Talk:Fraunhofer diffraction

message: Apologies, i wrote the fresnel case in here. Cheers for changing it over; i didn't notice until i came back just now.  J O  R D A N [talk ] 12:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: The history of the wave theory of light refers mostly to Grimaldi, Huygens, Young and Fresnel.  However we call single slit diffraction "Fraunhofer diffraction".  I have looked through Fraunhofer article on wikipedia but I fail to see where Fraunhofer fits in the history of diffraction and what he did to deserve the honor of having single slit diffraction named after him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pboudreau (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Fraunhofer did create the diffraction grating for the first accurate spectroscopy.  It's reasonable to assume he observed Fraunhofer diffraction in sharp spectral lines (you pass the light through a slit before shining it on the diffraction grating) and found that the same far-field math can explain both phenomena.  That's all a guess, though.  — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: Please, enlighten me. 129.173.133.235 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For example a dia film with a transmittance varying with position. Han-Kwang (t) 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can an aperture have a gaussian profile? 

message: I think the treatment of Fraunhofer diffraction is much more understandable using the methods of Fourier analysis. The fourier treatment in Goodman is excelent. I plan on switching this article over to proper analysis in the near future. Gfutia (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the content needs some updating. Like it is now, the explanation sounds a bit 19th century. I believe less importance should be put on slits and apertures. Fraunhoffer diffraction occurs with any wavefield distribution, not only these simple binary masks. According to me, the Fourier transform property should be mentioned in the very first paragraph.Pierre T. (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the Fraunhofer formula from Goodman. I know it's not explained at all, but I just wanted to get it in there. I'm a graduate student taking a course in Fourier Optics, something that largely discusses the Frunhofer regime. Time permitting, I'm going to try to update this article to make it more accessible. Gfutia (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that both treatments should be provided.   I have defined the variables in the equation provided and removed the constant term as I don't think it aids understanding.  I notice that all the comments here date from 2008, so maybe all that was promised has been done and undone again???? Epzcaw (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change over to Goodman 

message: The article gives a diagram showing Fresnel diffraction, but gives no diagram showing Fraunhofer diffraction.  The Fresnel diffraction diagram does not serve any explanatory purpose I can see. Surely the average well-informed reader will not get any useful idea of what a Fresnel diffraction pattern looks like from this highly abstract chart. P0M (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why a photo of Smith on a wanted poster for Jones? 

message: "...causing only the size of an observed aperture image to change..."
As opposed to what else changing? The possibilities can't be inferred without prior knowledge about optics. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only the size? 

message: I think there is a mix up between r1 and r2 in the equation section under the derivation of the fraunhofer. (Under the orange image). The first equation is wrong. The angle between b and r1 is pi/2 -theta therfore the sin(theta) in the following term should be negative. If you decide to look at the angle pi/2 + theta  which is the angle between  b and r2 than the equation should be for r1 on the left hand and r2 on the right hand (r1 and r2 need to switch places). Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't see how the derivation is correct 2A0D:6FC2:40A0:F600:5C54:4CEE:4D95:32D0 (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The derivation of the Frainhofer condition under the Equations section is wrong.