Optics, reflexion over water: why?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Optics Water
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of light at the interface between air and water, specifically addressing the phenomena of reflection and refraction. Participants explore the implications of Fermat's principle and Snell's law in understanding why reflections occur on the surface of water despite the absence of a critical angle for light entering from air.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that while Snell's law describes refraction, it does not account for reflection, which can also be derived from Fermat's principle.
  • Others argue that even though light entering water from air does not have a critical angle, some energy is reflected at the air-water interface, allowing for visible reflections.
  • A participant questions whether Fermat's principle is a fundamental law of the universe, suggesting that it may not apply universally in all situations.
  • Another participant clarifies that Snell's law and the law of reflection do not specify the proportions of energy reflected versus transmitted, focusing instead on the paths of light.
  • Some participants emphasize the distinction between total internal reflection and regular reflection, noting that regular reflection occurs independently of critical angles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of Fermat's principle and the nature of reflection and refraction. There is no consensus on whether Fermat's principle is a fundamental law or how it applies to energy transmission and reflection at boundaries.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight misunderstandings regarding the relationship between critical angles, total internal reflection, and the behavior of light at interfaces. The discussion reveals complexities in the application of Snell's law and the laws of reflection.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying optics, physics students exploring light behavior, and individuals seeking to understand the principles governing reflection and refraction at material boundaries.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286
Starting from Fermat's principle, one can reach Snell's law. In the derivation, one find that there can be a critical angle at which light doesn't pass anymore from a material to another. That is, if you consider 2 materials and the light starts in the material of greater refractive index.
For example if we have air and water. Water has a greater refractive index than air, mathematically we have [tex]n_{\text{water}}>n_{\text{air}}[/tex].
However there is no critical angle if we are in the air and throw a light beam to the water. It means that any light beams heading into the water will cross the water surface and eventually be under water' surface. Then why can we see a reflexion over water surface? It may be our own face, Sun or clouds, but there is a reflexion of light over water. How is that possible?
 
Science news on Phys.org
If you have light going from air to water it´s true that any incidence angle is O.K. but it doesn´t mean the total amount of energy goes into the water. At the air-boundary interface a set of boundary relationships of the electric and magnetic fields must be satisfied. The resulting set of equations (Fresnel equations) say that some energy gets into the water and some energy is reflected. That´s why you can see a reflected image.
 
Gordianus said:
If you have light going from air to water it´s true that any incidence angle is O.K. but it doesn´t mean the total amount of energy goes into the water. At the air-boundary interface a set of boundary relationships of the electric and magnetic fields must be satisfied. The resulting set of equations (Fresnel equations) say that some energy gets into the water and some energy is reflected. That´s why you can see a reflected image.

Ok thanks for the reply.
Does this imply that Fermat's principle is not a fundamental law of the Universe?
 
Snell's law only tells you about refraction, it says nothing about reflection. You can also derive the law of reflection from Fermat's principle. In that sense, Fermat's principle remains a "fundamental law."
 
cmos said:
Snell's law only tells you about refraction, it says nothing about reflection. You can also derive the law of reflection from Fermat's principle. In that sense, Fermat's principle remains a "fundamental law."

In fact I've derived Snell's law and the law of reflexion via Fermat's principle. But I've understood that if light passes from a medium with a refractive index into another medium with a greater refractive index, then there is no critical angle. It means that the totality of a light beam should get refracted and no partly reflected and partly reflexion as I can see with the case of air-water.

By fundamental law, I meant a law that always holds, no matter the situation.
 
fluidistic said:
In fact I've derived Snell's law and the law of reflexion via Fermat's principle. But I've understood that if light passes from a medium with a refractive index into another medium with a greater refractive index, then there is no critical angle. It means that the totality of a light beam should get refracted and no partly reflected and partly reflexion as I can see with the case of air-water.

By fundamental law, I meant a law that always holds, no matter the situation.

Unfortunately, that is a misunderstanding on your part then. Snell's law and the law of specular reflection make no assertions on the amount of energy transmitted and reflected. They are merely a means of deriving the path of the light. The critical angle marks the point where the path of light cannot proceed through the interface, that is the only reason why we can make any assertions about the fact that no light is transmitted.
 
Don't confuse total internal reflection with regular reflection. Light reflects off of mirrors, not because they are incident at angles greater than the critical angle.

You can think of total internal reflection as ANOTHER mechanism by which light rays may reflect instead of passing through the medium.
 
Matterwave said:
Don't confuse total internal reflection with regular reflection. Light reflects off of mirrors, not because they are incident at angles greater than the critical angle.

You can think of total internal reflection as ANOTHER mechanism by which light rays may reflect instead of passing through the medium.

Ok thanks for the information. I'm new to optics and I think I'm going to learn more about how light behaves.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
434
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
20K