- #1

rtareen

- 162

- 32

Attached is section 33.7 from my book, which introduces Huygen's principle in order to derive the law of reflection. I am more used to the ray model rather than the wave model, so I'm constantly going to try to relate everything back to rays. Making this connection also helps with completeness of understanding. I believe that the model we are using for this derivation is the wave model. I could be wrong.

Firstly, regarding Figure 33.34, I believe the arrows attached the the wave fronts do not represent polarizations but are instead the directions the rays would be if we want to think back to the ray model. I hope this is right because I would like that to be true.

So if I understand this properly, if we apply Huygen's principle, each wave front is made from the envelope of small wavelets emerging from the previous wave front. When the wave front hits the surface, the wavelets change direction. I'm not sure how.

So wave front AA' has not yet been reflected. But the future wave front BOB', made up of the wavelets of AA' has a part that has been bent by the surface. How did the wavelets of BO end up in that exact direction, as if they are emerging from the surface rather than the previous wave front? Is there some sort of geometric explanation, or are there some hidden assumptions about how the wavelets are supposed to behave?One problem I have with this section is the paragraph that starts with "The effect of the reflecting surface". They say the surface changes the direction of the wave, but they don't say how. The wavelets to the left of point O strike the reflecting surface, and then what? And then they say in that same sentence: "so the part of a wavelet that would have penetrated the surface actually lies to the left of it, as shown by the full lines". I have no clue what they mean by "to the left of it" or what "the full lines" are. Does this have to do with the mysterious continuation of the wavefront under the interface (the continuation of the line B'O) , even though we can see the part that has clearly been reflected?

Next, in Figure 33.34 (b) they construct the line OP = vt. Is this decision to start at the starting point P on the wave front AA' rather than some other point arbitrary? Can somebody explain? Well the point is to construct a triangle on both sides for the proof. They finish the proof by constructing another triangle on the left which leads to ##\theta_r = \theta_a##. But they never gave any justification for the orientation of OB that they drew in the figure. So they constructed the picture just right without justification to derive the law of reflection? Is that right?

Firstly, regarding Figure 33.34, I believe the arrows attached the the wave fronts do not represent polarizations but are instead the directions the rays would be if we want to think back to the ray model. I hope this is right because I would like that to be true.

So if I understand this properly, if we apply Huygen's principle, each wave front is made from the envelope of small wavelets emerging from the previous wave front. When the wave front hits the surface, the wavelets change direction. I'm not sure how.

So wave front AA' has not yet been reflected. But the future wave front BOB', made up of the wavelets of AA' has a part that has been bent by the surface. How did the wavelets of BO end up in that exact direction, as if they are emerging from the surface rather than the previous wave front? Is there some sort of geometric explanation, or are there some hidden assumptions about how the wavelets are supposed to behave?One problem I have with this section is the paragraph that starts with "The effect of the reflecting surface". They say the surface changes the direction of the wave, but they don't say how. The wavelets to the left of point O strike the reflecting surface, and then what? And then they say in that same sentence: "so the part of a wavelet that would have penetrated the surface actually lies to the left of it, as shown by the full lines". I have no clue what they mean by "to the left of it" or what "the full lines" are. Does this have to do with the mysterious continuation of the wavefront under the interface (the continuation of the line B'O) , even though we can see the part that has clearly been reflected?

Next, in Figure 33.34 (b) they construct the line OP = vt. Is this decision to start at the starting point P on the wave front AA' rather than some other point arbitrary? Can somebody explain? Well the point is to construct a triangle on both sides for the proof. They finish the proof by constructing another triangle on the left which leads to ##\theta_r = \theta_a##. But they never gave any justification for the orientation of OB that they drew in the figure. So they constructed the picture just right without justification to derive the law of reflection? Is that right?

#### Attachments

Last edited: