[3 points] Assuming that you have minimized all sources of measurement errors in performing this experiment, did the small angle approximation hold for the interference pattern for all reported values of m? Justify your answer by referencing your percent errors. [3 points] You probably noticed decent agreement between your measured and calculated values of ym for small values of m, with less agreement as m became larger. Remember that a larger m corresponds to a larger angle, which means the small angle approximation is less likely to be accurate. Consider the diagram below, and use it to explain, in terms of the trig, why the small angle approximation starts to break down as the angle becomes larger. If your results actually appeared to get better as the angle got larger, briefly explain why this might have been the case. Part 3: Checking the Small Angle Approximation Screen Position Slit Position Distance to Screen Slit Width, a Slit Separation d (cm) (cm) R (cm) (mm) [measured] [measured] [calculated] 0.04 Distance to +Im "/0 Error between Distance fringes ym (mm) Predicted y "measured" between +m, ~m [divide value in from SM distance (column fringes (mm) previous (mm) C) and predicted m [measured] column by 2] [calculated] value (column D) 11934 -4523 17-901 -5234 zs-sssm 29.835 1.136 35.802 2.291 41.769 47.736 -1.575 53.703 -2.358 59.67 -2.180