1

Young’s Double-Slit Experiment

Submitted By

Kashaf shehzadi

Roll # Bs-Chem-03

Submitted To

Dr.Saadia Shoukat

For the course

Physical Chemistry-2

Submission Date

22-10-2024

Department of Chemistry

GC WOMEN UNIVERSITY SIALKOT

2022-2026
 2

Table of Contact Page NO.

History 3

Apparatus 5

Experiment 5

Constructive Interference 7

Destructive Interference 8

Modern variation of young double slit experiment 9

Applications 10

Conclusion 11

References 13
 3

Young’s Double-Slit Experiment

History
At the end of the 1600s and into the 1700s, the debate over the nature of light was in
Full swing. Newton’s theory of light particles faced challenges from leading scientists Such
as Christiaan Huygens. Huygens’ writings on the wave theory of light described what we
now call Huygens’ Principle and proposed that light travelled in waves through an
omnipresent ether, like sound travelling through air. Mathematician and Scientist Leonard
Euler developed his own wave theory of light and used the particle theory’s poor description
of diffraction as a key point in an argument against Newton’s theory.
If light travels as a wave, then it should interfere like a wave; experiments looking for
interference, however, could not detect it. We now know that the experiments failed because
of the extremely small wavelengths of light. Interference patterns in water waves in ripple
tanks are easy to observe, because the wavelengths are large and the frequencies of the
sources are relatively small. These properties make the distance between adjacent nodal lines
visible to the eye. Most experiments with light before the 1800s involved the placement of
two sources of light close to each other, with screens positioned near the sources. The
scientists closely observed the screens to try to observe interference patterns. They never
succeeded using this method, partly because the separation between the nodal lines was too
small to be observable.
However, these issues did not account for all of the problems in attempting to repeat the
ripple tank experiment with light waves. Atoms, including those in the Sun and in light bulbs,
emit most visible light. However, collisions among the atoms can reset the phase of the
emitted light wave. Experiments show that these phase jumps in typical light waves occur
about every 1028 s. This means the light from different atoms of a given source is incoherent
because the waves have no fixed phase relationship to each other. If you direct light from a
monochromatic, or single-wavelength, source through a narrow slit, however, the slit acts as
a single point source, and the light travels from it as a coherent wave according to Huygens ’
Principle. If you then direct the light from the single slit to a double slit (a closely spaced pair
of slits), the double slit acts as a pair of sources of coherent, monochromatic light. Any
change that occurs in the original source will occur in the two beams at the same time, which
allows you to observe interference effects.
 4

Figure1.Monochromatic light passes through the single slit first, then through the double
slit.
Young carried out his original double-slit experiment with light sometime in the first
decade of the 1800s, showing that the waves of light from the two slits interfered to produce a
characteristic fringe pattern on a screen. In 1909 Geoffrey Ingram (G I) Taylor conducted an
experiment in which he showed that even the feeble slight source - equivalent to "a candle
burning at a distance slightly exceeding a mile" - could lead to interference fringes. This led
to Dirac's famous statement that "each photon then interferes only with itself".
In 1927 Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer observed the diffraction of electron beams
from a nickel crystal - demonstrating the wave-like properties of particles for the first time -
and George(G P) Thompson did the same with thin films of celluloid and other materials
shortly afterwards. Davisson and Thomson shared the1937 Nobel prize for "discovery of the
interference phenomena arising when crystals are exposed to electronic beams", but neither
performed a double-slit experiment with electrons. In the early 1950s Ladislaus Laszlo
Marton of the US National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) in Washington, DC
demonstrated electron interference but this was in a Mach-Zehnder rather than a double-slit
geometry. These were the early days of the electron microscope and physicists were keen to
exploit the very short DE Broglie wavelength of electrons to study objects that were too small
to be studied with visible light. Doing gedanken or thought experiments in the laboratory was
further down their list of priorities.
A few years later Gottfried Möllenstedt and Heinrich Düker of theUniversity of
Tübingen in Germany used an electron biprism -essentially a very thin conducting wire at
right angles to the beam -to split an electron beam into two components and observe
interference between them. (Möllenstedt made the wires by coatingfibres from spiders' webs
with gold - indeed, it is said that he kept spiders in the laboratory for this purpose). The
electron biprism wasto become widely used in the development of electron holographyand
also in other experiments, including the first measurement of theAharonov-Bohm effect by
Bob Chambers at Bristol University in theUK in 1960.But in 1961 Claus Jönsson of
 5

Tübingen, who had been one ofMöllenstedt's students, finally performed an actual double-
slitexperiment with electrons for the first time (Zeitschrift für Physik161 454). Indeed, he
demonstrated interference with up to five slits.
Since then particle interference has been demonstrated withneutrons, atoms and
molecules as large as carbon-60 andcarbon-70. And earlier this year another famous
experiment in optics- the Hanbury Brown and Twiss experiment - was performed
withelectrons for the first time (again at Tübingen!). However, the resultsare profoundly
different this time because electrons are fermions -and therefore obey the Pauli Exclusion
Principle - whereas photonsare bosons and do not.
Apparatus
 Optics bench
 Laser
 Slit film
 Screen
 White paper and tape
 Pencil
 Metric ruler
 Ocean Optics spectrometer and fiber optics cable
Experiment
At the very end of the 1700s, Thomas Young performed a series of experiments to
determine what happens when light passes through two closely spaced slits. We now refer to
his basic setup as Young’s double-slit experiment, and it demonstrated conclusively that light
behaves as a wave. The experiment also provided a method to measure wavelength. Figure
(a) shows the experimental setup, and Figure (b) shows an image produced with such a setup
using white light.

Figure 2.When the white light passes through two small slits,an interference pattern of
alternating bright and dark gringes was produced.
 6

When monochromatic light, such as laser light, passes through the slits of an
experiment setup similar to the one in Figure (a), the laser light hits the screen on the right
and produces an interference pattern. This arrangement satisfies the general conditions
required to create wave interference:
 The interfering waves travel through different regions of space (in this case they
travel through two different slits).
 The waes come together at a common point where they interfere (in this case the
screen).
 The waves are coherent (in this case they come from the same monochromatic
source).
When the two slits in the double-slit setup are both very narrow, each slit acts as a
simple point source of new light waves, and the outgoing waves from each slit are like the
simple spherical waves

Figure3.The diffraction effects of light passing through two narrow slits by considering just one of

the narrow slits.

Interference will determine the intensity of light at any point on the screen. If one of the
slits is covered, the screen shows a bright, wide center line with closely spaced, dim,
alternating dark and light bands, or interference fringes, on either side. However, if both slits
are open, then the screen shows a pattern of nearly uniform bright and dark fringes. The ideal
double-slit pattern would show no dimming, but a real-world pattern does appear dimmer as
you move away from the center. This dimming occurs because the width of the slits causes
each to act like a single slit, and the non-uniform single-slit pattern combines with the ideal
double-slit pattern. The bright and dark fringes are alternate regions of constructive and
destructive interference, respectively. To analyze the interference, you need to determine the
path length difference between each slit and the screen.
 7

Figure4.When the point P is very far away compared to the separation of the two sources the
lines Lana L2 are nearly parallel.
The screen is a long way from the slits, so L is very large compared to the path
lengths for waves from each of the slits to the point P on the screen are L1 and L2. The
distance L2 is greater than the distance L1, and, since L is large, the angles that specify the
directions from the slits to point P are approximately equal, so both are shown as θ. Finally,
we assume that the wavelength l is much smaller than d, the spacing between the slits. Since
the slits are separated by a distance d, the path length difference between L2 and L1 is given
by
Δ L= d sin θ
For the two waves to be in phase when they reach the screen, and thus for
constructive interference to occur, this path length difference needs to be a whole number of
wavelengths. The condition for constructive interference and a bright interference fringe is
therefore
Δ sin θ = m λ
m= 0, 1, 2, 3…
Constructive interference
The light fringes, or maxima, are called zero-order maximum, first-order maximum,
and so forth, form 5 0, 1, 2, 3, In this notation, m 5 0 denotes the maximum in the center of
the screen. Successive values of m correspond to successive maxima moving away in either
direction from the center of the screen. A display of Young’s double-slit experiment using
red light maxima points of brightness, or maximum intensity, in an interference pattern For
the two waves to be out of phase when they reach the screen, and thus for destructive
 8

interference to occur, the path length difference needs to be an [n-1|2] λ. Thus, the condition
for destructive interference and a dark fringe in the interference pattern is
Δ sin θ = (n -1/2) λ
n = 1, 2, 3…..
Destructive interference
These dark lines, or minima, are called first-order minimum, second-order minimum,
and so forth, for n 5 1, 2, 3, .As the value of m changes, the angle u also changes. At certain
values of u, the conditions for constructive interference are satisfied and a maximum in the
intensity is produced, corresponding to a bright fringe. The fringe at the centre of the screen
is the zero-order maximum and has the value 0 form in the equation for constructive
interference

Figure5.In this double slit interference pattern values of θ give the location of fringes on the
screen

First, calculate the separation between the central bright fringe (m =0) and the next
bright fringe (m = 1). The equation for constructive interference tells us that
Sin θ= λ\d
To determine the separation between the bright fringes on the screen, you can use the
right-angled triangle outlined in red. It has sides of lengths L and x1, where x1 is the distance
between the two fringes corresponding to m 5 0 and m 5 1. These lengths are related by the
trigonometric relation
X1= L tan θ
The wavelength is much smaller than the spacing between the slits, so ld is very small.
Therefore, u is also very small, and the approximation sin u L tan u holds:
X1 = L sin θ
X1 = L λ\d
 9

For the mth-order bright fringe, this relation becomes

Xm = mL λ\d
And the separation between any two adjacent fringes is
Δx= L λ\d
Suppose the slit separation is 0.1 mm, the wavelength of light from a red laser is 630
nm, and the screen is 0.5 m from the slits. Substitute the corresponding values into this
equation to determine the separation of the fringes for the red laser light
Δx= L λ\d

(0.5)(6.3x10-7)
=
0.1x10-3

Δx = 3.2mm

This separation is large enough to be seen by the unaided eye. This analysis shows
that, provided the slits are close enough together, the bright and dark fringes in the
interference pattern are observable. A slit separation of 0.1 mm or smaller works well.
Experiments have shown that when the spacing is larger than a few millimeters, the fringes
are close together and difficult to see.
Using the equations for destructive interference, you can calculate the distance of each dark
fringe from the center of the screen. The result is
Xn = (n-1/2) L λ\d n=1, 2, 3…….
For example, the distances of the first, second, and third minima from the center of the
screen are
X1= (1-1/2) L λ\d = L λ\2d

X2= (2-1/2) L λ\d = 3L λ\2d

X3= (3-1/2) L λ\d = 5L λ\2d

Although L actually has different values for each nodal line, in this case L is so large
compared to d and the values of L for the various nodal lines are so similar, that we can treat
L as a constant, being essentially equal to the perpendicular distance from the slits to the
screen. Modern interference experiments often inject a cloud of smoke between the slits and
the viewing screen. Some of the light reflects off the particles in the cloud, so the viewer can
easily see the path of the light. Will interference patterns appear in the cloudy region between
 10

the slits and the screen? The equations for constructive and destructive interference depend
on the distance, L, from the slits, which can be any value considerably greater than d. The
interference patterns will still occur in both places. In the cloud region, you will see bright
lines directed toward the bright areas of the screen and dark lines directed toward the dark
areas of the screen.

Modern Variants of Young's Double Slit Experiment

The Young's Double Slit Experiment has evolved significantly since its inception,
leading to various modern variants that deepen our understanding of quantum mechanics.
Here are some of the notable modern variations:
1. Quantum Double Slit Experiment with Electrons
This variant replaces light with electrons, demonstrating that particles also exhibit
wave-like behavior. When electrons pass through two slits, they create an interference pattern
similar to that produced by light. An electron gun emits a beam of electrons toward a double
slit. When both slits are open, an interference pattern emerges on a detector screen. If one slit
is observed (which-path information is obtained), the interference pattern disappears,
demonstrating wave function collapse. This experiment highlights the concept of wave-
particle duality, suggesting that particles exist in a superposition of states until measured.
2. Delayed Choice Experiment
This experiment tests the implications of quantum mechanics by allowing the choice
of measurement to occur after the particles have passed through the slits. A photon passes
through a double slit. After it passes through, an additional apparatus allows the experimenter
to choose whether to measure the photon's path (which-path information) or to observe
interference. The interference pattern is preserved if no measurement is made, even if the
decision to measure is made after the photon has passed through the slits. This experiment
challenges classical notions of causality and timing, suggesting that actions taken after an
event can influence the outcome of that event in quantum mechanics.
3. Quantun Eraser Experiment
A source produces pairs of entangled photons, which are sent to two separate double
slits. The choice of which slit to observe for one photon influences the interference pattern of
the other photon. Even when the photons are far apart, measuring one photon reveals
information about the other, impacting the interference pattern.This experiment underscores
the concept of quantum entanglement and non-locality, demonstrating that particles can be
interconnected regardless of the distance separating them.
 11

4. Mach-Zehnder Interferomet
This optical setup utilizes beam splitters and mirrors instead of slits to create
interference patterns. A coherent light source passes through a beam splitter, dividing the
light into two paths. After traveling different routes, the beams recombine at a second beam
splitter. Depending on the phase difference between the two paths, constructive or destructive
interference occurs, creating a detectable pattern. The Mach-Zehnder interferometer provides
a more controlled environment for studying interference and has applications in quantum
computing and precision measurements.
5. Quantum Imaging
This approach uses the principles of the double-slit experiment for imaging
techniques, such as ghost imaging. One photon from an entangled pair interacts with an
object while the other photon is detected elsewhere without direct interaction with the object.
The detection of the second photon reveals information about the object, effectively imaging
it.Quantum imaging leverages the concepts of entanglement and interference, leading to
applications in fields like medical imaging and security.

Applications of the Double-Slit Experiment

1. Quantum Computing:
Understanding interference patterns is crucial for developing qubits that leverage
superposition and entanglement.
2. Quantum Cryptography:
The principles demonstrated by the double-slit experiment help in creating secure
communication protocols that exploit quantum behavior.
3. Fundamental Research:
Ongoing studies based on the double-slit experiment help deepen our understanding
of quantum mechanics and challenge classical intuitions about reality.
4. Education and Demonstration:
The double-slit experiment remains a key educational tool to illustrate the
complexities of quantum mechanics to students and the general public.

Conclusion
The Young's Double Slit Experiment remains one of the most profound
demonstrations in physics, encapsulating the dual nature of light and matter. Its results
challenge classical intuitions, revealing the complexities of quantum mechanics and the
 12

fundamental principles of wave-particle duality. As we have explored through its modern

variants—such as experiments with electrons, delayed choice scenarios, and entangled
particles—this experiment not only illustrates the intricate behavior of quantum systems but
also poses philosophical questions about the nature of reality and observation.
The implications of the double-slit experiment extend beyond theoretical exploration;
they lay the groundwork for revolutionary advancements in technology, including quantum
computing and secure communication methods. As researchers continue to delve into the
nuances of quantum mechanics, the insights gained from the Young's Double Slit Experiment
will undoubtedly inspire further innovation and inquiry, reinforcing its status as a cornerstone
of modern physics. This experiment reminds us that the universe operates on principles that
often defy our intuitive understanding, inviting us to embrace the mysteries of the quantum
world.
 13

References
 Seyed Kazem Mousavi. "The Double-slit Experiment in the Six-dimensional Space-
Time". Qeios, 2024,
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0cad35b9ab1492a97aec789670cb0980ae3a96
e0
 Carlotta Versmold. "Bohmian Trajectories in a Double Slit Experiment". Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universität Munich, 2021,
https://www.xqp.physik.lmu.de/publications/files/theses_master/master_versmold.pdf
 Hui Peng. "New experiments/phenomena in optics: photoelectric effect to photowave
phenomena". 2023,
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1ed88677977251f648be83e09820a6fc61a1a4f
f
 Young, Thomas (1804). "The Bakerian lecture. Experiments and calculation relative
to physical optics". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 94:
1–16. Doi:10.1098/rstl.1804.0001. S2CID 110408369
 Navarro, Jaume (2010). "Electron diffraction chez Thomson: early responses to
quantum physics in Britain". The British Journal for the History of Science. 43 (2):
245–275. Doi:10.1017/S0007087410000026. ISSN 0007-0874. S2CID 171025814.
 Thomson, G. P.; Reid, A. (1927). "Diffraction of Cathode Rays by a Thin
Film". Nature. 119 (3007):890. Bibcode:1927Natur.119Q.890T. Doi:10.1038/119890
a0. ISSN 0028-0836. S2CID 4122313.
 Eibenberger, Sandra; et al. (2013). "Matter-wave interference with particles selected
from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10000 amu". 14696–
14700. ArXiv:1310.8343. Bibcode:2013PCCP...1514696E. Doi:10.1039/
C3CP51500A. PMID 23900710. S2CID 3944699.
 Kipnis, Naum S. (1991). History of the Principle of Interference of Light. Springer.
p. 65. ISBN 978-0-8176-2316-6.Darling, David (2007). "Wave–Particle
Duality". The Internet Encyclopedia of Science. The Worlds of David Darling.
Retrieved 18 October 2008.
14