Re: superposition

[Chuck Britton <britton@NCSSM.EDU>]

I have a similar problem with those physics instructors who declare
forcefully that the 'picket fence' model is a totally bogus, wrong,
without merit, way of visualizing polarized light.

Any student who is in the least danger of suffering injury by this
model - NEEDS to be introduced to the important relation between
amplitude and intensity.

Most folks can go their whole lives without knowing the difference
and suffer no severe consequences.

Does not the 'picket fence' model do a pretty good quantitative job
when applied to the amplitudes?





At 9:49 AM -0600 2/27/04, RAUBER, JOEL wrote:
> |
> | In the second place, I can't think of a worse example than "intensity
> | in interference and diffraction phenomena" being used as a
> | counterexample for which superposition does not work. Surely one incurs
> | the peril of making some of the duller students think that
> | superposition is inappropriately applied to interference phenomena.
> |
> [***]
> Leigh,
>
> That is certainly a serious danger; but one I think a teacher of
> interference phenomena has to confront anyway.  One must get across the fact
> that intensities don't add but the amplitudes do add; so the source of
> confusion is already there; unless you choose to ignore intensity
> considerations altogether.  So I feel that one might as well confront the
> source of confusion directly.
>
> Joel R
>
> PS,
>
> Glad you are back to reading (and posting every now and then) phys-L !


--
Chuck Britton                                   Education is what is left when
britton@ncssm.edu                       you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math         you learned in school.
(919) 416-2762                                  Albert Einstein,        1936