Diffraction derivation on Wiki - wrong?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jetpeach
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Diffraction
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the accuracy of the derivation for Fraunhofer diffraction presented on Wikipedia, specifically regarding the integral used to calculate intensity from a single slit. The user identifies a potential error in the integral limits and the presence of the 'a' term in the denominator of the expression (e^ikax/2z - e^-ikax/2z) / (2ikax/2z). Participants are encouraged to verify this derivation and consider editing the Wikipedia page if an error is confirmed. The discussion highlights the importance of precise mathematical representation in physics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fraunhofer diffraction principles
  • Familiarity with integral calculus, particularly definite integrals
  • Knowledge of wave optics and intensity calculations
  • Experience with editing Wikipedia pages for accuracy
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of Fraunhofer diffraction in "Principles of Optics" by Born and Wolf
  • Study the mathematical techniques for evaluating definite integrals
  • Explore the implications of diffraction in wave optics applications
  • Learn how to effectively edit and contribute to Wikipedia articles
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, optical engineers, and anyone involved in wave optics research or education will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in verifying and correcting scientific content online.

jetpeach
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hey Everyone, anybody want to verify if what I believe is true- Wikipedia has an incorrect derivation for Fraunhoffer diffraction to calculate the intensity from a single slit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
The step I believe they "fudged" is the final integral under "Quantitative analysis of single-slit diffraction". The integral is from -a/2 to a/2 when they find it equal to (e^ikax/2z - e^-ikax/2z ) / (2ikax/2z). I believe this is the correct answer for this type of diffraction, but if I remember my integrals I can't see how they get the 'a' term in the denominator. Take a look, let me know what you think, if it really is wrong and somebody can correct the Wiki page, would they do so? (just click edit on the section) Or if we discuss it here and find it is in error, I'll correct it later.
Thanks! jet
 
Science news on Phys.org
That C is arbitary and can be redefined as to factor "1/a"...

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How Can One Derive the Diffraction Pattern Formula from a 1D Aperture?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad A source's effect on diffraction pattern
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Simple Diffraction: Deriving Equations with Phasors
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Graduate Abbe theory: diffraction pattern to primary image
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Graduate Question about dark fringe in diffraction
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Graduate Single-slit diffraction intensity
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Graduate Double-slit diffraction with UNEQUAL source amplitude
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Graduate Simulating diffraction in optical instruments - help settle a dispute
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Graduate Single Slit (Fraunhoffer) Diffraction Question
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Is My Book Wrong? Explaining Lens in Interference & Diffraction
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K