How to proof the polarity of the reflected wave of Oblique incident.

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the proof of the polarity of the reflected wave during oblique incidence, specifically questioning the assumption that the reflected electric field vector is in the plane of incidence. Participants express frustration over the lack of satisfactory explanations in various electromagnetic textbooks, particularly regarding normal incidence. There is a call for articles or notes that provide a clearer proof, as many resources only state the polarity without justification. A suggestion is made to apply boundary conditions to derive results, but doubts remain about the tangential nature of the reflected wave. The conversation highlights a need for a more rigorous proof that demonstrates the reflection characteristics of transverse electromagnetic (TEM) waves.
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
As shown in the attachment, the book assumes ##\hat E_{||}^r=\hat y_r=(\hat x
\cos \theta_r +\hat z \sin\theta_r)##. Why? How do you proof this. I have another post here about the Normal Incidence and no luck.

I am not even convinced that the reflected E is even in the Plane of Incidence, how do you even proof this. I have 5 EM books only Griffiths even attempt to proof in a way I don't even agree for the Normal Incidence. Every book pretty much just give the polarity. If anyone have article or notes, please share with me.

Thanks

Alan
 

Attachments

  • Oblique L.jpg
    Oblique L.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 479
Science news on Phys.org
Try solving the problem there. I faced the very same hurdle. The boundary conditions beautifully bring out the result
 

Attachments

sudu.ghonge said:
Try solving the problem there. I faced the very same hurdle. The boundary conditions beautifully bring out the result

Actually this is exactly what I was struggling with in the other post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=694386

I am going no where, I spent like two days thinking about that problem already, please take a look and give me some insight. I have the solution manual and I just don't agree with it. The hint make an assumption the the reflected wave is tangential as a starter and where is the proof that the reflected wave is even tangential to the boundary?

For me, the proof I can accept is if ## \hat n_R=\hat x \cos \theta_R+\hat y \sin\theta_R+ \hat z f(\theta_R)## and proof that y and z component are both zero. Or better yet, proof reflection of a TEM wave is also a TEM wave.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top