Modification of Law of Reflection from a (moving) mirror in Special Relativity

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the modification of the law of reflection when considering a moving mirror in the context of Special Relativity. Participants explore the implications of the mirror's motion on the angles of incidence and reflection, as well as the potential validity of Snell's Law in a laboratory frame for a moving mirror. The conversation includes theoretical considerations and references to previous work on the topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a method for determining the angles of reflection and incidence for a moving mirror, suggesting that Snell's Law may hold in the laboratory frame under certain conditions.
  • Another participant suggests verifying the results by performing a Lorentz transformation from the mirror's rest frame to the lab frame, indicating that this approach was already considered.
  • Some participants reference a previous thread discussing similar issues, noting that in specific cases, the reflected light ray may return along the same path as the incident ray regardless of the mirror's velocity.
  • There is a question raised about the behavior of light at Brewster's angle when the mirror is moving, particularly regarding polarization effects.
  • One participant speculates about the relationship between reflection, Doppler shift, and conservation of momentum concerning light, suggesting a potential equivalence between reflected and emitted light.
  • Another participant expresses interest in exploring cases where the mirror is inclined at angles other than the Thomas angle, indicating a desire for broader analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of Snell's Law for a moving mirror and the implications of the mirror's motion on reflection and refraction. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions regarding the motion of the mirror and the treatment of angles in different frames may not be fully articulated, and the discussion does not resolve the mathematical complexities involved in the transformations between frames.

maverick280857
Messages
1,774
Reaction score
5
Hi everyone

A few weeks ago, I had worked out the relations between the angle of reflection and angle of incidence in case of reflection from a plane mirror,

(1) moving toward the incident ray
(2) moving normal to the incident ray

(PS -- This is not homework.)

The way I did it was (for the first case, as an example)

1. Assume the angle of incidence is [itex]\theta[/itex] in the lab frame.
2. The velocity of the mirror is

[tex]\mathbf{v}_{m} = -v_{m}\sin\theta\hat{x} + v_{m}\cos\theta\hat{y}[/tex]

3. The velocity of the light ray in the lab frame is,

[tex]\mathbf{v}_{l} = c\sin\theta\hat{x} - c\cos\theta\hat{y}[/tex]

4. Find the velocity of the incident light ray in the mirror frame,

[tex]\mathbf{v}_{i;m} = \frac{\mathbf{v}_l + (\gamma-1)\frac{\mathbf{v_l}\cdot\mathbf{V_m}}{V_m^2}\mathbf{V}_m -\gamma\mathbf{V}_m}{\gamma\left(1-\frac{\mathbf{v_l}\cdot\mathbf{V_m}}{c^2}\right)} = c\cos i \hat{x} - c\sin i \hat{y}[/tex]

where [itex]i[/itex] is the angle of incidence in the frame of the mirror.

5. Use the law of reflection in the frame of the mirror, to write the velocity of the reflected ray as

[tex]\mathbf{v}_{r;m} = c\cos i \hat{x} + c\sin i \hat{y}[/tex]

6. Transform this velocity back to the lab frame, using the inverse of formula 4 (with i --> r, for the reflected ray of course).

7. From this transformed velocity, find the angle of reflection in the lab frame.

The original question was to find the modification to Snell's Laws for a moving mirror. I thought the above procedure is a correct way of doing it. I was able to show that for low velocities, Snell's law does also hold in the laboratory frame (we have assumed in step 5 that it always holds in the frame of the mirror -- which seems reasonable to me).

But I came across this short article: http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/pdf/aberration.pdf , and it seems to suggest that I made some mistake.

What is going wrong? Is the procedure I outlined above correct?

Does Snell's Law hold even in the laboratory frame for a moving mirror?

Would appreciate inputs/insights.

Thanks in advance,
Vivek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can check your answer by working out the problem normally in the rest frame of the mirror, then Lorentz transforming to the lab frame.

Edit: Oops, I guess you already did that. You can check your answer here http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605057 .
 
Last edited:
maverick280857 said:
(1) moving toward the incident ray

We had a go at working this out in this thread --> https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=352427&highlight=reflection+mirror

maverick280857 said:
(2) moving normal to the incident ray

I think it is generally accepted that in this special case, the reflected light ray will return along the same path as the incident light ray for any relative velocity of the mirror.

Also, in the frame of the light source, a mirror with motion components that are parallel and normal to the incident light ray, can be treated as if it only had the parallel motion component as far as working out the angle of reflection is concerned.
 
If the plane mirror (dielectric of index of refraction n) is moving perpendicular to the incident light, and the reflection is observed at a velocity such that the light is incident at Brewster's angle, will light of one polarization be reflected and the other refracted? Suppose the mirror is stationary, and the observer is moving at a velocity such that the angle of incidence is Brewster's angle?
Bob S
 
yuiop said:
We had a go at working this out in this thread --> https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=352427&highlight=reflection+mirror

Also, in the frame of the light source, a mirror with motion components that are parallel and normal to the incident light ray, can be treated as if it only had the parallel motion component as far as working out the angle of reflection is concerned.

If refraction was considered, could it be that incident,reflected and refracted were not in plane, depending on the velocity of the mirror ?
 
yuiop said:
We had a go at working this out in this thread --> https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=352427&highlight=reflection+mirror



I think it is generally accepted that in this special case, the reflected light ray will return along the same path as the incident light ray for any relative velocity of the mirror.

Also, in the frame of the light source, a mirror with motion components that are parallel and normal to the incident light ray, can be treated as if it only had the parallel motion component as far as working out the angle of reflection is concerned.
I looked at your diagrams in the other thread. Very interesting.
It appears from the cases you considered that there is no essential difference between reflected light and light emitted at the same angle. Do you think this would be a general equivalence?
Obviously beaming and aberration are interchangable being essentially the same phenomenon, is it possible that reflection is also basically a consequence of the conservation of momentum wrt light and comp[letely equivalent??
This also seems to suggest that Doppler shift would apply equally to reflected and emitted light what do you think?

It would have been nice if you had included a case where the mirrow was actually inclined at a proper 30 deg angle not just a Thomas angle.
Thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
8K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K