Why is the bending of waves related to wavelength?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between wave diffraction and wavelength, particularly in the context of a ripple tank experiment. The phenomenon, referred to as "bending," is correctly identified as diffraction, which occurs when waves pass through a slit. The degree of diffraction is influenced by the ratio of the slit width to the wavelength; narrower slits produce more pronounced bending. The principle of invariance of scale explains that if both the wavelength and slit size are halved, diffraction remains consistent. Ultimately, diffraction occurs regardless of slit size, but its extent is contingent on the wavelength relative to the aperture size.
triac
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Why is the "bending" of waves related to wavelength?

Hi!
As stated in the title, my question concerns the "bending" of waves. (I'm quite sure that "bending" is not the proper term, so if you know the correct one, please tell me.)
Let's say that we investigate waves in a ripple tank. We create a plane wave and put a blockage, parallell to the wavefront, with a small slit in it. If the slit is small enough, we will get almost circular waves on the other side of the blockage, but if the slit is large, the wave on the other side will not be as much bent. This seems natural to me, but I don't understand how it is related to wavelength. My questions are:

1. In our physics textbook, there was an inequality for "bending" of waves in an experiment like the one described above: D\leq\lambda, where D is the width of the slit and lambda is the wavelength. What do they mean by this? The bending of the waves gets less and less, the wider the slit is, but it never disappears. How then, can you give such a condition for "bending".

2. Why does the wavelength affect the "bending" of the waves?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


1. The condition you describe is where you get the diffracted wave propagating through 180 degrees; it only occurs when the width of the slit is comparable to (or less than) the wavelength/2. At wider slit widths, "bending" still occurs, just not through the whole 180 degrees.

2. It is due to the invariance of scale, which basically says that if you halve the wavelength and halve the aperture size, the wave diffracts in exactly the same way. If you halve the wavelength without halving the aperture size, this is equivalent to doubling the aperture size without changing the wavelength. To summarise, the wavelength matters, because the diffraction you get depends on the ratio of the wavelength to the aperture size, not just the wavelength.

Claude.
 


As Claude states, you are talking about *diffraction*. The origin of diffraction is truncating a wavefront. Perhaps you have seen Huyghens' principle: each point on a wavefront can be considered a source point, which will radiate in all directions.

So, how to construct a flat wavefront? That occurs when all the different source points interfere in such a way that the total wavefront is a flat surface, and this can only occur if the wavefront is infinitely large (or, the original point source is infinitely far away). So, by truncating the flat wavefront (by passing through an aperture, for example), the small piece of wavefront diffracts outward ('spreads', 'curves', 'bends'..), and the rate at which it diffracts is related to the ratio of the wavelength and size of aperture. Even if the aperture is much larger than a wavelength, if the wavefront is not a complete sphere, there will be diffraction.

One small note of caution: surface waves, in a ripple tank, are significantly different that electromagnetic waves- both are waves, but that's the only real similarity.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
13K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K