Single-slit diffraction intensity

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter uzy5o
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diffraction Intensity
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equation for single-slit diffraction intensity, expressed as I = I0*(sinc(B))^2, where B = (1/2)*k*b*sin(theta), k is the wavenumber, and b is the slit width. A key point clarified is that while the intensity I0 is defined as the on-axis intensity, the intensity also varies with distance from the slit due to the spreading of the diffraction pattern. This distance dependence is often omitted for clarity in educational materials, but it is crucial for understanding the overall intensity distribution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of single-slit diffraction principles
  • Familiarity with the sinc function in optics
  • Knowledge of wave optics terminology, including wavenumber and slit width
  • Basic grasp of intensity measurements in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the sinc function in wave optics
  • Explore the concept of far-field diffraction and its implications
  • Learn about measuring laser beam width and its relation to diffraction patterns
  • Investigate the effects of slit width on diffraction intensity
USEFUL FOR

Students of optics, physicists, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of single-slit diffraction and its intensity distribution characteristics.

uzy5o
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have looked through my optics textbook and many websites about single-slit diffraction. They all end up deriving an equation that looks something like this: I = I0*(sinc(B))2, where B = (1/2)*k*b*sin(theta), k = wavenumber, b = slit width. I don't know if there's something I'm not understanding, but I have a hard time believing that the intensity only depends on the angle. Shouldn't intensity decrease as distance from the slit increases?
Thanks.
 
Science news on Phys.org
You are correct that the intensity does also vary with distance - the diffraction pattern is wider at greater distances so must be fainter. In the formula you quoted, I0 is the on-axis intensity (i.e. I(θ=0)=I0), and this is where the distance dependence has been "hidden". Generally, you don't care about distance dependence in far-field diffraction because the transverse distribution is where the interesting physics is, so your text has hidden the boring bits in the interests of clarity. Well spotted.

If you wanted to insert a distance term, the formula above tells you the way the pattern spreads perpendicular to the slit and you could measure laser beam width at different distances to get the spread parallel to the slit. The product of the two is the overall dependence of I0 on distance from the slit.

Does that make sense?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K