A grating spectrometer places an illuminated narrow slit at the front focal plane of a collimator. The resulting parallel beam reaches the diffraction grating at known incidence, here taken normal. A rotatable telescope focuses each outgoing diffracted parallel beam onto its crosshair or detector. Align the slit with the grating rulings, focus the collimator at infinity, and illuminate many grooves across a suitable aperture. A narrow slit supplies sufficient spatial coherence and prevents slit width from blurring the angular separation; the telescope must also resolve the two images.
A grating spectrometer with a narrow source slit, collimator, normally illuminated diffraction grating and rotatable observing telescope
. Details. The groove spacing is . The grating equation at normal incidence is . For diffraction order ,ThereforeThe ideal resolving power of a diffraction grating is , so the Rayleigh criterion for this doublet requires about illuminated grooves, spanning roughly . This is an ideal lower bound; finite slit width, aberrations and detector resolution can require a larger usable aperture.
Prism minimum-deviation index measurement 2026-10-18
A prism minimum-deviation index measurement infers a transparent sample's relative refractive index from two angles: its known apex angle and the smallest deviation of a selected spectral line. A spectrometer combines a source and slit, a collimator, a rotating optical prism table, and a viewing optical telescope with an angular readout. The collimator supplies a nearly parallel beam; the optical telescope locates its emergent direction. This turns an otherwise difficult measurement of the phase velocity of light into a measurement of angles.
For the symmetric path through a uniform optical prism, with the same external medium at both faces and positive refractive indices,The angles are measured from face normals. This is the minimum deviation relation, not a formula for an arbitrary prism orientation. An absolute refractive index additionally requires .
Prism minimum-deviation index measurement: symmetric ray geometry and an independently calculated deviation minimum
. The original model chooses and at one fixed wavelength. The left panel marks face normals, equal internal angles, apex angle and deviation from the undeflected incident direction. The right panel calculates deviation versus incidence from two applications of Snell's law; the marked minimum is the only orientation used for the index inference. No points are experimental observations. Details.For example, stipulate and . Then and . Substitution recovers . These synthetic values illustrate the geometry; they are not readings for the prism in the laboratory protocol below.
A Michigan State University teaching experiment uses a mercury lamp, slit, collimator, prism table and optical telescope, with a subsidiary angular scale read to one arcminute. First focus the optical telescope on a distant object; with the prism removed, align its crosshair to a narrow vertical slit image, focus the collimator, and establish the direct-beam zero. Insert and centre the prism. Select the green mercury spectral line, tabulated at , then rotate the prism while tracking its image with the optical telescope. Locate the turning point where continued prism rotation reverses the image motion, and read the deviation. Re-establish the minimum separately for each other spectral line. The protocol assumes ; that assumed apex angle is not an independently measured result. [ref]
The Prism Spectrometer. introductory-physics-experiments-physics-252-version-4-0-michigan-state-university; Michigan State University, The Prism Spectrometer, Physics 252 v4.0: pp. 2, 5–9; apparatus, vernier readout, alignment, turning point and wavelength table
For an uncertainty-aware implementation, repeat the turning-point search from both prism-rotation directions, recheck the direct-beam reference, and record individual readings before averaging. Independently determine or include its calibration uncertainty; record the chosen spectral line, sample identity, temperature and surrounding-air conditions. These are proposed controls deduced from the inference, not claimed additional instructions or results of that manual. Finite slit width, unresolved spectral lines, imperfect collimation, table tilt, angular calibration and sample nonuniformity can limit the inferred refractive index. One arcminute readout resolution alone does not establish one arcminute total measurement uncertainty. A single selected wavelength gives one index, not a measured optical dispersion curve.
A short geometric derivation uses and . Reversibility exchanges entrance and exit. At the symmetric stationary path, and ; applying Snell's law gives the displayed index relation. The plotted calculation checks that this stationary point is a minimum on the chosen transmitting branch. To assess local sensitivity, differentiate the inferred index using angles in radians:This first-order relation exposes both angular contributions; it is not an instruction to add signed systematic errors as independent random errors. In the synthetic example, a deviation error of arcminute at fixed changes the inferred relative refractive index by approximately .
Sagnac rotating-ring experiment 2026-10-18
In 1913 Georges Sagnac mounted a lamp, collimator, beam splitter, four mirrors and photographic plate on a horizontal rotating platform. The mirrors defined a closed polygon; the two beams traversed it in opposite senses. A slight beam splitter adjustment produced visible interference fringes. A motor brought the platform to steady rotation, and switching the lamp exposed the plate. Comparing opposite senses of rotation revealed a reversing displacement. Changing the beam splitter adjustment supplied a further check against optical deformation. The report compared measured and calculated displacements. Georges Sagnac interpreted this as evidence for a luminiferous aether; the relativistic derivation below reproduces the delay without that hypothesis.[ref]
Regarding the Proof for the Existence of a Luminiferous Ether Using a Rotating Inteferometer Experiment by Georges Sagnac. Georges Sagnac, 1913 second report, inspected in William Lonc's 2008 English translation, pp. 77–80, §§1–3: rotating apparatus, photographic procedure, reversal and deformation controls, comparison table, historical interpretation
The readout measures a relative wave phase, not two stopwatch readings separated by an optical transit time. Reversal isolates a contribution odd in angular velocity: if a signed interference fringe position is to leading order, then cancels the fixed offset . Changes of alignment or temperature correlated with reversal can survive this subtraction. Thus the experimental inference concerns a reproducible rotating-loop phase difference, with controls for disturbances; it is not by itself a unique test of an underlying propagation hypothesis.
Slit-limited resolving power of a grating 2026-10-05
A slit of width at the focus of a collimator subtends . Its projected width is . Dividing this width by the grating dispersion gives . Thus the spectral resolving power is . Omitting the anamorphic factor gives a denominator instead; these agree in the Littrow configuration.
Stark canal-ray experiment 2026-10-18
In 1913 Johannes Stark reported that an applied electric field resolved the hydrogen and spectral lines into five components at his instrument's spectral resolving power, viewed perpendicular to the electric field. Three inner components had polarization of an electromagnetic wave perpendicular to the electric field; two outer components had it parallel.[ref]
Observation of the Separation of Spectral Lines by an Electric Field by Johannes Stark. Stark, Nature 92 (1913), p. 401, two opening paragraphs; issue dated 4 December
In his lecture of 3 June 1920 for the 1919 prize, Johannes Stark describes canal rays emerging through a perforated cathode into the electric field between it and a supplementary electrode. A spectrograph recorded the emitted light. His earlier Doppler effect comparison used a collimator perpendicular to the beam and then along approaching rays. Later beam/electric field reversal changed component intensities.[ref]
Structural and Spectral Changes of Chemical Atoms by Johannes Stark. Nobel Lectures, Physics 1901–1921; Stark, Structural and spectral changes of chemical atoms, printed pp. 430, 433–435; lecture date p. 427
The historical account distinguishes observation perpendicular to the electric field, with five resolved components, from observation parallel to it, with three. These are viewing directions, distinct from the direction of the polarization of an electromagnetic wave.[ref]
The Discovery of the Stark Effect and Its Early Theoretical Explanations by A. J. Kox. Kox, The discovery of the Stark effect and its early theoretical explanations, §2 Johannes Stark, paragraph following Figure 2
The experimental distinctions matter. Changing the viewing direction tests a Doppler effect contribution; changing the applied electric field tests the Stark effect; analyzing polarization of an electromagnetic wave separates components that may overlap in an unpolarized record. A comparison with the unperturbed spectral line fixes the origin of a displacement. These are different controls, and the earlier Doppler effect comparison should not be described as a field-off control of the later discovery. A spectrograph's finite spectral resolving power can merge several components into one. In particular, a count of visible spectral lines does not by itself count all energy eigenstates.
Stark spectroscopy: field, beam and viewing axes
. Original conceptual reconstruction of the canal ray source and two alternative viewing geometries. No dimensions, electric field strengths or measured wavelengths are specified. The axial optical path requires an opening or adapted electrode; it is not a ray passing through the solid electrode drawn here. Details.For a modern idealization of the gap, an electric potential difference over separation gives only if edge effects and the charge density in the gas are negligible. This is a calibration model, not a historical value assigned to Stark's apparatus. Similarly, a canal ray beam need not be a pure beam of neutral excited hydrogen atoms; the quantum mechanics model below isolates one neutral hydrogen atom from the source's preparation and collision processes.
Stern-Gerlach apparatus in 1922 Created 2026-10-18 Updated 2026-10-25
In 1922, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach used an electrically heated oven to emit neutral silver chemical atoms. Two platinum apertures, a pinhole and a slit – wide, supplied collimation. The beam passed along a knife-edge pole in a nonuniform magnetic field. At its end, a glass plate collected the condensed silver. Continuous pumping maintained vacuum; the thin deposit required development even after eight hours.[ref]
Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld by Walther Gerlach and Otto Stern. Experimental setup, paragraphs 1–5; original 1922 paper in Martin Bauer's translation, PDF pp. 2–3
The field-off image established the undeflected slit width. A comparison put field-on and field-off deposits on the same plate. Microscopy revealed two deflected bands, no detectable central component, and broadening attributed to the velocity distribution. Alignment and distance from the knife-edge affected the pattern; precise magnetic field gradient measurements were still pending.[ref]
Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld by Walther Gerlach and Otto Stern. Results, Figs. 2–5 and observations b–e; closing paragraph, PDF pp. 3–5
The apertures act as a collimator: they constrain the initial transverse positions and velocities, so a magnetic displacement can be distinguished from an initially broad beam. Vacuum reduces collisions that would destroy this preparation. Deposition integrates arrivals over the exposure; a darkened band is not a time-resolved record of individual chemical atoms. The field-off comparison tests whether the magnet changes the spatial distribution, while alignment checks address a geometric source of apparent asymmetry. Finite sensitivity qualifies the absence of a central deposit: it is an experimental upper limit, not a proof that exactly zero atoms landed there.
Display of the Stern-Gerlach apparatus at the University of Hamburg
. Photograph by Lesendes Okapi, 29 January 2019, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. The display in the Institute of Physical Chemistry includes an apparatus arrangement and a plaque honouring Otto Stern. This photograph documents the later exhibition. Source. X-ray attenuation 2026-10-18
For a narrow beam of monoenergetic photons crossing homogeneous material of thickness , the uncollided wave intensity obeys . Here is the linear attenuation coefficient, counting removal from the incident beam by photon absorption and scattering of light. It depends on photon energy and material; it is not universally independent of energy.[ref]
2. The Mass Attenuation Coefficient. Tables of X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients and Mass Energy-Absorption Coefficients by John H. Hubbell and Stephen M. Seltzer; NIST, X-Ray Mass Attenuation Coefficients, §2, Eq. (1), narrow monoenergetic beam and interaction contributions
An original derivation makes the model explicit. If each thin layer removes fraction of the surviving beam, with the same throughout, thenThus equal added thicknesses multiply transmission by the same factor. The ordinary differential equation describes uncollided beam survival. To test it with a detector, keep source output, distance, selected photon energy band and detector response fixed. Use a collimator and suitable detector acceptance to exclude scattering of light into the detector. Subtract background, measure an empty-path reference, and keep the detector in its linear operating range. A changing source distance adds geometric dilution and is not an attenuation measurement at fixed geometry.
For a stipulated example, take and . Transmission is . If the empty-path detector rate is , including background , the model predicts sample rate . Recover transmission as ; the raw ratio is biased. These chosen values are a calculation, not measurements of a particular material or a historical apparatus.
When X-ray transmission is exponential, and when spectral mixing bends it
. Original calculated examples, with stipulated linear attenuation coefficients in inverse millimetres. The left panel uses one photon energy and marks and the half-value layer. The right panel compares an equal-weight mixture of two photon energies with the exponential having the same initial slope. A logarithmic vertical axis turns a single exponential into a straight line. Neither curve is fitted to measured material data. Details. X-ray tube Created 2026-10-18 Updated 2026-10-20
An X-ray tube accelerates electrons from a negative cathode to a positive target anode. A heated cathode supplies electrons by thermionic emission; the evacuated envelope limits collisions before the target. This differs from the gas-discharge tube in the Röntgen X-ray discovery experiment.[ref]
Chapter 5: X-Ray Production (teaching slides) by K. P. Maher. Diagnostic Radiology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students; IAEA, Chapter 5: X-Ray Production, §§5.2–5.3.2; authored teaching slides, inspected transcription
In bremsstrahlung, an electron changes velocity in the target's electric fields, emitting a photon while losing kinetic energy. Different encounters allow a continuous range of transferred energies. This is distinct from the discrete electronic transitions producing Characteristic X-rays.
Changing the accelerating voltage changes the available kinetic energy per electron and the X-ray tube cutoff. Changing the number of arriving electrons changes the number of opportunities for photon emission. These are distinct controls: a larger electric current does not by itself give each electron more energy. For an original idealized budget, and tube electric current give electrical power and arrival rate , where is the elementary charge. This is input power, not emitted X-ray power; obtaining the latter requires a conversion efficiency.






