A radio-frequency antenna (such as a TV antenna) may be thought of semiquantitatively as an aperture with dimensions comparable to the physical dimensions (usually of the order of a wavelength). How far away from the antenna, expressed in wavelengths, must one be for the Fraunhofer case to be valid? Compare with the case for a pinhole of diameter \(0.1 \mathrm{~mm}\) for visible wavelengths.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Question: Compare the distance in wavelengths where the Fraunhofer case is valid for a radio-frequency antenna and a pinhole with a diameter of 0.1 mm for visible wavelengths. Answer: For the radio-frequency antenna, the distance required for the Fraunhofer case to be valid is much larger than the wavelength (L ≫ λ). For the pinhole with visible light, the distance depends on the ratio of the pinhole's diameter squared and the light's wavelength (L ≫ (0.1 * 10^(-3))^2 / λ).

Step by step solution

01

Fraunhofer condition for the radio-frequency antenna

We are given that the dimensions of the radio-frequency antenna are of the order of a wavelength, so let's denote that as \(D = \lambda\). Using the Fraunhofer condition, we have: $$ \frac{D^2}{L \lambda} \ll 1 \Rightarrow \frac{\lambda^2}{L \lambda} \ll 1. $$ Now, we can simplify and find \(L\) in terms of \(\lambda\): $$ \frac{\lambda}{L} \ll 1 \Rightarrow L \gg \lambda. $$ So, the distance for the Fraunhofer case to be valid for a radio-frequency antenna is much greater than its dimensions or wavelengths \(L \gg \lambda\).
02

Fraunhofer condition for the pinhole

Now, let's consider a pinhole of diameter \(0.1 \mathrm{~mm}\) for visible wavelengths. A typical visible wavelength \(\lambda\) lies roughly within the \(400\mathrm{~nm}\) to \(700\mathrm{~nm}\) range. So, given this information and the diameter of the pinhole is \(D = 0.1 \mathrm{~mm}\), we can use the Fraunhofer condition to calculate the distance \(L\) for the pinhole. $$ \frac{D^2}{L \lambda} \ll 1 \Rightarrow \frac{(0.1 \cdot 10^{-3})^2}{L \lambda} \ll 1. $$ We will consider the wavelength as \(\lambda = 500\mathrm{~nm}\) (a mid-value for visible light). In that case, we need to solve for \(L\): $$ \frac{(0.1 \cdot 10^{-3})^2}{L \cdot 500 \cdot 10^{-9}} \ll 1. $$
03

Compare both cases

For the radio-frequency antenna, we found that \(L \gg \lambda\), which means the distance required for the Fraunhofer case to be valid is much larger than the wavelength. In the case of the pinhole, the distance \(L\) depends on the specific value of the wavelength (visible light) and the diameter \(D\) of the pinhole, which we can express as: $$ L \gg \frac{(0.1 \cdot 10^{-3})^2}{\lambda}. $$ From these results, we can see that the distance required for the Fraunhofer case to be valid varies for different apertures, and it heavily depends on the dimensions and wavelengths being considered. For radio-frequency antennas, the required distance is much larger than the wavelength, whereas for pinholes working with visible light, it depends on the ratio of the pinhole's diameter squared and the light's wavelength.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Work out the theory of double-slit Fraunhofer diffraction when the two slits have different widths \(a_{1}=2 a_{2}\) and \(b\), the distance between slit centers, is \(4 a_{2}\).

Show that in the limit of many slits \((N \rightarrow \infty)\), the interference pattern in the vicinity of the principal maxima takes on the form of the single-slit diffraction pattern

Review the elementary arguments for discussing single-slit Fraunhofer diffraction by pairing up portions of the wavefront in the aperture that are \(180^{\circ}\) out of phase to show that (a) a null is observed when the slit may be divided into two equal portions such that $$ \frac{\delta}{2}=\frac{a}{2} \sin \theta=\frac{\lambda}{2} $$ Prob. 10.4.1 (b) Similarly, nulls result when the aperture is divided up into \(2 n\) portions such that $$ \frac{a}{2 n} \sin \theta=\frac{\lambda}{2} $$ where \(n\) is an integer; \((c)\) the secondary maxima occur approximately when the aperture is divided up into \(2 n+1\) portions such that $$ \frac{a}{2 n+1} \sin \theta=\frac{\lambda}{2} $$ and that the intensity of these maxima, relative to the principal maximum, is approximately $$ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2 n+1}\right)^{2} . $$ How do you justify the factor of \(\frac{1}{2}\) ?

Show that the spectroscopic resolving power of a grating has an upper limit of \(2 B / \lambda\), where \(B=N b\) is the width of the grating.

For the \(N\)-slit grating at normal incidence, devise elementary arguments, not involving integrals or a formal summation like \((10.7 .5)\), to show that (a) the principal interference maxima occur for $$ b \sin \theta_{0}=m \lambda $$ where \(m\) is an integer; \((b)\) the nulls adjacent to a particular principal maximum are displaced in angle from the maximum by \(\Delta \theta_{0}\) such that $$ \left(\frac{N}{2} b \cos \theta_{*}\right) \Delta \theta_{\varphi}=\pm \frac{\lambda}{2} $$ (c) hence, the resolving power is \(m N\).

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Physics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free