hey quick question about Fraunhoffer diffraction:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

RESTULT 1

for a rectanguar apperture, we have the following equation for irradiance I:

I = I(0)(sin(B)/B)^2(sin(A)/A)^2 = I(0)[sinc(B)]^2[sinc(A)]^2

where, B = bu/2; A = av/2

where b = apperture breadth (x-axis); a = apperture height (y-axis)

and u = ksin(theta_x) v = ksin(theta_y)

and where I(0) is the irradiance evaluated along the central axis between the apperture and the screen, ie at theta_x = 0, and theta_y = 0.

RESULT 2

Now, I also have the equation for single slit diffraction:

I = I(0)(sin(B)/B)^2 = I(0)[sinc(B)]^2

also here, B = bu/2;

where b = apperture breadth (x-axis);

and u = ksin(theta_x)

where I(0) is the irradiance evaluated along the central axis between the apperture and the screen, ie where theta_x = 0.

QUESTION:

RESULT 1 and 2 can be derived independently of each other using double intregral formulas. Now my question is as follows:

is it satisfactory to think of RESULT 1 reducing to RESULT 2 in the limit that (say) the height (y-axis dimension) of the rectuangular apperture approaches zero?

In this case, the apperture height, a ----> 0

thus A-----> 0

thus sinc(A)----> 1

thus (from RESULT 1) I----> I(0)(sin(B)/B)^2 x 1 = I(0)sinc(B)^2 as required.

This seems to make sense to me. and what I get is a result where by a single (infinitely thin) slit of length b in the x-dimenstion, produces a diffraction pattern on the screen in teh SAME dimension (ie the x-dimension).

WHY I ASK.........is that in one form of the derivation of RESULT 2 for the single slit I have come across, the following is stated:

'consider a slit with width b and assume the hight is infinite'.

FYI: In this derivation, the width is still along the x-axis, and the height is along the y-axis.

the working then proceeds to claim that SINCE we have assumed the slit is infinitely high, we need not consider integrating across the y-variable, and so the integration problem is simplifed to a single integration from -b/2 to +b/2 in the x-variable. RESULT 2 is then achieved.

YOU MAY HAVE SEEN MY PROBLEM AT THIS POINT (or maybe I have missed the point):

(i) in the derivation I just related to you, we end up with RESULT 2, but we do so by applying the fraunhoffer double integral to a slit of finite width b (along the x-axis) and infinite height a (along the y-axis)

WHEREAS

(ii) when I make RESULT 1 reduce to RESULT 2, I do so by assuming that our slit has finite width b (along the x-axis) but ZERO hieght (a = 0) along the y-axis.

Could you please comment on my thoughts, and point out my error if one exists. THANK YOU!

N.B.

when I refer to the fraunhoffer double integral, I refer to the following:

Electric Field At point P on the Screen =

constant x {double integral accross apperture of:}(e^-i(ux+vy))dxdy

where u and v are defined in the section called RESULT 1 above.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Single Slit (Fraunhoffer) Diffraction Question

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**