Rayleigh criterion: finding the angular separation between 2 distant points

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating angular separation using the Rayleigh criterion. The initial calculation yielded an angular separation of 2.85 millidegrees, but it was clarified that there is no need to multiply the angle by two, as the angle to the first minimum is singular for both peaks. Additionally, the correct wavelength for the calculation was identified as 483 nm, leading to a revised angular separation of 1.4 millidegrees.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Rayleigh criterion in optics
  • Familiarity with angular measurements in radians
  • Knowledge of wavelength and its impact on diffraction patterns
  • Basic trigonometry, specifically the approximation sin(theta) ≈ theta for small angles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Rayleigh criterion in detail, focusing on its applications in optics
  • Learn how to calculate angular separation using different wavelengths
  • Explore diffraction patterns and their significance in optical systems
  • Investigate the implications of using radians versus degrees in angular measurements
USEFUL FOR

Optics students, physicists, and engineers involved in wave optics and diffraction analysis will benefit from this discussion.

Bolter
Messages
262
Reaction score
31
Homework Statement
See below
Relevant Equations
dsin(theta) = 1.22 lambda
Screenshot 2020-03-24 at 09.45.09.png

I have tried this question and have gotten to an answer from the following steps

IMG_4333.jpg


So my angular separation is 2.85 millidegrees. Have I done this right with the formula I have made use of?

Any help would be great, thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All looks good until you get to the end and multiply the angle by two. There is no need to multiply by 2. Look at the diagram. Peak 1 is located at the first minimum of peak 2. That is a single multiple of the angle to the minimum. Yes, peak 2 is located at the first minimum of peak 1, but that is the same angle, not an additional angle.

P.S.: I like radians where for small angles sin(theta) ~= theta. Makes it easier to check the math, among other things.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bolter
Cutter Ketch said:
All looks good until you get to the end and multiply the angle by two. There is no need to multiply by 2. Look at the diagram. Peak 1 is located at the first minimum of peak 2. That is a single multiple of the angle to the minimum. Yes, peak 2 is located at the first minimum of peak 1, but that is the same angle, not an additional angle.

P.S.: I like radians where for small angles sin(theta) ~= theta. Makes it easier to check the math, among other things.

Yes understood now

Plus I've just realized I've been using the wrong wavelength. It should have been 483 nm NOT 491 nm. Making that adjustment I get the angle to be 1.4 millidegrees now
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 60 ·
3
Replies
60
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K