Light between 2 towers reflecting off a lake

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArmChairPhysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lake Light
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on solving a calculus problem from the "Life of Fred Calculus" book, involving two towers and a beam of light reflecting off a lake. The problem requires finding the distance from the base of the left tower where the light beam strikes the lake, given the heights of the towers (7 feet and 21 feet) and their distance apart (120 feet). The solution involves using derivatives to minimize the total distance traveled by the light, expressed as a function of the distance from the left tower. The final answer is established as 50 feet from the base of the left tower.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus concepts, including derivatives and optimization.
  • Familiarity with trigonometric functions and their applications in geometry.
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions and solve equations.
  • Knowledge of the principles of reflection, particularly in the context of light.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Fermat's principle of least time in optics.
  • Learn how to derive and apply the chain rule in calculus.
  • Practice solving optimization problems involving derivatives.
  • Explore the relationship between trigonometry and calculus in real-world applications.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, educators teaching mathematical optimization, and anyone interested in applying calculus to solve geometric problems involving reflections and distances.

  • #31
Stand by, mathematics in progress.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
If I recall correctly, because both expressions are of the same power: ^1/2, I can combine them without any issue, correct?
 
  • #33
ArmChairPhysicist said:
If I recall correctly, because both expressions are of the same power: ^1/2, I can combine them without any issue, correct?

Combine them how? If you mean \sqrt(a) + \sqrt(b) = \sqrt(a + b), then no, you can't do that.
 
  • #34
So I have
(7^2 + X^2)^1/2 + (21^2 + (120-x)^2)^1/2 as the total length
 
  • #35
ArmChairPhysicist said:
So I have
(7^2 + X^2)^1/2 + (21^2 + (120-x)^2)^1/2 as the total length

Correct. Good job. Now use calculus to find the value of X which minimizes the length.
 
  • #36
I can expand (120-x)^2 into its polynomial and combine within the expression,
 
  • #37
Ok, now the chain rule
 
  • #38
If I did it right
AF' is

2x/(2(7^2+X^2)^1/2)
 
  • #39
When taking the derivative of the DF expression, is it best to expand (120-X)^2 before taking the derivative?
 
  • #40
I have this now for DF'
282-2X / 2(21^2 +(120-X)^2)^1/2
 
  • #41
Then I simplify those, set them to zero and solve I believe?
 
  • #42
Could I square the fractions to eliminate the radicals?
 
  • #43
If not how should I go about simplifying what I have
 
  • #44
Currently I have this by cross multiplying out the denominators.
X•sqrt(21^2 +(120-X)^2) +
(141-X)•sqrt(7^2+X^2)=0
 
  • #45
image.jpg

This is my current equation, and is what I'm attempting to simplify.

I know that my end goal is to isolate X so I can solve, but I need to eliminate those radicals, and I can't figure out how. Any ideas?
 
  • #46
ArmChairPhysicist said:
View attachment 196037
This is my current equation, and is what I'm attempting to simplify.

I know that my end goal is to isolate X so I can solve, but I need to eliminate those radicals, and I can't figure out how. Any ideas?

Rewrite the derivative by combining the terms over the common denominator ##D = \sqrt{7^2+x^2} \sqrt{21^2+(120-x)^2}##. That will produce a numerator having the square roots in two terms. Now equate the numerator to zero, using the standard approach, which is to re-write the equation so that the two square-roots are on opposite sides; then square both sides. That gets rid of all the square roots.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
ArmChairPhysicist said:
View attachment 196037
This is my current equation, and is what I'm attempting to simplify.

I know that my end goal is to isolate X so I can solve, but I need to eliminate those radicals, and I can't figure out how. Any ideas?

I would check where that '141' in the numerator came from.
 
  • #48
The 141 came from me taking the derivative of 21^2+(120-x)2

2 • 21 ^2-1 =
42

(120-x)^2 = 2(120-X)^1 correct?
 
  • #49
Then when I reduced the fractions in my equation 282-2x became 141-x unless I messed up somewhere
 
  • #50
So from this
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 399
  • #51
image.jpg
To this?
 
  • #52
Cancel out the denominator, then square both sides?
 
  • #53
image.jpg
Which gets me this.
 
  • #54
ArmChairPhysicist said:
Well, the answer is yes, since you have done exactly what I suggested. However: please do not continually ask questions as to whether your next step is correct or not---just work it all out, from beginning to the end (or, at least, as FAR as you can). Try to develop some confidence in your own work.
 
  • #55
Now I simply solve for x?
 
  • #56
Ok thank you
 
  • #57
Thank you so much for your help and time.
 
  • #58
ArmChairPhysicist said:
The 141 came from me taking the derivative of 21^2+(120-x)2

2 • 21 ^2-1 =
42

(120-x)^2 = 2(120-X)^1 correct?

Not correct. The derivative of ##21^2## is zero. It's a constant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K