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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter yungman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Polarity Proof Wave
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the polarity of the reflected wave during oblique incidence, specifically questioning the assumption that the reflected electric field vector, ##\hat E_{||}^r=\hat y_r=(\hat x \cos \theta_r +\hat z \sin\theta_r)##. Participants express skepticism about the reflected wave's alignment within the plane of incidence and seek rigorous proof, particularly in relation to boundary conditions. Alan emphasizes the need for a definitive proof that the reflected wave is tangential to the boundary, suggesting that existing literature, including Griffiths' work, fails to provide satisfactory explanations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic wave propagation
  • Familiarity with boundary conditions in electromagnetism
  • Knowledge of oblique incidence and reflection principles
  • Proficiency in vector calculus and wave equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of boundary conditions for electromagnetic waves
  • Study the properties of transverse electromagnetic (TEM) waves
  • Examine the mathematical proof of wave reflection in oblique incidence scenarios
  • Explore advanced texts on electromagnetic theory, focusing on wave polarization
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, as well as researchers looking to deepen their understanding of wave behavior at boundaries and oblique incidence phenomena.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
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: 497
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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K