Physics - Single Slit Diffraction

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the derivation of the minima for single slit diffraction, highlighting the path differences of light rays from various points across the slit. It explains that when considering rays from the edges and center of the slit, destructive interference occurs at specific path differences, leading to the equation W sin T = m (lambda). However, a counterpoint is raised regarding whether the entire width of the slit can also contribute to constructive interference, suggesting that W sin T = m lambda could apply in that context. The importance of considering all pairs of rays across the slit is emphasized, as each pair contributes to the overall interference pattern. Ultimately, it concludes that only specific pairs lead to destructive interference, clarifying the reasoning behind the established equations.
jakeswu
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys, my textbook mentioned that how the equation for the minima for single slit diffraction was derived:

Consider a slit of width W with 2 light rays, one emitting from the edge, one emitting from the center. Their path difference is W/2 sin T . If the path difference is 1/2 lambda, then they will experience destructive interference. Same can be said for light rays spaced apart by W/3, W/4, so on. Hence the general equation for the minima, W sin T = m (lambda).

This is perfectly reasonable. However, I say:

Consider 2 light rays emitting from the single slit at each edge. Path difference will be W sin T. If W sin T were an integral multiple of wavelength, there should be constructive interference. So W sin T = m lambda can be the equation for constructive interference too.

Why is it that light rays spaced apart by the entire width of the slit aren't counted?
 
Science news on Phys.org
A less cheating derivation would take the interference between all pairs of rays into account. Usually this is done using Huygen's construction, eg. eq 7.2 in http://phyweb.phys.soton.ac.uk/quantum/lectures/waves7.pdf has an integral over the entire slit width.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jakeswu said:
Consider a slit of width W with 2 light rays, one emitting from the edge, one emitting from the center. Their path difference is W/2 sin T . If the path difference is 1/2 lambda, then they will experience destructive interference.

In other words, if the positions across the slit are x=0 through x=W, then the rays coming from x=0 and x=w/2 interfere destructively. So do the rays coming from x=d and x=w/2+d where d is a small increment. So do the rays coming form x=2d and x=w/2+2d. Etcetera. The rays coming from all positions across the slit can be put into pairs like this, each with the path difference (w/2)sin(theta). Each pair cancels destructively, so the net result is complete destructive interference.

However, I say:

Consider 2 light rays emitting from the single slit at each edge. Path difference will be W sin T. If W sin T were an integral multiple of wavelength, there should be constructive interference. So W sin T = m lambda can be the equation for constructive interference too.

Why is it that light rays spaced apart by the entire width of the slit aren't counted?

Because there is only one such pair of light rays. None of the other light rays emerging from the slit can be put into such a pair, that cancels destructively.
 
Thanks for the advice.
 
I would like to use a pentaprism with some amount of magnification. The pentaprism will be used to reflect a real image at 90 degrees angle but I also want the reflected image to appear larger. The distance between the prism and the real image is about 70cm. The pentaprism has two reflecting sides (surfaces) with mirrored coating and two refracting sides. I understand that one of the four sides needs to be curved (spherical curvature) to achieve the magnification effect. But which of the...
Back
Top