Fermat's Principle: Is Light Travel Time Min?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on Fermat's Principle and whether the time taken by light is always minimized between two points. Participants explore the implications of this principle in optics, questioning its original formulation and considering alternative interpretations regarding local extrema in time and path length.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that light takes a path that results in a local extremum, but there is debate over whether this refers to time or path length.
  • One participant argues that the correct interpretation is that light follows a minimum time path, especially when considering refraction through lenses.
  • Another participant discusses the modern interpretation of Fermat's principle, suggesting that light traverses paths of stationary optical length, implying that nearby paths take approximately the same time.
  • A participant introduces the concept of constructive and destructive self-interference related to path length and launch angles, linking it to the principle of diffraction.
  • Examples are requested to illustrate scenarios where light takes longer paths, indicating a desire for practical applications of the principle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the principle implies a minimum time path or a local extremum in path length. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the interpretation of Fermat's original statement.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the medium through which light travels, as well as the definitions of time and path length that are not fully clarified in the discussion.

Zubair Ahmad
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Is time taken by light always minimum between two points. If yes then what is wrong with Fermat's original statement?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Zubair Ahmad said:
Is time taken by light always minimum between two points. If yes then what is wrong with Fermat's original statement?
I believe that a more correct statement is that light will take a path that results in a local extremum.
 
jbriggs444 said:
I believe that a more correct statement is that light will take a path that results in a local extremum.
Of what. Time or path
 
Zubair Ahmad said:
Of what. Time or path

I believe it is a minimum time path. If it was a minimum distance path, the light would simply travel straight through instead of refracting when entering a lens. If the light is traveling through a constant medium then the minimum time path and the minimum distance path are the same.

From wiki:

In optics, Fermat's principle or the principle of least time, named after French mathematician Pierre de Fermat, is the principle that the path taken between two points by a ray of light is the path that can be traversed in the least time. This principle is sometimes taken as the definition of a ray of light.[1] However, this version of the principle is not general; a more modern statement of the principle is that rays of light traverse the path of stationary optical length with respect to variations of the path.[2] In other words, a ray of light prefers the path such that there are other paths, arbitrarily nearby on either side, along which the ray would take almost exactly the same time to traverse.

This is essentially saying that light takes the minimum time path. The last sentence means that if the light deviated an infinitesimal amount from its shortest-time path in any direction, these new paths all take the same amount of time to traverse. Note that these paths would take longer than the least-time path.
 
Drakkith said:
I believe it is a minimum time path. If it was a minimum distance path, the light would simply travel straight through instead of refracting when entering a lens. If the light is traveling through a constant medium then the minimum time path and the minimum distance path are the same.

From wiki:
This is essentially saying that light takes the minimum time path. The last sentence means that if the light deviated an infinitesimal amount from its shortest-time path in any direction, these new paths all take the same amount of time to traverse. Note that these paths would take longer than the least-time path.
It means there is a path for which time is always minimum and on either side infinitesimally apart there are paths for which travel time is same but different from the actual path (greater than actual path)
 
Zubair Ahmad said:
It means there is a path for which time is always minimum and on either side infinitesimally apart there are paths for which travel time is same but different from the actual path (greater than actual path)

I believe that is correct.
 
Zubair Ahmad said:
Of what. Time or path
Time.

The key is that a local extremum in path length will guarantee that the first derivative of path length with respect to [nearly parallel] launch angle will be zero. If one measures path length in terms of time then this guarantees that, on arrival, the phase angles for light arriving over a narrow range of paths will be identical. You get constructive self-interference.

By contrast, if the first derivative of path length with respect to launch angle is non-zero the path lengths vary with launch angle. You get destructive self-interference.

This is the principle of diffraction in action. It's just that we're doing it without double slits.
 
Give an example where light takes longer time
 
Zubair Ahmad said:
Give an example where light takes longer time
Say that I hold a candle in my hand while you stand 10 meters to the north. Consider a range of paths that go at an approximate 30 degree angle east of north to to a line midway between us. The paths then turn left and proceed at an approximate 30 degree angle west of north to your location.

The length of these paths will depend on launch angle. A 31 degree path, for instance, will be longer than a 29 degree path.
 
  • #10
Tell in a nutshell the Fermat's Principle which is applicable everywhere.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K