Theory of Systems of Rays question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the derivation of the equation for a mirror surface that reflects incoming rays to a single focal point, particularly focusing on the conditions for the expression to be an exact differential. The user is confused about why a specific expression must be an exact differential of a function of two independent variables and how this relates to the derived equation (F). Clarification is sought on the mathematical implications of these conditions and the relationship between the variables involved. Progress has been made in understanding that the expression can be considered an exact differential under certain conditions, but the connection to equation (F) remains unclear. The conversation highlights the complexities of optics and differential equations in this context.
LeonhardEuler
Gold Member
Messages
858
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone. I'm looking through an old book on optics and something there has me really confused. I attached the two pages I'm referring to, or you can find them here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Hamilton/Rays/
as pages 14 and 15 in the pdf.

Basically, what's going on is that he is talking about rays of light hitting a mirror. He wants to find the equation of a mirror surface that reflects a given system of incoming rays to a single focal point, without yet saying anything about the nature of the incoming rays. The cosines of the angles an incoming ray makes with the x, y, and z-axis are α, β, and γ, while the the cosines for the reflected ray are α', β', and γ'. Equation (E) was already derived as the basic equation for dealing with reflections. For reference here, equation (E) is
(\alpha + \alpha ')dx + (\beta + \beta ')dy + (\gamma + \gamma ')dz = 0
Next he argues that
\alpha 'dx + \beta 'dy +\gamma 'dz
is an exact differential with an argument that makes sense. My trouble comes next. He says
William Rowan Hamilton said:
If therefore the equation (E) be integrable, that is, if it can be satisfied by any unknown relation between x,y,z it is necessary that in establishing this unknown relation between those three variables, the part (\alpha dx + \beta dy + \gamma dz) should also be an exact differential of a function of the two variables which remain independent; the condition of this circumstance is here
(\alpha + \alpha ')(\frac{\partial \beta}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial y}) + (\beta + \beta ')(\frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial z}) + (\gamma + \gamma ')(\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial x})
I understand neither why that expression needs to be an exact differential of two variables, nor why that last equation (equation (F)) represents that condition. Any help would be appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Page1.png
    Page1.png
    30.1 KB · Views: 487
  • Page2.png
    Page2.png
    20.1 KB · Views: 502
Physics news on Phys.org
If anyone even knows what is meant by "an exact differential of a function of the two variables which remain independent" that would be helpful. I guessed that it meant I would assume z=F(x,y), dz=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}dx + \frac{\partial F}{\partial y}dy, so I substituted that into see what equation that would give me when I imposed the condition of an exact differential, but I always got an equation where F appears and I can't get rid of it.
 
LeonhardEuler said:
If anyone even knows what is meant by "an exact differential of a function of the two variables which remain independent" that would be helpful. I guessed that it meant I would assume z=F(x,y), dz=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}dx + \frac{\partial F}{\partial y}dy, so I substituted that into see what equation that would give me when I imposed the condition of an exact differential, but I always got an equation where F appears and I can't get rid of it.

dz will be called an exact differential when in dz=Mdx+Ndy,∂M/∂y=∂N/∂x.
 
Thanks for the reply andrien. My understanding was that he was saying (αdx+βdy+γdz) was an exact differential. I tried to deal with this by substituting my expression for dz into get
(\alpha + \gamma\frac{\partial z}{\partial x})dx + (\beta +\gamma\frac{\partial z}{\partial y})dy
And this would be the exact differential. Using the condition you mentioned, I get
\frac{\partial (\alpha + \gamma\frac{\partial z}{\partial x})}{\partial y} = \frac{\partial (\beta +\gamma\frac{\partial z}{\partial y})}{\partial x}
But I don't see a way to get this to reduce to equation (F) as required.
 
I actually made a bit of progress on this and answered my first question, although I still don't know about the second. As for why (αdx+βdy+γdz) is an exact differential, it's now pretty clear that since it was proven
-d\rho '=\alpha 'dx + \beta 'dy + \gamma 'dz
Combining this with the original equation
(\alpha + \alpha ')dx + (\beta + \beta ')dy + (\gamma + \gamma ')dz = 0
gives
\alpha dx + \beta dy + \gamma dz = d\rho '
But this equation applies only to the solution of the differential equation for, say, z as a function of x and y, and is not an identity for the functions α, β and γ. So the expression is, as Hamilton said, an exact differential in the two variables that remain independent.

The only question I still have is how that condition leads to the equation
(\alpha + \alpha ')(\frac{\partial \beta}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial y}) + (\beta + \beta ')(\frac{\partial \gamma}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial z}) + (\gamma + \gamma ')(\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial x})=0
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...

Similar threads

Back
Top