It depends on the spread of the incident beam, which needs to cover both slits. If you put the slits too far apart, then all of the incident beam is absorbed by the first barrier.brajesh said:Summary:: I was wondering how far apart the slits can be and the double slit experiment still works?
How far apart can the slits be and the double slit experiment still works i.e the wave interference pattern is seen on the target screen?
The double-slit is not anything special: it's just the way nature works. It's not a trick. Whatever set up you have, you can do the calculations and predict the result.brajesh said:So does that mean that theoretically, let's say the incident beam spread is an arc of 30 degrees, then if I move the slits apart AND also keep moving the barrier further away such that both slits are still covered by the beam, that I could have a very large separation and still continue to see the effect?
Yes, although as we move the barrier away the intensity goes down so there's less of anything to see - or equivalently the dots per second rate goes down and it takes longer for the pattern to build up.brajesh said:So does that mean that theoretically, let's say the incident beam spread is an arc of 30 degrees, then if I move the slits apart AND also keep moving the barrier further away such that both slits are still covered by the beam, that I could have a very large separation and still continue to see the effect?
What would you be trying to accomplish by having the source 30 degrees (or whatever angle) off the vertical? Normally you want the source to go straight to the slits so that they are illuminated as close to equally as possible. To the extent they are not equal, the interference effect is lessened.brajesh said:So does that mean that theoretically, let's say the incident beam spread is an arc of 30 degrees, then if I move the slits apart AND also keep moving the barrier further away such that both slits are still covered by the beam, that I could have a very large separation and still continue to see the effect?
Let me try to be semantically pedantic. I would prefer to talk about the "width" of the essentially collimated incident beam. "Spread" implies to me a large lack of incident collimation and simply complicates the picture.PeroK said:It depends on the spread of the incident beam
I was using "spread" as a synonym for statistical dispersion:hutchphd said:Let me try to be semantically pedantic. I would prefer to talk about the "width" of the essentially collimated incident beam. "Spread" implies to me a large lack of incident collimation and simply complicates the picture.
The double slit experiment is a classic experiment in physics that demonstrates the wave-particle duality of light. It involves shining a beam of light through two parallel slits and observing the resulting interference pattern on a screen behind the slits.
The distance between the two slits can vary, but it is typically in the range of micrometers to millimeters. The exact distance will depend on the wavelength of the light being used and the desired interference pattern.
If the slits are too close together, the interference pattern will be too spread out and difficult to observe. If the slits are too far apart, the interference pattern will be too narrow and may not be visible. It is important to find the right distance between the slits to achieve a clear and observable interference pattern.
Yes, the distance between the slits can greatly affect the interference pattern. As the distance between the slits increases, the interference pattern becomes wider and the fringes become closer together. This is due to the fact that the distance between the slits affects the phase difference between the waves passing through them.
There is no specific maximum distance between the slits in the double slit experiment. However, as the distance between the slits increases, the interference pattern becomes less defined and eventually disappears. This is because the waves passing through the slits become more and more out of phase, resulting in destructive interference instead of constructive interference.