492 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A / Vol. 27, No.

3 / March 2010 Wei Guo

Light-scattering theory of diffraction

Wei Guo
Department of Natural Sciences, Queens University of Charlotte, 1900 Selwyn Avenue,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28274, USA (weiguoguo@hotmail.com)

Received August 27, 2009; revised January 13, 2010; accepted January 14, 2010;
posted January 14, 2010 (Doc. ID 116311); published February 23, 2010
Since diffraction is a scattering process in principle, light propagation through one aperture in a screen is dis-
cussed in the light-scattering theory. Through specific calculation, the expression of the electric field observed
at an observation point is obtained and is used not only to explain why Kirchhoff ’s diffraction theory is a good
approximation when the screen is both opaque and sufficiently thin but also to demonstrate that the
mathematical and physical problems faced by Kirchhoff ’s theory are avoided in the light-scattering theory.
© 2010 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: 260.1960, 290.4210.

When light propagation through one aperture in a screen
is discussed, it is usually treated as a diffraction process
by following Kirchhoff ’s theory. More specifically, the elec-
tric field ␺共rជ o兲 observed at an observation point rជ o is as-
sumed to originate from the incident field ␺inc inside the
aperture and is determined through the following integral
relation [1]:
In addition to the mathematical problem, Kirchhoff ’s
theory has other flaws from the viewpoint of physics.
First, the observed field is assumed to be formed by wave-
lets from the wavefront of the incident field inside the ap-
erture (Huygens’s principle), but it is unclear what actu-
ally drives the wavelets away from the wavefront. Second,
the integral relations in Eqs. (1) and (2) do not take the

冕 冋 冉 冊 册
1 eikR i ជ
R cannot satisfy the requirement that when the width ap-
␺共rជ o兲 = − ជ · ⵜ␺inc + ik 1 +
n ␺inc da,
4␲ R kR R
共1兲
where nជ is a normal to the screen and points in the direc-
tion toward the observation point, R = 兩Rជ 兩 = 兩rជ o − rជ 兩 the sepa-
ration between rជ o and an arbitrary point rជ in the aper-
ture, and k the wavenumber of ␺inc. The surface
integration in Eq. (1) is only over the aperture, with da as
the area element. In its form in Eq. (1), Kirchhoff ’s theory
is often criticized [1,2] to have a mathematical problem of
inconsistency. One way to correct this problem is to intro-
duce either a Neumann or a Dirichlet Green function [1].
For example, for the Dirichlet Green function, the rela-
tion in Eq. (1) becomes
width of the screen into consideration [9] and, as a result,
proaches zero, that is, when the screen is absent, the ob-
served field must reduce to the incident field. Third, if the
cross-section of the aperture shrinks to nonexistence, the
observed field must become the transmitted field through
the screen in the absence of the aperture; unlike what the
preceding equations suggest, the transmitted field should
not strictly be equal to zero in principle. All these math-
ematical and physical problems can be traced to the fact
that Kirchhoff ’s theory is built on Green’s theorem, which
is a mathematical identity but not a physical principle.
In the present work, light propagation through one ap-
erture in a screen is revisited from the viewpoint of light
scattering. As pointed out in [1], scattering and diffraction
are not logically separate. Based on the light-scattering
theory, the validity of Kirchhoff ’s theory is also examined.

␺共rជ o兲 =
2␲i
k
冕 冉eikR
R
1+
i
kR
冊 n
R
ជ
ជ ·R
␺incda. 共2兲
For the purpose of simplicity, the present discussion is
limited to the domain of scalar diffraction, which, as
pointed out in [1], suffices in optics. Selected papers on
On the other hand, if the observed field is viewed to be scalar light diffraction can be found in [10].
created after the incident field is scattered from the edge The screen is assumed to be constituted by identical at-
of the aperture, Eq. (1) can even be argued to be a rigor- oms and to occupy the space between z = 0 and z = d. Thus,
ous solution of a certain boundary-value problem [3]. The the width of the screen is d. The volume of the space is
latter approach, known as the boundary diffraction denoted as V. Inside the screen exists a cylindrical aper-
theory, is also used to discuss the half-plane problem ture whose symmetric axis coincides with the ẑ axis of the
[4,5]. A different interpretation of Eq. (1) is due to Kottler, coordinate system; the cross-section of the aperture is S.
who showed that this equation is also an exact solution of According to the light-scattering theory, for an incident
a certain saltus problem [6,7]. See [8] for other methods plane field approaching the screen from the z ⬍ 0 region
ជ
commonly used to remove the mathematical inconsis- ␺inc共rជ 兲 = eik·rជ , where kជ is the field’s wave vector 共k = 兩kជ 兩兲, the
tency in Kirchhoff ’s theory. observed field ␺m at rជ o (assumed to be in the z ⬎ 0 region)

1084-7529/10/030492-3/$15.00 © 2010 Optical Society of America

Wei Guo
must be a superposition of the incident field and fields
scattered from all the atoms, not just from those forming
the edge of the aperture [3]:
␺m共rជ o兲 = ␺inc共rជ o兲 + 4␲k2␣n 冕 ⍀⬘
G共rជ o,rជ 1兲␺e共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 ,
where ␣ and n are the polarizability and number density
of the atoms respectively, G共rជ , rជ 1兲 = eik兩rជ −rជ 1兩 / 共4␲兩rជ − rជ 1兩兲 the
retarded Green’s function representing a spherical wave
radiated from rជ 1 to rជ , and ␺e共rជ 兲 the field experienced by an
atom at rជ . Note that, due to the aperture, the atoms can
occupy only a volume ⍀⬘, which is one part of V and ob-
tained when ⍀, the volume of the aperture, is excluded
from V. Note also that the screen becomes a slab when its
aperture is filled with atoms identical to those forming
the screen; the density of these filled atoms must be n,
too. Consequently, the observed field ␺m from the screen
must be equal to the field from the slab minus the field
from the atoms filled inside the aperture:
冕
␺m共rជ o兲 = ␺inc共rជ 0兲 + 4␲k2␣n G共rជ o,rជ 1兲␺e共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1
V in the third term, the diffused field should be understood
冕
− 4 ␲ k 2␣ n G共rជ o,rជ 1兲␺e共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 .
⍀
Similarly, the field ␺e, which is created as the incident
field is multiply scattered among the atoms in the volume
⍀⬘, must satisfy the following integral equation:
冕
␺e共rជ 兲 = ␺inc共rជ 兲 + ˜␣ G共rជ ,rជ 1兲␺e共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1
V order terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (10), starting
冕
− ˜␣ G共rជ ,rជ 1兲␺e共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 ,
⍀ small. One way to achieve this requirement, for example,
where ˜␣ = 4␲k2␣n.
Define two operators ĜV and Ĝ⍀ by their action on any
function f共rជ 兲 as ĜVf → 兰VG共rជ , rជ 1兲f共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 and Ĝ⍀f
→ 兰⍀G共rជ , rជ 1兲f共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 to transform Eqs. (4) and (5),
respectively, to
␺m = ␺inc + ˜␣ĜV␺e − ˜␣Ĝ⍀␺e ,
␺e = ␺inc + ˜␣ĜV␺e − ˜␣Ĝ⍀␺e .
See [11] for an illustration of the same operator approach
applied to the formulation of light propagation inside a
random medium. Shift ˜␣ĜV␺e in Eq. (7) to the other side
and multiply the resultant expression by 共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1 to
get
␺e = 共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1␺inc − ˜␣共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀␺e ,
which, through iteration, leads to a serial solution of ␺e:
Vol. 27, No. 3 / March 2010 / J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 493
␺e = ␺d − ˜␣共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀␺d
+ ˜␣2共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀␺d − ¯ , 共9兲
where ␺d = 共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1␺inc describes multiple scattering of
the incident field by the atoms inside the slab and is thus
nothing other than the diffused field inside the slab. Due
共3兲 to the presence of the aperture, ␺e is certainly different
from ␺d and must be modified by those light-scattering
events between atoms formally in V and ⍀; see the other
terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (9).
Substitute Eq. (9) into Eq. (6) to express ␺m in terms
of ␺d:
␺m = ␺inc + ˜␣ĜV␺d − ˜␣Ĝ⍀␺d − ˜␣2ĜV共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀␺d
+ ˜␣2Ĝ⍀共1 − ˜␣ĜV兲−1Ĝ⍀␺d + ¯ . 共10兲
Each term on the right-hand side of Eq. (10) represents a
different event. For example, the second term means that
the diffused field ␺d is scattered from the slab directly to
the observation point and forms, with the incident field
(the first term), the transmitted field ␺t through the slab.
See [12] for a multiple-scattering formulation of light
propagation through a dielectric slab. On the other hand,
to be scattered by atoms formally inside the aperture to
the observation point. The remaining terms describe
共4兲
other events in which the diffused field is first multiply
scattered between atoms formally in the aperture and in
the slab before finally being scattered toward the obser-
vation point.
Equation (10) is an exact description of light propaga-
tion through the screen. Nevertheless, for the purpose of
simplicity, so that the mathematical formulation will not
swamp the physics intended to be illustrated, all higher-
from the fourth one, are ignored in the following discus-
共5兲 sion. This simplification is valid as long as ˜␣ is sufficiently
is to require that the incident field be off-resonant with
the atoms. In the real space, the observed field ␺m subse-
quently simplifies to
␺m共rជ o兲 ⯝ ␺t共rជ o兲 − ˜␣ 冕
⍀
G共rជ o,rជ 1兲␺d共rជ 1兲dx1dy1dz1 , 共11兲
where, as shown in [12],
共6兲 ជ
␺d共rជ 兲 = eik·rជ ⬜D0兵关kz共␪兲 + k cos ␪兴eikz共␪兲z
+ 关kz共␪兲 − k cos ␪兴e2ikz共␪兲d−ikz共␪兲z其,
共7兲
ជ
␺t共rជ 兲 = 2D0kz共␪兲ei关kz共␪兲−k cos ␪兴deik·rជ .
In the expressions of the diffused and transmitted fields,
which are all obtained analytically, rជ ⬜ is the projection of
the position vector rជ on the xy plane, ␪ the angle between
kជ and ẑ, kz共␪兲 = 冑k2 cos2 ␪ + ˜␣ the ẑ component of the dif-
fused wave’s wave vector, and D0 = 2k cos ␪兵关kz共␪兲
共8兲 + k cos ␪兴2 − 关kz共␪兲 − k cos ␪兴2e2ikz共␪兲d其−1. Note that kz共␪兲 is a
function of an effective index of refraction of the screen
冑1 + ˜␣共k cos ␪兲−2, which is determined by the atoms
494 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A / Vol. 27, No. 3 / March 2010
through ˜␣. Similarly, because of kz共␪兲, the amplitudes of
␺d and ␺t all rely on the index of refraction and show a
certain resonance effect coming from the denominator of
D0. See [12] for an illustration of such resonance.
Equation (11) reveals that, in the light-scattering
theory, the observed field is formed approximately by the
transmitted field in the absence of the aperture and the
field scattered from those atoms formally in the aperture
after the atoms are excited by the diffused field. Com-
pared with Kirchhoff ’s theory, the light-scattering theory
has several advantages. For example, since the light-
scattering theory explains light propagation through the
screen from Maxwell’s equations, it does not have the
problems faced by Kirchhoff ’s theory. In order to under-
stand this point, it is necessary to note, for example, that
in the absence of the aperture, that is, when ⍀ → 0, the
observed field ␺m directly reduces to the transmitted field
␺t [see Eq. (11)] and that in the absence of the screen, that
is, when d = 0, the observed field reduces to the incident
field [see Eq. (3)].
In order for ␺m in Eq. (11) to be compared with ␺共rជ 0兲 in
Eq. (2), which does not have the mathematical problem of
inconsistency, it is convenient to transfer the volume in-
tegral in the former equation into a series of surface inte-
grals over the aperture surface S at z1 = d through re-
peated application of integration by parts over z1:
冕
␺m共rជ o兲 ⯝ ␺t共rជ 0兲 − ˜␣ dx1dy1共Ad − A共1兲d2/2 + A共2兲d3/3!
S problems of Kirchhoff’s theory. The light-scattering theory
− A共3兲d4/4! + ¯ 兲, 共12兲
where A = G共rជ o , rជ 1兲␺d共rជ 1兲 and A共n兲 denotes the nth deriva-
tive of A with respect to z1; both A and A共n兲 are evaluated
at z1 = d. Unlike Kirchhoff ’s theory, where the selection of
the surface over which the surface integral is carried out
has some degree of freedom—sometimes curved surfaces
are used for convenience [13], the light-scattering theory
requires that the aperture surface S be a plane.
For an opaque screen, the transmitted field ␺t is negli-
gibly small in magnitude and can be entirely ignored in
the expression of ␺m. For this reason, one (unjustified) as-
sumption in Kirchhoff ’s theory that there is no field ex-
cept in the aperture is practically acceptable. Note that
this assumption leads directly to the absence of the trans-
mitted field in Eq. (2). Kirchhoff ’s theory thus never
works unless the screen is at least opaque.
If in addition the opaque screen is so thin that the se-
ries in the integrand in Eq. (12) is practically equal to its
first term alone, the observed field further simplifies to
冕
ជ
␺m共rជ o兲 ⯝ − 2˜␣dD0kz共␪兲eikz共␪兲d G共rជ o,rជ 1兲eik·rជ 1⬜dx1dy1 ,
S
共13兲
where the expression of ␺d is used. A comparison between
Eqs. (2) and (13) immediately demonstrates that in the
surface integral, it is the diffused field, not the incident
field, that should be included in the integrand. In other
words, the second (unjustified) assumption made in
Wei Guo
Kirchhoff ’s theory, that is, that in the aperture the values
of the field are equal to the values of the incident field, is
in principle invalid. But, since on the z1 = d plane the dif-
ជ
fused and incident fields are all proportional to eik·rជ 1⬜, Eq.
(13) is in fact roughly proportional to Eq. (2), making the
latter equation a valid approximation of the field at the
observation point. Note that, in most cases, it is the rela-
tive magnitude of the observed field that is important.
Hence, the validity of Kirchhoff ’s theory must also re-
quire the screen involved to be a thin screen.
From the discussion in the preceding two paragraphs,
it is clear that, under the condition of an opaque, thin
screen, Kirchhoff ’s theory becomes approximately paral-
lel to the light-scattering theory. Therefore, it should not
be a surprise to find that Kirchhoff ’s theory is able to give
results in excellent agreement with experiment. The
mathematical similarity between the relations in Eqs. (2)
and (13), however, should not transcend the fact that they
are different explanations of light diffraction. While in
Eq. (2) the observed field is explained to be formed by
wavelets from the wavefront of the incident field inside
the aperture, the observed field in Eq. (13) should be un-
derstood to be formed by the fields scattered from the at-
oms formally in the aperture.
In conclusion, the problem of light propagation through
a screen with one aperture is analyzed in the light-
scattering theory. Since it is built on Maxwell’s equations,
the light-scattering theory does not have the inherent
is also used to find under what conditions Kirchhoff’s
theory is valid.
REFERENCES
1. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, 1975).
2. M. Nieto-Vesperinas, Scattering and Diffraction in Physical
Optics (Wiley, 1991).
3. E. W. Marchand and E. Wolf, “Consistent formulation of
Kirchhoff ’s diffraction theory,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 56,
1712–1722 (1966).
4. S. Ganci, “A general scalar solution for the half-plane
problem,” J. Mod. Opt. 42, 1707–1711 (1995).
5. Y. Z. Umul, “Young–Kirchhoff–Rubinowicz theory of
diffraction in the light of Sommerfeld’s solution,” J. Opt.
Soc. Am. A 25, 2734–2742 (2008).
6. F. Kottler, “Diffraction at a black screen, Part I: Kirchhoff ’s
theory,” in Progress in Optics, Vol. IV, E. Wolf, ed. (North-
Holland, 1965), pp. 281–314.
7. F. Kottler, “Diffraction at a black screen, Part II:
Electromagnetic theory,” in Progress in Optics, Vol. VI, E.
Wolf, ed. (North-Holland, 1967), pp. 331–377.
8. S. Ganci, “Equivalence between two consistent
formulations of Kirchhoff ’s diffraction theory,” J. Opt. Soc.
Am. A 5, 1626–1628 (1988).
9. A. Roberts, “Electromagnetic theory of diffraction by a
circular aperture in a thick, perfectly conducting screen,” J.
Opt. Soc. Am. A 4, 1970–1983 (1987).
10. K. E. Oughstun, ed., Selected Papers on Scalar Wave
Diffraction, Vol. MS51 of SPIE Milestone Series (SPIE
Optical Engineering Press, 1992).
11. W. Guo and S. Prasad, “Multiple scattering of light from a
random slab: a density-fluctuation approach,” Opt.
Commun. 212, 1–6 (2002).
12. W. Guo, “Multiple scattering of a plane scalar wave from a
dielectric slab,” Am. J. Phys. 70, 1039–1043 (2002).
13. M. V. Klein and T. E. Furtak, Optics, 2nd ed. (Wiley, 1986).