- #1

- 84

- 8

- I
- Thread starter BillKet
- Start date

- #1

- 84

- 8

- #2

- 4,673

- 2,022

- #3

- 84

- 8

Thank you for your reply! So I am aware that the energy is conserved, I am just not sure where does the formula for intensity breaks down. If you measure, say, the intensity of the main peak, you get a finite value. Now, the formula for where the other peaks will be imply that for an infinitely long flat screen, you would have infinitely many bands of intensity equal to the one at the center. So infinitely many bands with finite intensity each would give an infinite intensity. Where is the logic breaking down?

- #4

- 4,673

- 2,022

## \theta ## basically goes from ## -\frac{\pi}{2} ## to ## +\frac{\pi}{2} ##. For these intensity formulas, the total power ## P \approx \int I \, d \theta ##. To keep the same distance ## r ##, you need a spherical screen. ## \\ ## If you collect the energy with a flat screen, you have an inverse square law, and also the screen on the periphery receives the energy at an angle, so that the projected area (perpendicular to the sources) is the relevant area that must be used in the computations. In mathematical terms, for a flat screen, total power ## P=\int \frac{I}{r^2} \,dA_{projected} ##. In this integral, ## dA_{projected}<dA ##. The power ##P ## that gets computed is completely consistent, and there is no problem with any infinities.

When you get rapid oscillations in the intensity for ## d >> \lambda ##, essentially the intensity ## I ## becomes the average value of ## I_o \cos^2 ## which is ## \frac{I_o}{2 }##.

When you get rapid oscillations in the intensity for ## d >> \lambda ##, essentially the intensity ## I ## becomes the average value of ## I_o \cos^2 ## which is ## \frac{I_o}{2 }##.

Last edited:

- #5

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 25,069

- 4,759

Where does your "infinity" come from? I think that could be the root of your confusion. Slits, by definition, are all directional. For simplicity, think in terms of two omnidirectional (in XY plane) ideal radio antennae and the maxima will all have the same amplitude. The trig functions in the formula all repeat every 2π so there will only be a finite number of maxima.But in this form it looks like the intensity will be equal to the maximum value I0I0I_0 an infinite number of times.

You can relax; Energy Conservaton rules OK.

Edit - do the sums yourself for two point sources, separated by only a wavelength or two and look at the pattern, particularly around the direction of the line of the sources; you get mirror image patterns, front to back with sometimes a broad maximum and sometimes a minimum / zero out to the side.

- #6

jtbell

Mentor

- 15,635

- 3,682

Yes, if you put a flat viewing-screen in front of the slits, points on the screen that are further from its center are also further from the slits, so you should expect a reduced intensity. The linear width of the interference peaks on the screen becomes wider because of the geometry of the setup.Shouldn't the intensity maximum go down with the distance from the center, as the energy stored in the wave gets diluted as 1/r21/r^2 so the further you are the less energy you have at a maximum, compared to the center?

Another factor comes into play here. The formula you gave is for an idealized two-slit setup in which the slits are infinitesimally narrow, effectively pointlike. Real slits have a finite width. Start with the single-slit intensity distribution:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html

With two slits of equal width, this distribution is basically "modulated" by your two-slit formula.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/dslit.html

As the slits become narrower, keeping the same spacing between them, the central maximum of the single-slit distribution spreads out, so more two-slit maxima fit inside it. The intensities of the two-slit maxima decrease as you away from the center, until you reach the first minimum of the single-slit diffraction distribution.

You should be able to find a detailed mathematical treatment in an intermediate-level undergraduate optics textbook such as Hecht or Pedrotti. A Google search for "double slit fraunhofer diffraction" turns up some lecture notes which look promising.

According to the single-slit factor, the "bands of intensity" (what I call two-slit maxima) do not have the same intensity, but decrease according to the single-slit intensity distribution.Now, the formula for where the other peaks will be imply that for an infinitely long flat screen, youwould have infinitely many bands of intensity equal to the one at the center. So infinitely many bands with finite intensity each would give an infinite intensity.

I don't remember if I've ever integrated the entire single-slit distribution from -∞ to +∞. I'd be surprised if the result isn't finite.

Last edited:

- #7

sophiecentaur

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 25,069

- 4,759

It's multiplicative in the ideal case. The element pattern and the array pattern can be multiplied as long as the elements are allWith two slits of equal width, this distribution is basically "modulated" by your two-slit formula.

There are layers upon layers of complexity which can be investigated but the ideal case is the one to start with. That's quite hard enough, first time round. And, first you should work in terms of angles before the pattern is projected on a flat screen.

- #8

- 7,495

- 2,055

The formula you have above is incomplete, and valid only as a limiting case of each slit width 'a' = 0; the correct formula is:Hello! I am a bit confused by the formula for light intensity in the case of interference. In the books and online resources that I read, this is given as: $$I = I_0 \cos^2(\frac{\pi d \sin \theta}{\lambda})$$ where ##d## is the distance between the slits, ##\lambda## is the wavelength of the light and ##\theta## is the angle where we do the measurements. But in this form it looks like the intensity will be equal to the maximum value ##I_0## an infinite number of times. [...]

$$I = I_0 \cos^2(\frac{\pi d \sin \theta}{\lambda}) sinc^2(\frac{\pi a \sin \theta}{\lambda})$$

Where sinc (x) = sin(x)/x.

The sinc term acts as an 'envelope' of the cos^2 function, reproducing the normal decrease of intensity as you get further away from the optical axis.

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 475

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 5K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 912

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 494

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 8K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K