Wo01:Diffraction And Interference

Abdel Darwish
23 November 2015

An investigation into different cases of diffraction and interference of waves in two media,
waves in a physical medium, shallow water inside a ripple tank and electromagnetic
waves, laser light mounted on an optical rail. Both types of waves obey the same 1D
wave equation shown on the right and hence are comparable. This paper proves both
obey the same fundamental geometry concerning youngs double slit interference pattern
to an average percentage error of 5.15% with the uncertainty being 23.60% for the
ripple tank and 1.2848% and 4.4273% for the laser single slit and double slit minima
respectively within my uncertainty of 5%.
Drawing clear parallels between the two seemingly very different types of waves.

Introduction

Waves in a ripple tank can also be modelled like

this, hence however different the two may seem they
follow the same fundamental physics.

An electromagnetic wave is a transverse wave consisting of perpendicular synchronised oscillations of electric and magnetic fields which propagate at the speed
of light (c = 3.00 108 10 m s1 ) through a vacuum
in a direction perpendicular to the two fields, shown
visually in Figure 1.

Waves in a ripple tank are also transverse waves

consisting of the the vertical oscillation of the water
molecules and the wave velocity being perpendicular
along the surface.
In 1678, Huygens proposed his principle that
every point 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 [2], this leads to the
diffraction and interference effects to be investigated
in this experiment.

~
Figure 1: [1] Electromagnetic wave, B:Magnetic
~
~ :Velocity.
component, E:Electric
component and V

As the two field oscillations are in sync, the following will only consider the equivalent a 1-dimensional
wave.

Waves can either interfere constructively or destructively, due to their waves being either in phase
or out of phase respectively. Figure 2 shows how
2
1 2
=
(1)
single slit diffraction can lead to an interference patx2
v 2 t2
tern. Huygens principle allows the single slit to be
(1) [4] shows the general wave equation for a 1modelled as two sources whose waves constructively
dimensional wave with :wave function, v:wave veinterfere where 1,2 meet and destructively interfere
locity and x and t having their usual meaning, this
where 3,4 meet creating this pattern.
equation then implies (2)
This leads to equation (3) [5], with I:Intensity,
v = f
(2) I0 :max intensity, a:slit width, :wavelength of inci1

see, the sin2 is the single slit envelope function with

the cos2 being the underlying function.

(4)
The small angle approximation (5) allows us to
simplify equations (3) and (4). However for || 0.2
the predictions will incur a maximum relative error
for the widest angles of 0.6% which I consider acceptable.
sin x

Figure 2: Wave geometry behind the single slit

diffraction pattern [3]

x=
dent light and :angle of diffraction

n
,
a

x=
(3)

(5)

n Z, n 6= 0

(n + 12 )
,
d

nZ

(6)

(7)

Equation (6) shows the position of the dark bands

for single slit diffraction pattern, and Equation (7)
the position of the dark bands for the double slit.
These were derived from the given formula (3) and
(4) by equating either the sin2 or the cos2 to
zero and solving for x. These will allow quantitative
comparison with my experimental data.

Double slit interference shown in Figure 3 is slightly

more complex and due to the a superposition of the
single slits interference pattern and the interference
between the two slits themselves creating the more
complex interference pattern of a single slit pattern
envelope function on the interference pattern of the
two slits interference.

r
v=

g
2

(8)

Equation (8) shows the relation between v:wave

velocity and :wave length where is g:acceleration
due to gravity. This is the equation for deep water waves as then surface tension is negligible, we
are on boundary however for comparison it will be
useful.
This experiment will attempt to:
1. Compare the interference patterns of a laser for
single and double slit to the predicted interference pattern given by the functions (3) and (4)
for light.
2. Explore plane wave speed, reflection, refraction
at change of medium, and single and double slit
interference in a ripple tank.

Figure 3: Wave geometry behind the double slit

diffraction pattern [3]

3. Draw parallels and differences between the two

types of waves resulting interference patterns
and compare to functions (3) and (4).

This leads to equation (4) [5] with the same meanings as before and with d:slit separation. As you can
2

2
2.1

Experimental method

the background reading which can then later be

subtracted from all our data. This will either be
performed just before every slit, however if it is
found that the data is the same we will no longer
continue to repeat the runs.

Laser Experiment

The laser is mounted at the front in figure Figure 4,

it will impinge on one of the slits on the rotating slit
wheel in the middle, which has several slit widths
Uncertainties arise from small angle approximation
and slit separations, this diffracted light is then
(5), from the linear translator, the slits and the wavedetected by the light sensor mounted on the linear
length of the laser. However all of which should be
translator, which will measure the x-coordinate, at
reasonable small.
the end of the optical rail.
Regarding safety the laser should remain mounted so
not to move freely, turned off when not in use and
The light sensor also has adjustable slits in front of
eyes should be kept away from the laser beam itself.
it to define its resolution, different resolutions will
be tested for the best data.
The sensor and translator outputs are fed into
the interface box at the back left of Figure 4 and
then to the PC which will simultaneously log the
x-coordinate and the light intensity. This will allow
the use of a high sampling rate (2000Hz) in this
case, to create a near continuos data plot of the
interference pattern.
The rotating slit wheel provides a variety of
single and double slits all labeled for use with the
experiment. Information about the lateral position
of the sensor and the intensity of light are sent to a
Pasco interface box which sends the information onto
the computer to be viewed by the Pasco Capstone
software for export into a .dat file allowing proper
data analysis through the software package Octave.
A plot of the theoretical function imposed onto the
experiment data will be created, also the minima
will be recorded from the plot and taken note to also
be compared to the theoretical minima in (6) and (7) .

Figure 4: Fig 3: experimental setup: Laser (front)

impinges on one of the slits on the rotating slit
wheel (middle). Diffracted light is detected by the
light sensor mounted on the linear translator (back).
The light sensor xoutputs are fed into the interface
box (back left) and hence to the PC.

Measurements of the following slits will be taken:

1. 0.02mm Single slit
2. 0.04mm Single slit
3. 0.08mm Single slit
4. 0.16mm Single slit

2.2

5. a=0.04mm d=0.50mm double slit

Ripple Tank Experiment

Figure 5 shows the ripple tank to be used, this allows

visualisation of the waves.
7. a=0.08mm d=0.50mm double slit
The ripple tank consists of a shallow tray that is
filled with clean tap water and has a transparent
8. a=0.08mm d=0.25mm double slit
base that is illuminated from underneath by a
Before recording any of the diffraction patterns, stroboscopic LED, this has two functions, firstly,
a normalisation run will be performed where the as its light travels through the shallow tray filled
linear translator will be moved across recording with water, the light becomes either focussed of
6. a=0.04mm d=0.25mm double slit

defocussed as it hits a trough or a peak, projecting

visible dark and light bands on the drawing table
and secondly, the frequency is synchronised to the
frequency of the wave source, the dipper, allowing
the freezing of the waves making higher frequencies
visible to the naked eye.

7. Double source standing wave

Two separate vibrators will be used to obtain a
standing wave that can be seen when the stroboscope is switched off.

Uncertainties will arise from the measurement of

wavelength as it will be rather ambiguous defining
Use of a camera mounted directly above allows the wavefronts, this will be overcome by counting
quantitative measurement of the wavelength, done a number of wavelengths and dividing down for
by placing an object of known length into the tray, one wavelength, this will also divide the error to
taking a picture and thus allowing the calculation of bring it down to a manageable magnitude. Errors
will also arise whilst obtaining the scaling factor as
the equivalent length of a pixel.
measurements will be done with a ruler whos error
One is also able to change the shape of the will be 0.005m however this is negligible compared
dipper, or add obstacles. This will allow for the to the uncertainty in defining wavelengths.
following experiments:
This is a relatively safe experiment, however a
1. Plane wave and the speed of water waves
small
risk is present when working with water around
Using the long straight dipper and ensuring it is
electronics.
Reasonable precaution should be taken
in the water evenly, the frequency of the vibrathroughout.
tor and hence the stroboscope will be selected at
a reasonable starting value and increased by a
set value after each photo is taken for a reasonable range. The exact range and intervals will
be chosen for best results.
2. Reflection
A barrier will be placed inside the tray at an
angle to the dipper and a photo taken. Analysis
of the photo will allow for the confirmation that
the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of
reflection.
Figure 5: Fig 2: PHYWE model ripple tank with
labelled components

3. Refraction at a change in medium

This will be achieved by placing an acrylic slab
fully submerged in the water tray, as in water
wave velocity depends on depth. Slabs of different planar shapes will be tried.

4. Single slit interference

A barrier with a gap will be created by use of
two smaller barriers, and the effects will be photographed for different gap widths but also different frequencies for the same gap width.

3.1

Discussion
Laser experiment

Regarding the single slit laser diffraction patterns the

results are very pleasing. As seen in figures Figure 6,
Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, qualitatively the
obtained data for single slit laser diffraction fit very
well to their theoretical plots given by Equation (3).
5. Double slit interference
Barriers will be placed int the water tray to pro- There are only 2 issues, as seen in figures Figure 6
duce a double slit and the resulting diffraction and Figure 7, the sensor becomes saturated and
does not reach the peak intensity, this is purely an
pattern will be photographed
aesthetic issue and has no negative effect on the data
obtained for the minima, secondly, the minima in
6. Double source interference
A double dipper will be used to produce the Figure 8 and Figure 9 dont reach zero intensity as
the theory predicts even after normalisation, this is
equivalent double source diffraction pattern.
4

due to the resolution of the sensor, to reach zero the

sensor resolution would have to be much less of what
it was but again this is purely an aesthetic issue and
has no negative effect on the data obtained for the
minima.

in Table 12. Then using octave I plotted the data

with its line of best fit, deriving an equation for
the change of wave speed with frequency shown
on Figure ??. This does not at all compare to
the deep water equation given in (8) having an
opposite gradient to the predicted, clearly this is
more complex and further study would be required
over a larger range of frequencies .

Regarding the double slit laser diffraction the

results are also very pleasing as seen in Figure 10,
Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13, however not
so much as for the single slit. Qualitatively, they
follow the theoretical plot given by Equation (4)but
as with the single slits, the resolution of the sensor
is a limiting factor as minima are not as well defined
as the theory predicts, for all except Figure 11, this
was not an issue however for Figure 11 the minima
were too close for the sensors resolution and some
overlapped, making it very difficult to differentiate
between them and to know what nth order minima
I was looking at. Ambiguity in the defining the position of the minima lead to uncertainties sometimes
larger than the value itself so I considered it useless
attempting to record them as you can see in Table 7.
Recording of the major minima (this is the single
slit envelope) was also very difficult to define where
it was due to their shallow shape, hence why I rarely
recorded them. This could be overcome by using a
linear translator and sensor of both higher resolution
and precision.

For part two, reflection, I was successfully able

to confirm that angle of incidence = angle of reflection to an average error of 6.6%, however as you can
see in table Table 13, it is only the second result
that contributes to this error, which was due to the
the fact that the boundary was nearly parallel to the
dipper meaning the wave fronts began to interfere
with each other, distorting the measurements.
For part three, photographs are in my lab book, the
effects can clearly be observed of both refraction,
where the wavelength increases and the effects of the
lens shaped acrylic.
Part four, single slit, achieved no visible result,
with only a diffraction pattern but no visible interference pattern. Theoretically this is because
they are all compressed to very small angles ( 1 ),
attained from the use of equation (6).
Part five, double slit interference, as can be
seen in my lab book, the photos show no clear
interference pattern, it can be seen they do in fact
interfere but none obvious enough to take any form
of measurement, this is due to a combinations of
reasons, one being that the waves loose allot of their
energy having impinged onto the barriers and thus
are much less visible, also you can make out another
two wave sources on the sides as the barrier does
not stop all the wave, leading to a even less visible
diffraction pattern.

As seen in table Table 5 for single slit laser diffraction, the percentage error has an average of 1.2848%
and a maximum error of1.8245%, this is largely due
to the resolution of the sensor itself which was 0.001m
allowing me to take uncertainty in the measurement
of the position of the minima as being 0.0005m, this
accounts for all of the errors.
As seen in table Table 10 for double slit laser diffraction, the percentage error has an average of 4.4273%
and a maximum error of6.4554%, the percentage error is larger simply due to the considerably smaller
values of the minor minima, however as before these
errors still lie within the uncertainty of our measurements.

3.2

Part six, double source interference, which is

analogous to the double slit geometry due to Huygens?Fresnel principle and hence as you can see in
the picture and in table Table 11, this showed clear
interference patterns which followed equation (7)
to a maximum percentage error of 8% which when
compared to the percentage uncertainty having a
maximum of 44.64% is acceptable as you can see
in Table 11. The average percentage error was
5.15% and with the uncertainty being 23.60% this is
acceptable.

Ripple tank experiment

Part one of the experiment, plane waves and the

speed of water waves, the speed of the water waves
was calculated for 5 different wavelengths to a
maximum percentage uncertainty of 4% seen here
5

Conclusions

References
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Onde_electromagnetique.svg (23 November
2015).

In conclusion of my ripple tank results, I can say I

was able to derive an expression relating wavelength
and wave speed in a ripple tank to an uncertainty of
4%, I was successfully able to confirm that angle
of incidence = angle of reflection to an average error
of 6.6% which is within its uncertainty, successfully
explored refraction of waves and diffraction. I was
also able to confirm the equation (7) to an average
percentage error of 5.15% with the uncertainty being
23.60%.

[2] http://www.atoptics.co.uk/droplets/
huygens.htm
[3] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/
hbase/
[4] 1. Hecht E: Optics. Addison-Wesley (Second Edition, 1987).

My largest sources of error were simply the

[5] Pedrotti FL and Pedrotti LS: Introduction to Opambiguity behind the measuring method, a more
tics. Prentice Hall (Second Edition, 1996).
systematic approach should be devised next time in
tackling this. For the wave speed, an error could [6] Young HD: University Physics. Addison Wesley
have been calculated by turning the stroboscope off
(Eighth Edition, 1992).
and recording the waves, to later calculate their real
velocity.
Results
In conclusion of my laser results, confirmed the 5
equations (7) and (6) for the position of minima to
an error of just 1.2848% and 4.4273% respectively 5.1 Laser Experiment
again within my average percentage uncertainty of
5%. Confirmed the theoretical functions (3) and (4)
qualitatively against my experimental plots.

I do not feel much improvement is necessary for

this experiment however, some slit widths could have
used a sensor with a much finer aperture and therefore a linear translator of also a higher precision. The
need for this can be clearly seen as the data points
tend to bunch up into vertical lines of varying intensities however the same position, clearly the linear
translator is not registering the movement. However
this was only a limitations for very densely packed
minima.
Finally, I was able to draw clear parallels between
waves in a ripple tank and electromagnetic waves,
clarifying that they both obey the same basic geometry and theory.
This section should contain a brief summary of the
experiment and a report of your MAIN results and
conclusions. In practice, the conclusion is a reworded
version of the abstract. However, it may also contain
a brief discussion of key limitations of the current
experiment and possible improvements which could
be made.
LARGER RANGE OF FREQ FOR WAVE
SPEED AND RECORD THE WAVES WITH
STROBE OFF
6

Figure 6: 0.02mm single slit laser diffraction pattern, Red points:Experimental data points, Blue
line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 7: 0.04mm single slit laser diffraction pattern, Red points:Experimental data points, Blue
line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 8: 0.08mm single slit laser diffraction pattern, Red points:Experimental data points, Blue
line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 9: 0.16mm single slit laser diffraction pattern, Red points:Experimental data points, Blue
line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 10: Double slit laser diffraction pattern (a=0.04mm, d=0.25mm), Red points:Experimental data
points, Blue line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 11: Double slit laser diffraction pattern (a=0.04mm, d=0.25mm), Red points:Experimental data
points, Blue line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 12: Double slit laser diffraction pattern (a=0.08mm, d=0.25mm), Red points:Experimental data
points, Blue line:Theoretical function plot

Figure 13: Double slit laser diffraction pattern (a=0.08mm, d=0.50mm), Red points:Experimental data
points, Blue line:Theoretical function plot

10

Figure 14: Normalization data set for laser

11

12
-0.0488

-6
-0.0244
-0.0244

n
Experimental x (m)
Theoretical x (m)

-5
-0.0203
-0.0203

-5
-0.0401
-0.0406

-0.0813

-0.0975

-6

-5

-0.1625

-0.1950

-6

-5

-6

n
Experimental x (m)
Theoretical x (m)

n
Experimental x (m)
Theoretical x (m)

n
Experimental x (m)
Theoretical x (m)

-3
-0.0956
-0.0975

-2
-0.0643
-0.0650

-1
-0.0312
-0.0325

1
0.0325
0.0325

-3
-0.0481
-0.0488

-2
-0.0323
-0.0325

-1
-0.0158
-0.0163

1
0.0162
0.0163

-3
-0.0242
-0.0244

-2
-0.0157
-0.0163

-1
-0.0081
-0.0081

1
0.0082
0.0081

-3
-0.0121
-0.0122

-2
-0.0083
-0.0081

-1
-0.0044
-0.0041

1
0.0042
0.0041

Slit Width (mm)

0.02
0.04
0.08
0.16
Average

Percentage Error (%)

1.1416
1.0145
1.1587
1.8245
1.2848

Table 5: Percentage Error, Single slit laser

-4
-0.0162
-0.0163

Table 4: 0.16mm single slit laser dark bands

-4
-0.0319
-0.0325

Table 3: 0.08mm single slit laser dark bands

-4
-0.0643
-0.0650

Table 2: 0.04mm single slit laser dark bands

-4
-0.1279
-0.1300

Table 1: 0.02mm single slit laser dark bands

2
0.0084
0.0081

2
0.0161
0.0163

2
0.0327
0.0325

2
0.0649
0.0650

3
0.0124
0.0122

3
0.0242
0.0244

3
0.0489
0.0488

3
0.0975
0.0975

4
0.0164
0.0163

4
0.0323
0.0325

0.0650

4
0.1297
0.1300

5
0.0203
0.0203

5
0.0402
0.0406

0.0813

0.1625

6
0.0244
0.0244

0.0488

0.0975

0.1950

13

-0.0650

-0.0813

-0.0488

-3
-0.0060
-0.0065

-2
-0.0034
-0.0039
-0.0325
-0.0325

-1
-0.0009
-0.0013
-0.0165
-0.0163

1
0.0014
0.0013
0.0163
0.0163

2
0.0038
0.0039
0.0327
0.0325

-0.0059
-0.0813

-0.0072
-0.0975

-0.0650

-0.0046

-4

-0.0488

-0.0033

-3
-0.0020
-0.0327
-0.0325

-2
-0.0007
-0.1625
-0.0163

-1
0.0013
0.1621
0.0163

-0.0406

-0.0650

-0.0325

-0.0091

-4

-0.0244

-0.0065

-3

-0.0163

-2
-0.0038
-0.0039
-0.0081

-1
-0.0010
-0.0013

-0.0059
-0.0406

-0.0072
-0.0488

-0.0325

-4
-0.0044
-0.0046
-0.0244

-3
-0.0031
-0.0033

-0.0163

-2
-0.0020
-0.0020

-0.0081

-1
-0.0006
-0.0007

a (mm)
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
Average

d (mm)
0.25
0.50
0.25
0.50

Percentage Error (%)

6.4554
0.0000
6.1332
5.1206
4.4273

Table 10: Percentage Error, Double slit laser

-5

-6

0.0081

0.0163

0.0244

0.0325

0.0406

0.0488

0.0072

0.0650

8
0.0196
0.0195

0.0975

0.0143

0.1138

7
0.0167
0.0169

0.0059

0.0406

5
0.0118
0.0117

0.0813

0.0117

0.0975

6
0.0143
0.0143

4
0.0044
0.0046

0.0325

0.0091

0.0650

0.0091

0.0813

5
0.0116
0.0117

3
0.0032
0.0033

0.0244

0.0065

0.0488

0.0065

0.0650

4
0.0089
0.0091

2
0.0019
0.0020

0.0163

2
0.0040
0.0039

0.0039
0.0324
0.0325

0.0488

3
0.0064
0.0065

1
0.0007
0.0007

0.0081

1
0.0016
0.0013

Table 9: a=0.08mm d=0.50mm double slit laser dark bands

-5
-0.0118
-0.0117

-8
-0.0195
-0.0195

Table 8: a=0.08mm d=0.25mm double slit laser dark bands

-5

-6

Table 7: a=0.04mm d=0.50mm double slit laser dark bands

-4
-0.0084
-0.0091

-5
-0.0110
-0.0117

n
Experimental minor minima (m)
Theoretical minor minima (m)
Experimental major minima (m)
Theoretical major minima (m)

n
Experimental Double slit
Predicted double slit
Experimental single slit
Predicted single slit envelope

n
Experimental Double slit
Predicted double slit
Experimental single slit
Predicted single slit envelope

n
Experimental Double slit
Predicted double slit
Experimental single slit
Predicted single slit envelope

Table 6: a=0.04mm d=0.25mm double slit laser dark bands

5.2

Ripple Tank Experiment

14

15

-64.17
-32.66
-10.37
10.37
32.66
64.17

-3
-2
-1
1
2
3

-62.50
-31.76
-9.73
11.20
34.82
67.23

Experimental Angle ( )
2.60
2.75
6.18
8.00
6.62
4.77

Percentage Error %
8.00
15.74
51.39
44.64
14.36
7.44

Percentage Uncertainty%

1.01E-02
8.45E-03
7.40E-03
6.60E-03
5.90E-03

20
25
30
35
40

0.2025
0.2113
0.2219
0.2311
0.2359

Wave speed (ms1 )

0.0062
0.0068
0.0074
0.0080
0.0086

Uncertainty (ms 1)

Angle of Reflection ( )
56.07
78.24
45.00

Angle of incidence ( )
56.00
73.13
45.00

Table 13: Angle of incidence and angle of reflection

Wavelength (m)

Frequency (Hz)
3
3
3
3
4

Percentage Uncertainty %

Table 12: Wave speed for ripple tank giving equation v = 8.2345 + 0.2839

Theoretical Angle ( )

Table 11: a=0.0466m double source ripple tank

Figure 15: Wavelength plotted against Wavespeed for ripple tank, Red points:Experimental data points,
Blue line:Line of best fit with function v = 8.2345 + 0.2839

16