Hugen's Principle Explained: A Beginner's Guide

  • Thread starter Thread starter pardesi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Principle
AI Thread Summary
Huygens' principle posits that every point on a wavefront acts as a new point source of waves, leading to the propagation of the wave through interference of secondary wavelets. While it serves as a useful model for understanding wave behavior, it has limitations, such as not accurately predicting evanescent waves and allowing for interference from waves propagating in opposite directions. The principle is integral to deriving the relationship between the Fourier transform of an aperture function and its far-field diffraction pattern, highlighting its relevance in diffraction theory. A more precise interpretation involves representing a wave as a sum of infinite plane waves with varying amplitudes. Overall, Huygens' principle is a foundational concept in wave theory, despite its idealized nature.
pardesi
Messages
337
Reaction score
0
can someone explain that i really don't make any real sense or use out of it
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hugyen's principle just says that any point on a wavefront can be thought of as a new point source of waves. Thus along a wavefront there are an infinite number of points all emitting sphereical waves. The interference from these secondary wavelets constructs a new wave front ahead of the first, and so on, allowing the wave to propogate through space. Ofcourse this does not really happen, it is just a way to model the situation, one drawback of this theory is that the point sources emit waves radially and so some of the waves are directed in the opposite direction to wave propagtaion, causing interference. So as you can see it is only an idea, not a reality.
 
Retsam said:
not a reality.

Not even for the case of, say, sound waves through a solid?
 
yes i got that part but is there any point in 'using' it.I really don't get the crunch of the situation and rather feel it narrows down the meaning of a wave.
 
Huygens' principle is used in the derivation that relates the Fourier transform of an aperture function to its far-field diffraction pattern, so to gain a full appreciation of how Huygens' principle fits into diffraction theory - and not just as a hand-waving argument, I suggest looking up this derivation and seeing how Huygens' principle forms a crucial step.

Huygens' principle however is not 100% accurate (as it does not predict the existence of evanescent waves for example). A more rigorous version of Huygens' principle regards a wave as the sum of a series of infinite plane waves with varying amplitudes, with each plane wave possessing a single propagation constant (much the same way a sine wave possesses a single frequency).

Claude.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top