Quantitative Analysis of the Principle of Superposition through

Single- and Double-slit Experimentation

Laurie Claire R. Motol
1 National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines Diliman, Philippines
[email protected]

Abstract
Light is known by its duality of being both a particle and a wave as a result of the manner of manipulation. When
light is transmitted onto a slit, diffraction and interference are exhibited which are due to the principle of
superposition. Using a monochromatic light, and a single- and double-slit set up, the values for wavelength 𝜆,
measurements of the diffraction envelope and interference fringes. This study aims to determine verify the
theoretical relationship of the slit width a and slit difference d, with the diffraction envelope and interference
patterns in both single- and double-slit passages through quantitative analysis. From the obtained data, it is observed
that diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the width of the slit a versus the width of the minima ∆y for
single-slit, while for the double-slit, the interference and diffraction are inversely proportional to the slit separation
d versus the width of the diffraction envelope and are proportional to the slit width a versus the number of
interference fringes. It as also observed that interference pattern is controlled by the split separation d, and the
diffraction envelope is controlled by the slit width a.

Keywords: principle of superposition, interference, diffraction, single-slit, double-slit

1 Methodology
The experiment follows three set ups to observe and differentiate each pattern to be produced by varying numbers
and widths of the slit/s.

Single-slit Diffraction. In one end of the optical bench, a laser will be placed alongside a 0.04-mm single slit
disk, 3-cm in front of it. A white sheet of paper is added to a rigid surface to where the laser will be projected. We
made sure that both the slit and the laser were centered and of the same level vertically. From here, we can obtain
the value of the slit-to-screen distance L. Next, we mark the boundaries of the dark fringes projected on the white
sheet of paper, and the location of the intensity minima, and measured and recorded the distance ∆𝑦1 and ∆𝑦2 . To
get the distance from the center to the side 𝑦𝑚 , we divided these values by two (2) and recorded the calculated value.
The diffraction pattern was also taken note by sketching the projected pattern up to the 𝑚 = ±2 diffraction minima.
With the same set up, we switched up the slit width to 0.02-mm and 0.08-mm and repeated the aforementioned
steps. We then calculated for the values of the wavelength of the laser using the equation
𝑚𝜆𝐿
𝑦𝑚 = (1)
𝑎

where 𝑎 is the slit width, L is the slit-to-screen distance, m is the intensity minimum, and 𝜆 is the wavelength of the
light source. Rearranging Equation (1), we have:
𝑎𝑦𝑚
𝜆= (2)
𝑚𝐿

This is followed by the calculation of its percent difference between the experimental and theoretical wavelengths.
We also calculated for the value of the slit width twice, first, using only the data from the first-order minima, and
then another using the data from the second-order minima, and their corresponding percent difference from the
theoretical value, and recorded the results.

Double-slit Interference. We use similar set up from the single-slit experimentation, except we replace the
previous slit disk to a multiple slit disk on the holder. A double slit with a slit width of 0.04 mm with 0.25 slit
separation is selected from the slit disk and centered on the slit holder alongside with the laser beam. With the slit

Physics 72.1 TWHFBC-1

Midyear 2021
1
and the pattern on the same vertical level, we measured and recorded the slit-to-screen distance L. On the attached
white sheet of paper, the projected boundaries of the dark fringes are marked, and with a use of a ruler, marked the
location of the intensity minima. From this, distance ∆𝑦1 between 𝑚 = ±1 minima are measure and then divided
by two (2) to obtain the distance from the center 𝑦1 . The same steps are repeated for 𝑚 = ±2 minima. Lastly, we
calculate the slit width and percent difference using the equation similar to Equation (1), given:

𝑚𝜆𝐿
𝑦𝑚 = (3)
𝑑
with the same variables, except the slit width a is replaced with slit width separation d. Rearranging Equation (3),
we have:
𝑑𝑦𝑚
𝜆= (2)
𝑚𝐿

To locate and measure the experimental values of the central maximum of the laser beam through the double-
slit, we projected the double-slit interference pattern onto a whiteboard or wall at a specific slit-to-screen distance.
Next, we counted and recorded the number of interference fringes that are projected inside the central maximum.
We manually measured the width of the central maximum and the divided the obtained value by the counted number
of interference fringes to arrive at an approximation of the width of each interference fringe. Finally, we sketch the
projected double-slit diffraction pattern up to 𝑚 = ±2 diffraction minima. Replacing the slits to a =
0.04 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑑 = 0.50 𝑚𝑚, 0.08 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑑 = 0.25 𝑚𝑚, and 0.08 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑑 = 0.50 𝑚𝑚 , we repeat the
previous steps on the same slit-to-screen distance.

2 Results and Discussion

Table W1. Wavelength of the Laser Diode
𝑎 = 0.02 𝑚𝑚, 𝑚 = 1 𝑎 = 0.04 𝑚𝑚, 𝑚 = 1
Distance between side orders, ∆𝑦1 7.3 cm 4.45 cm
Distance from the center to side,𝑦1 3.65 cm 2.225 cm
Calculated wavelength 608 nm 743 nm
Percent difference 6.5% 14.2%
Average wavelength (𝜆) 675 nm
Slit-to-screen distance (L) 120 ± 0.5

From the obtained measurements of the projected diffraction envelope in the single-slit set up, we are able to
solve for the experimental value of the wavelengths with varying slit widths 𝑎 = 0.02 𝑚𝑚 and 𝑎 = 0.04 𝑚𝑚 which
results to 604nm and 742 nm respectively. The percent difference for each wavelength with respect to the theoretical
wavelength, 650 nm, are at 6.5% for the shorter slit width and 14.2% for the longer slit width. The average wavelength
of 675 nm has a percent difference of 3.8% making the collected data valid. As the value for the slit width a increases,
the width of the minima ∆𝑦 decreases.

Theoretically, Equation (2) suggests that increasing the wavelength of the laser would result to an increase on the
width of the fringes. In addition, placing the screen farther from the slit, thus increasing the slit-to-screen distance L will
also result to an increase in the width of the fringes.

Table W2. Data and Results for the 0.04 mm Single-Slit

𝑚=1 𝑚=2
Distance between side orders, ∆𝑦1 4.45 cm 8.75 cm
Distance from the center to side, 𝑦1 2.225 cm 4.375 cm
Calculated wavelength 743 nm 729 nm
Percent difference 14.2% 12.2%

Table W2 follows a similar approach with Table W1. However, the second-order minima 𝑚 = ±2 is taken to account.
The percent difference for the values under the second-order minima is 12.2%, which is a relatively high, but is still valid.
Thus, making the obtained data acceptable.

Physics 72.1 TWHFBC-1

Midyear 2021
2
 (a) 𝑎 = 0.02 mm

(b) 𝑎 = 0.04 mm

(c) 𝑎 = 0.08 mm

Figure W1. Sketched (to scale) of diffraction pattern for various slid widths and fixed slit-to-screen distance

Table W3. Data and Results for the 𝑎 = 0.04 𝑚𝑚, 𝑑 = 0.25 𝑚𝑚 Double-Slit
𝑚=1 𝑚=2
Distance between side orders, ∆𝑦1 4.5 cm 9.35 cm
Distance from the center to side, 𝑦1 2.25 cm 4.675 cm
Calculated slit width 0.036 mm 0.035 mm
Percent difference 10% 12.5%
Slit-to-screen distance (L) 120 ± 0.5 cm

In Table W3, we the obtained measurements from the observed diffraction envelope from the double-slit
interference set up. For each maximum, the calculated slit widths solved using Equation (4) are 0.036 mm for 𝑚 =
1 and 0.035 mm for 𝑚 = 2. The percent difference for each slit widths with respect to the theoretical slit width, 0.04
mm, are at 10% for the first-order maxima and 12.5% for the second-order maxima, although are relatively high but are
still valid. Possible sources of error may include the method on vertically aligning the slit and the screen which is subjected
to human error.

Physics 72.1 TWHFBC-1

Midyear 2021
3
 Given that the equation for the double-slit, Equation (4), is almost equal to that of the single-slit equation, Equation
(2), this also follows that increasing either the wavelength of the laser or placing the screen farther from the slit will both
result to an increase in the width of the fringes.

Table W4. Data and Results for Double-slot Interference II

𝑎 = 0.04 𝑚𝑚 𝑎 = 0.08 𝑚𝑚
𝑑 = 0.25 𝑚𝑚 𝑑 = 0.50 𝑚𝑚 𝑑 = 0.25 𝑚𝑚 𝑑 = 0.50 𝑚𝑚
Number of fringes 13 25 7 13
Width of central maximum 4.5 cm 4.4 cm 4 cm 2 cm
Fringe width 0.346 cm 0.176 cm 0.571 cm 0.154 cm

In Table W4, the data shows that with the same slit width a, the number of fringes for smaller separation distance is
lesser, with a longer width of its corresponding central maximum and fringe width. By theory, the number of fringes is
dependent on both the wavelength and slit separation. As observed, with a constant slit width a, the greater the slit
separation d, the greater the number of fringes appear; while with a constant slit separation d, the shorter the width of the
diffraction envelope has. This shows that the split separation d controls the interference pattern, while the slit width a
controls the diffraction envelope.

3 Conclusion

The nature and theory of the principle of superposition on interference and diffraction was observed and reflected in
the diffraction pattern equations. The interference and diffraction experiment provided data needed to visualize the
diffraction pattern with varying slit widths. We have also established and verifies the quantitative relationships among
the variables.

For the single-slit set up, the diffraction pattern is inversely proportional to the width of the slit a versus the
width of the minima ∆𝑦. For the double-slit set up, the interference and diffraction are inversely proportional to the
slit separation d versus the width of the diffraction envelope. They are also proportional to the slit width a versus
the number of interference fringes. It is also observed in the double-slit experiment that the interference pattern is
controlled by the split separation d, and the diffraction envelope is controlled by the slit width a.

The experimental value of the wavelength 𝜆 in the single-slit experiment was also obtained. The average
experimental value amounting to 675 nm has a 3.7% percent different with respect to the theoretical value of
the laser.

Lastly, from the calculated percent differences throughout the experiment, possible errors encountered
included the misaligning of the slit and the screen, and in positioning the beam centered on the slit.

References
[1] National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines. Phyisics 72.1 Experiment Manual: Interference and
Diffraction. (2021).
URL: https://uvle.upd.edu.ph/mod/resource/view.php?id=483600
[2] Cnxuniphysics. University Physics Volume 3: Single-Slit Diffraction. (n.d.).
URL: https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/single-slit-diffraction/
[3] Cnxuniphysics. University Physics Volume 3: Double-Slit Diffraction. (n.d.).
URL: https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/single-slit-diffraction/
[4] OpenStax College. College Physics: Young’s Double Slit Experiment. (n.d.)
URL: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/27-3-youngs-double-slit-experiment/
[5] OpenStax College. College Physics: Single Slit Experiment. (n.d.)
URL: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/27-5-single-slit-diffraction/

Physics 72.1 TWHFBC-1

Midyear 2021
4