Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
6 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LoverOfPi
2 years ago

No, the number of maxima is limited.

Kelec
2 years ago
Reply to  LoverOfPi

I wouldn’t think of driekt what would limit the number of maxima directly. At some point, the wave is just so small that it would no longer be detectable, but this is rather a measuring technical reason why the number is limited and cannot be directly derived from mathematics if one does not model the receiver.

Wechselfreund
2 years ago
Reply to  Kelec

Make a sketch. The interference is due to the difference in gear, which here must be an integer multiple of the wavelength.

The path difference becomes the greater the further one tilts the beam path. But it’s close at 90°.

Figure here

https://www.leifiphysik.de/optik/beuge-und-interference/ task/formel-zur-bestimmung-von-wellenlaengen-mit-dem-double gap

LoverOfPi
2 years ago
Reply to  Kelec

I think it’s about the formula

sin(a)=k*wavelength/b.

Let us assume a roof once b as 0.001m, the wavelength of light is 650*10^-9m

It shall apply:

(a)=(650*10^-9m)/(0.001m)*k. a is limited to 90°. It can’t go higher. If you now set a k of, for example, 1600, an angle is no longer possible with which the light can pass the gap.

Kelec
2 years ago

Oh, yes, the maximum distance is increasing. It was a mistake.

Kelec
2 years ago

Yes at 90°, but how do you want to reach 90°? As long as the screen is finally smaller than 90°.