1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fermat's Principle with Calculus of Variations

  1. Jul 25, 2014 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    This is problem 6.3 in Taylor’s Classical Mechanics. It is in context of the calculus of variations.
    Consider a ray of light traveling in a vacuum from point P1to P2 by way of the point Q on a plane mirror, as in Figure 6.8. Show that Fermat's principle implies that, on the actual path followed, Q lies in the same vertical plane as P 1and P2 and obeys the law of reflection, that 0 1= 02. [Hints: Let the mirror lie in the xz plane, and let P 1lie on the y axis at (0, yi, 0) and P2 in the xy plane at (x2, y2, 0). Finally let Q = (x, 0, z). Calculate the time for the light to traverse the path P1QP2 and show that it is minimum when Q has z = 0 and satisfies the law of reflection.]

    2. Relevant equations
    ##\frac { \partial f }{ \partial x } =\frac { d }{ dt } \frac { \partial f }{ \partial x\prime } ## This would be reiterated for y and z.

    3. The attempt at a solution
    ##S=\frac { 1 }{ c } \int _{ t_{ 1 } }^{ t_{ 2 } }{ \sqrt { x\prime ^{ 2 }+y\prime ^{ 2 }+z\prime ^{ 2 } } dt } \quad \therefore \quad f=\sqrt { x\prime ^{ 2 }+y\prime ^{ 2 }+z\prime ^{ 2 } } ##

    Since, ##\frac{ \partial f }{ \partial x } =0##, then ##\frac { \partial f }{ \partial x\prime}=Const.##

    That means ##\frac { \partial f }{ \partial y\prime}=Const.## and ##\frac { \partial f }{ \partial z\prime}=Const.## is true too.
    Subbing in f yields: ##Const.=\frac { 2 }{ c } \frac { x\prime }{ \sqrt { x\prime ^{ 2 }+y\prime ^{ 2 }+z\prime ^{ 2 } } } ##
    for y: ##Const.=\frac { 2 }{ c } \frac { y\prime }{ \sqrt { x\prime ^{ 2 }+y\prime ^{ 2 }+z\prime ^{ 2 } } } ##
    and for z: ##Const.=\frac { 2 }{ c } \frac { z\prime }{ \sqrt { x\prime ^{ 2 }+y\prime ^{ 2 }+z\prime ^{ 2 } } } ##

    These can be divided to eliminate f, yielding a system of linear equations.
    For x and y: ##x-0={ k }_{ xy }^{ 1 }(0-y_{ 1 })\quad and\quad x_{ 2 }-x={ k }_{ xy }^{ 2 }(y_{ 2 }-0)##

    For x and z: ##x-0={ k }_{ xz }^{ 1 }(z-0)\quad and\quad x_{ 2 }-x={ k }_{ xz }^{ 2 }(0-z)##

    For y and z: ##0-y_{ 1 }={ k }_{ yz }^{ 1 }(z-0)\quad and\quad y_{ 2 }-0={ k }_{ yz }^{ 2 }(0-z)##

    I am having trouble finding a way to prove the law of reflection with system of equations. For I think I know that ##{ k }_{ xy }^{ 1 }=-{ k }_{ xy }^{ 2 }##, but assuming that would be circular reasoning.

    I am going to look at eliminating variables. I do expect ##{ k }_{ xz }=0\quad and\quad { k }_{ yz }=0##, but I am not sure I have enough info for that assumption. I am going to go back to looking at it to see if I am indeed stuck. Have I done ok so far?
    Thanks,
    Chris
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 25, 2014 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    You know already that the variational principle gives straight lines when traveling through the vacuum. Assume a reflection point and minimize the optical path (locally) wrt the reflection point.
     
  4. Jul 26, 2014 #3
    I have everything set up now, but I am in personally uncharted waters mathematically speaking. I am not sure how to post my drawings and rational. I did show a friend using Open Sankoré and Skype. However, I think it was over his head.

    There is the possibility I am overthinking this.

    Chris
     
  5. Jul 27, 2014 #4
    Ok, I see that I am not supposed to solve this with Euler, but assume what has already proven. That is were dealing with straight lines here. The pythagorean theory applies, so: ##L=\sqrt { x^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }_{ 1 }+z^{ 2 } } +\sqrt { (x_{ 2 }-x)^{ 2 }+{ y }^{ 2 }_{ 2 }+z^{ 2 } } ## for the total length of the light path.

    I set the first partial (##L_x=0## and ## L_z=0##) to zero. This gives me to equations with two unknows. Theoretically I should be able to find a reflection point Q from these two equations that give me the shortest path. Does this sound fine? I have crunched through all of the math and it is a mess, and still no proof yet. I wanted to double check to make sure I am going after it correctly then recheck my algebra.

    Thanks,
    Chris
     
  6. Jul 28, 2014 #5

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Yes. This is the approach that is suggested. Note that the minimization in the z-direction is quite simple and you hardly need the derivative to see that it occurs for z=0.
     
  7. Jul 29, 2014 #6
    Ok, I have proven z=0. However taking the partial derivative of wrt x of L up there, yields: ##\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left( x, x_{2}, y_{1}, y_{2}, z \right) \ {\mapsto} \ \frac{x - x_{2}}{\sqrt{{\left(x - x_{2}\right)}^{2} + y_{2}^{2} + z^{2}}} + \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^{2} + y_{1}^{2} + z^{2}}}## I have played with this for quite a while, but the simple ratio solution that I expect when ##\theta _1=\theta _2## eludes me.

    Chris
     
  8. Jul 30, 2014 #7

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Well, start by putting z=0 just to get rid of it. Then equate the entire derivative to zero for the minimization. How are the angles related to x, x2, y1, and y2?

    Edit: Hint: since z=0 everything is 2 dimensional now - try drawing the situation on a paper if you have problems.
     
  9. Jul 30, 2014 #8
    Yes, the z is set z=0.

    I expected the equation to simplify to x/y1=(x2-x)/y2 since it should be a simple ratio between the opposite and adjacent sides (that is if the incoming and outgoing theta are equal). However, when I set the above partial (wrt x) to zero, I get some nasty algebra that I was not able to solve by hand. Wolfram alpha has 4th degree polynomials under a radical for the relationship. If I don't solve it, and merely do an implicit plot in sage, I see plots of two different equations. Something is wrong.

    Thanks,
    Chris
     
  10. Jul 30, 2014 #9
    Duh, I see it now. I used the tangent to construct a ratio equation, but had I been more careful at observing my derivative wrt x, I would have seen it is a ratio equation with the cosines instead. The denominator is the hypotenuse of either side, and the x and the x2-x is the adjacent. Setting those equal to ##cos \theta## is now have the identity ##\theta _1=\theta _2##.

    FINALLY QED!

    Thanks,
    Chris
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Fermat's Principle with Calculus of Variations
  1. Variational Principle (Replies: 3)

  2. Variational Principle (Replies: 4)

  3. Fermat's Principle (Replies: 15)

  4. Variational Principle (Replies: 7)

Loading...