20
3.20
5.40
8.55
10.50
1.50
3.70
4.60
5.50
7.10

0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.35
0.32
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.49
0.49
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.76
0.70
0.68
0.59
0.68
0.20
0.22
0.23
0.20
0.21
0.30
0.30
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.89
0.67
0.59
0.50
0.51
0.71
0.58
0.69
0.77
0.75

22.93
22.93
22.93
27.22
42.86
56.02
65.41
63.53
61.65
42.11
43.42
40.35
45.39
47.37
18.42
28.57
33.08
51.41
33.31
50.85
38.16
32.05
51.90
40.98
69.17
64.47
59.77
71.52
80.45
21.05
5.26
18.42
40.63
38.16
26.88
56.48
29.70
16.31
20.11

Table 5: A reduced version of the table above that highlights the necessary data
needed to come to a conclusion about this investigation. Specifically, it provides
details regarding the average percent error for each of the pencil graphite, the
general average percent error, the general standard deviation, and SEM for each
length (the independent variable)

Length (m) 0.005

4.000

3.500

3.000

2.500

2.000

Lead Thickness (mm)

0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Average
Standard
SEM
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Average
Standard
SEM
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Average
Standard
SEM
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Average
Standard
SEM
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
Average
Standard
SEM

Deviation

Deviation

Deviation

Deviation

Deviation

Average Percent
Error 0.01
(absolute value)
8.05
7.88
5.93
3.61
6.37
2.08
1.04
9.17
29.80
9.26
4.11
13.08
11.40
5.70
13.72
28.45
24.01
49.00
28.79
14.82
7.41
26.27
57.89
43.73
32.96
40.21
13.81
6.90
42.79
69.08
24.70
29.90
41.62
19.82
9.91

Table 6: A condensed version that only contains information regarding the general
average percent error, standard deviation, and SEM, for each value of the
independent variable

Percent Error (absolute value)

Length
0.005 m
Average
0.01
Standard
Deviation
SEM

2.000 m

2.500

3.000 m

3.500 m

4.000 m

41.62

40.21

28.79

13.08

6.37

19.82
9.91

13.81
6.90

14.82
7.41

11.40
5.70

2.08
1.04

50.00
40.00
30.00

Average Percent Error

20.00
10.00
0.00
1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Length (m)
Figure : A graph that reflects how the change in length, measured in
meters, affects the average percent error of the quantum
micrometer.
As observed in the graph above, it can be interpreted that the
accuracy increases as the distance between the screen and the
micrometer increases because the percent error decreases.
However, the decline trend does not appear to be linear and instead
appears to have a horizontal asymptotes at y~0. This makes sense
because the data represents the absolute value of the calculated
percent error. Hence, it is impossible to have a negative percent
error. Additionally, because no measurement can be taken if the
screen is 0 m from the apparatus, a y-intercept value cannot be
computed for this graph. Furthermore, because the data is not
linear, there is no single gradient for this graph. The overlap of the
error bars for consecutive data points also show that a change of 0.5
m in length does not the accuracy of the data significantly.
However, as shown in the graph below, a 2 m difference in length
greatly affects the accuracy as the error bars do not overlap at all
and the values for the means differ by approximately 35%.

45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00

Average Percent Error 20.00

15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
2m

4m

Length
Conclusion
Therefore, this investigation does prove that the distance
between the screen and the apparatus affects the accuracy of the
quantum micrometer. However, the changes in length need to be
significantly large in order for the accuracy to improve noticeably.
The fact that a linear relationship wasnt obtained from the data
may be caused by two factors: the close range of the values for the
independent variable, and the lack of precision in measuring the
value of x. Firstly, as described above, the small changes to the
value of L did not affect the accuracy significantly as opposed to
larger changes. Hence if the range of values for the independent
variable was changed to {2, 4, 6, 8, 10} a functional relationship
(like a linear relationship) could be found. Additionally, measuring
the value of x was extremely difficult as it was difficult to make out
the location of the various interference fringes. Also, as pencil lead
is not completely uniform on the surface, smaller fringes appeared
in between the larger fringes on the screen. This made measuring
even harder for it was difficult to distinguish the beginnings and
ends of certain fringes. However, despite its flaws, this investigation
ultimately did confirm my hypothesis (mentioned in the
introduction).
I was extremely astonished by the accuracy to which this
device was able to measure the thickness of the pencil lead. This
experiment has further enhanced my appreciation for both quantum
physics and the power of lasers.
Improvements:
If I were to conduct this experiment again, I would make the
following changes:
Improvement
Why?
Increase the
Because pencil lead is not completely

wavelength of the
laser

uniform, sometimes, smaller fringes would

be visible in between the interference
pattern created by the lead as whole. This
made measuring the value of x extremely
difficult. However, by using a laser with a
greater wavelength, this problem can be
eliminated because the general interference
pattern would be compressed (as
wavelength is inversely proportional to x)
and thus, only the large interference patterns
will be observed.
Use a larger range of As mentioned above, by using a larger range
values for the
of values, the change in accuracy will be
independent variable quite evident and hence, a functional
relationship can be drawn in accordance with
the data acquired.
Device a more
When obtaining the value for x for certain
accurate and
trials, my shadow sometimes fell on top of
efficient system to
the fringe I was measuring. Hence, I had to
calculate the value
stand in a very awkward position in order to
of x for each trial.
see the interference pattern clearly, thus
For example, by
making the measurement process slightly
taping a ruler to the
inaccurate (because I could not see the ruler
screen, and using a
clearly) and extremely frustrating. By using
web cam to obtain
the webcam, I would not have to worry about
the measurements
this problem because I can position it in a
certain way to that its shadow does not
interfere with the measurements.
Automate the
Currently, the measurement process relies
measurement
heavily on human reasoning and judgment
process
(especially when deciding when a
interference fringe begins and ends).
However, if this process was automated,
greater quantitates of measurements could
be obtained in a shorter period of time.
Hence, with greater data, more accurate
inferences can be made.
Use various sizes of
The reason pencil lead was chosen during
wire instead of pencil this investigation was because it was easily
lead
available in different sizes, and its thickness
was known. It was only during the
experiment that I realized that, because it is
not uniform on the surface, the interference
patterns were being affected. This apparatus
is usually used to measure the width of hair,
and thus, any unevenness on the piece of
lead the size of a strand of hair would affect
the interference patterns observed on the
screen. Thus, for future experimentation, I

would suggest using something with a more

uniform surface (like a wire) whose thickness
is known and can be varied.
Future experimental ideas:
1) How does wavelength of the laser affect the accuracy of the
quantum micrometer?
2) How does the thickness of the object that is to be measured
affect accuracy of the quantum micrometer?
3) How does an automated measuring system affect the accuracy of
the quantum micrometer?

Sources:
1) http://www.jedc.org/stemak/sites/default/files/Measuring
%20the%20diameter%20of%20a%20hair%20using%20a
%20laser.pdf
2) Giancoli