Spherical Huygens Waves and Diffraction: Why Does the Situation Look Different?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the differences in wave behavior when considering diffraction and spherical Huygens waves. It questions why the observed diffraction pattern differs from expected outcomes based on Huygens' principle, particularly in terms of amplitude distribution. The conversation suggests that the integration of spherical wavelets over the entire wavefront, rather than just a single point, is crucial for understanding the observed patterns. There is a consensus that the first image is somewhat accurate but not entirely, proposing a hybrid model that combines elements from both the first and second images. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the importance of mathematical integration to clarify the discrepancies in wave behavior.
kooba
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Short question, but I can't figure it out - when we have a diffraction on any obstacle, which is construction of spherical Huygens waves, why the situation presents as it is shown on the first picture and not like on the second picture, what could actually be expected, as we consider spherical Huygens wavelets (third picture).
Of course in such situations, there wouldn't be any shades, but how it is, from the Huygens construction, that the situation is as it is on the first picture.
 

Attachments

  • 1.gif
    1.gif
    873 bytes · Views: 511
  • 2.gif
    2.gif
    929 bytes · Views: 533
  • 3.gif
    3.gif
    927 bytes · Views: 535
Science news on Phys.org
Not a complete answer... but you must sum the spherical waves as in the 3rd picture over the entire available wave-front (from the edge of the barrier on up) and not just get a contribution from that one point. Given Huygen's principle applies even if you have no barrier and given you have no lateral contribution from one wave-front of a planar wave (so it remains a planar wave as it propagates) then there should be some canceling.

I think the first picture is close but not perfectly accurate. I think you should get a qualitative picture like the 2nd but with sharply (gaussian like e^(-theta^2) ) diminishing of amplitude. So more like a hybrid of pictures 1 & 2. [Working from distant memory here though. I haven't looked at this in a while.]

But in all, to answer "why" do the integration and see what the math tells you.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top