Focussing a collimated beam using a diffraction grating

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around focusing a collimated beam using a diffraction grating, specifically addressing the phase relationships of light from various sources. The user is trying to understand how to derive expressions for the radii of the rings based on the phase differences between light passing through transparent and opaque regions. They express confusion about the relevance of imaginary light sources from the opaque regions and question the necessity of considering them in the context of interference. Additionally, they explore the concept of path differences between rings and whether smaller increments than the wavelength can be used to define the positions of dark rings. The user seeks clarification on these concepts to better grasp the solution to the problem.
kekpillangok
Messages
15
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Bob wants to focus a collimated monochromatic beam at a point F. Due to the small wavelength λ, he cannot use an ordinary converging lens to focus this radiation. As an alternative, he intends to use a diffraction grating made up of concentric rings round an absorbing (opaque) disc of radius r1. The concentric rings alternate between opaque/absorbing rings (the black ones in the images) and rings that let light through (the grey ones in the images).
Find an expression for the radii r_n (n > 1) of the concentric rings, which can be absorbing (when n is odd) or letting light through (when n is even), as a function of λ, r1, of the distance f from the centre of the rings to the point F, and of the integer index n, so that the rings will focus the beam at F.
Relevant Equations
d(a,b) = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
delta_x = m * lambda
The first image shows the rings and the absorbing disc from the front; the second shows them from the side.

I am told that, to solve this problem, I have to imagine a light source located at ##r _{1 } ##. The light passing through the "open" rings (the ones that let light through, located at the even-numbered radii), then, should have a 180° phase difference relative to the light coming from this nonexistent source. I am to write, then, $$d _{n }-d _{1 }={\left( n -1 \right) }\cdot \frac{\lambda }{2 },\text{n even }$$,
where $$d _{n }=\sqrt{{r _{n }}^{2 }+{f }^{2 }} $$—the distance from each gap to the point ##f ##. This lets me find a general expression for ##r _{n } ## if ##n ## is even. Now, the second part to this solution is, I have to imagine light sources coming from the blocking, opaque rings, and force the nonexistent light from them to be in phase with the nonexistent light coming from ##r _{1 } ##. That is, I should write $$d _{n }-d _{1 }={\left( n -1 \right) }\cdot \frac{\lambda }{2 },\text{n odd }$$. This lets me find ##r _{n } ## when ##n ## is odd, and the expressions for the odd-numbered and even-numbered radii will work out to be the same.

However, the only part of this solution that makes sense to me is, that forcing the actual rays passing through the grating to be 180° out of phase with an imaginary light source at ##r _{1 } ## automatically causes them to be in phase with each other, so we get constructive interference at F due to these rays. I do not quite grasp the idea behind imagining nonexistent gaps at the opaque regions. Sure, the rays from the opaque regions—the "dark rays"—are all in phase with each other and out of phase with the real rays. But why do we care about them if they don't exist? If they were in phase with the real rays, surely that wouldn't make any difference, since they don't exist anyway?

I can see that, in this solution, the distances from the rings (dark or clear) to the point F increase by increments of ##\frac{\lambda }{2 } ##. But surely the only thing that is affecting the light is the path difference of ##\lambda ## between two consecutive clear rings. So I can pick the path difference between two consecutive dark rings to be any number smaller than ##\lambda ##, can't I? I can start with the distance from F to the edge of the disc—##\sqrt{{r _{1 }}^{2 }+{f }^{2 }} ##—and make it larger by ##\frac{\lambda }{3 } ##, causing me to land on the ring at ##r _{2 } ##. Now I make this new distance larger by ##\lambda ##, and I arrive at the ring at ##r _{4 } ##. Now I can insert the dark ring ##r _{3 } ## by making its distance to F equal to ##\sqrt{{r _{4 }}^{2 }+{f }^{2 }}-\frac{\lambda }{4 } ##, can't I? Is this correct?

I'm really struggling to understand this. If anyone can help me think about this problem in a different way or clarify this solution, I will be extremely grateful.
 

Attachments

  • 1732314814750.png
    1732314814750.png
    6.6 KB · Views: 43
Physics news on Phys.org
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top