Egon Marx,
Thomas A. Germer,
Theodore V. Vorburger,
and Byong C. Park
E. Marx (egon.marx@nist.gov), T. A. Germer, and T. V. Vorburger are with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.
B. C. Park is with the Korean Research Institute of Standards and Science, P.O. Box 102, Yusong, Taejon 305-600 Korea.
Egon Marx, Thomas A. Germer, Theodore V. Vorburger, and Byong C. Park, "Angular distribution of light scattered from a sinusoidal grating," Appl. Opt. 39, 4473-4485 (2000)
The angular distributions of light scattered by gold-coated and
aluminum-coated gratings with amplitudes of ∼90 nm and periods of
6.67 µm were measured and calculated for light incident from a
He–Ne laser at an angle of 6°. Experimental results are compared
with predictions of Beckmann’s scalar theory and Rayleigh’s vector
theory. The measured scattering pattern has a background of
scattered light due mainly to residual surface roughness. Also the
power in the higher-order peaks is larger by several orders of
magnitude than the computed one, which can be attributed mainly to the
low-order contributions of the harmonics in the profile.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.
The uncertainty of each measured peak
intensity is ∼2% of the value.
Values calculated from measured profiles by use
of Eq. (19).
Values calculated for a perfect sinusoid by use
of Eq. (9).
Values calculated for a perfect sinusoid by use
of Eq. (21).
Measured peak value obscured by the background.
Diffracted peak obscured by instrument
receiver.
Computed peak value obscured by the background.
Table 2
Computed and Measured Power in the Peaks Relative to the
Incident Power
Calculated from scaled measured profiles
of the aluminum sample by use of Eq. (19).
Measured at different spots of the aluminum
sample, s polarization.
Diffracted peak obscured by instrument
receiver.
Calculated from Eq. (42).
Averages of ratios determined from Figs. 6 and
7 between values obtained from measured BRDF curves and those computed
from measured profiles. The relative uncertainties in these
comparisons are ∼30%.
Tables (3)
Table 1
Measured and Computed Diffraction Peak Intensities
Relative to the Specular Peak Intensity
The uncertainty of each measured peak
intensity is ∼2% of the value.
Values calculated from measured profiles by use
of Eq. (19).
Values calculated for a perfect sinusoid by use
of Eq. (9).
Values calculated for a perfect sinusoid by use
of Eq. (21).
Measured peak value obscured by the background.
Diffracted peak obscured by instrument
receiver.
Computed peak value obscured by the background.
Table 2
Computed and Measured Power in the Peaks Relative to the
Incident Power
Calculated from scaled measured profiles
of the aluminum sample by use of Eq. (19).
Measured at different spots of the aluminum
sample, s polarization.
Diffracted peak obscured by instrument
receiver.
Calculated from Eq. (42).
Averages of ratios determined from Figs. 6 and
7 between values obtained from measured BRDF curves and those computed
from measured profiles. The relative uncertainties in these
comparisons are ∼30%.