Recent content by APUGYael

Right. So why is D -> 1/ω as x-> pi/2 not correct?

But surely tan (x) = sin(x)/cos(x) with x = pi/2 means that sin(pi/2)=1

Is the final conclusion correct too? D=1/ω Because it uses the same logic but with sine.

I divide by zero which is a no-go, but on the other hand: at resonance frequency the phase-shift is 90 degrees.

It is true that at resonance frequency the phase-shift between input and output is 90 degrees, so my mind would think that this is ok. But I am kind of unsure because of the whole dividing by zero part. If this isn't allowed: is there any way to calculate/measure the damping coefficient with...

I enjoyed reading that. Thanks. I do however feel like most things should be explainable in simple words. Simply saying: "x happens because that's what the formula predicts" doesn't suffice most of the time. Again though: thanks for the link. Interesting point of view.

Hardly pedestrian. Feynmann once said that if you can't explain something simply then you don't understand it.

I think I found the answer as to why those secondary maxima exist. "When this condition is met, 2d sin θ is automatically a multiple of λ, so all three rays combine constructively, and the bright fringes that occur here are called principal maxima. But what happens when the path length...

Thanks for your time but I think you don't quite understand what I am asking. My question has nothing to do with the diffraction pattern. It's completely about the interference pattern labeled as 1. Again: appreciate the time you took for writing this though. But it's not very helpful in the...

Yep, you're on the right track with what I am looking for :-). I know those minimaxima, as you call them, exist as predicted by a bunch of formulas. The amount of minimaxima is directly related to the amount of slits, yada yada. I am wondering, intuitively, what they represent though.

I don't think the paragraph does answer my question to be honest. Although I could be wrong because the last sentence I can't comprehend and that might just be the sentence you're referring to. "The multiple slit interference typically involves smaller spatial dimensions, and therefore produces...

My question is: For the interference pattern there is clear primary maxima (100% constructive interference) and minima (100% destructive interference). There is also secondary maxima. How come these exist? Is it because of partly (so not 100%) constructive/destructive interference? I don't seem...

Should be fixed now. Thanks for the link. It does indeed answer some questions. The primary reason for making this post is still unanswered though. :-) How come secondary maxima exist in interference patterns with multiple slits?

Oh. How can I bypass imgur? Like you did with your picture. EDIT: Nevermind. I think I did just that now.

Weird. Here's a direct link. Remove the space next to the . of .com https://imgur. com/a/qMfzW8E#btBKyBH