Timeline for Diffraction wavelength relationship [closed]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2016 at 16:22 | comment | added | David Reishi | John Rennie, I don't think this should be considered as a duplicate. That post you reference is two years old, and it appears that the one and only answer to the question suffers from that infamous confusion between diffraction and interference. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:18 | history | closed |
Carl Witthoft user36790 John Rennie CuriousOne honeste_vivere |
Not suitable for this site | |
| May 4, 2016 at 16:14 | history | edited | JacobGunn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Had to edit to prove its not a duplicate
|
| May 4, 2016 at 16:08 | vote | accept | JacobGunn | ||
| May 4, 2016 at 14:01 | comment | added | David Reishi | @Carl Witthoft, I don't think making the metric value of the wavelength ignorable affects their relation. If you take two different wavelengths of light, for example red and blue visible light, and send them through a small enough opening of the same size, their angles of diffraction will be different. So wavelength does affect diffraction. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 11:26 | comment | added | Carl Witthoft | @DavidReishi Please re-read my comment. If the slit dimensions are in units of wavelength, then everything scales with wavelength and thus the metric value of $\lambda$ is ignorable. | |
| May 4, 2016 at 7:06 | comment | added | John Rennie | Possible duplicate of Relationship between slit size and wavelength in diffraction | |
| May 4, 2016 at 3:28 | answer | added | sammy gerbil | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 4, 2016 at 2:59 | comment | added | sammy gerbil | See physics.stackexchange.com/q/95126 and physics.stackexchange.com/q/125903. | |
| May 3, 2016 at 20:24 | comment | added | JacobGunn | @DavidReishi I dont think you loose it at 2x, I did an exam question recently in which showing the slit was 5x larger than the wavelength was enough to suggest it would diffract significantly | |
| May 3, 2016 at 20:20 | comment | added | David Reishi | @Carl Witthoft, you must be using "diffraction" in the sense meaning interference. The OP is referring to diffraction in the sense of the light spreading out. And, given a constant aperture-size, that most definitely is related to wavelength. | |
| May 3, 2016 at 20:16 | comment | added | David Reishi | @JacobGunn, first of all, remember that the diffraction will never be negligible, because there'll always be single-edge diffraction from each edge of the slit regardless of the slit's size...though the angle of that single-edge diffraction is always quite less compared to that of "double-edge" diffraction when the aperture-width is comparable to the wavelength. Second of all, I think you lose that pronounced diffraction if the slit is even 2x the wavelength, though I'm not sure about that and I don't have any actual figures. | |
| May 3, 2016 at 19:59 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 4, 2016 at 16:18 | |||||
| May 3, 2016 at 19:47 | comment | added | JacobGunn | I'm sure it does? Waves diffract most significantly when the gap they diffract through is the same as their wavelength dont they? Or is the whole A level physics course a lie? | |
| May 3, 2016 at 19:40 | comment | added | Carl Witthoft | Wavelength doesn't affect diffraction at all, especially if you handle all your spatial values in units of wavelength. | |
| May 3, 2016 at 18:27 | history | asked | JacobGunn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |