Young's Double slit Experiment

AI Thread Summary
Young's experiment utilizes Huygens' principle, treating the slits as point sources emitting secondary wavelets, which explains the presence of two fields at the same location. The geometry of the setup ensures that for every point in one slit, there is a corresponding point in the other slit, maintaining a bijective relationship. The focus on points in the same plane as point P is crucial for calculating the net field, as contributions from other points would complicate the analysis. The author differentiates between path lengths from S1 and S2 to point P to account for the phase difference, despite both slits emitting waves with the same propagation vector. This approach simplifies deriving the diffraction pattern by treating the slits as ideal point sources.
pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
i was going through the standard proof of Young's experiment using electric field concept .what the proof did is took two source S_{1} and S_{2} in the same line(asuuming such points do exist) and took a point P in the same plane as those points and found out the field at the point .
1.Was this done assuming hugyen's principle that is the points on the slit behave as secondary wavelets .otherwise i don't find reason why there are 'two' fields at the same place due to one source(the one which emits light actually)

2. also doesn't the condition that fr each point A in slit 1 there exista a point B in slit 2 which lies on the vertical drawn from B guarantee that they are of same length geometry...t's like a bijective function from one set to other

3.also why do we take point which lie in plane with the point P only to calculate the net field why not the contributions due to others
 
Physics news on Phys.org
another doubt
4. in my book the author starts with the equation of waves originating from the slits S_{1} and S_{2} as E=E_{01}\sin(kx-\omega t and so
this means since the ditance between slits and source is large the waves are assumead to be plane waves
clearly here the distance x is measured in the direction of propagation vetcor
and i believe the propagation vetcors of the the waves 'originating' from either slits is same (though i don't get why but still can't argue why they can't be the same) so why does the author tell the difference between the S1P and S2P as the path difference when actually it should be the difference between the length of perpendiculars drawn from S1 and S2 to the wavefront passing through P
 
Typically in the "ideal" two slit experiment, the slits are assume to be infinitely thin. This allows two-slit diffraction to be deconvolved from single-slit diffraction (slits of finite width will produce a diffraction pattern that is a convolution of the two). If one does this, then one can regard each slit as being a single point source (via Huygens' principle).

To obtain the diffraction pattern, one simply needs to find the sum of the waves as a function of position.

With regard to the propagation vectors - There is only a single incident propagation vector since the incident wave is a plane wave. The wave emerging from the aperture however will contain a whole spectrum of propagation vectors. Regarding the slits as point sources and calculating the path difference remains the easiest way to derive the diffraction pattern.

Claude.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top