Timeline for Does the thickness of a slit play a role in the fringe pattern of either the double or single slit experiment?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2019 at 7:51 | comment | added | Ruslan | @HolgerFiedler conductor-dielectric interface conditions dictate that E-field component, parallel to the interface, vanishes (the component perpendicular to paper in the OP's photo). So this is the polarization where the lowest mode becomes affected (think Dirichlet boundary). The polarization where E-field is normal to the conducting diaphragm (parallel to the slit width, vertical in the OP's photo) is unaffected (think Neumann boundary). | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 7:36 | comment | added | HolgerFiedler | Your implication is that the E-field is perpendicular to the width of the slit. So the relation of the size of slits width seems to be irrelevant. Maybe you would overread it again? | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 6:00 | comment | added | Ruslan | @HolgerFiedler yes | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 4:55 | comment | added | HolgerFiedler | So in the described by you first case 𝐸⃗ is parallel to the slits walls. | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 4:51 | comment | added | Ruslan | @HolgerFiedler no, I mean it's parallel to the symmetry direction (the direction in which the diaphragm is translationally invariant). | |
| Apr 11, 2019 at 4:45 | comment | added | HolgerFiedler | Ruslan, “polarized so that 𝐸⃗ vector is parallel to the slit”? You meant, that 𝐸⃗ is parallel to the slits width? | |
| Apr 10, 2019 at 19:49 | history | edited | Ruslan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 19:40 | history | edited | Ruslan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 19:34 | history | edited | Ruslan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2019 at 19:29 | history | answered | Ruslan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |