4
$\begingroup$

As per http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/AiryDisk.html, let the intensity distribution given by diffraction around a circular aperture be proportional to:

$I(r) \propto [\frac{J_1(r)}{r}]^2$

Where $J_1(r)$ is a Bessel function of the first kind. We can rotate this curve to generate a two-dimensional Airy disk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airy-3d.svg.

My question is as follows: the "diffraction limit" tells us that if we shine a light through two circular apertures that are separated by less than approximately half the wavelength of the light being emitted from the apertures ($\approx \frac{\lambda}{2}$), it becomes impossible for an observer from afar to tell how many circular point sources of light there are, and/or where they are.

My intuition is this rule is more a statement that, due to noise and detector statistics, one simply can't determine intensity profiles to the requisite resolution to allow for determination of the number, position, and respective intensities of the point sources being summed together.

So, with only a finite collection of point sources, is it possible to engineer a "conspiracy" where, provided perfect information about the intensity profile of one or more point sources of light being summed together, one cannot determine the intensity and location of each point source? In other words, can we find a way to overlay and sum the intensities of a finite collection of Airy disks (or more simply Gaussian curves) s.t. information is lost about the curves being summed together?

Edit - I don't mean above that we simply "sum" the intensities of the Airy disks. There will be diffraction between the point sources in the eyes of the observer. Still, it is not at all clear to me that information can be lost due to a conspiracy of point source arrangements and intensities.

Edit 2 - Carlo Beenakker provided a very nice answer to this question in the case of coherent point sources of light, but can information be lost in the manner described if the point sources are incoherent?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Consider the transmission function $T(x,y)$, equal to unity when $(x,y)$ is inside an aperture and equal to zero outside. (The apertures lie on a screen in the $x,y$ plane, and I am assuming monochromatic plane wave illumination with wave number $k$, so that the wave has the same phase at each aperture and $T$ is real. More generally, the transmission function contains both amplitude and phase information.)

The far-field ( Fraunhofer ) diffraction pattern $D(x,y)$ (on a screen at some large distance $L$ from the source) is given by the two-dimensional Fourier transform

$$D(x,y)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx'\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dy' T(x',y')\exp\left(-i\frac{k}{L}(x'x+y'y)\right)$$

An inverse Fourier transform of $D$ then uniquely determines the transmission function $T$, and hence the location and size of the apertures.

Note that for this inversion it is essential that both the amplitude and the phase of the diffracted wave are measured.

The classic application of this inversion is the identification of a crystal structure from electron diffraction: the atoms of the crystal can be considered as a collection of point sources, and their location is reconstructed from the diffraction pattern.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't the Fourier inversion theorem require us to have coherent sources of light? $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2013 at 12:49
  • $\begingroup$ certainly: incoherent light will not give you a diffraction pattern. $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2013 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ And if we assume the light is incoherent, I can assume then that it is possible to lose information about the position and intensity of the point sources? $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2013 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ not in the far field --- just consider a single aperture: without diffraction the far-field intensity profile contains no information on the size of the aperture, that is all contained in the diffraction pattern which is lost for an incoherent source; with partial coherence, of course, some information can be reconstructed, but not for fully incoherent illumination. $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2013 at 20:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.