Bragg's Law: Why is the equation not like this?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Chem.Stud.
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bragg's law Law
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Bragg's Law and its application in x-ray diffraction, specifically questioning the representation of rays in diagrams used to explain the law. Participants explore the implications of ray overlap in relation to constructive interference and the definitions of variables used in the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents Bragg's Law as nλ = 2d · sin(θ) and questions why the outgoing rays in the diagrams are shown as parallel rather than overlapping, suggesting that overlap is necessary for constructive interference.
  • Another participant argues that the variable d is typically defined as the distance between crystal planes, not the path difference between rays, and emphasizes that the rays are a mathematical tool for finding lattice separation.
  • A third participant suggests that adding another ray to the diagram would illustrate the overlap, supporting the original participant's concerns about the representation.
  • One participant acknowledges the original point about the model serving to calculate the distance between crystal planes but questions how Bragg's criteria for constructive interference applies to the alternative geometry proposed.
  • Another participant points out inconsistencies in nomenclature regarding the definition of d, suggesting a need for clarity in its use throughout the discussion.
  • A later reply clarifies that Figure 1 accounts for the additional distance traveled by rays parallel to a specific line, indicating that the geometry can still support the original equation despite the proposed changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the representation of rays in Bragg's Law, with no consensus reached on whether the overlap of rays is necessary for constructive interference or how the variable definitions should be consistently applied.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of variables and the assumptions made about ray interactions, which remain unresolved.

Chem.Stud.
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Bragg's Law is well-known, and looks like the following:

nλ = 2d \cdot sin(θ), where d is the distance between the two crystal planes.

This equation, or criteria, describes when constructive interference happens and an intensified, reflected ray can be measured at the same angle as the incoming rays. The equation is motivated based on Figure 1 below.

braggslaw.jpg


Figure 1. Two x-rays hitting and reflecting off of two different high-electron-density planes in a crystal. Outgoing rays are parallel.

Something has puzzled me about this figure. The rays are parallel and not overlapping. The ray going deeper into the crystal travels farther than the other ray, and this distance has to be a whole integer's multiplum of the wave length to ensure constructive interference. But the outgoing rays are parallel and have no reason to interact; they should be overlapping. So let us consider (the poor freehand) Figure 2, in which the outcoming rays actually overlap and are able to interact (special case of 45 ^{\circ} incoming rays).

a714e1e6-280d-4a3f-8c1b-42a4221a5091_zps86f67af1.jpg


Figure 2. Outgoing rays overlap, which is necessary for constructive interference. d represents the distance ray II has to travel farther than ray 1. h is the hypotenuse, and also the distance between the points where the two rays penetrate or reflect off the first plane.

Following Figure 2, the equation becomes nλ = h \cdot sin(θ). At other angles than 45 degrees, the equation becomes nλ = 2d \cdot sin(θ)cos(θ), where d is the distance ray II has to travel farther than ray 1 has to travel.

Can the model in Figure 1 be extended to overlapping outgoing rays? Surely, since the entire x-ray diffraction method is based on Figure 1, something must be correct. But why is the principles always explained by showing two parallel outgoing rays, when they should indeed overlap? Because that is the whole point, is it not; the bragg criteria must be fulfilled in order for outgoing rays to be reflected off in phase?

I hope I have explained my thoughts sufficiently for someone to help me out.


Anders
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's confusing because you've redefined d to be the path separation when its usually the separation between the lattice, what you have drawn does actually happen, but only at that specific point. You can't really visualize the rays in the way that you are, the rays are only useful to find the lattice separation d which is the whole point of Bragg diffraction anyway, they are simply a mathematical tool. The rays don't have to cross over, as they are really just running perpendicular to an initially parallel wavefront which is 'altered' to create interference patterns when the second ray lags behind the first. The wavefront is continuous is my point, sorry if I've explained poorly
 
If you draw another ray on the other side of A' you get your exact diagram by the way as it overlaps the reflected A.
 
I think I understand what you are saying. That way (Figure 1) of modelling the rays only serves the purpose of calculating the distance between the crystal planes.

But why does bragg's criteria for constructive interference apply to Figure 2, when the geometry is different?
 
Your nomenclature is inconsistent. On one side d is the distance of the planes, on the other side it is the distance one ray has to travel further than the other. Make up you mind.
 
Figure 1 shows the additional distance traveled by ANY ray parallel to AB which is reflected from the first internal plane. If you move the incoming ray A'B' to the left until B'C' overlaps BC, the distance A'B'C' is still ## ABC + 2d\sin\theta ##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K