Why every textbooks put the light source in the horizontal line?

AI Thread Summary
In a diffraction experiment, the alignment of the light source and the slit is crucial for obtaining a clear diffraction pattern. If the light source is positioned at an angle rather than directly in line with the slit, the resulting diffraction pattern will differ. This is because an oblique beam causes wavefronts to travel varying distances to the screen, leading to phase differences that disrupt the coherence necessary for a clean pattern. For optimal results, the light source should be perpendicular to the screen to ensure all wavefronts are in phase, which is essential for producing the well-defined diffraction patterns described in textbooks.
Twukwuw
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
in the diffraction experiment, the light source and the slit are in the same horizonatal line.

My question is, if the light source is placed at another position which is no longer in the previous horizontal line, would we still get the same diffraction pattern?
Will the diffraction pattern shift?

Thanks,
Twukwuw.:confused:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
in the diffraction experiment, the light source and the slit are in the same horizonatal line.

Well if you rotate your book 90 degrees then they'll be in the same vertical line instead. :biggrin:

My question is, if the light source is placed at another position which is no longer in the previous horizontal line, would we still get the same diffraction pattern?
Will the diffraction pattern shift?

No, you won't get the same pattern. If the beam comes in obliquely then the wavefronts in the beam all travel different distances by the time they hit the screen. The path length differences will result in phase differences.

Sending the beam in perpendicular to the screen ensures that all wavefronts travel the same distance to the screen, and hence are in phase. You have to have that in order to get the nice clean diffraction pattern that is described so well by the equations in your textbook.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...
Back
Top