Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Series

Diffraction — the series

8 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. Single-slit diffraction at three slit widths. Intensity against angle behind a single slit, evaluated from the integral across the aperture, for slits two, six and twenty wavelengths wide. A wide slit throws a nearly sharp shadow; a narrow one spreads light through a wide angle.

    Where rays stop being enough, and a shadow acquires a bright centre

    Light going through a narrow gap spreads. No amount of ray tracing predicts it, the size of the spreading is set by one ratio, and taking that ratio to zero is exactly what the ray model is.

    part 1 · optics
  2. The dip that decides it. Two equally bright points seen through a circular aperture, their Airy patterns added, at 0.7, 1, 1.6 times the Rayleigh separation. Below each is the depth of the dip between the peaks, measured off the drawn sum: 0.0%, 26.5%, 91.6%. At exactly the Rayleigh separation the dip is 26.5% — the criterion is a convention about how much of a dip a detector can see, not a threshold anything crosses. Below it the two peaks merge into one and the pair is gone; above it the answer was never in doubt.

    How far apart two things have to be

    An instrument's ability to tell two things apart is not set by the quality of its glass. It is set by the width of the hole light comes through, by a factor that is the first zero of a Bessel function — and the threshold everyone quotes is a convention laid over a computed dip of 26.5 per cent.

    part 2 · optics
  3. A grating of 20 slits. Intensity against angle behind a grating of 20 slits spaced 4 wavelengths apart, from I = [sin(Nu)/(N sin u)]² with u = π d sinθ/λ. The principal maxima sit at sinθ = mλ/d — -14.48°, 0.00°, 14.48° for m = -1, 0, 1 — and those angles contain no N at all, so they are exactly where two slits put them. What N changes is the width: the central maximum measures 0.635 degrees between its half-maximum points, measured off the drawn curve, against 0.635 degrees from bisection on the pattern itself. That width goes as 1/N — N times it is 12.692°, 12.691°, 12.691° at N = 64, 256, 1024, and 12.705° here, which is more, because the 1/N law is asymptotic and few slits are the far end of it: two slits give a peak 13 per cent wider than the limit. So a grating's resolving power R = mN is bought with the number of lines illuminated and with nothing else. In first order this grating resolves λ/Δλ = 20; the sodium doublet needs 982. Away from the maxima the pattern stays below 4.8 per cent of one, because there it is bounded by 1/(N sin u)².

    What a thousand slits buy that two cannot

    The bright directions behind a grating are fixed by its ruling pitch and the wavelength alone, and no count of lines appears in them. What the count changes is the width of each maximum, which falls as 1/N — so resolving power is mN, and 1,200 illuminated lines separate the sodium D lines with a dip of 53.4 per cent where 300 show one line and no dip at all.

    part 3 · optics
  4. Nine planes behind a grating, with no lens anywhere. The intensity across two periods of a 20 µm grating, at nine planes between it and the Talbot distance z_T = 2d²/λ = 1.26 millimetres, illuminated at 633 nm. The top profile is the grating itself and the bottom is the plane at z_T, and they agree to 2.8e-14: free space has reproduced the object with no imaging element of any kind. The middle profile, at half the Talbot distance, is the object shifted sideways by half a period, to 1.1e-14. At a quarter of the way the grating's own period has vanished entirely — its amplitude there is 1.3e-16 — because the odd orders have all turned by the same right angle and the even ones have not. With this grating open for half of each period there are no even orders either, so the plane is uniform: 9.6e-3 at twice the frequency as well, and a screen there shows no grating at all. None of this is interference between two beams; it is the whole spectrum of the object arriving with the phases exp(−iπλzm²/d²), which are all multiples of 2π when z is z_T.

    The grating that photographs itself

    Put a grating in a beam of light and hold a screen behind it. At one particular distance the screen shows the grating again — sharp, at full contrast, right way up, with no lens anywhere in the apparatus. Half way there it shows the grating shifted sideways by half a period. A quarter of the way there, a half-open grating shows nothing at all.

    part 4 · optics
  5. A caustic, by rays and by waves. The brightness across a fold caustic, computed two ways. Geometric optics gives the rising curve: on the illuminated side two rays arrive at every point and the intensity goes as the inverse square root of the distance from the caustic, so it becomes infinite exactly at it; on the other side no ray arrives at all and the intensity is zero. The wave answer is the squared Airy function, and it disagrees in three ways that are all observable. It is finite, peaking at 1.0188 in the scaled variable rather than at the caustic itself, so the brightest line is displaced onto the bright side. It oscillates, with maxima at -1.02, -3.25, -4.82, -6.16 — those are the supernumerary fringes, and they are not interference between two separate objects but between the two rays the caustic joins. And it leaks: on the dark side, where geometry forbids any light, the Airy function decays exponentially rather than stopping, which is the same mathematics as tunnelling and is why the edge of a shadow is soft before diffraction from any aperture is considered. The two curves agree far from the caustic, which is where the ray picture is a good approximation and where they have been matched here.

    The fringes below the rainbow

    Geometric optics puts the whole rainbow at one angle and predicts an infinite brightness there. What is seen instead is a peak displaced inside that angle, followed by a train of pink and green arcs — and their spacing is a measurement of the raindrops, because a caustic's structure is set by the wavelength to the two-thirds power over the drop radius to the two-thirds.

    part 5 · optics
  6. Rings whose radii go as the square root of their number. A 20-zone plate for 550 nanometres at 200 millimetres, drawn to scale, beside its zone radii against zone number. The outermost is 1.483 millimetres and the innermost 0.332, and the curve is a square root because the radii come from making each zone's extra path exactly half a wavelength longer than the last. The consequence worth noticing is on the drawing rather than in the formula: every ring has the same area, to 0.003 per cent, so each contributes about equally to what arrives on the axis and the rings get thinner outwards to keep it so. Alternate rings are opaque. Half the light is thrown away and the axis gets brighter, because what is thrown away is the half that would have arrived out of phase with the rest.

    The lens that is a set of rings

    A lens focuses by delaying the light at its centre until every path takes the same time. A zone plate does the opposite: it changes nothing about the light that gets through, and paints out the light that would have arrived out of step. Half the aperture is thrown away and the axis gets brighter, which sounds like a contradiction and is the whole idea.

    part 6 · optics
  7. The rings belong to the edge, not to the size. The far-field intensity of 3 apertures of the same width, against angle in units of the diffraction limit, on a logarithmic intensity axis spanning ten decades. They differ only in how the transmission falls off toward the rim. With a hard edge the first sidelobe is 13.3 decibels down and the core is 0.89 wide. With a Hann taper the first sidelobe is 31.5 decibels down and the core is 1.44 wide. With a Blackman taper the first sidelobe is 58.1 decibels down and the core is 1.64 wide. The hard edge's rings are not a defect of the optics and are not reduced by making it larger — they are the transform of a discontinuity, and the only way to remove them is to remove the discontinuity. What it costs is the width of the core, which is the resolution.

    The rings that belong to the edge

    Every account of diffraction so far asks what the size of an aperture does. The rings around a star are not about its size: they are the transform of a discontinuity, they do not shrink relative to the core when the telescope grows, and the only way to remove them is to stop the transmission falling to zero abruptly. Softening the edge buys forty-five decibels of contrast and costs eighty per cent of the resolution.

    part 7 · optics
  8. The peak that is lost to a fraction of a wave. The height of the central peak, relative to a perfect pupil of the same size, against the root-mean-square error of the wavefront in waves, for four kinds of error — each computed from the transform and each normalised to the same rms. The dashed curve is the usual approximation, the exponential of minus the square of two pi times the error. What the figure shows is that to a good approximation it does not matter WHAT the error is, only how large it is in the mean square: four quite different shapes of wavefront give nearly the same peak. A fourteenth of a wave leaves 80 per cent of the peak, which is the conventional definition of diffraction-limited, and it corresponds to a quarter of a wave peak-to-valley for a simple defocus — which is where Rayleigh's quarter-wave rule comes from and why it is a convention laid over a computed number rather than a threshold in the physics.

    How accurate a mirror has to be

    The pupil's amplitude decides the rings; its phase decides the peak. A wavefront error of a fourteenth of a wave root-mean-square leaves eighty per cent of the peak intensity, which is the whole of what 'diffraction-limited' means — a convention laid over a computed number. And the number barely depends on what the error is, only on how large: four quite different aberrations of the same magnitude give nearly the same answer.

    part 8 · optics

All series