What do these submaxima represent - Interference Pattern

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of submaxima in interference patterns, particularly in the context of multiple-slit experiments. Participants explore the relationship between interference and diffraction patterns, questioning the existence and significance of secondary maxima in these patterns.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that submaxima are created by waves not being fully constructive or destructive, leading to partially destructive interference.
  • Another participant questions the difference between various curves in the interference and diffraction patterns, seeking clarification on their relationships.
  • Some participants discuss the conditions under which secondary maxima appear, linking them to the diffraction effects from individual slits.
  • There is mention of the mathematical relationship between the multiple-slit interference expression and the single-slit diffraction expression, though the implications of this relationship remain debated.
  • One participant expresses confusion over the explanation provided by a referenced source, indicating that it does not fully address their question about the nature of secondary maxima.
  • Another participant proposes that the secondary maxima may represent subsets of slits showing constructive interference, but acknowledges that this intuition could be incorrect.
  • There is a technical discussion about the factors influencing the shape of the diffraction pattern, including slit width and spacing, but some participants clarify that their primary interest lies in the interference pattern specifically.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the explanation for the existence of secondary maxima in interference patterns. Multiple competing views and interpretations are presented, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the mathematical details and physical interpretations of the patterns, indicating that assumptions about the conditions of the slits and the nature of the light may influence their understanding.

  • #31
In my notation ##I_0## is the intensity at ##x=0##. Just expand around ##x=0##, which gives
$$I(x) = I_0 + \mathcal{O}(x^2).$$
That's why I've put the ##1/N^2## factor in my formula.

See also the figures on p. 161 of my manuscript, cited already above.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Charles Link

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K