Question on young's double experiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter SAINATHAN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Experiment
AI Thread Summary
In Young's double slit experiment, keeping the opaque screen parallel to the two slits simplifies calculations and enhances the symmetry of the setup. If the screen were transparent instead of opaque, it would compromise the distinctiveness of the two slits, turning the setup into a single sheet with slits. This change would lead to interference patterns being obscured by additional light passing through the transparent material. The opaque screen is essential for maintaining clear visibility of the interference fringes. Thus, the configuration of the screen is crucial for the experiment's clarity and effectiveness.
SAINATHAN
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
why we have to kept opaqe screen parllel to the two slits in young's double slit experiment?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi SAINATHAN! Welcome to PF! :wink:

We don't have to …

but it makes the maths easier, and the picture more symmetric and prettier. :smile:
 
If the rest of teh screen wasn't opaque, but was see-thru, you would really no longer have two slits but just ahve a sheet of transparent material with two slits in it. This would result in the fringes and light spots being obscured by all the other light getting through,
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top