a young's double slit experiment is performed in water

Wave Optics

Young’s double slit experiment, learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain the phenomena of interference.
Define constructive interference for a double slit and destructive interference for a double slit.

Although Christiaan Huygens thought that light was a wave, Isaac Newton did not. Newton felt that there were other explanations for color, and for the interference and diffraction effects that were observable at the time. Owing to Newton’s tremendous stature, his view generally prevailed. The fact that Huygens’s principle worked was not considered evidence that was direct enough to prove that light is a wave. The acceptance of the wave character of light came many years later when, in 1801, the English physicist and physician Thomas Young (1773–1829) did his now-classic double slit experiment (see Figure 1).

A beam of light strikes a wall through which a pair of vertical slits is cut. On the other side of the wall, another wall shows a pattern of equally spaced vertical lines of light that are of the same height as the slit.

Figure 1. Young’s double slit experiment. Here pure-wavelength light sent through a pair of vertical slits is diffracted into a pattern on the screen of numerous vertical lines spread out horizontally. Without diffraction and interference, the light would simply make two lines on the screen.

Why do we not ordinarily observe wave behavior for light, such as observed in Young’s double slit experiment? First, light must interact with something small, such as the closely spaced slits used by Young, to show pronounced wave effects. Furthermore, Young first passed light from a single source (the Sun) through a single slit to make the light somewhat coherent. By coherent , we mean waves are in phase or have a definite phase relationship. Incoherent means the waves have random phase relationships. Why did Young then pass the light through a double slit? The answer to this question is that two slits provide two coherent light sources that then interfere constructively or destructively. Young used sunlight, where each wavelength forms its own pattern, making the effect more difficult to see. We illustrate the double slit experiment with monochromatic (single λ ) light to clarify the effect. Figure 2 shows the pure constructive and destructive interference of two waves having the same wavelength and amplitude.

Figure a shows three sine waves with the same wavelength arranged one above the other. The peaks and troughs of each wave are aligned with those of the other waves. The top two waves are labeled wave one and wave two and the bottom wave is labeled resultant. The amplitude of waves one and two are labeled x and the amplitude of the resultant wave is labeled two x. Figure b shows a similar situation, except that the peaks of wave two now align with the troughs of wave one. The resultant wave is now a straight horizontal line on the x axis; that is, the line y equals zero.

Figure 2. The amplitudes of waves add. (a) Pure constructive interference is obtained when identical waves are in phase. (b) Pure destructive interference occurs when identical waves are exactly out of phase, or shifted by half a wavelength.

When light passes through narrow slits, it is diffracted into semicircular waves, as shown in Figure 3a. Pure constructive interference occurs where the waves are crest to crest or trough to trough. Pure destructive interference occurs where they are crest to trough. The light must fall on a screen and be scattered into our eyes for us to see the pattern. An analogous pattern for water waves is shown in Figure 3b. Note that regions of constructive and destructive interference move out from the slits at well-defined angles to the original beam. These angles depend on wavelength and the distance between the slits, as we shall see below.

The figure contains three parts. The first part is a drawing that shows parallel wavefronts approaching a wall from the left. Crests are shown as continuous lines, and troughs are shown as dotted lines. Two light rays pass through small slits in the wall and emerge in a fan-like pattern from two slits. These lines fan out to the right until they hit the right-hand wall. The points where these fan lines hit the right-hand wall are alternately labeled min and max. The min points correspond to lines that connect the overlapping crests and troughs, and the max points correspond to the lines that connect the overlapping crests. The second drawing is a view from above of a pool of water with semicircular wavefronts emanating from two points on the left side of the pool that are arranged one above the other. These semicircular waves overlap with each other and form a pattern much like the pattern formed by the arcs in the first image. The third drawing shows a vertical dotted line, with some dots appearing brighter than other dots. The brightness pattern is symmetric about the midpoint of this line. The dots near the midpoint are the brightest. As you move from the midpoint up, or down, the dots become progressively dimmer until there seems to be a dot missing. If you progress still farther from the midpoint, the dots appear again and get brighter, but are much less bright than the central dots. If you progress still farther from the midpoint, the dots get dimmer again and then disappear again, which is where the dotted line stops.

Figure 3. Double slits produce two coherent sources of waves that interfere. (a) Light spreads out (diffracts) from each slit, because the slits are narrow. These waves overlap and interfere constructively (bright lines) and destructively (dark regions). We can only see this if the light falls onto a screen and is scattered into our eyes. (b) Double slit interference pattern for water waves are nearly identical to that for light. Wave action is greatest in regions of constructive interference and least in regions of destructive interference. (c) When light that has passed through double slits falls on a screen, we see a pattern such as this. (credit: PASCO)

To understand the double slit interference pattern, we consider how two waves travel from the slits to the screen, as illustrated in Figure 4. Each slit is a different distance from a given point on the screen. Thus different numbers of wavelengths fit into each path. Waves start out from the slits in phase (crest to crest), but they may end up out of phase (crest to trough) at the screen if the paths differ in length by half a wavelength, interfering destructively as shown in Figure 4a. If the paths differ by a whole wavelength, then the waves arrive in phase (crest to crest) at the screen, interfering constructively as shown in Figure 4b. More generally, if the paths taken by the two waves differ by any half-integral number of wavelengths [(1/2) λ , (3/2) λ , (5/2) λ , etc.], then destructive interference occurs. Similarly, if the paths taken by the two waves differ by any integral number of wavelengths ( λ , 2 λ , 3 λ , etc.), then constructive interference occurs.

Both parts of the figure show a schematic of a double slit experiment. Two waves, each of which is emitted from a different slit, propagate from the slits to the screen. In the first schematic, when the waves meet on the screen, one of the waves is at a maximum whereas the other is at a minimum. This schematic is labeled dark (destructive interference). In the second schematic, when the waves meet on the screen, both waves are at a minimum.. This schematic is labeled bright (constructive interference).

Figure 4. Waves follow different paths from the slits to a common point on a screen. (a) Destructive interference occurs here, because one path is a half wavelength longer than the other. The waves start in phase but arrive out of phase. (b) Constructive interference occurs here because one path is a whole wavelength longer than the other. The waves start out and arrive in phase.

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Look at a light, such as a street lamp or incandescent bulb, through the narrow gap between two fingers held close together. What type of pattern do you see? How does it change when you allow the fingers to move a little farther apart? Is it more distinct for a monochromatic source, such as the yellow light from a sodium vapor lamp, than for an incandescent bulb?

The figure is a schematic of a double slit experiment, with the scale of the slits enlarged to show the detail. The two slits are on the left, and the screen is on the right. The slits are represented by a thick vertical line with two gaps cut through it a distance d apart. Two rays, one from each slit, angle up and to the right at an angle theta above the horizontal. At the screen, these rays are shown to converge at a common point. The ray from the upper slit is labeled l sub one, and the ray from the lower slit is labeled l sub two. At the slits, a right triangle is drawn, with the thick line between the slits forming the hypotenuse. The hypotenuse is labeled d, which is the distance between the slits. A short piece of the ray from the lower slit is labeled delta l and forms the short side of the right triangle. The long side of the right triangle is formed by a line segment that goes downward and to the right from the upper slit to the lower ray. This line segment is perpendicular to the lower ray, and the angle it makes with the hypotenuse is labeled theta. Beneath this triangle is the formula delta l equals d sine theta.

Figure 5. The paths from each slit to a common point on the screen differ by an amount dsinθ, assuming the distance to the screen is much greater than the distance between slits (not to scale here).

Figure 5 shows how to determine the path length difference for waves traveling from two slits to a common point on a screen. If the screen is a large distance away compared with the distance between the slits, then the angle θ between the path and a line from the slits to the screen (see the figure) is nearly the same for each path. The difference between the paths is shown in the figure; simple trigonometry shows it to be d sin θ , where d is the distance between the slits. To obtain constructive interference for a double slit , the path length difference must be an integral multiple of the wavelength, or d sin θ = mλ, for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . (constructive).

Similarly, to obtain destructive interference for a double slit , the path length difference must be a half-integral multiple of the wavelength, or

[latex]d\sin\theta=\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\lambda\text{, for }m=0,1,-1,2,-2,\dots\text{ (destructive)}\\[/latex],

where λ is the wavelength of the light, d is the distance between slits, and θ is the angle from the original direction of the beam as discussed above. We call m the order of the interference. For example, m = 4 is fourth-order interference.

The equations for double slit interference imply that a series of bright and dark lines are formed. For vertical slits, the light spreads out horizontally on either side of the incident beam into a pattern called interference fringes, illustrated in Figure 6. The intensity of the bright fringes falls off on either side, being brightest at the center. The closer the slits are, the more is the spreading of the bright fringes. We can see this by examining the equation d sin θ = mλ, for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . .

For fixed λ and m , the smaller d is, the larger θ must be, since [latex]\sin\theta=\frac{m\lambda}{d}\\[/latex]. This is consistent with our contention that wave effects are most noticeable when the object the wave encounters (here, slits a distance d apart) is small. Small d gives large θ , hence a large effect.

The figure consists of two parts arranged side-by-side. The diagram on the left side shows a double slit arrangement along with a graph of the resultant intensity pattern on a distant screen. The graph is oriented vertically, so that the intensity peaks grow out and to the left from the screen. The maximum intensity peak is at the center of the screen, and some less intense peaks appear on both sides of the center. These peaks become progressively dimmer upon moving away from the center, and are symmetric with respect to the central peak. The distance from the central maximum to the first dimmer peak is labeled y sub one, and the distance from the central maximum to the second dimmer peak is labeled y sub two. The illustration on the right side shows thick bright horizontal bars on a dark background. Each horizontal bar is aligned with one of the intensity peaks from the first figure.

Figure 6. The interference pattern for a double slit has an intensity that falls off with angle. The photograph shows multiple bright and dark lines, or fringes, formed by light passing through a double slit.

Example 1. Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

Suppose you pass light from a He-Ne laser through two slits separated by 0.0100 mm and find that the third bright line on a screen is formed at an angle of 10.95º relative to the incident beam. What is the wavelength of the light?

The third bright line is due to third-order constructive interference, which means that m = 3. We are given d = 0.0100 mm and θ = 10.95º. The wavelength can thus be found using the equation d sin θ = mλ for constructive interference.

The equation is d sin θ = mλ . Solving for the wavelength λ gives [latex]\lambda=\frac{d\sin\theta}{m}\\[/latex].

Substituting known values yields

[latex]\begin{array}{lll}\lambda&=&\frac{\left(0.0100\text{ nm}\right)\left(\sin10.95^{\circ}\right)}{3}\\\text{ }&=&6.33\times10^{-4}\text{ nm}=633\text{ nm}\end{array}\\[/latex]

To three digits, this is the wavelength of light emitted by the common He-Ne laser. Not by coincidence, this red color is similar to that emitted by neon lights. More important, however, is the fact that interference patterns can be used to measure wavelength. Young did this for visible wavelengths. This analytical technique is still widely used to measure electromagnetic spectra. For a given order, the angle for constructive interference increases with λ , so that spectra (measurements of intensity versus wavelength) can be obtained.

Example 2. Calculating Highest Order Possible

Interference patterns do not have an infinite number of lines, since there is a limit to how big m can be. What is the highest-order constructive interference possible with the system described in the preceding example?

Strategy and Concept

The equation d sin θ = mλ ( for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . ) describes constructive interference. For fixed values of d and λ , the larger m is, the larger sin θ is. However, the maximum value that sin θ can have is 1, for an angle of 90º. (Larger angles imply that light goes backward and does not reach the screen at all.) Let us find which m corresponds to this maximum diffraction angle.

Solving the equation d sin θ = mλ for m gives [latex]\lambda=\frac{d\sin\theta}{m}\\[/latex].

Taking sin θ = 1 and substituting the values of d and λ from the preceding example gives

[latex]\displaystyle{m}=\frac{\left(0.0100\text{ mm}\right)\left(1\right)}{633\text{ nm}}\approx15.8\\[/latex]

Therefore, the largest integer m can be is 15, or m = 15.

The number of fringes depends on the wavelength and slit separation. The number of fringes will be very large for large slit separations. However, if the slit separation becomes much greater than the wavelength, the intensity of the interference pattern changes so that the screen has two bright lines cast by the slits, as expected when light behaves like a ray. We also note that the fringes get fainter further away from the center. Consequently, not all 15 fringes may be observable.

Section Summary

Young’s double slit experiment gave definitive proof of the wave character of light.
An interference pattern is obtained by the superposition of light from two slits.
There is constructive interference when d sin θ = mλ ( for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . ), where d is the distance between the slits, θ is the angle relative to the incident direction, and m is the order of the interference.
There is destructive interference when d sin θ = mλ ( for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . ).

Conceptual Questions

Young’s double slit experiment breaks a single light beam into two sources. Would the same pattern be obtained for two independent sources of light, such as the headlights of a distant car? Explain.
Suppose you use the same double slit to perform Young’s double slit experiment in air and then repeat the experiment in water. Do the angles to the same parts of the interference pattern get larger or smaller? Does the color of the light change? Explain.
Is it possible to create a situation in which there is only destructive interference? Explain.
Figure 7 shows the central part of the interference pattern for a pure wavelength of red light projected onto a double slit. The pattern is actually a combination of single slit and double slit interference. Note that the bright spots are evenly spaced. Is this a double slit or single slit characteristic? Note that some of the bright spots are dim on either side of the center. Is this a single slit or double slit characteristic? Which is smaller, the slit width or the separation between slits? Explain your responses.

The figure shows a photo of a horizontal line of equally spaced red dots of light on a black background. The central dot is the brightest and the dots on either side of center are dimmer. The dot intensity decreases to almost zero after moving six dots to the left or right of center. If you continue to move away from the center, the dot brightness increases slightly, although it does not reach the brightness of the central dot. After moving another six dots, or twelve dots in all, to the left or right of center, there is another nearly invisible dot. If you move even farther from the center, the dot intensity again increases, but it does not reach the level of the previous local maximum. At eighteen dots from the center, there is another nearly invisible dot.

Figure 7. This double slit interference pattern also shows signs of single slit interference. (credit: PASCO)

Problems & Exercises

At what angle is the first-order maximum for 450-nm wavelength blue light falling on double slits separated by 0.0500 mm?
Calculate the angle for the third-order maximum of 580-nm wavelength yellow light falling on double slits separated by 0.100 mm.
What is the separation between two slits for which 610-nm orange light has its first maximum at an angle of 30.0º?
Find the distance between two slits that produces the first minimum for 410-nm violet light at an angle of 45.0º.
Calculate the wavelength of light that has its third minimum at an angle of 30.0º when falling on double slits separated by 3.00 μm.
What is the wavelength of light falling on double slits separated by 2.00 μm if the third-order maximum is at an angle of 60.0º?
At what angle is the fourth-order maximum for the situation in Question 1?
What is the highest-order maximum for 400-nm light falling on double slits separated by 25.0 μm?
Find the largest wavelength of light falling on double slits separated by 1.20 μm for which there is a first-order maximum. Is this in the visible part of the spectrum?
What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for 720-nm red light?
(a) What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for any visible light? (b) For all visible light?
(a) If the first-order maximum for pure-wavelength light falling on a double slit is at an angle of 10.0º, at what angle is the second-order maximum? (b) What is the angle of the first minimum? (c) What is the highest-order maximum possible here?

The figure shows a schematic of a double slit experiment. A double slit is at the left and a screen is at the right. The slits are separated by a distance d. From the midpoint between the slits, a horizontal line labeled x extends to the screen. From the same point, a line angled upward at an angle theta above the horizontal also extends to the screen. The distance between where the horizontal line hits the screen and where the angled line hits the screen is marked y, and the distance between adjacent fringes is given by delta y, which equals x times lambda over d.

Figure 8. The distance between adjacent fringes is [latex]\Delta{y}=\frac{x\lambda}{d}\\[/latex], assuming the slit separation d is large compared with λ .

Using the result of the problem above, calculate the distance between fringes for 633-nm light falling on double slits separated by 0.0800 mm, located 3.00 m from a screen as in Figure 8.
Using the result of the problem two problems prior, find the wavelength of light that produces fringes 7.50 mm apart on a screen 2.00 m from double slits separated by 0.120 mm (see Figure 8).

coherent: waves are in phase or have a definite phase relationship

constructive interference for a double slit: the path length difference must be an integral multiple of the wavelength

destructive interference for a double slit: the path length difference must be a half-integral multiple of the wavelength

incoherent: waves have random phase relationships

order: the integer m used in the equations for constructive and destructive interference for a double slit

Selected Solutions to Problems & Exercises

3. 1.22 × 10 −6 m

9. 1200 nm (not visible)

11. (a) 760 nm; (b) 1520 nm

13. For small angles sin θ − tan θ ≈ θ (in radians).

For two adjacent fringes we have, d sin θ m = mλ and d sin θ m + 1 = ( m + 1) λ

Subtracting these equations gives

[latex]\begin{array}{}d\left(\sin{\theta }_{\text{m}+1}-\sin{\theta }_{\text{m}}\right)=\left[\left(m+1\right)-m\right]\lambda \\ d\left({\theta }_{\text{m}+1}-{\theta }_{\text{m}}\right)=\lambda \\ \text{tan}{\theta }_{\text{m}}=\frac{{y}_{\text{m}}}{x}\approx {\theta }_{\text{m}}\Rightarrow d\left(\frac{{y}_{\text{m}+1}}{x}-\frac{{y}_{\text{m}}}{x}\right)=\lambda \\ d\frac{\Delta y}{x}=\lambda \Rightarrow \Delta y=\frac{\mathrm{x\lambda }}{d}\end{array}\\[/latex]

College Physics. Authored by : OpenStax College. Located at : http://cnx.org/contents/031da8d3-b525-429c-80cf-6c8ed997733a/College_Physics . License : CC BY: Attribution . License Terms : Located at License

Young's Double Slit Experiment

The Original Experiment

Physics Laws, Concepts, and Principles
Quantum Physics
Important Physicists
Thermodynamics
Cosmology & Astrophysics
Weather & Climate

a young's double slit experiment is performed in water

M.S., Mathematics Education, Indiana University
B.A., Physics, Wabash College

Throughout the nineteenth century, physicists had a consensus that light behaved like a wave, in large part thanks to the famous double slit experiment performed by Thomas Young. Driven by the insights from the experiment, and the wave properties it demonstrated, a century of physicists sought out the medium through which light was waving, the luminous ether . Though the experiment is most notable with light, the fact is that this sort of experiment can be performed with any type of wave, such as water. For the moment, however, we'll focus on the behavior of light.

What Was the Experiment?

In the early 1800s (1801 to 1805, depending on the source), Thomas Young conducted his experiment. He allowed light to pass through a slit in a barrier so it expanded out in wave fronts from that slit as a light source (under Huygens' Principle ). That light, in turn, passed through the pair of slits in another barrier (carefully placed the right distance from the original slit). Each slit, in turn, diffracted the light as if they were also individual sources of light. The light impacted an observation screen. This is shown to the right.

When a single slit was open, it merely impacted the observation screen with greater intensity at the center and then faded as you moved away from the center. There are two possible results of this experiment:

Particle interpretation: If light exists as particles, the intensity of both slits will be the sum of the intensity from the individual slits.

Wave interpretation: If light exists as waves, the light waves will have interference under the principle of superposition , creating bands of light (constructive interference) and dark (destructive interference).

When the experiment was conducted, the light waves did indeed show these interference patterns. A third image that you can view is a graph of the intensity in terms of position, which matches with the predictions from interference.

Impact of Young's Experiment

At the time, this seemed to conclusively prove that light traveled in waves, causing a revitalization in Huygen's wave theory of light, which included an invisible medium, ether , through which the waves propagated. Several experiments throughout the 1800s, most notably the famed Michelson-Morley experiment , attempted to detect the ether or its effects directly.

They all failed and a century later, Einstein's work in the photoelectric effect and relativity resulted in the ether no longer being necessary to explain the behavior of light. Again a particle theory of light took dominance.

Expanding the Double Slit Experiment

Still, once the photon theory of light came about, saying the light moved only in discrete quanta, the question became how these results were possible. Over the years, physicists have taken this basic experiment and explored it in a number of ways.

In the early 1900s, the question remained how light — which was now recognized to travel in particle-like "bundles" of quantized energy, called photons, thanks to Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect — could also exhibit the behavior of waves. Certainly, a bunch of water atoms (particles) when acting together form waves. Maybe this was something similar.

One Photon at a Time

It became possible to have a light source that was set up so that it emitted one photon at a time. This would be, literally, like hurling microscopic ball bearings through the slits. By setting up a screen that was sensitive enough to detect a single photon, you could determine whether there were or were not interference patterns in this case.

One way to do this is to have a sensitive film set up and run the experiment over a period of time, then look at the film to see what the pattern of light on the screen is. Just such an experiment was performed and, in fact, it matched Young's version identically — alternating light and dark bands, seemingly resulting from wave interference.

This result both confirms and bewilders the wave theory. In this case, photons are being emitted individually. There is literally no way for wave interference to take place because each photon can only go through a single slit at a time. But the wave interference is observed. How is this possible? Well, the attempt to answer that question has spawned many intriguing interpretations of quantum physics , from the Copenhagen interpretation to the many-worlds interpretation.

It Gets Even Stranger

Now assume that you conduct the same experiment, with one change. You place a detector that can tell whether or not the photon passes through a given slit. If we know the photon passes through one slit, then it cannot pass through the other slit to interfere with itself.

It turns out that when you add the detector, the bands disappear. You perform the exact same experiment, but only add a simple measurement at an earlier phase, and the result of the experiment changes drastically.

Something about the act of measuring which slit is used removed the wave element completely. At this point, the photons acted exactly as we'd expect a particle to behave. The very uncertainty in position is related, somehow, to the manifestation of wave effects.

More Particles

Over the years, the experiment has been conducted in a number of different ways. In 1961, Claus Jonsson performed the experiment with electrons, and it conformed with Young's behavior, creating interference patterns on the observation screen. Jonsson's version of the experiment was voted "the most beautiful experiment" by Physics World readers in 2002.

In 1974, technology became able to perform the experiment by releasing a single electron at a time. Again, the interference patterns showed up. But when a detector is placed at the slit, the interference once again disappears. The experiment was again performed in 1989 by a Japanese team that was able to use much more refined equipment.

The experiment has been performed with photons, electrons, and atoms, and each time the same result becomes obvious — something about measuring the position of the particle at the slit removes the wave behavior. Many theories exist to explain why, but so far much of it is still conjecture.

Wave-Particle Duality - Definition
Wave Particle Duality and How It Works
10 Cool Chemistry Experiments
A to Z Chemistry Dictionary
Interference, Diffraction & the Principle of Superposition
The Photoelectric Effect
History of the Michelson-Morley Experiment
Quantum Physics Overview
Photoelectric Effect: Electrons from Matter and Light
What Is a Photon in Physics?
What Is Quantum Optics?
Can Quantum Physics Be Used to Explain the Existence of Consciousness?
De Broglie Hypothesis
How Lasers Work
Einstein's Theory of Relativity
Why Is the Water Blue in a Nuclear Reactor? Cherenkov Radiation

Reset password New user? Sign up

Existing user? Log in

Double-slit Experiment

Already have an account? Log in here.

Plane wave representing a particle passing through two slits, resulting in an interference pattern on a screen some distance away from the slits. [1] .

The double-slit experiment is an experiment in quantum mechanics and optics demonstrating the wave-particle duality of electrons , photons , and other fundamental objects in physics. When streams of particles such as electrons or photons pass through two narrow adjacent slits to hit a detector screen on the other side, they don't form clusters based on whether they passed through one slit or the other. Instead, they interfere: simultaneously passing through both slits, and producing a pattern of interference bands on the screen. This phenomenon occurs even if the particles are fired one at a time, showing that the particles demonstrate some wave behavior by interfering with themselves as if they were a wave passing through both slits.

Niels Bohr proposed the idea of wave-particle duality to explain the results of the double-slit experiment. The idea is that all fundamental particles behave in some ways like waves and in other ways like particles, depending on what properties are being observed. These insights led to the development of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory , the current basis behind the Standard Model of particle physics , which is our most accurate understanding of how particles work.

The original double-slit experiment was performed using light/photons around the turn of the nineteenth century by Thomas Young, so the original experiment is often called Young's double-slit experiment. The idea of using particles other than photons in the experiment did not come until after the ideas of de Broglie and the advent of quantum mechanics, when it was proposed that fundamental particles might also behave as waves with characteristic wavelengths depending on their momenta. The single-electron version of the experiment was in fact not performed until 1974. A more recent version of the experiment successfully demonstrating wave-particle duality used buckminsterfullerene or buckyballs , the $C_{60}$ allotrope of carbon.

Waves vs. Particles

Double-slit experiment with electrons, modeling the double-slit experiment.

To understand why the double-slit experiment is important, it is useful to understand the strong distinctions between wave and particles that make wave-particle duality so intriguing.

Waves describe oscillating values of a physical quantity that obey the wave equation . They are usually described by sums of sine and cosine functions, since any periodic (oscillating) function may be decomposed into a Fourier series . When two waves pass through each other, the resulting wave is the sum of the two original waves. This is called a superposition since the waves are placed ("-position") on top of each other ("super-"). Superposition is one of the most fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. A general quantum system need not be in one state or another but can reside in a superposition of two where there is some probability of measuring the quantum wavefunction in one state or another.

Left: example of superposed waves constructively interfering. Right: superposed waves destructively interfering. [2]

If one wave is $A(x) = \sin (2x)$ and the other is $B(x) = \sin (2x)$, then they add together to make $A + B = 2 \sin (2x)$. The addition of two waves to form a wave of larger amplitude is in general known as constructive interference since the interference results in a larger wave.

If one wave is $A(x) = \sin (2x)$ and the other is $B(x) = \sin (2x + \pi)$, then they add together to make $A + B = 0$ $\big($since $\sin (2x + \pi) = - \sin (2x)\big).$ This is known as destructive interference in general, when adding two waves results in a wave of smaller amplitude. See the figure above for examples of both constructive and destructive interference.

Two speakers are generating sounds with the same phase, amplitude, and wavelength. The two sound waves can make constructive interference, as above left. Or they can make destructive interference, as above right. If we want to find out the exact position where the two sounds make destructive interference, which of the following do we need to know?

a) the wavelength of the sound waves b) the distances from the two speakers c) the speed of sound generated by the two speakers

This wave behavior is quite unlike the behavior of particles. Classically, particles are objects with a single definite position and a single definite momentum. Particles do not make interference patterns with other particles in detectors whether or not they pass through slits. They only interact by colliding elastically , i.e., via electromagnetic forces at short distances. Before the discovery of quantum mechanics, it was assumed that waves and particles were two distinct models for objects, and that any real physical thing could only be described as a particle or as a wave, but not both.

In the more modern version of the double slit experiment using electrons, electrons with the same momentum are shot from an "electron gun" like the ones inside CRT televisions towards a screen with two slits in it. After each electron goes through one of the slits, it is observed hitting a single point on a detecting screen at an apparently random location. As more and more electrons pass through, one at a time, they form an overall pattern of light and dark interference bands. If each electron was truly just a point particle, then there would only be two clusters of observations: one for the electrons passing through the left slit, and one for the right. However, if electrons are made of waves, they interfere with themselves and pass through both slits simultaneously. Indeed, this is what is observed when the double-slit experiment is performed using electrons. It must therefore be true that the electron is interfering with itself since each electron was only sent through one at a time—there were no other electrons to interfere with it!

When the double-slit experiment is performed using electrons instead of photons, the relevant wavelength is the de Broglie wavelength $\lambda:$

\[\lambda = \frac{h}{p},\]

where $h$ is Planck's constant and $p$ is the electron's momentum.

Calculate the de Broglie wavelength of an electron moving with velocity $1.0 \times 10^{7} \text{ m/s}.$

Usain Bolt, the world champion sprinter, hit a top speed of 27.79 miles per hour at the Olympics. If he has a mass of 94 kg, what was his de Broglie wavelength?

Express your answer as an order of magnitude in units of the Bohr radius $r_{B} = 5.29 \times 10^{-11} \text{m}$. For instance, if your answer was $4 \times 10^{-5} r_{B}$, your should give $-5.$

Image Credit: Flickr drcliffordchoi.

While the de Broglie relation was postulated for massive matter, the equation applies equally well to light. Given light of a certain wavelength, the momentum and energy of that light can be found using de Broglie's formula. This generalizes the naive formula $p = m v$, which can't be applied to light since light has no mass and always moves at a constant velocity of $c$ regardless of wavelength.

The below is reproduced from the Amplitude, Frequency, Wave Number, Phase Shift wiki.

In Young's double-slit experiment, photons corresponding to light of wavelength $\lambda$ are fired at a barrier with two thin slits separated by a distance $d,$ as shown in the diagram below. After passing through the slits, they hit a screen at a distance of $D$ away with $D \gg d,$ and the point of impact is measured. Remarkably, both the experiment and theory of quantum mechanics predict that the number of photons measured at each point along the screen follows a complicated series of peaks and troughs called an interference pattern as below. The photons must exhibit the wave behavior of a relative phase shift somehow to be responsible for this phenomenon. Below, the condition for which maxima of the interference pattern occur on the screen is derived.

Left: actual experimental two-slit interference pattern of photons, exhibiting many small peaks and troughs. Right: schematic diagram of the experiment as described above. [3]

Since $D \gg d$, the angle from each of the slits is approximately the same and equal to $\theta$. If $y$ is the vertical displacement to an interference peak from the midpoint between the slits, it is therefore true that

\[D\tan \theta \approx D\sin \theta \approx D\theta = y.\]

Furthermore, there is a path difference $\Delta L$ between the two slits and the interference peak. Light from the lower slit must travel $\Delta L$ further to reach any particular spot on the screen, as in the diagram below:

Light from the lower slit must travel further to reach the screen at any given point above the midpoint, causing the interference pattern.

The condition for constructive interference is that the path difference $\Delta L$ is exactly equal to an integer number of wavelengths. The phase shift of light traveling over an integer $n$ number of wavelengths is exactly $2\pi n$, which is the same as no phase shift and therefore constructive interference. From the above diagram and basic trigonometry, one can write

\[\Delta L = d\sin \theta \approx d\theta = n\lambda.\]

The first equality is always true; the second is the condition for constructive interference.

Now using $\theta = \frac{y}{D}$, one can see that the condition for maxima of the interference pattern, corresponding to constructive interference, is

\[n\lambda = \frac{dy}{D},\]

i.e. the maxima occur at the vertical displacements of

\[y = \frac{n\lambda D}{d}.\]

The analogous experimental setup and mathematical modeling using electrons instead of photons is identical except that the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$ is used instead of the literal wavelength of light.

Lookang, . CC-3.0 Licensing . Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17014507
Haade, . CC-3.0 Licensing . Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10073387
Jordgette, . CC-3.0 Licensing . Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9529698

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Chapter 27 Wave Optics

27.3 Young’s Double Slit Experiment

Explain the phenomena of interference.
Define constructive interference for a double slit and destructive interference for a double slit.

When light passes through narrow slits, it is diffracted into semicircular waves, as shown in Figure 3 (a). Pure constructive interference occurs where the waves are crest to crest or trough to trough. Pure destructive interference occurs where they are crest to trough. The light must fall on a screen and be scattered into our eyes for us to see the pattern. An analogous pattern for water waves is shown in Figure 3 (b). Note that regions of constructive and destructive interference move out from the slits at well-defined angles to the original beam. These angles depend on wavelength and the distance between the slits, as we shall see below.

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Similarly, to obtain destructive interference for a double slit , the path length difference must be a half-integral multiple of the wavelength, or

$\boldsymbol{d \;\textbf{sin} \;\theta = m +}$

The equations for double slit interference imply that a series of bright and dark lines are formed. For vertical slits, the light spreads out horizontally on either side of the incident beam into a pattern called interference fringes, illustrated in Figure 6 . The intensity of the bright fringes falls off on either side, being brightest at the center. The closer the slits are, the more is the spreading of the bright fringes. We can see this by examining the equation

$\boldsymbol{d \;\textbf{sin} \;\theta = m \theta , \;\textbf{for} \; m = 0, \;1, \; -1, \; 2, \; -2, \; \dots}.$

Example 1: Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

$\boldsymbol{10.95 ^{\circ}}$

Substituting known values yields

$$\begin{array}{r @{{}={}}l} \boldsymbol{\lambda} & \boldsymbol{\frac{(0.0100 \;\textbf{mm})(\textbf{sin} 10.95^{\circ})}{3}} \\[1em] & \boldsymbol{6.33 \times 10^{-4} \;\textbf{mm} = 633 \;\textbf{nm}}. \end{array}$

Example 2: Calculating Highest Order Possible

Strategy and Concept

$\boldsymbol{d \;\textbf{sin} \;\theta = m \lambda \; (\textbf{for} \; m = 0, \; 1, \; -1, \; 2, \; -2, \; \dots)}$

Section Summary

Young’s double slit experiment gave definitive proof of the wave character of light.
An interference pattern is obtained by the superposition of light from two slits.

$\boldsymbol{d \;\textbf{sin} \;\theta = m \lambda \;(\textbf{for} \; m = 0, \; 1, \; -1, \;2, \; -2, \dots)}$

Conceptual Questions

1: Young’s double slit experiment breaks a single light beam into two sources. Would the same pattern be obtained for two independent sources of light, such as the headlights of a distant car? Explain.

2: Suppose you use the same double slit to perform Young’s double slit experiment in air and then repeat the experiment in water. Do the angles to the same parts of the interference pattern get larger or smaller? Does the color of the light change? Explain.

3: Is it possible to create a situation in which there is only destructive interference? Explain.

4: Figure 7 shows the central part of the interference pattern for a pure wavelength of red light projected onto a double slit. The pattern is actually a combination of single slit and double slit interference. Note that the bright spots are evenly spaced. Is this a double slit or single slit characteristic? Note that some of the bright spots are dim on either side of the center. Is this a single slit or double slit characteristic? Which is smaller, the slit width or the separation between slits? Explain your responses.

Problems & Exercises

2: Calculate the angle for the third-order maximum of 580-nm wavelength yellow light falling on double slits separated by 0.100 mm.

$\boldsymbol{30.0 ^{\circ}}$

7: At what angle is the fourth-order maximum for the situation in Problems & Exercises 1 ?

$\boldsymbol{25.0 \;\mu \textbf{m}}$

10: What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for 720-nm red light?

11: (a) What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for any visible light? (b) For all visible light?

$\boldsymbol{10.0^{\circ}}$

14: Using the result of the problem above, calculate the distance between fringes for 633-nm light falling on double slits separated by 0.0800 mm, located 3.00 m from a screen as in Figure 8 .

15: Using the result of the problem two problems prior, find the wavelength of light that produces fringes 7.50 mm apart on a screen 2.00 m from double slits separated by 0.120 mm (see Figure 8 ).

$\boldsymbol{0.516 ^{\circ}}$

9: 1200 nm (not visible)

11: (a) 760 nm

(b) 1520 nm

$\boldsymbol{\textbf{sin} \;\theta - \;\textbf{tan} \;\theta \approx \theta}$

For two adjacent fringes we have,

$\boldsymbol{d \;\textbf{sin} \;\theta _{\textbf{m}} = m \lambda}$

Subtracting these equations gives

$\begin{array}{r @{{}={}}l} \boldsymbol{d (\textbf{sin} \; \theta _{\textbf{m} + 1} - \textbf{sin} \; \theta _{\textbf{m}})} & \boldsymbol{[(m + 1) - m] \lambda} \\[1em] \boldsymbol{d(\theta _{{\textbf{m}} + 1} - \theta _{\textbf{m}})} & \boldsymbol{\lambda} \end{array}$

Share This Book

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
13 June 2023
Correction 20 June 2023

Particle, wave, both or neither? The experiment that challenges all we know about reality

Anil Ananthaswamy 0

Anil Ananthaswamy is a writer based in California, and author of Through Two Doors at Once .

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

The double-slit experiment’s interference patterns suggest something is in two places at once. Credit: Huw Jones/Getty

Thomas Young, born 250 years ago this week, was a polymath who made seminal contributions in fields from physics to Egyptology . But perhaps his most enduring legacy is proving Isaac Newton wrong about light — and igniting a debate about the nature of reality that still persists.

“The experiments I am about to relate”, he told the Royal Society of London 1 on 24 November 1803, “may be repeated with great ease, whenever the sun shines.” In a simple, modern form, Young’s ‘double-slit’ experiment involves shining light of a single frequency (say, from a red laser) through two fine, parallel openings in an opaque sheet, onto a screen beyond. If light were made of streams of particles, as Newton conjectured, you would expect to see two distinct strips of light on the screen, where the particles pile up after travelling through one slit or the other. But that’s not what happens. Instead, you see many bands of light and dark, strung out in stripes like a barcode: an interference pattern (see ‘Wave–particle weirdness’).

Wave-particle weirdness. Graphic showing electrons being fired through a pair of slits and how they behave.

Interference is possible only if light behaves as a wave that strikes both slits at once and diffracts through each, creating two sets of waves on the other side of the slits that propagate towards the screen. Where the crest of one wave overlaps with the crest of the other, you get constructive interference and a patch of light. Where a crest meets a trough, you get destructive interference and darkness.

It’s hard to overstate how wild this discovery was to physicists in Young’s time. But the wildness truly began when Max Planck and Albert Einstein laid the foundations for quantum mechanics in the early twentieth century. Today, quantum mechanics forms a peerlessly accurate framework to explain the basic elements of material reality and their interactions. Pretty early on, it became clear that it implied that light is made of indivisible units of energy called photons — particles, in fact. The amount of energy each carried was proportional to the frequency of the light. Some carry enough of a wallop to knock electrons off atoms of metal, giving us the photoelectric effect that enables today’s solar cells. (It was the study of this effect that led Einstein to his conclusions about light’s particulate nature.)

With the emergence of quantum mechanics, the idea of light as a wave faced a challenge. But it wasn’t as simple as going back to the particle view. Further tests of quantum theory using the double-slit experiment only deepened the mystery. And it hasn’t been solved yet.

Singularly quantum

Imagine, now, that your light source can shoot individual photons of red light at the two slits, while guaranteeing that only one photon goes through the apparatus at any time. A photographic plate on the other side records where the photons land. Classical intuition says each photon can go through only one slit or the other. So, this time, we should see photons accumulating over time and forming two strips of light on the photographic plate. Yet the mathematics of quantum theory implied that the interference pattern would persist.

It was several decades before the technology matured enough to verify these predictions experimentally, using more complex set-ups that were in principle the double-slit. At first, it wasn’t done with photons, but with electrons — entities that we know as particles, but that quantum mechanics predicts act as waves, too. Then, in the 1980s, a team led by Alain Aspect at the Optical Institute in Palaiseau, France, performed the double-slit experiment with single photons 2 . Quantum theory won out: an interference pattern emerged, even when only single particles passed through the slits.

‘Spooky’ quantum-entanglement experiments win physics Nobel

Aspect won a share of the 2022 Nobel prize in physics for his contribution to confirming the predictions of quantum mechanics through experiment. But such experiments leave matters of interpretation wide open. There is simply no way to comprehend what’s happening with minds attuned to the classical world of everyday objects.

When it comes to the double-slit experiment, quantum mechanics does tell a form of story. It says that a photon’s position is described by a mathematical abstraction called the wavefunction — which, as the name suggests, behaves like a wave. This wavefunction, mathematically speaking, hits the two slits, diffracts into two sets of waves and recombines to create the interference pattern. The value of the wavefunction at any location on the photographic plate lets you calculate the probability of finding the photon there. The probability is very high in regions of constructive interference, and very low in regions of destructive interference.

In a sense, then, a photon or any other quantum object acts like both a particle and a wave. This ‘wave–particle duality’ embodies many of the central conceptual mysteries of quantum mechanics that are unresolved to this day. Even if you could know everything about a photon’s initial state, there’s no way to tell exactly where it’ll land on the detector. You have to talk in terms of probabilities given by the wavefunction. These probabilities are borne out only when thousands or tens of thousands of photons are sent through the double slit, one by one.

Before the measurement — in this case, detection by the photographic plate — the mathematics says the particle exists in a superposition of states: in a sense, it has taken both paths, through the right slit and the left. Standard quantum mechanics says that the wavefunction ‘collapses’ when measured, and that the act of observation in some way precipitates that collapse. Before this, the photon has a finite probability of being found in many different regions, but on measurement, the wavefunction peaks at the location in which the photon appears (the probability there equals 1) and is nullified everywhere else (probability equals 0).

It gets even odder. If you can determine which path the photon took on its way to the detector, it acts like a particle that does indeed go through one slit or the other: the interference pattern disappears. But if you cannot glean this ‘which-way’ information, the photon acts like a wave. Whenever there are two or more ways for a photon — or, indeed, any quantum object — to get to a final state, quantum interference occurs.

What’s a wavefunction?

But to generate interference, something has to go through — or at least interact in some way with — both slits. In the mathematics, the wavefunction does the job. Some physicists would say that the wavefunction simply represents information about the quantum system and is not real — in which case it’s hard to explain what interacts with both slits at once. But you can explain the interference pattern if you consider the wavefunction to be real.

This creates its own problems. Imagine a real wavefunction that spreads for kilometres and kilometres before an observer detects the photon. At this point, the wavefunction peaks at the photon’s location, and simultaneously drops to zero everywhere else — over a large, macroscopic distance. This suggests a kind of instantaneous, non-local influence that bothered Einstein no end. One can avoid this with interpretations of quantum theory that don’t collapse the wavefunction, but that opens other cans of worms.

Thomas Young reported the results of the original double-slit experiment in the early nineteenth century. Credit: Photo Researchers/SPL

Perhaps the most notorious is the many-worlds interpretation, the brainchild of US physicist Hugh Everett in the 1950s. This argues that every possible event — in the case of the double slit, a particle going through the left and the right slit — happens, each in its own world. There is no collapse: measurement simply reveals the state of the quantum system in that world. Detractors ask how it’s possible to justify this constant proliferation of worlds, and how, in a many-worlds framework, you can explain why measuring quantum systems yields probabilities, given that there are always definite outcomes in each world.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, named after quantum pioneers Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, provides another alternative. It says that particles exist with definite positions and momenta, but are guided by an all-encompassing, invisible ‘pilot’ wave, and it’s this wave that goes through both slits. The most profound implication of this theory, that everything is linked to everything else in the Universe by the underlying pilot wave, is one many physicists have trouble accepting.

In the 1970s and 1980s, physicists upgraded the double-slit experiment to seek clarity about the nature of quantum reality, and the perplexing role observation apparently has in collapsing a defined, classical reality out of it. Most notably, John Wheeler at the University of Texas at Austin designed the ‘delayed choice’ thought experiment 3 . Imagine a double-slit set-up that gives the option of gathering or ignoring information about which way the particle went. If you ignore the ‘which-way’ information, you get wave-like behaviour; if you don’t, you get particle-like patterns.

Superconducting qubits cover new distances

With the apparatus on the ‘collect which-way information’ setting, send a photon through the double slits. It should act like a particle and go through one slit or the other. But just before the photon lands on the detector, flip the apparatus to ignore the which-way information. Will the photon, until then supposedly a particle, suddenly switch to being a wave?

Decades later, Aspect’s team performed this experiment with single photons and showed that the answer is yes 4 . Even if the photon had ostensibly travelled through the entire set-up as a particle, switching the apparatus setting so that it ignored which-way information caused it to act like a wave. Did the photon travel back in time and come back through the two slits as a wave? To avoid such nonsensical explanations, Wheeler argued that the only way to make sense of the experiment was to say that the photon has no reality — it’s neither wave nor particle — until it’s detected.

Back in the 1980s, Marlan Scully, then at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, and his colleagues came up with a similarly befuddling thought experiment 5 . They imagined collecting the which-way information about a photon by using a second photon ‘entangled’ with the first — a situation in which measuring the quantum state of one tells you about the quantum state of the other. As long as the which-way information can in principle be extracted, the first photon should act like a particle. But if you erase the information in the entangled partner, the mathematics showed, the first photon goes back to behaving like a wave. In 2000, Scully, Yoon-Ho Kim and their colleagues reported performing this experiment 6 . Surprisingly — or unsurprisingly, by this stage — intuition was once again defeated and quantum weirdness reigned supreme.

Larger and still larger

Others are still pushing the double slit in new directions. This year, Romain Tirole at Imperial College London and his colleagues described an experiment in which the slits were temporal: one slit was open at one point in time and the second slit an instant later 7 . A beam of light that goes through these temporal slits produces an interference pattern in its frequency spectrum. Again, the mathematics predicts exactly this behaviour, so physicists aren’t surprised. But it is more proof that the double-slit experiment highlights the lacunae in our understanding of reality, a quarter of a millennium after the birth of the man who devised it.

The double-slit experiment’s place in the pantheon of physics experiments is assured. But it would be further cemented if and when physicists using it were able to work out which theory of the quantum world is correct.

For example, some theories posit that quantum systems that grow bigger than a certain, as-yet-undetermined size randomly collapse into classical systems, with no observer needed. This would explain why macroscopic objects around us don’t obviously work according to quantum rules — but how big does something have to be before it stops acting in a quantum way?

In 2019, Markus Arndt and Yaakov Fein at the University of Vienna and their colleagues reported sending macromolecules called oligoporphyrins, composed of up to 2,000 atoms, through a double slit to see whether they produce an interference pattern 8 . They do, and these patterns can be explained only as a quantum phenomenon. Arndt’s team and others continue to push such experiments to determine whether a line exists between the quantum and the classical world.

Last year, Siddhant Das at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany, and his colleagues analysed the double-slit experiment in the context of the de Broglie–Bohm theory 9 . Unlike standard quantum mechanics, this predicts not just the distribution of particles on the screen that leads to the spatial interference pattern, but also the distribution of when the particles arrive at the screen. The researchers found that their calculations on the distribution of arrival times agreed qualitatively with observations made two decades before, in a double-slit experiment using helium atoms 10 . But it was difficult to prove their case definitively. They are awaiting better data from a similar double-slit experiment done with current technology, to see whether it matches predictions.

And so it goes on, a world away from anything Young or his peers at the Royal Society could have conceived of more than two centuries ago. “Thomas Young would probably scratch his head if he could see the status of today’s experiments,” says Arndt. But that’s because his experiment, so simple in concept, has left us scratching our heads to this day.

Nature 618 , 454-456 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01938-6

Updates & Corrections

Correction 20 June 2023 : An earlier version of the second picture caption gave the wrong date for when Young reported results of a double-slit experiment.

Young, T. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 94 , 1–16 (1804).

Google Scholar

Grangier, P., Roger, G. & Aspect, A. Europhys. Lett. 1 , 173 (1986).

Article Google Scholar

Miller, W. A. & Wheeler, J. A. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology (Eds Nakajima, S., Murayama, Y. & Tonomura, A.) 72–84 (World Scientific, 1997).

Jacques, V. et al. Science 315 , 966–968 (2007).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Scully, M. O. & Drühl, K. Phys. Rev. A. 25 , 2208 (1982).

Kim, Y.-H. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 , 1 (2000).

Tirole, R. et al. Nature Phys . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-01993-w (2023).

Fein, Y. Y. et al. Nature Phys. 15 , 1242–1245 (2019).

Das, S., Deckert, D.-A., Kellers, L. & Struyve, W. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13362 (2022).

Kurtsiefer, Ch., Pfau T. & Mlynek, J. Nature 386 , 150–153 (1997).

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Quantum physics
Quantum information

How societies respond to environmental stressors needs detailed studies

Correspondence 25 JUN 24

Galapagos battles goats and tourists in 1974

News & Views 25 JUN 24

James Clerk Maxwell’s ode to bubble blowing

News & Views 18 JUN 24

Five new ways to catch gravitational waves — and the secrets they’ll reveal

News Feature 27 JUN 24

Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer

Article 26 JUN 24

Experimental observation of repulsively bound magnons

Tunable entangled photon-pair generation in a liquid crystal

Article 12 JUN 24

A site-resolved two-dimensional quantum simulator with hundreds of trapped ions

Article 29 MAY 24

Heterogeneous integration of spin–photon interfaces with a CMOS platform

PostDoc Researcher, Magnetic Recording Materials Group, National Institute for Materials Science

Starting date would be after January 2025, but it is negotiable.

Tsukuba, Japan (JP)

National Institute for Materials Science

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the fields of energy and resources.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

School of Sustainable Energy and Resources at Nanjing University

Postdoctoral Associate- Statistical Genetics

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Senior Research Associate (Single Cell/Transcriptomics Senior Bioinformatician)

Metabolic Research Laboratories at the Clinical School, University of Cambridge are recruiting 3 senior bioinformatician specialists to create a dynam

Cambridge, Cambridgeshire (GB)

University of Cambridge

Cancer Biology Postdoctoral Fellow

Tampa, Florida

Moffitt Cancer Center

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

PHYS102: Introduction to Electromagnetism

Young's double slit experiment.

As the reading illustrates, Huygens' principle is not just a philosophical interpretation – it is also a computational tool . In particular, the idea of circular (or spherical ) elementary waves makes it relatively easy to explain how a wave can bend around corners and spread out after passing through a constriction. This is called diffraction because it allows wave energy to go around corners in directions that the rays of geometric optics (or the trajectories of classical particles) would not be permitted to go.

Read about the proof that light is a wave in this experiment Thomas Young gave using diffraction by a pair of closely spaced slits.

Figure 27.10 Young’s double slit experiment. Here pure-wavelength light sent through a pair of vertical slits is diffracted into a pattern on the screen of numerous vertical lines spread out horizontally. Without diffraction and interference, the light would simply make two lines on the screen.

By coherent , we mean waves are in phase or have a definite phase relationship. Incoherent means the waves have random phase relationships.

Figure 27.11 The amplitudes of waves add. (a) Pure constructive interference is obtained when identical waves are in phase. (b) Pure destructive interference occurs when identical waves are exactly out of phase, or shifted by half a wavelength.

When light passes through narrow slits, it is diffracted into semicircular waves, as shown in Figure 27.12 (a). Pure constructive interference occurs where the waves are crest to crest or trough to trough. Pure destructive interference occurs where they are crest to trough. The light must fall on a screen and be scattered into our eyes for us to see the pattern. An analogous pattern for water waves is shown in Figure 27.12 (b). Note that regions of constructive and destructive interference move out from the slits at well-defined angles to the original beam. These angles depend on wavelength and the distance between the slits, as we shall see below.

Figure 27.12 Double slits produce two coherent sources of waves that interfere. (a) Light spreads out (diffracts) from each slit, because the slits are narrow. These waves overlap and interfere constructively (bright lines) and destructively (dark regions). We can only see this if the light falls onto a screen and is scattered into our eyes. (b) Double slit interference pattern for water waves are nearly identical to that for light. Wave action is greatest in regions of constructive interference and least in regions of destructive interference. (c) When light that has passed through double slits falls on a screen, we see a pattern such as this. (credit: PASCO)

To understand the double slit interference pattern, we consider how two waves travel from the slits to the screen, as illustrated in Figure 27.13 . Each slit is a different distance from a given point on the screen. Thus different numbers of wavelengths fit into each path. Waves start out from the slits in phase (crest to crest), but they may end up out of phase (crest to trough) at the screen if the paths differ in length by half a wavelength, interfering destructively as shown in Figure 27.13 (a).

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Figure 27.13 Waves follow different paths from the slits to a common point on a screen. (a) Destructive interference occurs here, because one path is a half wavelength longer than the other. The waves start in phase but arrive out of phase. (b) Constructive interference occurs here because one path is a whole wavelength longer than the other. The waves start out and arrive in phase.

Similarly, to obtain destructive interference for a double slit, the path length difference must be a half-integral multiple of the wavelength, or

The equations for double slit interference imply that a series of bright and dark lines are formed. For vertical slits, the light spreads out horizontally on either side of the incident beam into a pattern called interference fringes, illustrated in Figure 27.15 . The intensity of the bright fringes falls off on either side, being brightest at the center. The closer the slits are, the more is the spreading of the bright fringes. We can see this by examining the equation

Figure 27.15 The interference pattern for a double slit has an intensity that falls off with angle. The photograph shows multiple bright and dark lines, or fringes, formed by light passing through a double slit.

Example 27.1 Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

Substituting known values yields

Example 27.2 Calculating Highest Order Possible

Strategy and concept.

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction & Top Questions
Ray theories in the ancient world
Early particle and wave theories
Reflection and refraction
Total internal reflection
Characteristics of waves

Young’s double-slit experiment

Thin-film interference
Diffraction
Poisson’s spot
Circular apertures and image resolution
Atmospheric diffraction effects
Doppler effect
Electric and magnetic fields
Maxwell’s equations
Electromagnetic waves
The electromagnetic spectrum
Sources of electromagnetic waves
Early measurements
The Michelson-Morley experiment
Fundamental constant of nature
Transverse waves
Unpolarized light
Sources of polarized light
Radiation pressure
Interactions of light with matter
Nonlinear interactions
Blackbody radiation
Wave-particle duality
Quantum optics
Spontaneous emission
Stimulated emission
Quantum electrodynamics

Why is light important for life on Earth?

Hot-air balloon against a sky (clouds, hot air ballooning, recreation)

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Chemistry LibreTexts - The Nature of Light
NeoK12 - Educational Videos and Games for School Kids - Light and Optics
University of Colorado Boulder - Department of Physics - Light and Optics
Berkleley Lab Environment, Health & Safety - Light and Infrared Radiation
Khan Academy - Introduction to light
light - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
light - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Table Of Contents

The discovery of light's wave-particle duality

The observation of interference effects definitively indicates the presence of overlapping waves. Thomas Young postulated that light is a wave and is subject to the superposition principle; his great experimental achievement was to demonstrate the constructive and destructive interference of light (c. 1801). In a modern version of Young’s experiment, differing in its essentials only in the source of light, a laser equally illuminates two parallel slits in an otherwise opaque surface. The light passing through the two slits is observed on a distant screen. When the widths of the slits are significantly greater than the wavelength of the light, the rules of geometrical optics hold—the light casts two shadows, and there are two illuminated regions on the screen. However, as the slits are narrowed in width, the light diffracts into the geometrical shadow, and the light waves overlap on the screen. (Diffraction is itself caused by the wave nature of light, being another example of an interference effect—it is discussed in more detail below.)

The superposition principle determines the resulting intensity pattern on the illuminated screen. Constructive interference occurs whenever the difference in paths from the two slits to a point on the screen equals an integral number of wavelengths (0, λ, 2λ,…). This path difference guarantees that crests from the two waves arrive simultaneously. Destructive interference arises from path differences that equal a half-integral number of wavelengths (λ/2, 3λ/2,…). Young used geometrical arguments to show that the superposition of the two waves results in a series of equally spaced bands, or fringes, of high intensity, corresponding to regions of constructive interference, separated by dark regions of complete destructive interference.

An important parameter in the double-slit geometry is the ratio of the wavelength of the light λ to the spacing of the slits d . If λ/ d is much smaller than 1, the spacing between consecutive interference fringes will be small, and the interference effects may not be observable. Using narrowly separated slits, Young was able to separate the interference fringes. In this way he determined the wavelengths of the colours of visible light. The very short wavelengths of visible light explain why interference effects are observed only in special circumstances—the spacing between the sources of the interfering light waves must be very small to separate regions of constructive and destructive interference.

Observing interference effects is challenging because of two other difficulties. Most light sources emit a continuous range of wavelengths, which result in many overlapping interference patterns, each with a different fringe spacing. The multiple interference patterns wash out the most pronounced interference effects, such as the regions of complete darkness. Second, for an interference pattern to be observable over any extended period of time, the two sources of light must be coherent with respect to each other. This means that the light sources must maintain a constant phase relationship. For example, two harmonic waves of the same frequency always have a fixed phase relationship at every point in space, being either in phase, out of phase, or in some intermediate relationship. However, most light sources do not emit true harmonic waves; instead, they emit waves that undergo random phase changes millions of times per second. Such light is called incoherent . Interference still occurs when light waves from two incoherent sources overlap in space, but the interference pattern fluctuates randomly as the phases of the waves shift randomly. Detectors of light, including the eye, cannot register the quickly shifting interference patterns, and only a time-averaged intensity is observed. Laser light is approximately monochromatic (consisting of a single wavelength) and is highly coherent; it is thus an ideal source for revealing interference effects.

After 1802, Young’s measurements of the wavelengths of visible light could be combined with the relatively crude determinations of the speed of light available at the time in order to calculate the approximate frequencies of light. For example, the frequency of green light is about 6 × 10 14 Hz ( hertz , or cycles per second). This frequency is many orders of magnitude larger than the frequencies of common mechanical waves. For comparison, humans can hear sound waves with frequencies up to about 2 × 10 4 Hz. Exactly what was oscillating at such a high rate remained a mystery for another 60 years.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

158 Young’s Double Slit Experiment

[latexpage]

Learning Objectives

Explain the phenomena of interference.
Define constructive interference for a double slit and destructive interference for a double slit.

Why do we not ordinarily observe wave behavior for light, such as observed in Young’s double slit experiment? First, light must interact with something small, such as the closely spaced slits used by Young, to show pronounced wave effects. Furthermore, Young first passed light from a single source (the Sun) through a single slit to make the light somewhat coherent. By coherent , we mean waves are in phase or have a definite phase relationship. Incoherent means the waves have random phase relationships. Why did Young then pass the light through a double slit? The answer to this question is that two slits provide two coherent light sources that then interfere constructively or destructively. Young used sunlight, where each wavelength forms its own pattern, making the effect more difficult to see. We illustrate the double slit experiment with monochromatic (single $\lambda $) light to clarify the effect. (Figure) shows the pure constructive and destructive interference of two waves having the same wavelength and amplitude.

When light passes through narrow slits, it is diffracted into semicircular waves, as shown in (Figure) (a). Pure constructive interference occurs where the waves are crest to crest or trough to trough. Pure destructive interference occurs where they are crest to trough. The light must fall on a screen and be scattered into our eyes for us to see the pattern. An analogous pattern for water waves is shown in (Figure) (b). Note that regions of constructive and destructive interference move out from the slits at well-defined angles to the original beam. These angles depend on wavelength and the distance between the slits, as we shall see below.

To understand the double slit interference pattern, we consider how two waves travel from the slits to the screen, as illustrated in (Figure) . Each slit is a different distance from a given point on the screen. Thus different numbers of wavelengths fit into each path. Waves start out from the slits in phase (crest to crest), but they may end up out of phase (crest to trough) at the screen if the paths differ in length by half a wavelength, interfering destructively as shown in (Figure) (a). If the paths differ by a whole wavelength, then the waves arrive in phase (crest to crest) at the screen, interfering constructively as shown in (Figure) (b). More generally, if the paths taken by the two waves differ by any half-integral number of wavelengths [$\left(1/2\right)\lambda $, $\left(3/2\right)\lambda $, $\left(5/2\right)\lambda $, etc.], then destructive interference occurs. Similarly, if the paths taken by the two waves differ by any integral number of wavelengths ($\lambda $, $2\lambda $, $3\lambda $, etc.), then constructive interference occurs.

(Figure) shows how to determine the path length difference for waves traveling from two slits to a common point on a screen. If the screen is a large distance away compared with the distance between the slits, then the angle $\theta $ between the path and a line from the slits to the screen (see the figure) is nearly the same for each path. The difference between the paths is shown in the figure; simple trigonometry shows it to be $d\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta $, where $d$ is the distance between the slits. To obtain constructive interference for a double slit , the path length difference must be an integral multiple of the wavelength, or

Similarly, to obtain destructive interference for a double slit , the path length difference must be a half-integral multiple of the wavelength, or

where $\lambda $ is the wavelength of the light, $d$ is the distance between slits, and $\theta $ is the angle from the original direction of the beam as discussed above. We call $m$ the order of the interference. For example, $m=4$ is fourth-order interference.

The equations for double slit interference imply that a series of bright and dark lines are formed. For vertical slits, the light spreads out horizontally on either side of the incident beam into a pattern called interference fringes, illustrated in (Figure) . The intensity of the bright fringes falls off on either side, being brightest at the center. The closer the slits are, the more is the spreading of the bright fringes. We can see this by examining the equation

For fixed $\lambda $ and $m$, the smaller $d$ is, the larger $\theta $ must be, since $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }/d$. This is consistent with our contention that wave effects are most noticeable when the object the wave encounters (here, slits a distance $d$ apart) is small. Small $d$ gives large $\theta $, hence a large effect.

Suppose you pass light from a He-Ne laser through two slits separated by 0.0100 mm and find that the third bright line on a screen is formed at an angle of $\text{10}\text{.}\text{95º}$ relative to the incident beam. What is the wavelength of the light?

The third bright line is due to third-order constructive interference, which means that $m=3$. We are given $d=0\text{.}\text{0100}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{mm}$ and $\theta =\text{10}\text{.}\text{95º}$. The wavelength can thus be found using the equation $d\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }$ for constructive interference.

The equation is $d\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }$. Solving for the wavelength $\lambda $ gives

Substituting known values yields

To three digits, this is the wavelength of light emitted by the common He-Ne laser. Not by coincidence, this red color is similar to that emitted by neon lights. More important, however, is the fact that interference patterns can be used to measure wavelength. Young did this for visible wavelengths. This analytical technique is still widely used to measure electromagnetic spectra. For a given order, the angle for constructive interference increases with $\lambda $, so that spectra (measurements of intensity versus wavelength) can be obtained.

Interference patterns do not have an infinite number of lines, since there is a limit to how big $m$ can be. What is the highest-order constructive interference possible with the system described in the preceding example?

Strategy and Concept

The equation $d\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{(for}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}m=0,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\dots \right)$ describes constructive interference. For fixed values of $d$ and $\lambda $, the larger $m$ is, the larger $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta $ is. However, the maximum value that $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta $ can have is 1, for an angle of $\text{90º}$. (Larger angles imply that light goes backward and does not reach the screen at all.) Let us find which $m$ corresponds to this maximum diffraction angle.

Solving the equation $d\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }$ for $m$ gives

Taking $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =1$ and substituting the values of $d$ and $\lambda $ from the preceding example gives

Therefore, the largest integer $m$ can be is 15, or

Section Summary

Young’s double slit experiment gave definitive proof of the wave character of light.
An interference pattern is obtained by the superposition of light from two slits.
There is constructive interference when $d\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\mathrm{m\lambda }\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{(for}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}m=0,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\dots \right)$, where $d$ is the distance between the slits, $\theta $ is the angle relative to the incident direction, and $m$ is the order of the interference.
There is destructive interference when $d\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta =\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)\lambda \phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{(for}\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}m=0,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-1,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}-2,\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\dots \right)$.

Conceptual Questions

Young’s double slit experiment breaks a single light beam into two sources. Would the same pattern be obtained for two independent sources of light, such as the headlights of a distant car? Explain.

Suppose you use the same double slit to perform Young’s double slit experiment in air and then repeat the experiment in water. Do the angles to the same parts of the interference pattern get larger or smaller? Does the color of the light change? Explain.

Is it possible to create a situation in which there is only destructive interference? Explain.

(Figure) shows the central part of the interference pattern for a pure wavelength of red light projected onto a double slit. The pattern is actually a combination of single slit and double slit interference. Note that the bright spots are evenly spaced. Is this a double slit or single slit characteristic? Note that some of the bright spots are dim on either side of the center. Is this a single slit or double slit characteristic? Which is smaller, the slit width or the separation between slits? Explain your responses.

Problems & Exercises

At what angle is the first-order maximum for 450-nm wavelength blue light falling on double slits separated by 0.0500 mm?

$0\text{.}\text{516º}$

Calculate the angle for the third-order maximum of 580-nm wavelength yellow light falling on double slits separated by 0.100 mm.

What is the separation between two slits for which 610-nm orange light has its first maximum at an angle of $\text{30}\text{.}0º$?

$1\text{.}\text{22}×{\text{10}}^{-6}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{m}$

Find the distance between two slits that produces the first minimum for 410-nm violet light at an angle of $\text{45}\text{.}0º$.

Calculate the wavelength of light that has its third minimum at an angle of $\text{30}\text{.}0º$ when falling on double slits separated by $3\text{.}\text{00}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{μm}$. Explicitly, show how you follow the steps in Problem-Solving Strategies for Wave Optics .

What is the wavelength of light falling on double slits separated by $2\text{.}\text{00}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{μm}$ if the third-order maximum is at an angle of $\text{60}\text{.}0º$?

At what angle is the fourth-order maximum for the situation in (Figure) ?

$2\text{.}\text{06º}$

What is the highest-order maximum for 400-nm light falling on double slits separated by $\text{25}\text{.}0\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{μm}$?

Find the largest wavelength of light falling on double slits separated by $1\text{.}\text{20}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\text{μm}$ for which there is a first-order maximum. Is this in the visible part of the spectrum?

1200 nm (not visible)

What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for 720-nm red light?

(a) What is the smallest separation between two slits that will produce a second-order maximum for any visible light? (b) For all visible light?

(b) 1520 nm

(a) If the first-order maximum for pure-wavelength light falling on a double slit is at an angle of $\text{10}\text{.}0º$, at what angle is the second-order maximum? (b) What is the angle of the first minimum? (c) What is the highest-order maximum possible here?

(Figure) shows a double slit located a distance $x$ from a screen, with the distance from the center of the screen given by $y$. When the distance $d$ between the slits is relatively large, there will be numerous bright spots, called fringes. Show that, for small angles (where $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta \approx \theta $, with $\theta $ in radians), the distance between fringes is given by $\text{Δ}y=\mathrm{x\lambda }/d$.

For small angles $\text{sin}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta -\text{tan}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\theta \approx \theta \phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}\left(\text{in radians}\right)$.

For two adjacent fringes we have,

Subtracting these equations gives

Using the result of the problem above, calculate the distance between fringes for 633-nm light falling on double slits separated by 0.0800 mm, located 3.00 m from a screen as in (Figure) .

Using the result of the problem two problems prior, find the wavelength of light that produces fringes 7.50 mm apart on a screen 2.00 m from double slits separated by 0.120 mm (see (Figure) ).

Share This Book

3.1 Young's Double-Slit Interference

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain the phenomenon of interference
Define constructive and destructive interference for a double slit

The Dutch physicist Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) thought that light was a wave, but Isaac Newton did not. Newton thought that there were other explanations for color, and for the interference and diffraction effects that were observable at the time. Owing to Newton’s tremendous reputation, his view generally prevailed; the fact that Huygens’s principle worked was not considered direct evidence proving that light is a wave. The acceptance of the wave character of light came many years later in 1801, when the English physicist and physician Thomas Young (1773–1829) demonstrated optical interference with his now-classic double-slit experiment.

If there were not one but two sources of waves, the waves could be made to interfere, as in the case of waves on water ( Figure 3.2 ). If light is an electromagnetic wave, it must therefore exhibit interference effects under appropriate circumstances. In Young’s experiment, sunlight was passed through a pinhole on a board. The emerging beam fell on two pinholes on a second board. The light emanating from the two pinholes then fell on a screen where a pattern of bright and dark spots was observed. This pattern, called fringes, can only be explained through interference, a wave phenomenon.

We can analyze double-slit interference with the help of Figure 3.3 , which depicts an apparatus analogous to Young’s. Light from a monochromatic source falls on a slit S 0 S 0 . The light emanating from S 0 S 0 is incident on two other slits S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 that are equidistant from S 0 S 0 . A pattern of interference fringes on the screen is then produced by the light emanating from S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 . All slits are assumed to be so narrow that they can be considered secondary point sources for Huygens’ wavelets ( The Nature of Light ). Slits S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 are a distance d apart ( d ≤ 1 mm d ≤ 1 mm ), and the distance between the screen and the slits is D ( ≈ 1 m ) D ( ≈ 1 m ) , which is much greater than d.

Since S 0 S 0 is assumed to be a point source of monochromatic light, the secondary Huygens wavelets leaving S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 always maintain a constant phase difference (zero in this case because S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 are equidistant from S 0 S 0 ) and have the same frequency. The sources S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 are then said to be coherent. By coherent waves , we mean the waves are in phase or have a definite phase relationship. The term incoherent means the waves have random phase relationships, which would be the case if S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 were illuminated by two independent light sources, rather than a single source S 0 S 0 . Two independent light sources (which may be two separate areas within the same lamp or the Sun) would generally not emit their light in unison, that is, not coherently. Also, because S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 are the same distance from S 0 S 0 , the amplitudes of the two Huygens wavelets are equal.

Young used sunlight, where each wavelength forms its own pattern, making the effect more difficult to see. In the following discussion, we illustrate the double-slit experiment with monochromatic light (single λ λ ) to clarify the effect. Figure 3.4 shows the pure constructive and destructive interference of two waves having the same wavelength and amplitude.

When light passes through narrow slits, the slits act as sources of coherent waves and light spreads out as semicircular waves, as shown in Figure 3.5 (a). Pure constructive interference occurs where the waves are crest to crest or trough to trough. Pure destructive interference occurs where they are crest to trough. The light must fall on a screen and be scattered into our eyes for us to see the pattern. An analogous pattern for water waves is shown in Figure 3.2 . Note that regions of constructive and destructive interference move out from the slits at well-defined angles to the original beam. These angles depend on wavelength and the distance between the slits, as we shall see below.

To understand the double-slit interference pattern, consider how two waves travel from the slits to the screen ( Figure 3.6 ). Each slit is a different distance from a given point on the screen. Thus, different numbers of wavelengths fit into each path. Waves start out from the slits in phase (crest to crest), but they may end up out of phase (crest to trough) at the screen if the paths differ in length by half a wavelength, interfering destructively. If the paths differ by a whole wavelength, then the waves arrive in phase (crest to crest) at the screen, interfering constructively. More generally, if the path length difference Δ l Δ l between the two waves is any half-integral number of wavelengths [(1 / 2) λ λ , (3 / 2) λ λ , (5 / 2) λ λ , etc.], then destructive interference occurs. Similarly, if the path length difference is any integral number of wavelengths ( λ λ , 2 λ λ , 3 λ λ , etc.), then constructive interference occurs. These conditions can be expressed as equations:

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Samuel J. Ling, Jeff Sanny, William Moebs
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: University Physics Volume 3
Publication date: Sep 29, 2016
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-3/pages/3-1-youngs-double-slit-interference

© Jan 19, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

If young's double-slit experiment is performed in water instead of air, then

No fringes would be seen

Fringe width would decrease

Fringe width would increase

Fringe width would remain unchanged

The correct option is B Fringe width would decrease The behavior of light in water: Water is a denser medium for light to travel compared to air. The frequency of the light remains unchanged. The wavelength of the light decreases in denser mediums. The explanation for the Correct answer: option B: Fringe width would decrease The formula for fringe width is Y = λ D d where λ is the wavelength, D is the distance between source and screen and d is the distance between slits. As the wavelength λ is decreased fringe width also decreases. Hence, option B is correct. Explanation of the incorrect answer(s): Option A: No fringes would be seen Fringes will be formed as the frequency of the light is not changed. Hence, option A is incorrect. Option C: Fringe width would increase It is clear from option B that fringe width will decrease Hence, option C is incorrect. Option D: Fringe width would remain unchanged It is clear from option B that fringe width will decrease. Hence, option D is incorrect. Hence, option B is the correct answer.

If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water, the fringe width will decrease the fringe width will increase there will be no fringe the fringe width will remain unchanged

Fringe width β = λ d d if μ ( > 1 ) is refractive index of water, then wavelength reduces by μ factor new fringe width β ′ = λ d μ d therefore in water, fringe width decreases..

Fringe width observed in the Young's double-slit experiment is β . If the frequency of the source is doubled, the fringe width will

COMMENTS

27.3: Young's Double Slit Experiment
Figure 27.3.3 27.3. 3: Double slits produce two coherent sources of waves that interfere. (a) Light spreads out (diffracts) from each slit, because the slits are narrow. These waves overlap and interfere constructively (bright lines) and destructively (dark regions).
27.3 Young's Double Slit Experiment
Figure 27.10 Young's double slit experiment. Here pure-wavelength light sent through a pair of vertical slits is diffracted into a pattern on the screen of numerous vertical lines spread out horizontally. Without diffraction and interference, the light would simply make two lines on the screen. ... An analogous pattern for water waves is ...
Young's Double Slit Experiment
This physics video tutorial provides a basic introduction into young's double slit experiment. It explains how to calculate the distance between the slits g...
Double-slit experiment
In modern physics, the double-slit experiment demonstrates that light and matter can satisfy the seemingly incongruous classical definitions for both waves and particles. This ambiguity is considered evidence for the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics.This type of experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of the wave behavior of visible light.
Young's Double Slit Experiment
Section Summary. Young's double slit experiment gave definitive proof of the wave character of light. An interference pattern is obtained by the superposition of light from two slits. There is constructive interference when d sin θ = mλ ( for m = 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . . ), where d is the distance between the slits, θ is the angle ...
27.3 Young's Double Slit Experiment
We illustrate the double slit experiment with monochromatic (single ) light to clarify the effect. Figure 2 shows the pure constructive and destructive interference of two waves having the same wavelength and amplitude. Figure 2. The amplitudes of waves add. (a) Pure constructive interference is obtained when identical waves are in phase.
3.2: Young's Double-Slit Interference
Figure 3.2.2 3.2. 2: The double-slit interference experiment using monochromatic light and narrow slits. Fringes produced by interfering Huygens wavelets from slits S1 S 1 and S2 S 2 are observed on the screen. Since S0 S 0 is assumed to be a point source of monochromatic light, the secondary Huygens wavelets leaving S1 S 1 and S2 S 2 always ...
Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment
Young's Double Slit Experiment. The Original Experiment. Throughout the nineteenth century, physicists had a consensus that light behaved like a wave, in large part thanks to the famous double slit experiment performed by Thomas Young. Driven by the insights from the experiment, and the wave properties it demonstrated, a century of physicists ...
Double-slit Experiment
The original double-slit experiment was performed using light/photons around the turn of the nineteenth century by Thomas Young, so the original experiment is often called Young's double-slit experiment. The idea of using particles other than photons in the experiment did not come until after the ideas of de Broglie and the advent of quantum ...
27.3 Young's Double Slit Experiment
Young's double slit experiment gave definitive proof of the wave character of light. An interference pattern is obtained by the superposition of light from two slits. There is constructive interference when , where is the distance between the slits, is the angle relative to the incident direction, and is the order of the interference.
Particle, wave, both or neither? The experiment that ...
The double-slit experiment's interference patterns suggest something is in two places at once. Credit: Huw Jones/Getty. Thomas Young, born 250 years ago this week, was a polymath who made ...
PHYS102: Young's Double Slit Experiment
The acceptance of the wave character of light came many years later when, in 1801, the English physicist and physician Thomas Young (1773-1829) did his now-classic double slit experiment (see Figure 27.10 ). Figure 27.10 Young's double slit experiment. Here pure-wavelength light sent through a pair of vertical slits is diffracted into a ...
Light
In a modern version of Young's experiment, differing in its essentials only in the source of light, a laser equally illuminates two parallel slits in an otherwise opaque surface. The light passing through the two slits is observed on a distant screen. ... Learn about Thomas Young's double-slit experiment that challenged Isaac Newton's theory ...
Thomas Young's Double Slit Experiment
Young coined the term interference fringes to describe the bands and realized that these colored bands could only be produced if light were acting like a wave. The basic setup of the double slit experiment is illustrated in Figure 1. Red filtered light derived from sunlight is first passed through a slit to achieve a coherent state.
Young's Double Slit Experiment
Young's double slit experiment uses two coherent sources of light placed at a small distance apart. Usually, only a few orders of magnitude greater than the wavelength of light are used. Young's double slit experiment helped in understanding the wave theory of light, which is explained with the help of a diagram. As shown, a screen or ...
Young's Double Slit Experiment
We illustrate the double slit experiment with monochromatic (single \ (\lambda \)) light to clarify the effect. (Figure) shows the pure constructive and destructive interference of two waves having the same wavelength and amplitude. The amplitudes of waves add. (a) Pure constructive interference is obtained when identical waves are in phase.
3.1 Young's Double-Slit Interference
We can analyze double-slit interference with the help of Figure 3.3, which depicts an apparatus analogous to Young's. Light from a monochromatic source falls on a slit S 0 S 0. The light emanating from S 0 S 0 is incident on two other slits S 1 S 1 and S 2 S 2 that are equidistant from S 0 S 0.
Young's interference experiment
In 1803, he described his famous interference experiment. Unlike the modern double-slit experiment, Young's experiment reflects sunlight (using a steering mirror) through a small hole, and splits the thin beam in half using a paper card. He also mentions the possibility of passing light through two slits in his description of the experiment ...
If young's double slit experiment is performed in water ...
A thin film is introduced in front of the slits then: Q. If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water instead of air, then. Q. What happens to fringe width in Young's double slit experiment if it is performed in glycerine instead of air. Q.
Young's double slit experiment is first performed in air and ...
Young's double slit experiment is first performed in air and then in a medium other than air. It is found that 8 t h bright fringe in the medium lies where 5 t h dark fringe lies in air. The refractive index of the medium is nearly: 1.25; 1.78; 1.59; 1.69
If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water,
The fringe width in Young's double slit experiment is 2 × 10 − 4 m if the distance between the slits is halved and the slit screen distance is double, then the new fringe width will be : View Solution
If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water, (a) the fringe
If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water,(a) the fringe width will decrease(b) the fringe width will increase(c) the fringe width will remain ...
A neutralizing antibody prevents postfusion transition of ...
Graphene oxide (GO) grids were prepared in-house by diluting a commercial GO solution (2 mg/ml, Sigma-Aldrich) in deionized water to a final concentration of 0.2 mg/ml. This diluted solution was sonicated for 5 min in a water bath to ensure proper dispersion of GO layers. Next, large aggregates were removed by centrifugation at 500g for 1 min ...

Wave Optics

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Example 1. Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

Example 2. Calculating Highest Order Possible

Strategy and Concept

Section Summary

Conceptual Questions

Problems & Exercises

Selected Solutions to Problems & Exercises

Young's Double Slit Experiment

What Was the Experiment?

Impact of Young's Experiment

Expanding the Double Slit Experiment

One Photon at a Time

It Gets Even Stranger

More Particles

Double-slit Experiment

Waves vs. Particles

Image Credit: Flickr drcliffordchoi.

27.3 Young’s Double Slit Experiment

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Example 1: Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

Example 2: Calculating Highest Order Possible

Section Summary

Conceptual Questions

Share This Book

Particle, wave, both or neither? The experiment that challenges all we know about reality

Singularly quantum

What’s a wavefunction?

Larger and still larger

Updates & Corrections

Competing Interests

Related Articles

PostDoc Researcher, Magnetic Recording Materials Group, National Institute for Materials Science

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Postdoctoral Associate- Statistical Genetics

Senior Research Associate (Single Cell/Transcriptomics Senior Bioinformatician)

Cancer Biology Postdoctoral Fellow

Quick links

PHYS102: Introduction to Electromagnetism

Take-Home Experiment: Using Fingers as Slits

Example 27.1 Finding a Wavelength from an Interference Pattern

Example 27.2 Calculating Highest Order Possible

Young’s double-slit experiment

158 Young’s Double Slit Experiment

Learning Objectives

Section Summary

Conceptual Questions

Problems & Exercises

Share This Book

3.1 Young's Double-Slit Interference

If young's double-slit experiment is performed in water instead of air, then

If Young's double slit experiment is performed in water, the fringe width will decrease the fringe width will increase there will be no fringe the fringe width will remain unchanged

COMMENTS