Timeline for What happens to waves when they hit smaller apertures than their wavelenghts?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2020 at 9:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:54 | comment | added | Floris | @BenCrowell - note also that the Bethe paper addresses electromagnetic waves, and the question here is about water waves. | |
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:53 | history | edited | Floris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:47 | history | edited | Floris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:43 | comment | added | Floris | @BenCrowell - When every point on the wavefront becomes a source, then as the slit gets smaller the total intensity of the source gets smaller in proportion, reaching zero in the limit as the slit becomes infinitesimal. I'm not sure where you get "transmission would be 1"? I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. | |
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:42 | comment | added | Floris | @yolo123 - sorry, fat fingers. I meant to link the second diagram which has a much smaller slit. In the limit you end up with circular waves emanating. | |
| Oct 16, 2014 at 5:41 | history | edited | Floris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 40 characters in body
|
| Oct 16, 2014 at 2:43 | comment | added | user4552 | You're describing Huygens' principle, but I think this is actually a case where Huygens' principle is not a good approximation. If Huygens' principle were valid, then the transmission would be 1 in the limit $d\ll \lambda$, but in fact Bethe showed it was zero in that limit. | |
| Oct 16, 2014 at 2:33 | comment | added | yolo123 | Floris, the image you refer to is described on Wikipedia as: "Diffraction of a plane wave at a slit whose width is several times the wavelength" I'm trying to look at slits SMALLER than the wavelength. | |
| Oct 16, 2014 at 2:01 | history | answered | Floris | CC BY-SA 3.0 |