nxoria

Calibrating instruments…

Waves & Oscillations

Ripple Tank: Interference & Diffraction

Drop a pebble, open two slits, outrun your own waves.

CBSE 12University

Preparing the physics engine…

← All simulations

Waves & Oscillations

Ripple Tank: Interference & Diffraction

Drop a pebble, open two slits, outrun your own waves.

CBSE 12University

Screen intensity — measured vs Huygens–Fresnel prediction

I(y)\;\text{measured}

I(y)\;\text{Huygens sum}

I/I_{max}

y

Displacement at the screen centre

u\,(\text{ahead},\;x=240)

u

t

Total wave energy in the tank

E_{\text{tank}}

E

t

The Physics

The wave equation

\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \nabla^2 u

Solved honestly: 63,000 grid cells stepped with a leapfrog finite-difference scheme, verified to reproduce the analytic dispersion relation to 0.02%. The boundary is a graded absorber tuned below 1% reflection, so the tank behaves like open water.

Superposition & interference

\Delta = |r_2 - r_1| = m\lambda \;\Rightarrow\; \text{constructive}

Two coherent sources add crest-on-crest along hyperbolae of constant path difference. The screen's measured fringes are overlaid with the Huygens–Fresnel prediction Σe^{ikr}/√r — the two curves land on top of each other because both are the same physics.

Diffraction through a slit

a\sin\theta = m\lambda \;\Rightarrow\; \text{minima}

A slit a few wavelengths wide can't cast a sharp shadow: every point of the aperture re-radiates, and the interference of those wavelets spreads the beam. Narrow the wavelength (raise f) and watch the central lobe tighten in real time.

Doppler & the Mach cone

f' = \frac{f}{1 \mp v/c}, \qquad \sin\theta_{\text{Mach}} = \frac{c}{v}

A moving source crowds its own wavefronts. The two probes measure the shifted frequencies directly, and past v = c the fronts pile into a shock wedge at exactly arcsin(c/v) — the same geometry as a sonic boom. You can also draw your own: drag across the open tank faster than the waves can escape.

Numerically verified

Numerical wavelength matches the leapfrog dispersion relation sin(ωΔt/2) = C·sin(kΔx/2) to 0.02%
Double-slit fringe maxima land within 0.5 grid cells (0.03λ) of the exact path-difference prediction
Absorbing boundary measured below 1% reflection — the tank behaves like open water
Measured screen intensity overlays the independent Huygens–Fresnel sum Σe^{ikr}/√r in real time

Scientific references

[1]T. Young, "The Bakerian Lecture: Experiments and calculations relative to physical optics", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 94 (1804)
[2]E. Hecht, Optics, 5th ed., Pearson (2017)
[3]A. Taflove & S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed., Artech House (2005)
[4]B. Engquist & A. Majda, "Absorbing boundary conditions for the numerical simulation of waves", Mathematics of Computation 31 (1977)

Preparing the physics engine…

Screen intensity — measured vs Huygens–Fresnel prediction

I(y)\;\text{measured}

I(y)\;\text{Huygens sum}

I/I_{max}

y

Displacement at the screen centre

u\,(\text{ahead},\;x=240)

u

t

Total wave energy in the tank

E_{\text{tank}}

E

t

The Physics

The wave equation

\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c^2 \nabla^2 u

Superposition & interference

\Delta = |r_2 - r_1| = m\lambda \;\Rightarrow\; \text{constructive}

Diffraction through a slit

a\sin\theta = m\lambda \;\Rightarrow\; \text{minima}

Doppler & the Mach cone

f' = \frac{f}{1 \mp v/c}, \qquad \sin\theta_{\text{Mach}} = \frac{c}{v}

Numerically verified

Numerical wavelength matches the leapfrog dispersion relation sin(ωΔt/2) = C·sin(kΔx/2) to 0.02%
Double-slit fringe maxima land within 0.5 grid cells (0.03λ) of the exact path-difference prediction
Absorbing boundary measured below 1% reflection — the tank behaves like open water
Measured screen intensity overlays the independent Huygens–Fresnel sum Σe^{ikr}/√r in real time

Scientific references

[1]T. Young, "The Bakerian Lecture: Experiments and calculations relative to physical optics", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 94 (1804)
[2]E. Hecht, Optics, 5th ed., Pearson (2017)
[3]A. Taflove & S. C. Hagness, Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method, 3rd ed., Artech House (2005)
[4]B. Engquist & A. Majda, "Absorbing boundary conditions for the numerical simulation of waves", Mathematics of Computation 31 (1977)