Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime

Transport
College of Computing and Information Technology
Computer Science

Interfernces Waves &

Young Double Slits Experiment

Done By :
Mohamed Ahmed 221008808

To :
Dr. Mohamed Anwar
 Table of Contents

Table of Figures……………………………………………………………………………II
1.Introduction To Interference ………………………………..…………………...…..1

1.1 What is Interference?…………………………………………………………….……….1

2. Interference Waves……………..……………………………………………….….…..2
2.1 Constructive Interference……………….………………………………………………..2

2.2 Destructive Interference……………….…………………………………………………..3

2.3 The Principle of Superposition……………………………………………………..……..4

3. Double-slit experiment…………………………………………………………………6
3.1 What is Double-slit experiment …………………………………………………………..6

3.2 Variations of the experiment………………………………………………………………8

3.2.1 Interference of individual particles…………………………………………………………8
3.2.2 Mach-Zehnder interferometer………………………………………………………..…….8
3.2.3 "Which-way" experiments and the principle of complementarity……………..……….…..9
3.2.4 Other variations………………………………………………………..…………………..9
3.2.5 Hydrodynamic pilot wave analogs……………………………………………………..…………..10

4. Classical wave-optics formulation…………………………………………………..11

5. Interpretations of the experiment…………………………………………………...13
5.1 Copenhagen interpretation………………………………………………………………..13
5.2 Path-integral formulation…………………………………………………………………13
5.3 Relational interpretation………………………………………………………………….14

References…………………………………………………………………………………..15

I
 Table of Figures

Figure 1. What is Interference……………………………………..………...…1

Figure 2. Interference Costructive………………………………..…….….…..2
Figure 3. Interference Destructive 1……………………………….…..………3
Figure 4. interference Destructive 2………………………………..….………4
Figure 5. The Principle of Superposition…………………..…………..…….5

II
 1. Introduction To Interference

1.1 What is Interference?

Wave interference is the phenomenon that occurs when two waves meet while
traveling along the same medium. The interference of waves causes the medium to take
on a shape that results from the net effect of the two individual waves upon the particles
of the medium. To begin our exploration of wave interference, consider two pulses of the
same amplitude traveling in different directions along the same medium. Let's suppose
that each displaced upward 1 unit at its crest and has the shape of a sine wave. As the
sine pulses move towards each other, there will eventually be a moment in time when they
are completely overlapped. At that moment, the resulting shape of the medium would be
an upward displaced sine pulse with an amplitude of 2 units. The diagrams below depict
the before and during interference snapshots of the medium for two such pulses. The
individual sine pulses are drawn in red and blue and the resulting displacement of the
medium is drawn in green.

Figure 1. What is Interference?

1
 2. Interference Waves

2.1 Constructive Interference

This type of interference is sometimes called constructive

interference. Constructive interference is a type of interference that occurs at any
location along the medium where the two interfering waves have a displacement in the
same direction. In this case, both waves have an upward displacement; consequently, the
medium has an upward displacement that is greater than the displacement of the two
interfering pulses. Constructive interference is observed at any location where the two
interfering waves are displaced upward. But it is also observed when both interfering
waves are displaced downward. This is shown in the diagram below for two downward
displaced pulses.

Figure 2. Interference Costructive

In this case, a sine pulse with a maximum displacement of -1 unit (negative means a
downward displacement) interferes with a sine pulse with a maximum displacement of -
1 unit. These two pulses are drawn in red and blue. The resulting shape of the medium
is a sine pulse with a maximum displacement of -2 units.

2
2.2 Destructive Interference

Destructive interference is a type of interference that occurs at any location

along the medium where the two interfering waves have a displacement in the opposite
direction. For instance, when a sine pulse with a maximum displacement of +1 unit meets
a sine pulse with a maximum displacement of -1 unit, destructive interference occurs. This
is depicted in the diagram below.

Figure 3. Interference Destructive 1

In the diagram above, the interfering pulses have the same maximum displacement but in
opposite directions. The result is that the two pulses completely destroy each other when
they are completely overlapped. At the instant of complete overlap, there is no resulting
displacement of the particles of the medium. This "destruction" is not a permanent
condition. In fact, to say that the two waves destroy each other can be partially misleading.
When it is said that the two pulses destroy each other, what is meant is that when
overlapped, the effect of one of the pulses on the displacement of a given particle of the
medium is destroyed or canceled by the effect of the other pulse. Recall from Lesson
1 that waves transport energy through a medium by means of each individual particle
pulling upon its nearest neighbor. When two pulses with opposite displacements (i.e., one
pulse displaced up and the other down) meet at a given location, the upward pull of one
pulse is balanced (canceled or destroyed) by the downward pull of the other pulse. Once
the two pulses pass through each other, there is still an upward displaced pulse and a
downward displaced pulse heading in the same direction that they were heading before
the interference. Destructive interference leads to only a momentary condition in which
the medium's displacement is less than the displacement of the largest-amplitude wave.

3
The two interfering waves do not need to have equal amplitudes in opposite directions for
destructive interference to occur. For example, a pulse with a maximum displacement of
+1 unit could meet a pulse with a maximum displacement of -2 units. The resulting
displacement of the medium during complete overlap is -1 unit.

Figure 4. interference Destructive 2

2.3 The Principle of Superposition

The task of determining the shape of the resultant demands that the principle of
superposition is applied. The principle of superposition is sometimes stated as follows:

When two waves interfere, the resulting displacement of the medium at any location is the
algebraic sum of the displacements of the individual waves at that same location.

In the cases above, the summing the individual displacements for locations of complete
overlap was made out to be an easy task - as easy as simple arithmetic:

Displacement of Pulse 1 Displacement of Pulse 2 = Resulting Displacement

+1 +1 = +2
-1 -1 = -2
+1 -1 =0
+1 -2 = -1

In actuality, the task of determining the complete shape of the entire medium during
interference demands that the principle of superposition be applied for every point (or
nearly every point) along the medium. As an example of the complexity of this task,
consider the two interfering waves at the right. A snapshot of the shape of each individual
wave at a particular instant in time is shown. To determine the precise shape of the

4
medium at this given instant in time, the principle of superposition must be applied to
several locations along the medium. A short cut involves measuring the displacement from
equilibrium at a few strategic locations. Thus, approximately 20 locations have been
picked and labeled as A, B, C, D, etc. The actual displacement of each individual wave can
be counted by measuring from the equilibrium position up to the particular wave. At
position A, there is no displacement for either individual wave; thus, the resulting
displacement of the medium at position will be 0 units. At position B, the smaller wave
has a displacement of approximately 1.4 units (indicated by the red dot); the larger wave
has a displacement of approximately 2 units (indicated by the blue dot). Thus, the resulting
displacement of the medium will be approximately 3.4 units. At position C, the smaller
wave has a displacement of approximately 2 units; the larger wave has a displacement of
approximately 4 units; thus, the resulting displacement of the medium will be
approximately 6 units. At position D, the smaller wave has a displacement of
approximately 1.4 units; the larger wave has a displacement of approximately 2 units;
thus, the resulting displacement of the medium will be approximately 3.4 units. This
process can be repeated for every position. When finished, a dot (done in green below) can
be marked on the graph to note the displacement of the medium at each given location.
The actual shape of the medium can then be sketched by estimating the position between
the various marked points and sketching the wave. This is shown as the green line in the
diagram below.

Figure 5. The Principle of Superposition

5
 3. Double-slit experiment
3.1 What is Double-slit experiment
In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can
display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it
displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This
type of experiment was first performed by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of
the wave behavior of visible light.[1] At that time it was thought that light consisted
of either waves or particles. With the beginning of modern physics, about a hundred years
later, it was realized that light could in fact show behavior characteristic
of both waves and particles. In 1927, Davisson and Germer demonstrated that electrons
show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules.[2][3] Thomas
Young's experiment with light was part of classical physics long before the development
of quantum mechanics and the concept of wave–particle duality. He believed it
demonstrated that Christiaan Huygens' wave theory of light was correct, and his
experiment is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment[4] or Young's slits.[5]

The experiment belongs to a general class of "double path" experiments, in which a wave
is split into two separate waves (the wave is typically made of many photons and better
referred to as a wave front, not to be confused with the wave properties of the individual
photon) that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path-lengths of both waves
result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. Another version is the Mach–
Zehnder interferometer, which splits the beam with a beam splitter.

In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam,
illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is
observed on a screen behind the plate.[6][7] The wave nature of light causes the light waves
passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen
– a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles.[6][8] However,
the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual
particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of these
particle hits on the screen.[9] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include

6
detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a
classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave). However, such
experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one
detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–
particle duality.[15][16]

Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior
when fired towards a double slit.[7] Additionally, the detection of individual discrete
impacts is observed to be inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical
mechanics.[7]

The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons,
although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the
double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000
atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).[17]

In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a
plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind
the plate.[6][7] The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere,
producing bright and dark bands on the screen – a result that would not be expected if light consisted
of classical particles.[6][8] However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete
points, as individual particles (not waves); the interference pattern appears via the varying density of
these particle hits on the screen.[9] Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at
the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not
through both slits (as would a wave).[10][11][12][13][14] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles
do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results
demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.[15][16]

Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired
towards a double slit.[7] Additionally, the detection of individual discrete impacts is observed to be
inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical mechanics.[7]

The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes
more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been
performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic
mass units).

7
3.2 Variations of the experiment

3.2.1 Interference of individual particles

An important version of this experiment involves single particles. Sending particles through a double-
slit apparatus one at a time results in single particles appearing on the screen, as expected.
Remarkably, however, an interference pattern emerges when these particles are allowed to build up
one by one (see the adjacent image). This demonstrates the wave–particle duality, which states that
all matter exhibits both wave and particle properties: The particle is measured as a single pulse at a
single position, while the wave describes the probability of absorbing the particle at a specific place
on the screen.[29] This phenomenon has been shown to occur with photons,[30] electrons,[31] atoms, and
even some molecules. Success was achieved with buckminsterfullerene in 2001,[32][33][34][35] with 2
molecules of 430 atoms in 2011,[36] and with molecules of up to 2000 atoms in 2019.[37]

The probability of detection is the square of the amplitude of the wave and can be calculated with
classical waves (see below). Ever since the origination of quantum mechanics, some theorists have
searched for ways to incorporate additional determinants or "hidden variables" that, were they to
become known, would account for the location of each individual impact with the target. [38]

3.2.2 Mach-Zehnder interferometer

The Mach–Zehnder interferometer can be seen as a simplified version of the double-slit experiment.
Instead of propagating through free space after the two slits, and hitting any position in an extended
screen, in the interferometer the photons can only propagate via two paths, and hit two discrete
photodetectors. This makes it possible to describe it via simple linear algebra in dimension 2, rather
than differential equations.

A photon emitted by the laser hits the first beam splitter and is then in a superposition between the
two possible paths. In the second beam splitter these paths interfere, causing the photon to hit the
photodetector on the right with probability one, and the photodetector on the bottom with probability
zero. It is interesting to consider what would happen if the photon were definitely in either of paths
between the beam splitters. This can be accomplished by blocking one of the paths, or equivalently by
detecting the presence of a photon there. In both cases there will be no interference between the
paths anymore, and both photodetectors will be hit with probability 1/2. From this we can conclude

8
that the photon does not take one path or another after the first beam splitter, but rather that it is in
a genuine quantum superposition of the two paths.[39]

3.2.3 "Which-way" experiments and the principle of complementarity

A well-known thought experiment predicts that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits,
showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear. [7] This which-way
experiment illustrates the complementarity principle that photons can behave as either particles or
waves, but cannot be observed as both at the same time.[40][41][42] Despite the importance of this
thought experiment in the history of quantum mechanics (for example, see the discussion
on Einstein's version of this experiment), technically feasible realizations of this experiment were not
proposed until the 1970s.[43] (Naive implementations of the textbook thought experiment are not
possible because photons cannot be detected without absorbing the photon.) Currently, multiple
experiments have been performed illustrating various aspects of complementarity.[44]

An experiment performed in 1987[45][46] produced results that demonstrated that information could be
obtained regarding which path a particle had taken without destroying the interference altogether.
This showed the effect of measurements that disturbed the particles in transit to a lesser degree and
thereby influenced the interference pattern only to a comparable extent. In other words, if one does
not insist that the method used to determine which slit each photon passes through be completely
reliable, one can still detect a (degraded) interference pattern.[47]

3.2.4 Other variations

In 1967, Pfleegor and Mandel demonstrated two-source interference using two separate lasers as
light sources.[52][53]

It was shown experimentally in 1972 that in a double-slit system where only one slit was open at any
time, interference was nonetheless observed provided the path difference was such that the detected
photon could have come from either slit.[54][55] The experimental conditions were such that the photon
density in the system was much less than unity.

In 1991, Carnal and Mlynek performed the classic Young's double slit experiment
with metastable helium atoms passing through micrometer-scale slits in gold foil.[56][57]

In 1999, a quantum interference experiment (using a diffraction grating, rather than two slits) was
successfully performed with buckyball molecules (each of which comprises 60 carbon atoms). [32][58] A

9
buckyball is large enough (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times larger than a proton) to
be seen under an electron microscope.

In 2005, E. R. Eliel presented an experimental and theoretical study of the optical transmission of a
thin metal screen perforated by two subwavelength slits, separated by many optical wavelengths. The
total intensity of the far-field double-slit pattern is shown to be reduced or enhanced as a function of
the wavelength of the incident light beam.[59]

In 2012, researchers at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln performed the double-slit experiment with
electrons as described by Richard Feynman, using new instruments that allowed control of the
transmission of the two slits and the monitoring of single-electron detection events. Electrons were
fired by an electron gun and passed through one or two slits of 62 nm wide × 4 μm tall.[60]

In 2013, a quantum interference experiment (using diffraction gratings, rather than two slits) was
successfully performed with molecules that each comprised 810 atoms (whose total mass was over
10,000 atomic mass units).[2][3] The record was raised to 2000 atoms (25,000 amu) in 2019.[17]

3.2.5 Hydrodynamic pilot wave analogs

Hydrodynamic analogs have been developed that can recreate various aspects of quantum
mechanical systems, including single-particle interference through a double-slit.[61] A silicone oil
droplet, bouncing along the surface of a liquid, self-propels via resonant interactions with its own
wave field. The droplet gently sloshes the liquid with every bounce. At the same time, ripples from
past bounces affect its course. The droplet's interaction with its own ripples, which form what is
known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary
particles – including behaviors customarily taken as evidence that elementary particles are spread
through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.[62][63]

Behaviors mimicked via this hydrodynamic pilot-wave system include quantum single particle
diffraction,[64] tunneling, quantized orbits, orbital level splitting, spin, and multimodal statistics. It is
also possible to infer uncertainty relations and exclusion principles. Videos are available illustrating
various features of this system. (See the External links.)

However, more complicated systems that involve two or more particles in superposition are not
amenable to such a simple, classically intuitive explanation.[65] Accordingly, no hydrodynamic analog
of entanglement has been developed.[61] Nevertheless, optical analogs are possible

10
 4. Classical wave-optics formulation

Much of the behaviour of light can be modelled using classical wave theory. The Huygens–Fresnel
principle is one such model; it states that each point on a wavefront generates a secondary wavelet,
and that the disturbance at any subsequent point can be found by summing the contributions of the
individual wavelets at that point. This summation needs to take into account the phase as well as
the amplitude of the individual wavelets. Only the intensity of a light field can be measured—this is
proportional to the square of the amplitude.

In the double-slit experiment, the two slits are illuminated by the quasi-monochromatic light of a
single laser. If the width of the slits is small enough (much less than the wavelength of the laser
light), the slits diffract the light into cylindrical waves. These two cylindrical wavefronts are
superimposed, and the amplitude, and therefore the intensity, at any point in the combined
wavefronts depends on both the magnitude and the phase of the two wavefronts. The difference in
phase between the two waves is determined by the difference in the distance travelled by the two
waves.

If the viewing distance is large compared with the separation of the slits (the far field), the phase
difference can be found using the geometry shown in the figure below right. The path difference

between two waves travelling at an angle θ is given by:

Where d is the distance between the two slits. When the two waves are in phase, i.e. the path
difference is equal to an integral number of wavelengths, the summed amplitude, and therefore the
summed intensity is maximum, and when they are in anti-phase, i.e. the path difference is equal to
half a wavelength, one and a half wavelengths, etc., then the two waves cancel and the summed
intensity is zero. This effect is known as interference. The interference fringe maxima occur at angles

where λ is the wavelength of the light. The angular spacing of the fringes, θf, is given by

The spacing of the fringes at a distance z from the slits is given by

For example, if two slits are separated by 0.5 mm (d), and are illuminated with a 0.6 μm wavelength

laser (λ), then at a distance of 1 m (z), the spacing of the fringes will be 1.2 mm.

11
If the width of the slits b is appreciable compared to the wavelength, the Fraunhofer

diffraction equation is needed to determine the intensity of the diffracted light as follows:[67]

where the sinc function is defined as sinc(x) = sin(x)/x for x ≠ 0, and sinc(0) = 1.

This is illustrated in the figure above, where the first pattern is the diffraction pattern of a single slit,
given by the sinc function in this equation, and the second figure shows the combined intensity of

the light diffracted from the two slits, where the cos function represents the fine structure, and the

coarser structure represents diffraction by the individual slits as described by the sinc function.

Similar calculations for the near field can be made by applying the Fresnel diffraction equation, which
implies that as the plane of observation gets closer to the plane in which the slits are located, the
diffraction patterns associated with each slit decrease in size, so that the area in which interference
occurs is reduced, and may vanish altogether when there is no overlap in the two diffracted
patterns.[68]

12
 5. Interpretations of the experiment

5.1 Copenhagen interpretation

The Copenhagen interpretation, put forth by some of the pioneers in the field of quantum mechanics,
asserts that it is undesirable to posit anything that goes beyond the mathematical formulae and the
kinds of physical apparatus and reactions that enable us to gain some knowledge of what goes on at
the atomic scale. One of the mathematical constructs that enables experimenters to predict very
accurately certain experimental results is sometimes called a probability wave. In its mathematical
form it is analogous to the description of a physical wave, but its "crests" and "troughs" indicate
levels of probability for the occurrence of certain phenomena (e.g., a spark of light at a certain point
on a detector screen) that can be observed in the macro world of ordinary human experience.

The probability "wave" can be said to "pass through space" because the probability values that one
can compute from its mathematical representation are dependent on time. One cannot speak of the
location of any particle such as a photon between the time it is emitted and the time it is detected
simply because in order to say that something is located somewhere at a certain time one has to
detect it. The requirement for the eventual appearance of an interference pattern is that particles be
emitted, and that there be a screen with at least two distinct paths for the particle to take from the
emitter to the detection screen. Experiments observe nothing whatsoever between the time of
emission of the particle and its arrival at the detection screen. If a ray tracing is next made as if a
light wave (as understood in classical physics) is wide enough to take both paths, then that ray
tracing will accurately predict the appearance of maxima and minima on the detector screen when
many particles pass through the apparatus and gradually "paint" the expected interference pattern.

5.2 Path-integral formulation

The Copenhagen interpretation is similar to the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics
provided by Feynman. The path integral formulation replaces the classical notion of a single, unique
trajectory for a system, with a sum over all possible trajectories. The trajectories are added together
by using functional integration.

13
Each path is considered equally likely, and thus contributes the same amount. However, the phase of
this contribution at any given point along the path is determined by the action along the path:

All these contributions are then added together, and the magnitude of the final result is squared, to
get the probability distribution for the position of a particle:

As is always the case when calculating probability, the results must then be normalized by imposing:

To summarize, the probability distribution of the outcome is the normalized square of the norm of
the superposition, over all paths from the point of origin to the final point,
of waves propagating proportionally to the action along each path. The differences in the cumulative
action along the different paths (and thus the relative phases of the contributions) produces
the interference pattern observed by the double-slit experiment. Feynman stressed that h

formulation is merely a mathematical description, not an attempt to describe a real process that we
can measure.

5.3 Relational interpretation

According to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by Carlo

Rovelli,[69] observations such as those in the double-slit experiment result specifically from the
interaction between the observer (measuring device) and the object being observed (physically
interacted with), not any absolute property possessed by the object. In the case of an electron, if it is
initially "observed" at a particular slit, then the observer–particle (photon–electron) interaction
includes information about the electron's position. This partially constrains the particle's eventual
location at the screen. If it is "observed" (measured with a photon) not at a particular slit but rather at
the screen, then there is no "which path" information as part of the interaction, so the electron's
"observed" position on the screen is determined strictly by its probability function. This makes the
resulting pattern on the screen the same as if each individual electron had passed through both slits.

14
 References

1. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-

3/Interference-of-Waves , [4/4/2023]

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference , [4/4/2023]

3. https://byjus.com/physics/interference-of-waves/ , [4/4/2023]

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment , [4/4/2023]

5. https://byjus.com/jee/youngs-double-slit-experiment/, [4/4/2023]

6. https://www.britannica.com/science/light/Youngs-double-slit-

experiment, [4/4/2023]

15