Is Isotropic Surface Roughness Assumption Valid?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the assumption of isotropic surface roughness in the context of scattering from rough surfaces, as described in a textbook. The original poster questions the validity of this assumption, suggesting that it may only apply to very specific surface conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the isotropic assumption, questioning whether it represents a physical reality or merely a statistical relationship. Some express skepticism about the assumption's applicability to real surfaces with varying features.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants sharing differing viewpoints on the isotropic assumption. Some suggest that it may be valid under certain conditions, while others remain critical of its applicability. There is no explicit consensus, but the discussion is generating insights into the nature of surface roughness.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the assumption may hold true at an intermediate scale between atomic-level oscillations and macroscopic flat surfaces. There is also mention of the statistical treatment of surface correlations in the referenced textbook.

Irid
Messages
207
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


I'm studying scattering from a rough surface, and my textbook defines h(x,y) as a small vertical deviation from a flat surface. Then they proceed calculations by assuming that the height difference between two points h(x,y)-h(x',y')=some f(x-x', y-y'), i.e. it depends only on the relative position of the two points. In other words, the surface is isotropic.


2. Question
I don't see what kind of surface would ever fulfill this condition, except some very special one, like a constant inclination. If there are any bumps or dips, obviously Δh will not be the same as me move around the surface using the same bar of length (x-x')... Could anybody explain this assumption?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree, it would imply that all points with rational offsets from a given point would form a plane. Are you sure that's what is being assumed, rather than some statistical relationship?
 
I'm referring to the book 'Modern X-Ray Physics'. They first assume this isotropic surface to evaluate a 4-D integral, and the statistical correlation between different points comes in later (uncorrelated surface and Gaussian correlation are treated in detail). My Prof. hinted that the isotropic assumption is valid on a scale intermediate between the rapid oscilations at atomic level and the flat surface at macroscopic distances. Apparently this is an isotropic roughness assumption, but I can't find any clear info on it :(
 
It still only makes sense to me as a statistical statement, e.g. that the probability distribution of h(x,y)-h(x',y')=some f(x-x', y-y'). Can you quote the book in some detail?
 
I think I got it figured out. The assumption in that crap book is plain wrong, but the final answer is correct, even though for a completely different reason... since the roughness is isotropic, the integral over x' over a sufficiently large distance will not depend on where x was chosen, which renders integral over x trivial. Thanks for inspiration anyway :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
13K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K