Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
Experiment Objectives
The objectives of this experiment were to use a Michelson interferometer to determine: i. The wavelength separation of the Sodium D lines doublet. ii. The thickness of a given sample of Mylar.
Before commencing measurements of , it was necessary to calculate the value f relating the distance L moved by the MSG, and the associated distance d moved by M1. d = fL (1)
Background
The Michelson interferometer (MI) produces an interference pattern from incident light by splitting the beam into two. The two beams traverse the individual arms of the interferometer of which one has a variable path length and are then re-combined, producing the circular interference pattern. Fig.1 shows a basic diagram of the MI. Sodium D lines (orange-yellow), which will be investigated in this experiment, feature two components of light with two different monochromatic wavelengths differing by a value .
Upon moving M1, fringes passed out of (or into, depending on which direction in which M1 was moved) the field of view in the detector. To calculate the value of f, the screw gauge was moved slowly as 200 fringes were counted upon passing. The distance L was measured from the screw gauge, and d was estimated using the wavelength of the light (546nm), and these two were combined to find:
f = 0.192 0.013
Apparatus
As shown in Fig.2, the MI featured a focussing lens, a filter and a diffuser. These ensured that the light was optimised for viewing. Mirror M1 was connected to a lever arm on a pivot, which was movable using a micrometer Screw Gauge (MSG). Adjustment of the screw gauge moved mirror M1 a proportional amount.
The error in this value arises mainly from the uncertainty in counting the fringes which passed, due to the sensitive nature of the apparatus. This could have been rectified by using a less sensitive MSG. The light source was interchangeable between a Mercury lamp (which was used in determining f), a Sodium lamp (m=589.3nm), and a white incandescent lamp. The MI was calibrated to ensure that the interference pattern was centred on the middle of the detector by using a pinhole plate in place of the diffuser, and adjusting the inclination of the mirrors.
d = 0.29 0.02mm
By applying equation (2), was calculated:
= 0.599 0.041nm
See appendix for relevant error formula (e1). The error on is due to the difficulty in measuring the position of each minimum precisely, as the pattern is intrinsically blurry. It would not be easily reduced directly by any available means, however if a wider range of readings were taken there may have been a smaller error.
= m 2 d
2
(2)
was to be used, where d is the distance moved by M1 between adjacent maxima (or minima), and m is the mean wavelength (589.3nm) of the source. It was apparent that the position of minima was easier to judge than that of maxima to a satisfactory degree of accuracy. Therefore in order to calculate L (and consequently d), the position of the MSG was measured at eight consecutive minima. Results were tabulated and processed using Microsoft Excel, as shown in Fig.3. The weighted mean value of the distance between each minimum was used as L, and equation (1) was applied to find d and its associated error. d was found to be:
The pattern featured a central dark fringe in between two white maxima, surrounded by gradually fading coloured fringes. Upon placing the Mylar film (of known refractive index nMylar =1.64) into one arm of the interferometer, the interference pattern was shifted due to the extra path travelled by the light in that arm. It followed that the thickness of the Mylar could be determined by measuring the distance d by which the central dark fringe of the pattern had been shifted. After measuring d, the thickness t of the Mylar sample could be found by:
To find L for the two arms, the difference between the values with and without the film in place were calculated. The two L values were calculated as:
t=
d (n Mylar n Air )
(3)
L = 0.07 0.01mm
Applying equation (1), d was estimated as:
Where nAir is said to be equal to 1. To measure the value of L (and consequently d) the position L of the MSG with the dark central fringe in the centre of the viewfinder was recorded with and without the Film in one arm of the MI. Both arms of the interferometer were used in order to gain a wider, more reliable set of data. Results were tabulated as shown in Fig.5, and the residuals of each value were calculated in order to provide an estimate for the standard error by the formula2:
d = 0.013 0.02mm
Finally, the thickness of the sample of Mylar film was estimated using equation (3). The thickness t of the film was found to be:
t=
t = 0.020 0.003mm
The error in this final value was due in part to the apparent difference in the change of path length when the film was placed in different arms. This was not expected; therefore in retrospect it was a good idea to use both arms of the interferometer to effectively measure t. Also, it was difficult to measure the exact position at which the central band was in the middle of the interferometer an issue which may have been removed had there been a cross-hair on the eye-piece, for example. The error in t was also affected by the uncertainty found in calculating f as described earlier.
i =
1 2 i n
Where n is the total number of measurements 6 in this case. The mean values of L were found to be:
(Li - <Li>) 12 22 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0004 (Li - <Li>) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002
Conclusion
The value of wavelength separation for the sodium D lines doublet was found to be
=0.5990.041nm. There was no accepted value available with which to compare to our experimental value. The error in the value of comes primarily from the error in determining the mirror movement correction factor f, which could have been reduced by using a less sensitive micrometer gauge. Also, more measurements would have slightly reduced the error. The thickness of the Mylar film sample was determined as t=200.3nm. The error in this value came mainly from the uncertainty in judging exactly the position of the central dark fringe. This could have been reduced by using a cross-hair on the detector. The error here also comes from the uncertainty in f. The objectives of this experiment were certainly achieved, and the methods used were confirmed to be effective, with only a few minor possible improvements.
References
1 Lab Script O4 UCL Department of Physics and astronomy. Equations 1, 2 and 3 were also gained from this source. Treatment of experimental data UCL department of Physics and astronomy.
Appendix
e1:
2
If A=BC, then
2 2
A B C = + A B C
e2: If A=BC, then
A 2 = B 2 + C 2