 #1
mysearch
Gold Member
 526
 0
Hi,
I was wondering if anybody could help me understand a derivation connected to the doubleslit experiment that I came across within an introduction to quantum theory paper. I was interested in understanding this approach because it seems to provide a useful correlation of the meaning of the square of the amplitude for an electromagnetic wave [tex][Intensity= \Psi^2][/tex] in comparison to a mechanical wave [tex][Energy=A^2][/tex]. The derivation starts off explaining that it intends to use complex notation:
[1] [tex] \Psi = \Re (e^{i (kxwt)}) [/tex]
As far as I can see, only the `real part` of this equation is being referenced throughout the derivation, which I assume corresponds to the following relationship?
[2] [tex] \Re (e^{i \theta}) = cos \theta = (e^{i \theta}+ e^{i \theta})/2 [/tex]
I have attached a diagram showing all the basic parameters used:
[3] [tex] r_1 \approx r  d/2(sin \theta); \; r_2 \approx r + d/2(sin \theta) [/tex]
This approximation is based on R>>d and the derivation continues based on Huygen’s theory, where the slits are 2 sources of light having equal amplitude and phase, which meet in superposition at a given point [P] defined by [tex] [ \theta][/tex]
[4] [tex] \Psi = A exp \; i \left[ k \left( r \frac{d}{2}sin \theta\right) – wt \right] + A exp \; i \left[ k \left( r+ \frac{d}{2}sin \theta\right) – wt \right] [/tex]
[5] [tex]\Psi = A exp \; i \left( krwt\right) \left( exp \left[ ik \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] + exp \left[ ik \left( \frac{d}{2} \right) sin \theta \right] \right)[/tex]
[6] [tex] \Psi = A exp \; i \left( krwt\right)*2 cos \left[ k \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] [/tex]
As far as I can see, the step from [5] to [6] is based on [2], which seems to suggest that we are only dealing with the `real part` of the complex wave function? However, the derivation then goes on to point out that the square of this wave function, i.e. [6], corresponds to the intensity (I) of the resulting superposition wave, but then only equates (I) via proportionality to part of [6]:
[7] [tex]I \propto 4A^2 cos^2[k(d/2)sin \theta][/tex]
If we are only dealing with the `real part` of the complex notation, why can whole of [6] be converted by into a trigonometric form via applying [2] as follows?
[8] [tex] I = \left( Acos(krwt) * 2 cos \left[ k \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] \right)^2 [/tex]
On the basis that all the variable parameters are driven by the position [P], then the main parameter is [tex][ \theta][/tex] and we should be able to plot the intensity across the screen by setting the other parameters in [8] to relative values as follows:
[tex]A=1; R=1; r = Rsin \theta; d=0.001; k=2 \pi/500nm; t=0[/tex]?
Therefore [8] becomes:
[9] [tex] I = \left( cos[(2 \pi/500*10^{9})Rsin \theta] * 2 cos \left[(2 \pi/500*10^{9})) (0.001/2)sin \theta \right] \right)^2 [/tex]
Unfortunately, plotting [9] against [tex] \theta [/tex] doesn’t seem to produce the expected alternating constructive/destructive interference intensity, so I must assume that I have made an error or wrong assumption. I realise that this post may be too involved to interest anybody, but any insights by somebody who understands both the maths and physics would be appreciated. Thanks
I was wondering if anybody could help me understand a derivation connected to the doubleslit experiment that I came across within an introduction to quantum theory paper. I was interested in understanding this approach because it seems to provide a useful correlation of the meaning of the square of the amplitude for an electromagnetic wave [tex][Intensity= \Psi^2][/tex] in comparison to a mechanical wave [tex][Energy=A^2][/tex]. The derivation starts off explaining that it intends to use complex notation:
[1] [tex] \Psi = \Re (e^{i (kxwt)}) [/tex]
As far as I can see, only the `real part` of this equation is being referenced throughout the derivation, which I assume corresponds to the following relationship?
[2] [tex] \Re (e^{i \theta}) = cos \theta = (e^{i \theta}+ e^{i \theta})/2 [/tex]
I have attached a diagram showing all the basic parameters used:
[3] [tex] r_1 \approx r  d/2(sin \theta); \; r_2 \approx r + d/2(sin \theta) [/tex]
This approximation is based on R>>d and the derivation continues based on Huygen’s theory, where the slits are 2 sources of light having equal amplitude and phase, which meet in superposition at a given point [P] defined by [tex] [ \theta][/tex]
[4] [tex] \Psi = A exp \; i \left[ k \left( r \frac{d}{2}sin \theta\right) – wt \right] + A exp \; i \left[ k \left( r+ \frac{d}{2}sin \theta\right) – wt \right] [/tex]
[5] [tex]\Psi = A exp \; i \left( krwt\right) \left( exp \left[ ik \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] + exp \left[ ik \left( \frac{d}{2} \right) sin \theta \right] \right)[/tex]
[6] [tex] \Psi = A exp \; i \left( krwt\right)*2 cos \left[ k \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] [/tex]
As far as I can see, the step from [5] to [6] is based on [2], which seems to suggest that we are only dealing with the `real part` of the complex wave function? However, the derivation then goes on to point out that the square of this wave function, i.e. [6], corresponds to the intensity (I) of the resulting superposition wave, but then only equates (I) via proportionality to part of [6]:
[7] [tex]I \propto 4A^2 cos^2[k(d/2)sin \theta][/tex]
If we are only dealing with the `real part` of the complex notation, why can whole of [6] be converted by into a trigonometric form via applying [2] as follows?
[8] [tex] I = \left( Acos(krwt) * 2 cos \left[ k \left( \frac{d}{2} \right)sin \theta \right] \right)^2 [/tex]
On the basis that all the variable parameters are driven by the position [P], then the main parameter is [tex][ \theta][/tex] and we should be able to plot the intensity across the screen by setting the other parameters in [8] to relative values as follows:
[tex]A=1; R=1; r = Rsin \theta; d=0.001; k=2 \pi/500nm; t=0[/tex]?
Therefore [8] becomes:
[9] [tex] I = \left( cos[(2 \pi/500*10^{9})Rsin \theta] * 2 cos \left[(2 \pi/500*10^{9})) (0.001/2)sin \theta \right] \right)^2 [/tex]
Unfortunately, plotting [9] against [tex] \theta [/tex] doesn’t seem to produce the expected alternating constructive/destructive interference intensity, so I must assume that I have made an error or wrong assumption. I realise that this post may be too involved to interest anybody, but any insights by somebody who understands both the maths and physics would be appreciated. Thanks
Attachments

5.5 KB Views: 303