Fresnel equations and energy ratios

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the calculation of reflectivity and transmissivity using the Fresnel equations. It highlights the misconception that energy from incident and reflected waves can simply be summed, emphasizing that energy density must be calculated by summing the fields before squaring. The participant questions the logic behind neglecting interference effects when deriving energy ratios, arguing that both incident and reflected waves should be considered together. They suggest using the Poynting formula on the combined fields to accurately account for energy flow. The conversation concludes with an acknowledgment that the cross terms in the Poynting vector calculation do indeed cancel, reinforcing the need for a more nuanced approach to energy calculations at boundaries.
becko
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
I'm having trouble understanding the reflectivity and transmissivity (the ratios of energy reflected and transmitted through a boundary separating different media).

Since energy is proportional to the square of the field, if you have a superposition of two fields at a point, to obtain the energy density at that place you cannot just sum the energies of the separate fields. You have to sum the fields and then square the total field.

So my problem is that to calculate the total energy that enters a patch of boundary, on the media of the incident wave, there are two fields, the incident and the reflected. Yet somehow everywhere I look they separate the energies, as the incident energy and the reflected energies, and then assume that the total energy entering the patch is the sum (incident energy - reflected energy) (with a minus sign because the reflected energy goes away from the patch). I don't understand this. Can someone help me here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because the waves are going in opposite directions, they don't interfere, so taking the difference of the energies is appropriate.
 
As far as I know, the reflected and incident waves do interfere. In fact, at normal incidence, with light polarized perpendicular to the plane of incidence, if the index of refraction of the second media is large enough, the reflected wave will almost annihilate the incident wave.
 
So back to my question, what is the logic of neglecting this interference in deriving reflectivity and transmissivity coefficients?

Shouldn't one take into account that there are two fields in the first media, the incident and the reflected?

I think one should use Poynting formula on the sum of the two waves, instead of calculating the Poynting vector of each field separately, which is what I see is done to calculate the reflectivity.
 
If you take (E+E')X(B+B').n (where n is the normal to the plane), the cross terms cancel.
 
Last edited:
You're right ! . The cross terms do cancel in the component normal to the boundary plane. Thanks !
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top