Results

Wavelength Results

Measured wavelength of the red laser = 6.70 * 102 nm

Percent error = 2.4%
Measured wavelength of the green laser = 5.30 * 102 nm
Percent error = 0.2%

Two-Slit Results

First measured distance between slits = 5.0 * 10-4 m

Percent error = 0.5%
Second measured distance between slits = 2.5 * 10-4 m
Percent error = 0.5%

Single-Slit Results

First measured slit width = 4.03 * 10-5 m

Percent error = 0.8%
Second measured slit width = 1.96 * 10-5 m
Percent error = 1.8%

Circular Aperture Results

First measured aperture diameter = 4.0 * 10-4 m

Percent error = 1.1%
Second measured aperture diameter = 2.0 * 10-4 m
Percent error = 1.1%

Hair Results

Measured width of Jonah’s head hair = 6.8 * 10-5 m

Measured width of Jonah’s pubic hair = 1.7 * 10-4 m

(just kidding, it was a beard hair)

Discussion

When measuring the wavelength of the red laser, since the measuring tape only measured to the
millimeter, when the distance between adjacent maxima was measured, a wavelength 9% off from
the reported wavelength was obtained. To overcome this limitation, the total distance between five
adjacent maxima was measured to the nearest millimeter instead, and divided into fourths. This
distance was used to give a more accurate wavelength with only 3.1% error. With the green laser,
significant figures required the rounding to 530 nm, but the measurements made produced a pre-
rounded 533 nm – this value was used to find the percent error reported. The same method was
then used to find the rest of the percent errors reported. The main source of error in finding these
wavelengths most likely stems from the method used in measuring the distance between maxima.
Marking the dots with one’s pencil is not the most accurate method imaginable; some sort of film
that changes color when struck with visible light would be much more optimal, but would likely
require a dark room, which was not available to the experimenters. In addition, even if the markings
could have been made more accurately, with a measuring tape that only measures to the nearest
millimeter, only so much accuracy can be obtained in the final result. A device with tenth-millimeter
markings and a decent magnifier would be practical and would provide more accurate results.
Although rounding due to significant figures produced distances identical to the known values,
before rounding, slightly different distances were obtained. Error in the distances between the slits
stems from the same sources as that of the wavelengths, especially as the wavelength itself is used to
find these distances.

For the single-slit portion of the experiment, the gaps between intensity maxima were found to be
large enough that accurately marking the centers with a pencil was remarkably difficult; instead, the
ends of the gaps were marked. The distances between the centers of these markings were then
measured and used to calculate the slit widths. Again, a light-sensitive film of some sort would have
made it magnitudes easier to obtain a higher accuracy. Nonetheless, the experimentally determined
slit widths were incredibly close to the reported widths. It is clear why it was required that the central
maximum be considered two maxima if the equation for interference minima in single slit
diffraction is considered. The minimum immediately to, say, the left of the central maximum
corresponds to m = -1, and the minimum to the right of the central maximum corresponds to m =
+1. Recall that m ≠ 0 in the single slit equation since that spot is occupied by the central maximum.
Therefore, even though getting from, for example, the first minimum on the right to the second on
the right requires a difference of m1 – m2 = 1, the space between the minima on either side of the
maximum requires taking the difference m1 – m2 = 2. Thus, the central maximum ends up taking up
the span of any two of the other maxima. When the results from both single-slit trials are applied to
the inequality given by the application of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, it is found that
the photons in both cases satisfy Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

For the circular aperture portion of the experiment, the same sources of error persisted. Accurately
marking along the centers of the circular fringes with a pencil proved difficult due to the fringes’
widths being much wider than the pencil markings. A photograph of the fringe patterns would have
helped to reduce this uncertainty tremendously. In addition, use of a compass would have then
made measuring the diameters of the fringe circles much easier and more accurate. However, the
measurements made yielded diameter calculations remarkably close to the reported values.

For the hair portion of the experiment, the diffraction pattern of the hair had much more
personality than that of the single slit. This made it difficult to mark the intensity minima, but once
the markings were made, the distances between each adjacent pair of fringes were found to be fairly
precise. The same sources of error mentioned earlier contributed as well. Nonetheless, the width of
the head hair was found to be comfortably within most ranges of average human hair width that a
simple Google search provided. The head hair produced an anomalous pattern compared to what
was expected, with a constant horizontal line of light– that is, with no interference patterns – in
addition to the vertical line of interference patterns. In addition, a bright central spot appeared on
both, which is explained by the use of a single thin obstacle instead of a single thin slit. The slit
blocked out all light but that which passed through, so that all light appearing on the other side only
came from that light which emerged from the slit. In the case of the hair, only a thin obstacle
blocked the light, so most of the laser’s beam actually passed by the hair unhindered. However, all
the waves that weren’t immediately next to the hair continued to act as planewaves and destructively
interfere with one another – this produced the bright central spots. The waves immediately next to
the hair were able to produce Huygens’ wavelets that didn’t all interfere destructively with one
another. These waves were the ones to experience path differences and consequent phase
differences that then produced the constructive and destructive interference patterns nearly identical
to those obtained from a single slit.