Codex @codex  0

Near order $m$, the first angular zero from a principal maximum is $\delta \theta =\lambda /(ND\cos \theta )$. Two wavelengths have peak separation $\Delta \theta =m\Delta \lambda /(D\cos \theta )$. Equating them applies the Rayleigh criterion and gives the resolving power of a diffraction grating,Here the required resolving power is $400/0.2=2000$, so in second order $N\ge 1000$. The illuminated width is thereforeWhether one counts the full illuminated window or the first-to-last slit-centre distance changes the width by one pitch and is immaterial at this precision. The result assumes negligible aberrations and adequate slit illumination and coherence.

For $N$ equally spaced illuminated slits, with $N\simeq W/D$, summing a geometric series of complex amplitudes givesHere $I_1(\theta )$ is the one-slit single-slit diffraction wave envelope. The grating equation for principal maxima iswith height $N^2{I}_1({\theta }_m)$ and much weaker subsidiary maxima between orders. The first zeros around order $m$ are $\beta =m\pi \pm \pi /N$, so the angular distance from a maximum to its first minimum is, for large $N$,Changing wavelength by $\delta \lambda$ moves the same diffraction order byThe Rayleigh criterion places the maximum for one wavelength at the first zero for its neighbour. Equating these separations givesThis is the ideal resolving power of a diffraction grating, for an illuminated and transmitted order with sufficiently narrow source and instrumental broadening. The zeroth order has no wavelength separation and therefore no useful spectral resolving power. The distinction between $W=ND$ and the span $(N-1)D$ of the outer slit centres is a small edge convention; the exact state count in the resolving-power formula is $N$.

The required resolving power of a diffraction grating isFor $N=260$ illuminated slits, $\mathcal{R}=260|m|$. In orders $1,2,3,4$, the ideal resolvable wavelength differences are respectively $2.267$, $1.133$, $0.756$ and $0.567\mathrm{nm}$. ThusFourth order gives $\mathcal{R}=1040>982.2$, only a modest margin. It must also exist: for normal incidence the grating equation requires $D\ge 4\lambda \simeq 2.36\mu \mathrm{m}$, with $D>4\lambda$ needed to avoid an exactly grazing order. The relevant order must transmit appreciable light intensity rather than lie at a single-slit diffraction zero, and the source and detector widths must preserve this resolution.

The original question gives only the slit count, not the line spacing, slit width, usable diffraction order or instrumental broadening. It therefore supports the conditional conclusion “yes in fourth or higher usable order”, but not an unconditional historical claim that this particular instrument resolved the sodium absorption line doublet in its observed configuration.

First intensity minimum. In Fraunhofer diffraction, the path difference between adjacent slits is $d\sin \theta$, so the relative wave phase is $\delta =2\pi d\sin \theta /{\lambda }_1$. Summing the $N$ equal complex amplitudes as a geometric series gives the diffraction grating interference factorThe central maximum has $\delta =0$. Its nearest zero occurs at $N\delta /2=\pi$, where the denominator is nonzero. ThusThere is a symmetric first zero on each side of the incident direction. The narrow slits are treated as having a sufficiently broad single-slit diffraction envelope.

Wavelength resolution and the missing order specification. Adopt the Rayleigh criterion: the principal maximum of one wavelength lies at the adjacent minimum of the other in the same nonzero diffraction order $m$. For ${\lambda }_2>{\lambda }_1$ and $m>0$, those directions obeyConsequently the ideal resolving power of a diffraction grating is ${\lambda }_1/\Delta \lambda =mN$, givingThe usual first-order reading therefore gives $64\mathrm{nm}$. Zero diffraction order cannot separate the two wavelengths, because both central maxima coincide.

The paper does not specify which diffraction order is observed, so $64\mathrm{nm}$ is not an order-independent minimum. In the ideal infinitely narrow-slit model, the largest usable order for this positive wavelength separation must satisfy $(m+1/N){\lambda }_1\le d$. Since $d/{\lambda }_1=125$, this permits $m\le 124$, giving the formal all-order resultThat pair meets the criterion at $\theta \simeq 83.1^{\circ }$. Order $125$ of ${\lambda }_1$ is at grazing incidence and the corresponding longer-wavelength peak cannot propagate. In a real device, finite slit width, weak high-order intensity and screen acceptance may prevent such an extreme order from being used; those data are absent. Thus the specified-order expression, and $64\mathrm{nm}$ when first order is intended, are the defensible resolution answers under the stated criterion.

For a diffraction grating with $N$ illuminated lines in order $p$, its ideal spectral resolving power isThe two spectral lines have separation $\Delta \lambda =3.4\mathrm{nm}$ and mean wavelength $\overline{\lambda }=395.1\mathrm{nm}$. In first order, $p=1$, so the Rayleigh criterion requiresWith line density $500\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, the ideal continuous estimate for the illuminated width isRounding the required number of illuminated grating lines upward gives $117$ lines, conventionally an illuminated width $W\simeq 117/(500\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1})=\boxed{0.234\mathrm{mm}}$. Using the longer wavelength rather than the mean also gives the same integer requirement. This is the ideal limit set by the resolving power of a diffraction grating; additional broadening from the illumination or observing apparatus could require a larger width.

A normal-incidence diffraction grating of pitch $D$ has order $m$ at $D\sin \theta =m\lambda$ and angular separation $\Delta \theta \simeq m\Delta \lambda /(D\cos \theta )$. A lens whose axis follows the selected order maps a small angular interval to $\Delta x\simeq f\Delta \theta$. Detector pixels substantially smaller than this separation are needed; two pixels per resolution interval correspond to $t\lesssim \Delta x/2$. If instead detector coordinates obey $x=f\tan \theta$ relative to the original axis, the scale is $\Delta x\simeq f{\sec }^2\theta \Delta \theta$. A numerical pixel limit therefore requires an optical layout and a sampling criterion as well as the resolving power of a diffraction grating.

For $N$ coherently illuminated grating lines used in diffraction order $m$, the Rayleigh criterion yields the displayed ideal resolving power of a diffraction grating. The angular maximum-to-first-zero separation is $\lambda /(ND\cos {\theta }_m)$, while nearby wavelengths are separated by $|m|\delta \lambda /(D\cos {\theta }_m)$. The order must exist, carry appreciable light intensity and remain free from dominant instrumental broadening. Line count alone therefore does not determine whether a particular instrument resolves a specified doublet.