EM Wave Reflection at Dielectric Boundaries: Exploring Normal Incidence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the reflection of electromagnetic (EM) waves at dielectric boundaries, specifically under conditions of normal incidence. Participants explore the behavior of the electric field (E) and magnetic field (B) during reflection, questioning the conditions under which these fields may change sign and the implications of the dielectric constant on this behavior.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the magnetic field (B) must change sign when the wavevector (k) changes sign, suggesting that the electric field (E) could also change sign without violating the equations.
  • Another participant notes that the behavior of E depends on the dielectric constant (epsilon), stating that for epsilon greater than 1, the reflected E does not flip, while for epsilon less than 1, it does.
  • A participant seeks clarification on how to demonstrate these behaviors using boundary conditions.
  • Discussion includes the relationship between E and B, with references to Maxwell's equations and the continuity of tangential components at the interface.
  • There is a debate about the conventions used in equations relating to E and B, with one participant questioning the choice of negative signs in the equations.
  • Another participant concludes that the choice of sign is a matter of convention, which can lead to different representations of E and B but ultimately results in the same solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions under which E or B may change sign, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the implications of the dielectric constant or the conventions used in the equations.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings regarding the role of permittivity and the assumptions underlying the boundary conditions and Fresnel reflection coefficients. The discussion highlights unresolved aspects of the mathematical treatment of the problem.

madness
Messages
813
Reaction score
69
I have a simple question about reflecting EM waves at dielectric boundaries. To best illustrate my question, consider normal incidence. The incident wave has the wavevector k positive, and the reflected has k negative. Since B = k x E , and k has changed sign, B must also change sign. This is my problem - why can't E change sign instead? This would satisfy the necessary equations. It also makes intuitive sense, at normal incidence E and B are both parallel to the plane, and flipping either would preserve the handedness. Why is B special?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It depends on the dielectric constant epsilon. If epsilon is greater than 1, which is the usual case, then the reflected E will not flip. For epsilon less than 1, E would flip.
For instance, for a wave leaving a dielectric into air, the reflected E does flip.
 
Thanks clem. Do you know how to show this from the boundary conditions?
 
k is the propagation vector, it represents the direction of the wave. When the wave reflects, the direction is reversed, hence k changes sign.
If you change the sign of E instead of that of k, you have a wave traveling in the same direction as initially.
Clem, can you help me understand what role permittivity has to play in the direction of E? I don't know at all about it..
 
ksac I think you have misunderstood my question. Given that k changes sign, E or B (but not both) could change sign to satisfy the B = k x E condition. A further condition is required to constrain which one will flip.
 
madness said:
Thanks clem. Do you know how to show this from the boundary conditions?

The Fresnel reflection coefficients have already done this for you.
 
The Fresnel reflection coefficients are derived from the boundary conditions - they assume what I am trying to prove.
 
It is done in all textbooks.
In a dielectric, the magnitudes of E and B are related by B=sqrt{epsilon mu} E.
From Maxwell's equations, both E and B tangential are continuous at the interface.
This means (with mu =1) that E_1+E_1'=sqrt{epsilon}E_2
and E_1-E_1'=E_2.
Solve for the reflected E_1'.
 
This is exactly the problem! Why do you choose to put the negative sign on the second equation rather than the first? From what I can see you are choosing to flip the electric field in this case.
 
  • #10
madness said:
This is exactly the problem! Why do you choose to put the negative sign on the second equation rather than the first? From what I can see you are choosing to flip the electric field in this case.

It doesn't matter, you get the same solution.
 
  • #11
Yeah thanks I figured it out. It seems to just be a convention. You write E as the one which doesn't change, and if this turns out to be false it goes negative, which in turn makes B go positive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K