Dielectrics, Varying Reflectivity, and Polarization

AI Thread Summary
Dielectrics like water exhibit varying reflectivity based on the angle of incidence, with maximum reflectivity occurring at grazing angles near 90 degrees. This phenomenon is explained by the Fresnel equations, which describe how light interacts with surfaces. Brewster's angle is significant as it leads to the disappearance of reflected waves for one type of polarization, while total internal reflection occurs when the transmitted wave is absent. Metals do not polarize light upon reflection due to their different electronic structures, which allow them to reflect light without the polarization effects seen in dielectrics. Understanding these principles is crucial for applications in optics and materials science.
peter.ell
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I am very curious as to why dielectrics such as water have a varying level of reflectivity depending on what angle they are viewed at. For a lake of water, what angle yields 100% (or near 100%) reflectivity? Is this angle the same as the Brewster angle?

Also, why exactly is it that metals do not polarize light upon reflection while dielectrics do?

Thank you so much for your enlightenment (bad pun, I know).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Snell's law for the transmitted wave gives you n1sin(theta1)=n2sin(theta2), if the conditions are correct, you can have the situation where theta2>=90degrees. In this case, there is no transmitted wave, the "transmitted wave" just propagates along the surface of the water (the wave-vector of this wave becomes imaginary and so the fields do not propagate into the water, but rather, the fields decay).

This is called "total internal reflection".

Brewster's angle is kind of like the opposite. In that case, it is the REFLECTED wave which disappears (rather than the transmitted one). But Brewster's angle only affects waves of one type of polarization, whereas total internal reflection does not care about the polarization of the waves.
 
The reflectivity of a dielectric surface strongly depends on the angle of incidence, as governed by the Fresnel equations. The Fresnel equations are derived by applying boundary conditions to the waves at the surface. You can think of a wave striking and entering a surface as creating a train of little radiating dipole antennas in the material, situated perpendicular to the direction the wave is traveling. The resultant wave is the sum of all the re-radiated waves. Antennas radiate strongest out their sides and weakest out the top (along their axis), so that lower viewing angles will see stronger reflection.

All materials become 100% reflective as our viewing angle approaches 90 degrees from the normal, i.e. at grazing angles. http://faculty.uml.edu/cbaird/95.658%282011%29/Lecture1.pdf" .

Dielectrics only polarize light near Brewster's angle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top