You may change your mind as often as you wish. When you are satisfied with your responses, click the SUBMIT button at the bottom of this page. Don't submit more than once. (If you absolutely HAVE to resubmit it, put a note on the end to that effect.)
Rayleigh, who is given the credit for explaining why the sky is blue, also suggested that because diffraction blurs any point source, we can't tell if there's two stars or one star unless we can find a "dip" in the intensity between the two stars. So if we use the "single slit" difraction pattern for each star, the dip disappears when the stars are theta < 1.22 lambda/aperture apart, where lambda is the wavelength of light and aperture is the size of the circular lens/mirror/pinhole we are using to take pictures with. It turns out that Rayleigh was wrong, in the sense that modern computers CAN tell that there are two stars there, even when they are closer than that. Which of the following IS NOT an explanation for this?
A circular aperture is "blurrier" than some other shape, like a square.
A computer can fit thousands of possible combinations to the shape, and find the 2-star combination that fits best (Forward modelling).
A computer can invert the data using Fast Fourier Transform to "undo" diffraction (Reverse modelling).
Computers can be more precise than human vision.
In Problem 1, I asked how the relationship between separation of the double slits and wavelength changed the number or spacing of the diffraction pattern. You can do the same thing with this physlet, though there is a more limited range of fringes available, so pick something in the middle, say 7 fringes and find the relationship between wavelength and slit width. How is this answer different/same as that in problem 1?
You may change your mind as often as you wish. When you are satisfied with your responses, click the SUBMIT button.
I received no help from anyone on this assignment.
