Problem with understanding Babinet's principle

  • Thread starter Coffee_
  • Start date
  • #1
259
2
I'm having some trouble with understanding Babinet's principle, which in a simple case should imply the following:

''If I send light through a single slit, then I observe a certain diffraction pattern at the screen. Now I replace the slit with a single obstruction of the same width as the slit, let's say a hair. Then, except for the central spot, the minima and maxima should be on exactly the same places as for the slit.''

This doesn't make sense to me at all. This would mean that BOTH patterns will have destructive points on the same place. The sum of the two patterns should result in the pattern that one would obtain without ANY obstruction at all. If I take the sum of the two forementioned patterns, I will still have destructive points since they were on the same place. However, an unobstructed wave should have no such destructive points.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
rude man
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
7,856
792
The slit by itself produces a min-max pattern. Same with the hair. So you know the sum of the two must give you a totally even illumination pattern, as you say (superposition principle).

So, what is there that could cause this paradox? Hint: a monochromatic wave comprises amplitude and phase.
 

Related Threads on Problem with understanding Babinet's principle

Replies
2
Views
204
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
21K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
Top