Electron Gun diffraction and undeflected spot diameter

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of electron gun diffraction, specifically addressing the angle of diffraction and the reasoning behind the observed angle being 2 phi. Participants explore the underlying principles of wave interference, Bragg scattering, and the analogy of mirror rotation in relation to diffraction patterns.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the angle being 2 phi arises from two symmetric waves around the lattice plane, questioning the cancellation of other rays.
  • Another participant connects the change of direction in the diffraction pattern to the rotation of an optical mirror, stating that the image moves twice as much as the mirror rotation.
  • There is a request for a mathematical proof regarding the relationship between the angles and the constructive interference in Bragg scattering.
  • A participant elaborates on the need for path lengths through crystal layers to be whole numbers of wavelengths for constructive interference, comparing the scenario to a diffraction grating rather than just two slits.
  • Discussion includes the reasoning behind the mirror analogy, emphasizing that incident and reflected angles are equal, leading to a total deviation of twice the incoming angle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the mechanics of diffraction and interference, with no consensus reached on the correctness of the proposed explanations or the existence of a definitive proof.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the complexity of the diffraction process involving multiple crystal layers, which may influence the understanding of constructive interference and the analogy to mirrors.

rashida564
Messages
220
Reaction score
7
Hi I am doing an electron gun diffraction right now and I wonder why the angle below is 2 phi.
pXasrzc.png

What I think about it that it's actually the results of two waves one is shown below and the other is a wave
with the same accident angle but negative "those two rays will be symmetric around the lattice plane" and all other rays will cancel each other. Thus will image in the screen is the result of the two rays and the angle between them will be 2phi.
Even-though this makes sense to me, but I want to know is it true. and is there a proof that all the other rays"other than the twos" will cancel each other
SqNKbop.png
 

Attachments

  • pXasrzc.png
    pXasrzc.png
    17.5 KB · Views: 842
  • SqNKbop.png
    SqNKbop.png
    29.5 KB · Views: 645
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
If the ϑ in the top diagram is the θ in the bottom then the change of direction in the bottom is θ+θ. This is general and is true for rotation of an optical mirror. The image moves twice as much as the mirror rotation.
For Bragg scattering, the only directions where you get constructive interference is determined by the spacing d. So for other values of θ you are not at a max.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: rashida564
sophiecentaur said:
If the ϑ in the top diagram is the θ in the bottom then the change of direction in the bottom is θ+θ. This is general and is true for rotation of an optical mirror. The image moves twice as much as the mirror rotation.
For Bragg scattering, the only directions where you get constructive interference is determined by the spacing d. So for other values of θ you are not at a max.
Is there a mathmatecal proof behind this
 
Like why is it possible to think about it as a rotates mirror
 
rashida564 said:
Is there a mathmatecal proof behind this
rashida564 said:
Like why is it possible to think about it as a rotates mirror
There are two mechanism involved, if you like. Firstly, in the direction of a maximum, you need the path lengths through successive layers to be a whole number of wavelengths (as with Youngs Slits etc. etc.). In other directions there is no constructive interference. You need to remember that there are many (hundreds) of crystal cells involved so that the analogy is more with a diffraction grating than with just two slits. That makes the reflections very 'directive' and with narrow beams.
Why is it like a mirror? Because the angles each side of the normal are equal (for constructive interference on the way in and on the way out). So the total deviation is twice the incoming angle. Google Mirrors and Laws of reflection for pictures and ideas but, if you accept that Incident and Reflected angles are equal (about the normal) then moving the mirror by an extra angle φ from the original θ, the change new direction will be 2(φ+θ), i.e. reflected beam will move by 2φ. A simple bit of Maths there.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
11K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K