Young Double slit experiment condition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions necessary for observing interference fringes in the Young Double Slit Experiment (YDSE), specifically focusing on the inequality s/S ≤ λ/d, where s is the size of the source slit, S is the distance from the source slit to the double slits, λ is the wavelength of the light source, and d is the distance between the two double slits. Participants explore the implications of coherence length and the van Cittert-Zernike theorem in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the condition s/S ≤ λ/d is derived from the requirement that the transverse coherence length at the double slit must be greater than the slit separation.
  • Others argue that as the double slit approaches the single slit, the incoherent nature of the source becomes more pronounced, potentially degrading the visibility of the interference pattern.
  • A participant questions the origin of the inequality and seeks clarification on the relationship between coherence length and the parameters involved.
  • Another participant suggests that the half illumination angle θs can be approximated as s/S for small angles, leading to a derived inequality.
  • Some participants discuss the relevance of the van Cittert-Zernike theorem and its implications for coherence area and coherence length, with varying interpretations of its application.
  • There is a debate over the necessity of a prefactor in the coherence length expression, with some suggesting that omitting it may still satisfy the condition.
  • References to literature, such as "Principles of Optics" by Born and Wolf, are made to support claims regarding coherence area and coherence length, though participants express uncertainty about specific details.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the exact derivation of the inequality or the necessity of the prefactor in the coherence length expression. Multiple competing views and interpretations of the van Cittert-Zernike theorem remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and relationships between coherence length, coherence area, and the parameters involved in the YDSE. There are unresolved mathematical steps and varying interpretations of the theorem's implications.

Raghav Gupta
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
76
Can @Drakkith , @Doc Al and others help me in this?
In YDSE,
if s is the size of source slit and S is the distance between source slit and the double slits,
Then why condition s/S <= λ/d must be satisfied to observe fringes?
Here λ is wavelength of light source and d is the distance between two double slits.
 
Science news on Phys.org
You can look up about van Cittert-Zernike theorem for propagation of spatial coherence. That inequality condition follows from the requirement that the transverse coherence length at the plane of double slit produced by an incoherent source of size s must be bigger than or equal to the slit separation.

Just for intuitive thought, as you place the double slit closer to the single slit (S is getting smaller), the incoherent property of the source is getting more and more apparent to the double slit. In this case the visibility of interference pattern will degrade.
 
I looked up that Cittert- Zernike theorem in wikipedia but it was not showing any formula that I have written in first post.
From where that inequality has came?
 
What you can use from the mentioned theorem is a relation that governs transverse coherence length of an incoherent source with size s as observed at some distance S. This relation looks like ## y_c = \lambda/\theta_s ## where ## \theta_s ## is the so-called half illumination angle, an angle subtended by the source size. Now back to the requirement that the transverse coherence length at the double slit plane must be larger than the slit separation, you should be able to see that that inequality should prevail, even though perhaps with a different in prefactor.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Raghav Gupta
So here transverse coherence length (yc)= λ/ θs
Now I think that half illumination angle is equal to s/S as angle = arc/radius for small angles.
Now you say yc > d
So
λS/s > d,
Which gives
s/S < λ/d

Is that true?
Does that theorem of Cittert- Zernike tells that yc > d ?
 
You don't need the theorem to see that inequality must be fulfilled. The theorem merely derives the expression for transverse coherence length ## y_c ##. Coherence area is defined as an area within which any pair of points maintain its phase relationship forever, if these points interfere they will produce high visibility interference pattern. This means the two slits must lie within the coherence area in order to see a clear interference pattern.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Raghav Gupta
Is that correct θs = s/S in 4th post, where I have used angle = arc/radius ?
What is the prefactor you are talking in 4th post?
So can you give a link explaining the relation of the theorem telling that yc = λ/θs?
 
Last edited:
Yes it is close to correct except that ## \theta_s = s/2S ## as ## \theta_s ## is defined as the half angle. But the presence of two is not strict as you see if you omit this two you will have even safer assurance that the condition is met.
 
So is that the prefactor of two you were talking about?
Can you give a link for showing the relation of y c= λ/θs ?
 
  • #10
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~dfvj/presentations/OSA04.ppt
 
  • #11
I was not able to find that relation in power slide.
Can you tell where it was?
 
  • #12
I recently found that spatial coherence area by van Cittert-Z--- Theorem is
Ac = S2λ2 / π s2, and also

Ac = λ02/Ω , where λ02 is mean wavelength and Ω is solid angle.
How then by you,
yc = λ/θs ?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
If you read Principles of Optics by Born and Wolf, it's found that the diameter of coherence area is ## B\lambda/\theta_s ##, where ##B## is some number that I don't remember. I guess it's a matter of convenience that people simply neglect the prefactor. Another possibility would be that ## y_c = \lambda/\theta_s ## is derived for the case of one dimensional slit. In order to check you have to go to the math such as the one followed in Born and Wolf's book.
 
  • #14
Thanks for the references ( I will check that later ) and your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
15K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K