2.

2 ON THE NATURE OF LIGHT

The probe deeper into wave particle duality, we’re going to trip lightly through the history of
man’s evolving ideas about the nature of electromagnetic radiation. This overview need not be
comprehensive; you can find several excellent, more complete historical accounts in the suggested
readings list for this chapter.

Corpuscular theories of light, which treated light as though it were composed of particle, have
been batting around since the days of newton and laplace. But light has an irritating tendency to exhibit
distinctively non particle like behavior, such as diffraction and interference, which corpuscular theries
could not explain. Once Maxwell introduced his wave theory of electromagnetic radiation (in 1870) and
it became clear that this theory could beautifully explain such phenomena, most physicists abandoned
corpuscular theories of light.

According to Maxwell, all electromagnetic radiation light included consists of real waves
propagating through space, waves that carry energy distributed over continuous, non localized spherical
wave fronts. In the late 19th century, it seemed that maxwell’s theory could explaineven the most
complicated electromagnetic phenomena; so convincing were its successes that in 1886, the
distinguished physicist Heinrich Hert (1857-1894) uncle of gustav wrote; the wave theory of light is, from
the point of view of human beings, a certainty.”Hertz, as we shall see, was wrong”.

WALKING THE PLANK

It was Albert Einstein (1879-1955) who, in 1905, resurrected the notion that electromagnetic radiation is
particle like rather than wave like in nature. But where did this idea originate? Einstein has written that
the seeds of his 1905 theory were planted by research.

Carried out at the turn of the century by the german physicist max plank (1858-1947). Although
encouraged by his physics teacher to pursue a career as amusician. Plank persevered in physics. His
teacher’s advice was laosy; plankl’s studies of radiation insided a heated cavity led, via a line of
reasoninghe himself described as an “act of desperation.” To the concept of quantization of energy and
thenceto t5he birth of quantum physics.

Plank did not set out to revolutionize physics. Instead, following in the footsteps of his teacher G.
R. Kirchhhof (1824-1887), he sought to understand why hot bodies glow. This phenomenon, which is
called black body radiaton, may bbe familiar to you if you sculpt. Suppose you have crafted a clay pig. To
harden the clay, you fire the pig i.e., put it in a kiln (an oven) and heat to roughly 20000 F for about 10 to
20 hours. Suppose there is a tiny hole in the oven, too small admit light but large enough to see
through. At first, of course, you see darkness. But as the pig gets hotter and hotter, itr begins to glow.
As the temperature of the kiln further increases, this glow becomes orange, then yellow, then white,
and fills the oven, obliterating all detail of the pig. Why?

Plank formulated this question in slightly more abstract terms, asking; what is the spectrum, of
electromagnetic radiation inside a heated cavity? More speciafically; how does this spectrum depend on
the temperature T of the cavity. On its shape, size, and chemical makeup, and on the frequency v of the
electromagnetic radiation in it? By the time vPlamk got into the game, part of the answer was known.
Kirchhoff and others had shown that once the radiationin the cavity attains equilibrium with the wall,
the energy in the field depends on v and T but, surprisingly, is independent of physical characteristics of
the cavity such as its size, shape, or chemical composition.

The cavity, of course, encompasess a finite volume. Plank was interested in the radiative energy
inside the cavity, not on effects that depend on its volume, so he worked in terms of an energy density.
In particular, he sought an expression for the radiative energy density per unit volume 𝜌 (v, T). if we
multiply this quantity by an infinitesimal element of frequency, we obtain 𝜌 (v, T) dv, the energy per
unit volume in the radiation field with frequencies between v and v+dv at cavity temperature T.

Rather than confront the distracting complexties of a real heated cavity, Plank based his work on
a model originally introduced by his mentor Kirchhoff. Kirchhoff called his model of a heated cavity in
thermal equilibrium a “black-body radiator.” A black body is simply anything that absorbs all radiation
incident on it. Thus, a black-body radiator neither reflects nor transmits; it just absorbs or emits.

From the work of W. Wien (1864-1928), plang knew that the radiative energy density 𝜌 (v, T) for a
black body is proportional to v3 and, from the workof J. Stefan (1835-1893), that the integrated energy
𝑥
density ∫0 𝜌(𝑣. 𝑇)𝑑𝑣 is proportional to T4. But this information did not fully describe the dependence of
𝜌(𝑣. 𝑇) on v and T, experimental evidence implied a futher, unknown dependence on v/T.

Wien had actually proposedsan equation for the energy density of a black-body radiator, but the
theoretical foundation of his theory was shaky. Moreover, his equation worked only in certain
circumstances; it correctly explained the v and T dependence of 𝜌(𝑣. 𝑇) for low temperatures and high
frequencies. But it predicted that heated black bodies should emit a blue glow at all temperatures a
prediction confounded by our pig. Plank knew of this defect in wien’s theory, for experiments published
in 1901 by H. Rubens and F. kurlbaum, conclusively showed it to fail for high temperatures and low
frequencies.
2.3

Difraksi, yang pertama kali diamati oleh leonardo da vinci, sering

dianggap sebagai tanda gelombang. difraksi terjadi ketika riak-riak di kolam
menemukan sepasang batang kayu yang berdekatan. ketika cahaya melewati celah
sempit di tempat teduh jendela, atau ketika sinar-X tersebar dari kristal.
dalam setiap kasus, kita dapat menjelaskan pola khas yang terbentuk
menggunakan teori gelombang klasik. Pahami apa yang terjadi pada gelombang
ketika melewati celah kecil, pahami difraksi, dan Anda siap untuk memahami
perilaku gelombang dalam situasi yang lebih rumit. di bagian ini, saya akan
menyegarkan ingatan Anda tentang fenomena gelombang yang khas ini
suatu skema percobaan difraksi celah tunggal dengan cahaya diperlihatkan
dalam gambar. 2.1. cahaya monokromatik frekuensi v adalah kejadian pada
diafragma di mana ada celah tunggal lebar w. kita akan mengasumsikan bahwa
sumber cahaya jauh di sebelah kiri diafragin, sehingga radiasi insiden dapat
diwakili oleh gelombang bidang. lebar celah harus kecil dibandingkan dengan
panjang gelombang (lambda = c / v) dari radiasi jika celah ingin difraksi
lumayan cahaya; misalnya, untuk mendifraksi cahaya tampak cukup atas
mengamati fenomena ini, kita memerlukan celah lebar (w = 10-4 cm). cahaya
yang tersebar oleh diafragma jatuh pada detektor, seperti pelat foto atau
fotosel, yang terletak pada jarak D jauh ke kanan celah. detektor mengukur
energi yang dikirimkan oleh gelombang yang tersebar sebagai fungsi jarak x
dalam gambar. 2.1.

(gambar 2.1)
light scattered by the single slit diaphragm forms a beautiful
diffraction pattern at the detector. This pattern is characterized by a very
bright central band located directly opposite to the slit, surrounded by
series of alternating light and dark regions. The light regions on either
side of the central band are called secondary bands, because they are much
lerss intese than the central band. Indeed, the intensity of the secondary
bands drops off so dramatically on either side of the central band that omly
one pair of secondary bands is visible. Additional weak secondary bands
exist, though, as you can see in fig. 2.2, which is a graph of the intensity
measured by the detector. If we play around with the frequency control on the
light source and study the resulting diffraction.

(gam,bar 2.2)

Patterns, we, discover that the separation between adjacent bright bands
is proportional to the wavelength (lambda) of the incident radiation.
A classical physicist would call upon maxwell’s electromagnetic wave
theory to explain the pattern in fig. 2.2. to understand qualitatively what
happens when a plane wave passes though a diaphragm we invoke Huygen’s
principle, which lets us replace the plane wave and the slit (in our mind’s
eye) by a large number of closely spaced, discrete radiating charges that
fill the region of space where the slit is located. Scattered waves
radiated by different phases, so the superposition of these scattered waves
exhibits regions of high and low intensity, as in fig. 2.2.
To put this reasoning on a quantitive footing, we would first use
maxwell’s theory to drive an ezpression for the electric field at a point (r,
theta) on the detector (see fig. 2.1). but the quantity measured in this
experiment is not the electric field; it is the intensity the rate at which
the scattered radiation delivers energy to the detector. This quantity is
proportional to the time averaged energy flux i.e, to the average over one
period of the square of the modulus of the electric field. I’ll denote by
(Isingle (theta)) the intensity at a fixed value of r due to radiation scattered
by a single slit.
Omitting the details of the derivation of (Isingle (theta)), I’ll just
quote the result. For convenience, I’ll write the intensity in term of its
value I0 at the principal maximum i.e., at the point r = D,𝜃 = 0. In the
central peak in fig. 2.2. and the handy intermediate quantity

(rumus2.3)

Where, of course, ℷ is the wavelength of the incident radiation. With these definitions, the single-slit
intensity at fixed r is

(rumus 2.4)
The infinity (2.4) is graphed in fig. 2.2. as a function od w sin 𝜃; plotted this way. (Isingle (theta)
exhibits a characteristic pattern of equally spaced modes (Isingle (𝜃) =0).which
occur at.
(2.5a)
The principal (zeroth-order) maximum of the intensity pattern occurs at 𝜃=0,
and higher order maxima occur (approximately) at
(2.5b)
Equation (2.4) fully accounts for the properties of patterns such as the one in fig. 2.2. thus does
classical electromagnetic theory rend the veil of mystery from the phenomenon of diffraction

2.4 UNDERSTANDING INTERFERENCE

The theory of diffraction is the foundation for study of the double s;lit
interference experiment. When first performed in 1800 by Thomas young (1773-
1829), this experiment was considered definitive proof of the wafe nature of
light. We can modify the single slit apparatus of fig. 2.1 to suit young’s
experiment by simply cutting a second slid in the diaphragm.
As shown in fig. 2.3 the width of the second slit is the same as that of
the first w. we must position the second slit so that the two slits are
close together but not too close; for observable interference to occur, the
slit sepration s must be greater than w. again, we shine a beam of
monochromatic light of frequency v on the diaphragm and see what happens at
the detector, which is far to the right of the diaphragm.

(gambar 2.3)
This time, our detector shows an interference pattern like the one in
fig. 2.4. at first glance, this figure may look similar to the diffraction
pattern of fig. 2.2, but on closer examination we see striking differences.
For one thing ,the interference pattern exhibits more bright bands than the
diffraction pattern. This means that the energy of the radiation scattered
by the double slit diaphragm is more evenly distribusi than that scattered by
a single slit. (in the diffraction pattern about 90% of the energy appears in
the central. Finnaly, the individual bands in the interference patter, which
are called interference fringes, are narrover than those of the diffraction
pattern.
If we study how the interference pattern changes as we fiddle with the incident wavelengeth ℷ,
the slit separation s, and the slid width w. we discover that the separation between the bright bands
increases with increasing ℷ just as it did in the diffraction pattern, for wich the separation is proportional
to ℷ/w. but also we find a difference; the sepration in fig. 2.4. is independent of the slit width w but is
inversely proportional to the slit sepration s.

(gambar 2.4)

The key to understanding interference is superposition. When the incident plane wave encounters
the double slit diaphragm it splits and diffracted wave emerges from each slit. (in a sense, each slit
becomes a source of radiation that travels to the detector.) these waves add in the region between the
slit and the detector, and this device measures the intensity of their superposition.now, at the detector
the amplitudes of the electric fields of the diffracted waves are equal, but their phases are not.
conseqently, their superposition manifests regions of constructive and distructive interference, as seen
in fig. 2.4.

The trick to deriving an equation for the intensity measured in the double slit experiment which
we’ll call Idouble (𝜃) is there fore to add the electric fields of the waves diffracted by each slit. (this step is
legitimate because maxwell’s equation for these fields is linier.) having done so, we could calculate the
aforementioned phase difference and would find the field from the lower slit lags the field from the
upper slit by an amount (2πs/ℷ) sin 𝜃. The last step is to average the squared modulus of the total
electric field at a point (r, 𝜃) on the detector over one period, which yields

(2.6)

Now this, I would argue, is a curious result. For one thing. I0 in eq. (2.6) is the maximum intensity
we would obtainin the diffraction pattern of a single slit of width w i.e the very quantity I0 we used in Eq
(2.4). looking deeper, we find burriedin Eq (2.6) the single slit intensity Isingle (𝜃) . to unearth this
function, I’ll use the definition (2.4) of a and introduce yet another intermediate quantity

(2.7)

With these definitions the double slit intensity (2.6) stands revealed as

(2.8)

This analysis explains the complicated oscillations we see in Idouble (𝜃) as 𝜃 is varied (fig. 2.4)n. this
structure is compounded of two seprate oscillations, one due to the single slit intensity Isingle (𝜃) which
𝑛
depends on the slit width w but not, of course.on the sepration the other due to factor cos2 (π 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 ).
ℷ
The separation s of the two slits is greater than their width w, so the latter oscillation is the more rapid
of the two. In fact, the slower oscilation of the single slit intensity forms the envelope of the double slit
intensity, as you can see fig. 2.5.

(gambar 2.5)

The double slit pattern is more complicated than the single slit pattern. And, as you might expect,
even more elaborate interference patterns can be generated by using diaphragms with more than two
slits. But no matter how baroque the resulting patterns, they can be explained by maxwell’s
electromagnetic wave theory.

But wait! According to Einstein, a light beam consists of photons and therefore transports energy
in spatially-localized clumps with particle like properties. But no model based on particle dynamics can
explain interference os, for that matter, diffraction. The implications of our double slit experiment
appear to contradict Einstein’s theory of light.