Interference and diffraction pattern analysis

Kirk Amerigo B. Aycardo1, Jose Sandino A. Bandonil1, Andre Rhey C. Haro1

National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, College of Science, University of the Philippines

Abstract
The wave nature of light is responsible for the interference and diffraction patterns
observed when light is allowed to pass through a small aperture in an opaque barrier. In
the study, patterns produced through a single slit and double slit were observed and
compared. Relationship between interference pattern and slit width as well as the double
slit interference pattern and slit separation were determined. According to observations,
interference and diffraction patterns are similar in appearance wherein the pattern
consists of bright and dark regions corresponding to regions of constructive and
destructive superposition of light waves, respectively. Aperture is inversely proportional
to the distance between the centre of the pattern and the side of mth order minima. Slit
separation, d, is also inversely proportional to the width of the interference fringes within
the diffraction envelope. These findings can explain the wave-like nature of light wherein
it follows the principle of superposition and exhibits bending and diffraction. Possible
sources of error include interference from light sources and sight limitations.
Recommendations include the use of more precise methods in analyzing light patterns.

1. Introduction
Light, having a dual nature, exhibits both particle and wave properties wherein light energy is quantized in
discrete particles known as photons. Geometric optics deals with the reflection and refraction of light and image
formation whereas physical optics deals with the optical effects due to the wave nature of light. Under physical
optics is interference which deals with the superposition of light waves. Superposition involves the overlapping
of two or more light waves whose instantaneous displacements at the time of the overlap have an additive effect
producing a resultant displacement. Interference is said to be constructive if the two or more overlapping waves
are in phase, producing a resultant wave whose amplitude is the sum of the amplitudes of the individual waves.
On the other hand, interference is said to be destructive if the two or more overlapping waves are a half-cycle
out of phase, resulting in partial or total cancellation of the individual waves whose resultant amplitude is the
difference of the individual amplitudes. The superposition of light waves produces interference fringes which
are described as a succession of bright and dark bands corresponding to regions of constructive and destructive
interference, respectively [1].
These resulting interference effects are referred to as diffraction and such a phenomenon can be observed
when light is allowed to pass through a small aperture in an opaque barrier, producing a series of bright and dark
bands or what is known as a diffraction pattern, specifically a Fraunhofer diffraction pattern. A diffraction
pattern consists of a broad, intense central band called the central maximum, a sequence of narrower, less
intense bands called side or secondary maxima found on either side of the central maximum, and dark bands
called minima which fall between the maxima [2].
The study was used to compare diffraction patterns produced through a single slit and double slit, as well as
relate diffraction pattern and slit width. The qualitative relationship of a double slit diffraction pattern with
respect to the slit separation will also be determined.

2. Methodology
In this study, light interference and diffraction were tested using single-slit and double-slit experiments.
Single-slit diffraction. In preparing the setup for single-slit diffraction, a laser diode was placed at one end of
an optics bench with a single-slit disk placed approximately 3 cm from its front. A screen with a white sheet of
paper was also positioned on the optics bench along the path of the laser beam. The 0.04 mm width single slit in
the disk was later selected and the laser was adjusted in such a way that it passes through the centre of the slit.
The slit and the resulting diffraction pattern were secured to lie at the same vertical level, and the horizontal
distance between the slit disk and the screen was measured and recorded as L. The room lights were then turned
off and the new diffraction pattern was observed.
The boundaries of the dark fringes were traced on the white sheet of paper attached to the screen. The
locations of the mth intensity minima were determined by measuring the distance between the centres of the

same-ordered dark fringes. Specifically, the distances between the first-order and second-order minima,
respectively corresponded by m=1 and 2, were obtained. The measured values were consequently divided by
two to get the distances from the centre of the pattern and to the first and second-order minima, which are
recorded as ym. The same steps were repeated using the 0.02 mm and 0.08 mm slit widths and through the data
gathered, the wavelength of the laser was calculated using Equation 1. The percent deviation of the calculated
wavelengths were also calculated using the theoretical wavelength indicated at the label of the laser. The slit
widths were calculated twice using the data for the first and second-order minima, and the theoretical
wavelength. The percent difference between the computed slit widths and the value on the slit labels were also
determined.
Double-slit interference I: Calculating the slit width. For the first part of the double-slit experiment, the same
set-up was utilized, but using a multiple slit disk instead of a single-slit disk. The qualitative observation of the
double-slit interference was performed using the double slit with 0.04 mm slit width and slit separation varying
from 0.125mm to 0.75 mm. The resultant fringes in the pattern produced were consequently observed and noted
for their characteristics.
A different double slit with 0.04 mm slit width and 0.25 mm slit separation was then selected. Similar to the
single slit experiment, the slit-to-screen distance L, was also determined at the same vertical distance. The
resulting fringes were recorded and compared to those obtained from the single slit experiment. Using a ruler,
the boundaries of the dark fringes were marked and used to locate the intensity minima. Employing the same
method as in the single slit experiment, the distances of the ordered minima from the centre were measured and
the computed values were used to calculate the slit width and percent difference.
Double slit interference II: Changing the slit width and slit separation. Lastly, in the second part of the
double-slit experiment, the patterns of the double slits with varying slit widths and separations were projected
onto a white wall using the same orientation of the laser and the multiple slit disk. The slit-to-screen distance
was not measured in this particular set-up, however, it was kept constant all throughout the experiment. The
dimensions of the double slits used are indicated by Table 1 below. The numbers of interference fringes located
in the central maximum were counted and recorded. The measured widths of the central maximum were then
divided by the number of the interference fringes. The computed values were used to approximate the value of
the width of each interference fringe.
Table 1. Slit values tested for interference patterns.
Measurement No.
1
2
3
4

Slit width
0.04 mm
0.04 mm
0.08 mm
0.08 mm

Slit separation
0.25 mm
0.50 mm
0.25 mm
0.50 mm

3. Results and Discussion

Light is distinctive for its dual nature as a wave and as a particle. In interference and diffraction, the wave
nature of light is emphasised; a wave nature explains the bending of light around corners. The particle nature of
light does not explain light bending, as particles are known to move in straight lines. Figure 1 illustrates the path
of light through narrow slits upon being considered as a particle.

Figure 1. Theoretical image formed if light travelled as a particle through a double-slit.

As shown in Figure 1, a particle treatment of light for interference and diffraction will result to a solid, slitshaped beam of light on the screen, without any light from the source manifesting outside the light beam. Thus,
the wave treatment of light is used for interference and diffraction.
Interference and diffraction of light is usually observed upon the passage of a monochromatic, or single
frequency, light waves. Monochromatic light is generally utilised due to the need of a coherent light source
during interference and diffraction observations; normal light sources generally provide a continuous
wavelength distribution, and thus do not have synchronised frequencies and phases. Synchronised frequencies
from monochromatic light allow for clearer observation of bright and dark fringes that provide physical
manifestations of superposition [1].
Superposition, or the addition or cancellation of waves upon collision resulting to constructive or destructive
interference, respectively, is a central concept in diffraction. Diffraction patterns, also known as the diffraction
envelope, are characterised by alternating bright and dark fringes, with each bright fringe decreasing in intensity
as it moves from the centre towards the patterns lateral edges; a central fringe called the central maximum
provides the widest and the most intense bright fringe. Bright fringes illustrate areas of constructive
interference; dark fringes demonstrate the opposite [3].
Diffraction patterns are highly influenced by the width of the aperture a, through which light passes from the
source to form the diffraction image. Fraunhofer diffraction patterns bend light in small angles. By (1), the light
bending angle form relationships with the wavelength of the monochromatic light source and a. This,
however, can be approximated (2) by including the distance of the image from the slit L to provide a
relationship between the said values and distance of lateral bright fringes from the central maximum ym [1].

=
(1)

(2)

In the equations, m serves as the nth intensity minima from the centre; each intensity minima denotes
destructive interference. Additionally, the wavelength of the light source may be obtained through
experimentation with the said variables. This was verified through experiments on changing slit widths. In
comparison with the literature value of the wavelength, pegged at 600 nm, an experimental value of 643.10 nm
was obtained.
Figure 2 illustrates the diffraction patterns generated from different slit widths, namely 0.02 mm, 0.04 mm,
and 0.08 mm. As mentioned earlier, several bright fringes were observable with the diffraction envelope; a
smaller central maximum was observed as the slit width was widened.
=

Figure 2. Single slit diffraction patterns obtained from slid widths measuring (A) 0.02 mm, (B) 0.04 mm and (C) 0.08
mm.

Interference patterns generally provide the same image as the diffraction envelope. However, alternating
bright and dark fringes of equal width can be observed within each bright fringe in the overall pattern; the
intensity of the bright fringes also decrease as one moves laterally form the centre of the central maximum [2].
Figure 3 illustrates the interference patterns generated through the slit width and slit separation values described
in Table 1.

Figure 3. Interference patterns obtained from double slits with (A) a=0.04 mm d= 0.25 mm, (B)a=0.04 mm d= 0.50 mm,
(C)a=0.08 mm d= 0.25 mm,and (D) a=0.08 mm d= 0.50 mm.

Measurements on the interference patterns illustrate that slit separation values directly affect the equally
spaced fringes in the central maximum. A viewing of the patterns from the centre towards its lateral patterns in
the central maximum also show a decreasing intensity, a pattern no different from the ones observed in overall
diffraction patterns. Fringe width (3) is computed through the width of the central maximum and the number of
fridges observed [3].

(3)

Further investigation on the interference patterns show that the slit separation was instrumental in the
determination of the fringe width. It can be observed that changes in the slit separation change the width of each
equally sized fringe; proximal values were also observed between measurements with the same slit separation
measurements. Table 2 illustrates the measurements taken for each data set.
Table 2. Fringe widths at different slit separations and slit widths. Numbers at the top row are measurement
numbers (refer to Table 1).
No. of fringes in central maximum
Width of central maximum (cm)
Fringe width (cm)

1
13
10.6
0.8154

2
25
10.0
0.4000

3
7
5.4
0.7714

4
12
5.3
0.4417

In addition to slit separation, interference patterns (4)are generally defined by an equation similar to (2);
however, slit width value a was replaced with the slit separation value d.The m values denoted in the
interference patterns represent intensity maxima, in contrast to the intensity minima represented in the
diffraction equation. The slit separation value, however, may be substituted by the slit width value, as the
interference pattern may be considered identical to the diffraction pattern due to the similar diffraction envelope
[1].

=
(4)

To confirm the said assumption, slit widths were computed through the measurement of the distance
between the intensity minima. The assumption can be confirmed, as the calculated slit widths provide percent
deviations of 3.675% and 6.150%.

4. Conclusion
According to the figures presented, diffraction and interference are similar in terms of the patterns
observed which consists of a bright and dark bands corresponding to constructive and destructive regions,
respectively. In diffraction, it can be concluded that aperture directly affects the distance between the centre of
the pattern to the side of the mth order minima wherein distance decreases as slit width increases. However, a
change in the slit width does not significantly affect experimental wavelength. For the double-slit diffraction, a
similar pattern of equally spaced alternating bright and dark regions is observed within each diffraction
envelope. Intensity of the bright regions within each diffraction envelope decreases as the distance of the
mthintensity peak from the centre increases, resulting in bright bands along the centre of the bright fringe and
fainter bands trailing at the sides. The width of the interference fringes are directly affected by the slit
separation, d, wherein increasing the slit separation results in a decrease in the width of interference fringes as
well as a decrease in the width of the central maximum. However, the number of interference fringes within
each diffraction envelope increases as slit separation is increased. These findings follow the concept of light
having a wave-like nature where light follows the principle of superposition and can bend and diffract. Possible
sources of error in the experiment include interference from other light sources or the imprecision in measuring
due to sight limitation. Recommendations include the application of more precise methods on identifying and
measuring light patterns even under conditions where sight is compromised.

References
1.
2.
3.

H.D. Young, R.A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics (13th ed.), Chapter 29, Pearson, San
Francisco, 2012.
R.A. Serway, J.W. Jewette, Jr., Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics 8th Edition,
Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning, 2010.
D. Halliday, R. Resnick, K.S. Krane, Physics (Volume 2) (5th ed.), Chapter 30, Wiley, Hoboken, 2001.

Appendix (Raw data)

Table 3. Wavelength of laser diode.
Distance bet. side orders (mm)
Distance from centre to side (mm)
Calculated wavelength (nm)
% difference
Average wavelength
Slit to screen distance (cm)

a = 0.02 mm, m = 1
10.75
5.375
632.45
5.39%

a = 0.04 mm, m = 1
4.25
2.125
653.95
8.97%
643.10

17.0

13.0

Table 4. Data and results for the 0.04 mm single slit.

Distance bet. side orders (mm)
Distance from centre to side (mm)
Calculated wavelength (nm)
% difference

m=1
4.25
2.125
653.85
8.97%

m=2
8.75
4.375
675.08
12.18%

Table 5. Data and results for the a = 0.04 mm, d = 0.25 mm double slit.
Distance bet. side orders (mm)
Distance from centre to side (mm)
Calculated slit width (mm)
% difference
Slit to screen distance (cm)

m=1
8.375
4.188
0.04147
3.675%

m=2
10.50
5.250
0.03754
6.150%
27.0