FRESNEL DIFFRACTION

Empirical Testing of Fresnel Integrals and Cornu Spiral with

Rectangular Apertures
Sam Golightly (S 2671034) & Dan Iatco (S 2535130)
30 October 2017

University of Groningen
Physics Lab 4
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Theory ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Fresnel Diffraction in General ................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Fresnel Integrals and Fresnel Diffraction Around Rectangular Apertures .............................. 3
2.3 The Cornu Spiral ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.4 Fresnel Diffraction by a Single Slit........................................................................................... 6
2.5 Fresnel Diffraction by a Halfplane........................................................................................... 6
2.6 Fresnel Diffraction by a Narrow Obstacle (Wire) .................................................................... 6
3. Experimental Setup ......................................................................................................................... 7
4. Measurements and Results ............................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Fresnel Diffraction by a Single Slit........................................................................................... 8
4.2 Fresnel Diffraction by a Halfplane........................................................................................... 8
4.3 Fresnel Diffraction by a Narrow Obstacle (Wire) .................................................................... 9
4.4 Background and Unobstructed Radiation ............................................................................... 9
5. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Background Radiation ........................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Unobstructed Irradiance ....................................................................................................... 10
5.3 Single Slit Experiment ........................................................................................................... 10
5.4 Half-plane and Wire Experiments ......................................................................................... 11
6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 11
7. Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 12
8. Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 13

1
 Abstract
The goal of this experiment is to check whether the diffraction of light of a rectangular object can be
described with the aid of the Cornu-spiral of Fresnel integrals. An optical experimental setup with a
movable detector was used to perform measurements of Fresnel diffraction patterns. The measured
data was then processed by a Wolfram Mathematica notebook, where it was fit accordingly and thus
compared with theoretical predictions founded on the Fresnel integrals and Cornu spiral. The
measured data was well in line with the theoretical predictions and thus the hypothesis stated above
was verified with success, within reasonable error.

1. Introduction
Diffraction, defined in the 1600s by Francesco Grimaldi as the deviation of light from rectilinear
propagation, is a general attribute of wave phenomena whereby the amplitude or phase of the
wavefront changes upon meeting an obstacle. Fraunhofer diffraction is the special case where the
incoming light is assumed to be parallel and the image plane is assumed to be at a very large
distance compared to the diffracting object (the obstacle, as described above). Fresnel diffraction
refers to the general case where those restrictions are relaxed (HyperPhysics [2]).

2. Theory
2.1 Fresnel Diffraction in General
This makes it much more complex mathematically and requires a closer look at the Huygens-Fresnel
Principle, which is as follows: every unobstructed point of a wavefront, at a given instant, serves as
a source of spherical secondary wavelets (with the same frequency as that of the primary wave. The
amplitude of the optical field at any point beyond is the superposition of all these wavelets
(considering their amplitudes and relative phases) (Hecht, 1998 [3]). However, if each secondary
wavelet emitted radiation in every direction uniformly, there should also be a reverse wave traveling
back toward the source. This is, of course, not the case empirically which means an alteration in the
radiation pattern of said secondary emitters. The concept of obliquity or of an inclination factor is
thus introduced as a means to this goal and is expressed in the following form
1
() = 2 (1 + cos()) (1)
where is the angle made with the normal to the primary wavefront, k, as can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Secondary wavelets (Hecht, 1998 [3])

2
Consider now a spherical primary wavefront of an arbitrary wave, at an arbitrary time (assuming
emission at = 0) as in Figure 2 below. The disturbance, with radius , can be represented by the
following general harmonic expression
0
=
cos( ) (2)

We now define a ring-shaped differential area element , within which all point sources are
coherent and in phase with the primary wave, as seen in Figure 2. The contribution of the optical
disturbance at from the secondary emitters on is then defined as

=
cos[ ( + )] (3)
where is the obliquity factor and is the source strength of the secondary emitters per unit area.

Figure 2: Propagation of a spherical wavefront (Hecht, 1998 [3])

2.2 Fresnel Integrals and Fresnel Diffraction Around Rectangular Apertures

With these general considerations in mind, a specific class of problems within the domain of Fresnel
diffraction will be developed. This class of problems concerns the diffraction around rectangular
apertures but will be expanded to diffraction by a single slit, a half plane and a narrow obstacle, such
as a wire. Consider now Figure 3, where is an area element situated at some arbitrary point A
whose coordinates are (, ). The contribution to the optical disturbance at from the secondary
emitters on has the form given by equation (4), making use of the property regarding freely
propagating waves ( = 0 )
()0
=
cos[( + ) ] (4)
1 1
where () = 1 and = 0 0
for the case where the dimensions of the aperture are 0 , 0 .

3
 Figure 3: Fresnel diffraction at a rectangular aperture (Hecht, 1998 [3])

It can then be shown, through various manipulations and a change of variables, that the disturbance
at in the complex representation is
2 2
= 2( 0+ ) [(0 +0 )] 2 /2 2 /2 (5)
0 0 1 1
where the variables and are defined as follows:

2(0 +0 ) 1/2 2(0 +0 ) 1/2

[ ] [ ] (6)
0 0 0 0

The term in front of the integral(s) represents the unobstructed disturbance at divided by 2, which
we will now call /2. The integrals can be evaluated using two very significant functions, () and
(), where represents either or . The reason these functions are so significant in this case, is
that they represent the Fresnel integrals, which are at the centre of the goal of this experiment. They
are defined as follows:
2

() 0 cos ( 2
)
2

() 0 sin ( ) (7)
2
and they are of particular importance at this stage due to the following relation:
2 /2
0 = () + () (8)

The Fresnel integrals are well studied functions and, although require tough mathematical methods
to calculate, their numerical values are well tabulated. With this new and more compact
representation of the relative integrals, the disturbance at P can, once again, be rewritten as

= 2 [() + ()]21 [() + ()]21 (9)

For this experiment, the irradiance at is more useful to consider given the experimental setup and
the equipment available. The irradiance at is defined by /2, or more specifically
0
= 4
{[(2 ) (1 )]2 + [(2 ) (1 )]2 } {[(2 ) (1 )]2 + [(2 ) (1 )]2 } (10)
where 0 is the unobstructed irradiance at .

4
An interesting realisation can be made in the limiting case of free propagation, by allowing the
1
aperture dimensions to increase indefinitely. Making use of the fact that () = () = 2 and
1
() = () = 2, we see that the irradiance at , exactly opposite aperture is = 0 which
seems logical and perhaps obvious, and yet it is quite an impressive result given the many
approximations made in the long derivation (not made in this section).

2.3 The Cornu Spiral

Marie Alfred Cornu (1841-1902), a professor at the cole Polytechnique in Paris, created an elegant
geometrical representation of the aforementioned Fresnel integrals, known as the Cornu spiral,
which is a plot in the complex plane of the points () = () + (), with ranging from 0 to
. The Cornu spiral can be found in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The Cornu spiral (Hecht, 1998 [3])

Now, consider two points 1 () and 2 () on the Cornu spiral and the phasor 12 (), drawn from
1 () to 2 (), which is essentially just the complex number 2 () 1 ():
12 () = [() + ()]2
(11)
1
which is the first term in equation (9). The second term is find in the same way, replacing by . The
magnitudes of these two complex numbers are just the lengths of the appropriate 12-phasors. The
irradiance at is then simplified to the following form

=
0
12 ()|2 |
| 12 ()|2 (12)
4

5
 2.4 Fresnel Diffraction by a Single Slit
We can treat Fresnel diffraction at a single slit as an extension of the rectangular aperture problem
described in the previous section. We need only elongate the rectangle by allowing 1 and 2 to
move very far from . As the point of observation moves along the vertical axis, as long as the
horizontal boundaries at either end of the slit are still essentially at infinity, 2 = , 1 = , and
thus the irradiance at point is

=
0
12 ()|2
| (13)
2

and the pattern is independent of .

2.5 Fresnel Diffraction by a Halfplane

We can see the Fresnel diffraction around a halfplane by first considering the halfplane as a semi-
infinite planar opaque screen by removing one of the halves (left or right) of the single slit. This is
done simply enough, by letting 1 = 1 = 2 = . Since 1 = 1 = and 2 = , the irradiance
at point for the halfplane situation is
0 1 1
= 2
{[(2 ) 2]2 + [(2 ) 2]2 } (14)

and the pattern is, once again, independent of . Interesting to note is that, when the point is

directly opposite the edge of the halfplane, 2 = 0, (0) = (0) = 0, and = 40 . This is to be
expected since the wavefront is obstructed, the amplitude of the disturbance is halved and thus the
irradiance is quartered.

2.6 Fresnel Diffraction by a Narrow Obstacle (Wire)

Consider again the description of the single slit above and then think about the complementary case
in which the slit is opaque, and the screen transparent. For the purpose of this experiment, we look
at the case of a vertical opaque wire. At a point directly opposite the wire's centre, there will be two
separate contributing regions extending from 1 to and from 2 to . On the Cornu spiral, these
correspond to two arc lengths from 1 to the theoretical centre of the left spiral and from 2 to the
corresponding centre of the upper right spiral. The amplitude of the disturbance at a point on the
plane of observation is the magnitude of the vector sum of the two phasors explained above, which
after some manipulation yields an irradiance at point for a narrow obstacle or wire in this case of

=
0
|1 + 12 ()|2
(15)
2

6
 3. Experimental Setup
The experimental setup consists of a He-Ne laser source (with a wavelength of 632nm), a spatial
filter composed of a convex lens with a very small focal length (approximately 1mm) and a pinhole
for the converged light to pass through, an aperture (slit, half-plane or wire) and a movable detector
powered by a motor. The setup is depicted schematically in Figure 5. Subsequently, the detector is
connected to a computer where, with the help of the Fresneldiffractionmeasurement (USA11)
programme, the data is gathered and saved in text format.

The slit used for this experiment had a width of = 0.9mm and the wire had a width of =
0.5mm. The distance from the aperture to the detector was set to 80cm.

Figure 5: Schematic representation of Fresnel diffraction setup (taken from ref [1]).

4. Measurements and Results

The data gathered by the detector was not extremely useful at the moment of acquisition. To add
some certainty to the measurement data, the data was processed with the aid of a Wolfram
Mathematica script (briefly described in the Appendix) supplied by Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, to
obtain a suitable fit for the raw data.

In the following subsections, the patterns observed by the detector are presented, as well as the
relevant fits for the three scenarios described in the experimental setup. The residuals relevant to
each pattern are also presented as well as a list of the parameters that influenced the various
patterns. The shaded area on each of the plots is a representation of the shadow of the obstacle
relative to the specific diffraction. The patterns are plotted as a voltage in mV on the vertical axis
versus a distance in mm on the horizontal axis.

7
4.1 Fresnel Diffraction by a Single Slit

Table 1: Parameters for single slit Fresnel diffraction.

Variable Input Fitted

Offset 7.9mm 7.8mm
Width 0.9mm 0.9mm
Background radiation -0.88mV -0.79mV
Unobstructed irradiance 3.18mV 3.95mV
Distance source-aperture 65mm 69.6mm

Figure 6: (left) diffraction from single slit (black=measured data; red=fitted data), (right) fit residuals

4.2 Fresnel Diffraction by a Halfplane

Table 2: Parameters for halfplane Fresnel diffraction

Variable Input Fitted

Offset 3mm 4.5mm
Width 0mm 0mm
Background radiation -0.88mV -0.83mV
Unobstructed irradiance 3.18mV 4.38mV
Distance source-aperture 65mm 69.4mm

Figure 7: (left) diffraction from halfplane (black=measured data; red=fitted data), (right) fit residuals

8
 4.3 Fresnel Diffraction by a Narrow Obstacle (Wire)

Table 3: Parameters for wire Fresnel diffraction

Variable Input Fitted

Offset 7mm 6.8mm
Width 0.3mm 0.15mm
Background radiation -0.88mV -0.74mV
Unobstructed irradiance 3.18mV 3.14mV
Distance source-aperture 65mm 68.7mm

Figure 8: (left) diffraction from wire (black=measured data; red=fitted data), (right) fit residuals

4.4 Background and Unobstructed Radiation

The background radiation and unobstructed irradiance were measured once and were constant for
all 3 measurements. Below in Figure 9 are plots of the unobstructed intensity on the left and the
background radiation on the right. The horizontal scale is again distance in mm and the vertical one
voltage in mV. The mean value for the unobstructed Intensity was found to be approximately 3.18
mV and the value taking into account the background radiation was found to be -0.88mV using the
Wolfram Mathematica workbook.

Figure 9: (left) unobstructed irradiance 0 , (right) background radiation

9
 5. Discussion
The patterns obtained during this experiment from Fresnel light diffraction around various apertures
are close to the theoretical patterns predicted by the Fresnel integrals. The minor deviations arise
from the inevitable errors that occur during the measurement process; it is practically impossible to
get a pattern perfectly in line with the theoretical predictions. However, various tweaks in the
measurement process could lead to more accurate results:

1. The room must be completely dark during data acquisition;

2. The detector could be better calibrated to ensure less unnecessary noise;
3. The elements of the setup (laser source, lens and pinhole) have to be as parallel to each
other as possible to get a clear beam of light;
4. The lens should be clean, with as little dust on it as possible;
5. The intensity of the beam produced by the pinhole should be constant over the screen, the
larger the area with constant intensity, the better;
6. A good detector can spot even single photons and taking into consideration that an
individual also reflects light in a scattered manner, a last act of caution would be to restrain
yourself from walking around the light beam and detector.

5.1 Background Radiation

During the background radiation check, there was no source of light in the room except for a
computer screen, which was turned away from the detector such that no light falls on it. The
background radiation turned out to be negative with a value of -0.87mV, which is not as bizarre as it
might seem. This negative value can be explained by a steady voltage in the circuitry of the detector,
a result of improper calibration of the apparatus. The time period in which the background radiation
was measured wasnt chosen too long since it did not exhibit high deviations from the chosen mean
value.

5.2 Unobstructed Irradiance

The unobstructed irradiance 0 was found to be 3.18mV, albeit with a fair amount of variation.
Recalling Figure 9(left), one can see that the intensity falls off at the edges of the plot. This is due to
the area of the pattern being relatively small, in such a way that the detector could travel from edge
to edge, where the intensity of the beam was weaker. Moreover, there are a few points that are
quite far off when looking at the spread of the other positions in the irradiance plot, which is quite
peculiar. The pinhole was producing some interference if not well adjusted, meaning that there was
a possibility that the phases of some wavefronts interfered constructively, causing a series of narrow
peaks. This discrepancy could also be explained by a larger random error inherent to the device, but,
after studying the diffraction patterns, the former explanation seems more likely.

5.3 Single Slit Experiment

A plot of the diffracted pattern is shown along with its residuals in the results section. The residuals
are not the errors in our case, but the deviation of the fit from the measured data. The fitted
function is not the true wave function, but merely a close approximation. It is still a valid wave
function, but for a different diffraction pattern that can be achieved by varying the parameters given
in the previous section. Arguably, the measured pattern is not an exact representation of the
phenomenon but a good approximation, due to the low resolution of the detector and the intrinsic
random error of the measurement process.

10
In the single slit diffraction plot, we see once more a fall in the intensity on the right side and it
happened for the same reason explained previously: the slit was placed with the left edge in the
area with the highest intensity and the right edge in the area where the intensity was decreasing.

The maximums can also be observed as having an intensity higher than 0 , and minimums lower than
0 , which is what we expected to see, since some waves are out of phase and destructively interfere
with each other. Others, however, are in phase and interfere constructively with each other resulting
in higher intensities (and thus higher peaks).

5.4 Half-plane and Wire Experiments

There is not much to add about the other 2 apertures. The diffraction pattern of the half-plane looks
clear and converges to the value of 0 , as it should. There are more residuals in the right part of the
plot since the edge of the halfplane was situated to the left of the point of highest intensity and
therefore the measured data has a slightly higher value in that region. In the case of the wire, the
local maximum in the middle of the pattern is due to some waves not fully cancelling each other out.
It is likely that this peak comes from a bright spot that could not be detected by the naked eye, but
that could be detected faintly by the detector.

6. Conclusion
The results presented in this report firmly suggest that the initial hypothesis of this experiment is
true. The patterns acquired from the measured data show a stark agreement with the theoretical
approximation based on Fresnel integrals and the Cornu spiral. Small variations and deviations
between the theoretical fits and measured data are not excessive and most likely due to the
alignment issues of the experimental setup as well as the limited capabilities of the detector. Thus,
the goal of this experiment, namely to prove that the diffraction of light of a rectangular object can
be described with the aid of the Cornu spiral of Fresnel integrals, was successfully achieved within a
reasonable margin of error.

11
 7. Bibliography

[1] RUG Fresnel Diffraction Manual, 2015.

[2] HyperPhysics, Fresnel Diffraction, accessed 29 October 2017 at {http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/fresnelcon.html}.

[3] E. Hecht, Optics, Third Edition, Addison-Wesley, 1998.

12
 8. Appendix

Global Parameters

Enter below the value for the distance aperture to detector. Both constants below will not be fitted and so are
global parameters. Also enter your working directory where the experimental files (*.txt) are located. Execute
the code block.

DisApDet = 1100 ;(* Distance Aperture Detector [mm]*)

Lambda = 632.80 ;(* wavelength of the light [nm]; defined for a He-Ne laser *)

SetDirectory[

"C:\\Data\Fresnel"];(* use double slash for directory separation, i.e. \\ *)

Aperture type

Below are code blocks defining the code to fit different kinds of apertures.

Execute one of the code blocks below, depending on if you will fit the data for a Slit, a Halfplane or a Wire.

Slit

fitfunc[Offset_, Slitwidth_, DarkI_, UnperturbedI_, DisLightsourceAp_,

DisApDet_, x_] :=

Module[{v, deltav, v1, v2, arraypos1, arraypos2, fb, fe, fbC, feC, fbS, feS},

v = N[(x - Offset)*1000.0*

Sqrt[N[(2.0*DisLightsourceAp)/(DisApDet*

Lambda*(DisLightsourceAp + DisApDet))]]];

deltav = N[

Slitwidth*

Sqrt[N[(2.0*(DisLightsourceAp + DisApDet)/(DisLightsourceAp/1000.0*DisApDet/1000.0*Lambda))]]];

v1 = N[v - (deltav*0.5)];(* begin point of the cornuspiral.*)

v2 = N[v1 + deltav];(* end point of the cornuspiral. *)

arraypos1 = IntegerPart[Abs[v1]*1000 + 1];

arraypos2 = IntegerPart[Abs[v2]*1000 + 1];

fbC = FresnelC[v1];

13
fbS = FresnelS[v1];(* begin point of the vector of the cornuspiral.*)

feC = FresnelC[v2];

feS = FresnelS[v2];(* end point of the vector of the cornuspiral. *)

((fbC - feC)^2 + (fbS - feS)^2)/2*UnperturbedI + DarkI]; flag = 1;

Halfplane

fitfunc[Offset_, Slitwidth_, DarkI_, UnperturbedI_, DisLightsourceAp_,

DisApDet_, x_] :=

Module[{v, deltav, v1, v2, arraypos1, arraypos2, fb, fe, fbC, feC, fbS, feS},

v = N[(x - Offset)*1000.0*

Sqrt[N[(2.0*DisLightsourceAp)/(DisApDet*

Lambda*(DisLightsourceAp + DisApDet))]]];

fbC = -0.5;

fbS = -0.5;

feC = FresnelC[v];

feS = FresnelS[v];

((fbC - feC)^2 + (fbS - feS)^2)/2*UnperturbedI + DarkI]; flag = 2;

Wire

fitfunc[Offset_, Slitwidth_, DarkI_, UnperturbedI_, DisLightsourceAp_,

DisApDet_, x_] :=

Module[{v, deltav, v1, v2, arraypos1, arraypos2, fb, fe, fbC, feC, fbS, feS},

v = N[(x - Offset)*1000.0*

Sqrt[N[(2.0*DisLightsourceAp)/(DisApDet*

Lambda*(DisLightsourceAp + DisApDet))]]];

deltav = N[

Slitwidth*

Sqrt[N[(2.0*(DisLightsourceAp + DisApDet)/(DisLightsourceAp/1000.0*

DisApDet/1000.0*Lambda))]]];

v1 = N[v - (deltav*0.5)];

v2 = N[v1 + deltav];

arraypos1 = IntegerPart[Abs[v1]*1000 + 1];

arraypos2 = IntegerPart[Abs[v2]*1000 + 1];

14
fbC = FresnelC[v1];

fbS = FresnelS[v1];

feC = FresnelC[v2];

feS = FresnelS[v2];

((1 + fbC - feC)^2 + (1 + fbS - feS)^2)/2*UnperturbedI + DarkI]; flag = 3;

Data

Now that the fitting function is defined, as well as the global parameters that will not be fitted (lambda and
distance aperture-detector), the background intensity and intensity without aperture (called the "unperturbed
intensity") present will be plotted for visual inspection, as well as the data.

Unperturbed intensity distribution

Below, enter the file names for your measurement and the pdf to be saved (examples given) and execute the
code.

data = Import["Nolasermeasurement.txt", "Table"][[2 ;;]];

Show[ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black}, PlotRange -> All],

ListLinePlot[data, PlotStyle -> Red, PlotRange -> All]]

Export["WithoutDiffraction.pdf",

ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black}, PlotRange -> All,

ImageSize -> 300, AxesLabel -> {"Distance (mm)", "Voltage (mV)"}]]

Background intensity distribution

Below, enter the file names for your measurement and the pdf to be saved (examples given) and execute the
code.

data = Import["Backgroundmeasurement.txt", "Table"][[2 ;;]];

Show[ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black}, PlotRange -> All], ListLinePlot[data, PlotStyle -> Red,
PlotRange -> All]]

Export["WithoutLaserOn.pdf",

ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black}, PlotRange -> All,

ImageSize -> 300, AxesLabel -> {"Distance (mm)", "Voltage (mV)"}]]

Measurement

15
Now make sure your measurements are saved with file names exp1, exp2, ...., expn so that you can select it
below by setting the "measurement" counter.

Enter the directory that the files are located in below and run the code.

measurement = 3;

data = Import["exp" <> ToString[measurement] <> ".txt", "Table"][[2 ;;]];

Xmin = data[[1]][[1]];

Xmax = data[[-1]][[1]];

(*data=Table[{data\[LeftDoubleBracket]i,1\[RightDoubleBracket],data\\[LeftDoubleBracket]Length[data]+1-
i,2\[RightDoubleBracket]},{i,1,\

Length[data]}];*)

Show[ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black},

PlotRange -> All],

ListLinePlot[data, PlotStyle -> Blue, PlotRange -> All]]

(*Export["HalvePlaneData.pdf",ListPlot[data,PlotStyle\[Rule]{\PointSize[0.005],Black},PlotRange -
>All,ImageSize-> 300,AxesLabel-> {"d(mm)","U(mV)"}]]*)

If the measurement is of a half-plane, the "bright" side (the oscillations) should be on the right. If this is not the
case, run the code below.

length = Dimensions[data][[1]];

data = Table[{data[[i]][[1]], data[[length + 1 - i]][[2]]}, {i, 1, length}];

Show[ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.005], Black}, PlotRange -> All],

ListLinePlot[data, PlotStyle -> Blue, PlotRange -> All]]

16