The Fresnel Biprism Abstract: This experiment seeks to measure accurately the wavelength of sodium light using the

Fresnel Biprism. This method has several advantages over the typical Youngs Slits experiment, which are outlined elow. !t was found that the wavelength of sodium light was '.& #$ " $.% #$ " m , which compares to the actual value of %.( #$ " m #. Basic Theory and Equations: The interference of waves takes place when two or more coherent waves of e)ual amplitudes come together in space. Their amplitudes add alge raically and so one o tains either constructive or destructive interference. Further, one can create an interference effect y using two coherent sources. * pattern is created on a screen and this consists of dark spots and right spots + called intensity minima and maxima respectively. The minima and maxima correspond to destructive and constructive interference. Such a pattern can e made y performing the Youngs Slits experiment ,see elow-. The Fresnel Biprism is a variation on that theme which is Youngs Slits. !n theory, the source in Youngs slits is a point source, and the secondary slits are also supposed to act as point sources. This is never the case, since clearly a point source is an ideali.ation. The finite si.e of the secondary slits gives rise to unwanted diffraction effects. The Fresnel Biprism overcomes the difficulty associated with the extended secondary slits y replacing them with /virtual slits0, which are o tained from the configuration elow. ,!nsert diagram of Fresnel BiprismThis configuration is in fact analogous to the Youngs Slits apparatus, and so we apply the formulas of the latter apparatus to the former. ,!nsert diagram of Youngs SlitsFor constructive interference, we must have that the path difference e)ual an integral num er of wavelengths, which gives m = d sin . !n this apparatus, D >> d , so we can say that

sin tan =

ad1acent intensity maxima ,where s = y m +# y m - is given y the following e)uation2 s=

ym m y m , and so = . This implies that the separation s etween two D a D

D
d

,#-

3ow s and D are measura le )uantities, although with the Fresnel Biprism, d is not directly measura le. !t can, however, e found y adding a lens to the apparatus as in the following diagram2 ,!nsert diagram with lensThere will e two positions of the lens for which the /virtual slits0 are visi le. The separation of the slits ,as seen through the eyepiece- in these cases is d1 and d2. From the lens formula,

we can show that the actual separation etween the two virtual slits is given y the following formula2
d = d# d 4

,4-

,See *ppendix # for the derivation of this formula-.

Sketch of Apparatus: ,!nsert sketch with la els-

Method2 #. The apparatus was set up as in the sketch. The apparatus was cali rated so that the light source, the slit, the iprism and the eyepiece were aligned. The slit and the edge of the iprism were aligned. This was to ensure that the ehaviour of the rays was as in figure 5. The eyepiece was rought close to the iprism and the fringes were located. The width of the slit was ad1usted to improve the visi ility of the fringes. The eyepiece was then moved away from the slit in order to measure s, d1 and d2. 7ereafter, the position of the eyepiece relative to the source was kept fixed and this provided us with a measure of D. The lens was inserted and two positions of the lens were found for which the virtual slits were visi le. Thus, d1 and d2 were found.

4. 6.

&. %. Findings:

The lens was then removed and s was determined y measuring across 6$ fringes.

D = $.($& $.$$#m
d# = 4.66 $.$#mm d 4 = 8.%% $.$#mm d = d# d 4 = &.&' $.$#

# d4 d d# + # d 4 9here d = 4 d# d4
S = 6$s : mm 6.(% &.$$ 4.'$ 4.(' &.($ &.&&
s = $.#4" mm

s : mm $.#64 $.#66 $.$8" $.#$$ $.#'6 $.#&8

S : mm $.8 $.8 $.8 $.8 $.8 $.8

s / mm $.$6 $.$6 $.$6 $.$6 $.$6 $.$6

s =

s
'

= $.$#$

Thus, s s = #.6 #$ & $.# #$ & m

sd #.6 #$ & $.# #$ & m &.&' #$ 6 $.$# #$ 6 m = = '.& #$ " $.% #$ " m D $.($& $.$$#m d s sd 9here = s + d + 4 D . D D D

)(

Analysis of Accuracy and Uncertainty:

The principal source of error in this experiment arises when one determines the separation s of the intensity maxima. 7ere, human error + due to counting 6$ separations of intensity maxima + is more important than the measurement area due to the instruments. The latter source of error is therefore neglected. !t is estimated therefore that in counting 6$ separations, we incur an error of % separations. !.e. in counting 6$ separations, we estimate that the actual num er of separations is etween 4" and 66. This additional uncertainty negates somewhat the improvement that this experiment makes in comparison with Youngs Slits. This factor could e used y using a photomultiplier to count the intensity maxima and their separation. onclusion: !t was found that the wavelength of sodium light was '.& #$ " $.% #$ " m . This compares with the actual value of %.( #$ " m , which is within the range determined y experimental error. This value could e improved y finding a different way of determining the separation s of ad1acent intensity maxima.

Appendi!: ;erivation of <)uation ,4-2