Newton's and Fresnel's Diffraction Experiments The Continuation of Newton's Diffraction
Experiments Diffraction of Light at Slit and Hindrance InterferenceAngle Condition, Diffraction and
Imagery Diffraction One After Another and with
Intermediate Imagery Diminishing of Frequency of Light after
Diffraction Inner and Outer DiffractionFringes at
Circular Openings Superposition of Interference and Diffraction Diffraction Experiments with Inhomogeneous
Illumination Experiments with Polarized Light at Slit and
DoubleSlit The Background of DiffractionFigures Trial for Interpretation of Newton's Diffraction
Experiments Consequences for Photons out of Newton's
Diffraction Experiments Consequences for Structure of Electrons out of
that of Photons The Thermally Conditioned Electromagnetic Field Diffraction and LightEmission of Electrons EnergySteps of Electrons in Magnetic EigenField Faraday's Electrotonic States NearField Optics with Regard to Newton's
DiffractionExperiments Consideration of Magnetic Moment of Electron
in Quantum Theories 

InterferenceAngle Condition, Diffraction and Imagery
The so called coherencecondition contains a geometrical relation, where the angle to (conventionally) lightsource has to be smaller than to interval of diffractionfringes. Here an action of order of radiation does not exist, therefore the name interferenceangle condition is offered. In Fraunhofer's manner of observation also inner diffractionfringes of slit appears outside the focalplane. At parallel incident light in distance of double focal length with and without optics the same diffraction figures with inner and outer fringes arise, only the figure is inverted with optics. Interferenceangle condition and Abbe's theory of imagery complete one another in microscopic imagery. Figure 1. Schematic drawing of lightsource and doubleslit for derivation of the coherencecondition. L  lightsource of the extend X; S  doubleslit with the spacing d; P  photoplate with the first diffraction maximum in the spacing Y; Θ  half apertureangle; α diffractionangle.. Figure 2. The positions of the maxima of inner and outer diffractionfringes between single and double focallength. 135 mm  single focallength, 270 mm  double focallength, ο maxima of inner fringes, •  outer fringes. The outermost appearances of inner diffractionfringes mark the shadow  limit. Figure 3. Photometercurves or diffractionfigures of a slit with a width of 0.6 mm. Illuminationslit 0.001 mm, tessar f' = 135 mm as collimator. a: without farther optics in 140 mm distance, b: with a lens f' = 140 mm in 140 mm distance. Figure 4. Diffractionfigure of the triangularslit in double focallength. A superpressure mercurylamp HBO 100 with greenfilter and condenser that illuminated a holediaphragm 0.1 mm, in 1 m distance stood a lens f' = 1 m, behind that a triangularslit 0 . . .3 mm that was so parallel illuminated. Behind: a: Tessar 1 : 2.8, f'= 50 mm, diffractionfigure in 100 mm distance, b: Objective removed, diffractionfigure in 100 mm distance. Figure 5. As figure 4. a: Tessar 1:4.5, f'= 135 mm, diffractionfigure in 270 mm distance, b: Objective removed, diffractionfigure in 270 mm. Figure 6. As figure 4. a: Achromat 1 : 8, ft = 320 mm, diffractionfigure in 640 mm distance. b: Objective removed, diffractionfigure in 640 mm distance. DiscussionThe analogy to waterwaves suggested former to accept light with orderstates or phaserelations. Already Maxwell [30] considered light electromagnetic disturbance, but he calculated also with waves. With help of interferenceangle condition could be shown that there the waveinterpretation of the so called coherencecondition never was necessary for it is explicable pure geometrically. At diffraction with imagery is to respect that inner and outer diffractionfringes of slit show another dependence of distance. As generally known grow intervals of outer fringes linear with distance, photons run here rectilinearly. Differently there are the dependence of the inner fringes of slit or diffractionfringes of the halfplane. Here Fresnel [19] found experimentally an other behaviour. It will do to consider parallel incident light, where intervals of diffractionfringes grow only with the root of distance (more exactly by Nieke [24]). Newton [20] concluded out of transition from inner to outer fringes at triangularslits that lightparticle have to run eellike. By Nieke [22], [23] and [24] the shadowside bent light is displaced shadowside for it seams to come from the slitjaw, photons have to run in an Scurve. So it is sure that diffraction and imagery are to describe differently by inner and outer diffractionfringes. In section 5 are described specialcases. Panarella [31] examined the nonlinearity of photomultipliers at smallest intensity. He used the diffractionfigure of a small holediaphragm and he found their fringes blurred by smallest intensity. He diminished the intensity of light with neutraldensityfilters that are so arranged in opticalpath that they could reduce the interferenceanglecondition as result of scattering in this filter. Hereupon could hint the blurred fringes. Jeffers, Wadlinger and Hunter [32] confirmed this result with a small slit instead holediaphragm, but they used the same apparatus with diminishing by densityfilters. Therefore here is to prove that this was no effect of reducing of interferenceangle condition. References[1] M. E. Verdet, Ann. Sci. L'École Norm. Super. (Paris) 2 (1865) 291. [2] E. Berge, Math. naturwiss. Unterricht 27 (1974) 326. [3] W. Arkadiew, Phys. Z 14 (1913) 832. [4] P. H. Cittert, Physica 1 (1934) 201. [5] F. Zernicke, Physica 5 (1938) 785. [6] S. I. Wawilow, Die Mikrostruktur des Lichtes. AkademieVerlag, Berlin 1954, S. 62, 76 u. 84. [7] G. T. Reynolds, K. Spartalian u. D. E. Scarl, Nuovo chim. 61 B (1969) 355. [8] P. A. M. Dirac, Die Prinzipien der Quantenmechanik. Hirzel, Leipzig 1930. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Clarendon Press Oxford 1935, 1947, 1958. [9] P. L. Kapitza u. P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 28 (1933) 297. [10] H. Schwarz, Z. Phys. 204 (1967) 276; Phys. Bl. 26 (1970) 436. [11] G. Magyar u. L. Mandel, Nature 198 (1963) 255. [12] G. Richter, W. Brunner u. H. Paul, Ann. Physik (7) 14 (1964) 239. [13] R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963) 2529; 131 (1963) 2766. [14] J. F. Vinson, Optische Kohärenz. WIB 85, AkademieVerlag Berlin, Pergamon Press, Oxford, Vieweg Braunschweig 1971. [15] H. Nieke, Exp. Techn. Physik 31 (1983) 53. [16] E. Schrödinger, Ann. Physik (IV) 61 (1920) 69.v [17] A. Einstein, Phys. Z. 18 (1917) 121. [18] E. Schrödinger, Nature and the Greeks. Univ. Press Cambridge 1954; Die Natur und die Griechen. Rowohlt Nr. 28, Hamburg 1956, S. 35. [19] A. J. Fresnel, Oeuvre Complétes I. Paris 1866; Abhandlungen über die Beugung des Lichtes. Ostwalds Klassiker Nr. 215, Engelmann, Leipzig 1926. [20] I. Newton, Opticks, or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. London 1704.Opera quae extant omnis, Tom IV, London 1782; Optik II +III. Übers. W. Abendroth, 0stwald's Klassiker Nr. 97. Engelmann, Leipzig 1898; Neuauflage Bd 96/97, Vieweg, Braunschweig 1983; Optique, Trac. J. P. Marat 1787; Bourgois, Paris 1989 [21] J. v. Fraunhofer, Gesammelte Schriften. Verl. bayr. Akad. München 1888. [22] H. Nieke, Newtons Beugungsexperimente und ihre Weiter führung. Halle 1997, Comp. Print 1, Arbeit 1 (vorhanden in vielen Deutschen Universitätsbibliotheken) Newton's Diffraction Experiments and their Continuation. Halle 1997, comp. print 3, paper 1 (available in some university libraries). [23] As [22], paper 2. [24] As [22], paper 3. [25] F. Zernicke, Physica 9 (1942) 686. [26] F. T. S. Yu, in Ed. F. Wolf: Progress in Optics XXIII (1986) 222. [27] K. Pietsch u. E. Menzel, Optik 12 (1955) 203. [28] W. Messerschmidt, Optik 12 (1955) 297. [29] E. Menzel, W. Miradé u. I. Weinberger, Fourieroptik und Holographie. Springer, Wien u. New York 1973, quotation in foreword. [30] J. C. Maxwell, The scientific papers. Cambridge 1890; Hrsg. L. Boltzmann, Über physikalische Kraftlinien. Ostwalds Klassiker Nr. 102, Engelmann, Leipzig 1898. [31] E. Panarella, Speculations Sci. Techn. 8 (1985) 35. [32] S. Jeffers, R. Wadlinger a. G, Hunter, Can. J. Phys. 69 (1991) 1471.


© 2006 by tediamedia • info@gebeugteslicht.de 