1
$\begingroup$

I understand how to derive the formula for diffraction gratings as you just have to compare the light rays approaching at a maxima point. The formula for diffraction grating formula is shown below : $$d \sin{\theta} = mλ$$ where $d =$ distance between slits/slit separation

From my understanding, the double-slit formula is derived from small-angle approximations but we can't assume small angles for a diffraction grating as there is a lot more interference and diffraction. Formula for double slits is shown below : $$w = \frac{mλD}s$$ Where $w =$ distance between fringes, $m =$ fringe order. $D =$ distance between slits, and screen $s =$ distance between slits/slit separation.

What I can't seem to do is visualize this scenario as I do not fully understand why the angle, $\theta$ between the centre and a maxima point cannot be small for a diffraction grating as well? And so small angle approximations can't be used?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If you show the 2 formulae, the question might be clearer. $\endgroup$ – JEB May 21 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ It's should be the same formula. What is $D$? What is $s$? What is $w$? Looks like the Airy pattern formula. $\endgroup$ – SuperCiocia May 21 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ Oops sorry I will make it clearer :) $\endgroup$ – KSP May 21 at 4:03
  • $\begingroup$ The principle maxima from the grating fall precisely at the directions where the two-slit pattern gives a maximum. Both are given by $d \sin \theta = n \lambda$ where $\theta$ is the angle from the normal (and I assumed normal illumination). $\endgroup$ – Andrew Steane May 21 at 9:03
1
$\begingroup$

Writing your second equation using the same symbols of the first equation $(s\rightarrow d)$: $$ w = \frac{m \lambda D}{d}.$$

Then, from geometry, $w = D \tan\Theta$, so you end up with: $$ d\tan\Theta = m\lambda $$ for the double slit diffraction pattern. Which, as you are saying, is different from the general diffraction grating formula: $$ d\sin\Theta = m\lambda.$$

You can see that these two are the same in the small angle approximation, because for small $\Theta$ you have $\sin\Theta \approx \Theta \approx \tan\Theta$.

The reason for the small angle is that the diffraction pattern satisfying the grating equation is the far-field (Fraunhofer) diffraction pattern. For which you would need the screen to be very far away from the slits/grating. Alternatively, you can have a lens, that brings the far-field pattern at its focal length $f$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Careful: the angle theta here is defined differently in your two cases. In fact the two-slit and the grating cases are identical. That is, the principle maxima from the grating fall precisely at the directions where the two-slit pattern gives a maximum. $\endgroup$ – Andrew Steane May 21 at 9:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes both gratings give you the maxima at the same angle $\Theta$. My point here was to reconcile the spatial separation $w$ on the screen. $\endgroup$ – SuperCiocia May 21 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ So are you saying the double-slit formula and diffraction grating is the same? $\endgroup$ – KSP May 23 at 4:16
  • $\begingroup$ Yes the double slit is just a special case of the grating. The equations for the angular separation are the same. The difference here is because the second equation is for $w$ which is the spatial separation on the screen. $\endgroup$ – SuperCiocia May 23 at 5:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.