Please check what's in the Ulaby book regarding reflection.

  • Thread starter Thread starter yungman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Reflection
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a perceived error in Ulaby's book regarding the representation of the distance to the origin in the context of perpendicularly polarized plane waves. The equation presented, x_i = x sin(θ_i) + z cos(θ_i), is critiqued as not accurately representing a distance, which should be expressed as |x_i| = √(x² sin²(θ_i) + z² cos²(θ_i)). The conversation highlights the complexity of understanding wave vectors and their relationship to position vectors, with references to other texts like Cheng's and Griffiths for comparison. There is frustration expressed over the clarity of the material, particularly regarding the nomenclature of the electric field and its directional representation. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the need for clearer explanations in academic texts on this topic.
yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
Attached is a scanned of the page in question. This is regarding to Perpendicularly polarized plane wave. in equation (9.47a) at the lower left corner it is the distance ##x_i## to the origin.
x_i=x\sin\theta_i+z\cos\theta_i\;\hbox {(9.47a)}

That is not a distance. distance of ##|\vec x_i|=\sqrt{x^2 \sin^2\theta_i+z^2\cos^2\theta_i}##, not ##x_i=x\sin\theta_i+z\cos\theta_i##.

Actually ##\hat x_i=\hat x\sin\theta_i+\hat z\cos\theta_i\;\hbox { and }\vec x_i=\hat x|x_i|\sin\theta_i+\hat z|x_i|\cos\theta_i##

Am I missing something because it's Memorial Day this weekend?! Did I read the book wrong?
 

Attachments

  • E&H L.jpg
    E&H L.jpg
    77.1 KB · Views: 401
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
I think I dislike the way this was presented in this book.

Consider the incident wave like this

e^{-j\, \vec{k}_i\, \cdot \, \vec{r}}

now if we factor out the magnitude of the wave vector so that \vec{k}_i = k_i \hat{k}_i

\vec{k}_i \, \cdot \, \vec{r} = k_i \hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r}

\hat{k}_i points along the direction that the incident wave travels.

\hat{k}_i = \cos\theta \hat{z} + \sin\theta \hat{x}

talking the dot product of \hat{k}_i with the position vector

\hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = z\cos\theta \hat{z} + x\sin\theta \hat{x} \vec{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = k_i \hat{k}_i \cdot \vec{r} = k_i(z\cos\theta \hat{z} + x\sin\theta \hat{x} )
 
Yes I figured this out today. None of the books present this well at all. I had to read Cheng's, Griffiths, and Ulaby and work on the vector calculus to figure this and interpreted it out, it's like what you have.

I am surprised good book like Griffiths does not do a good job in this particular section.

Notice the nomenclature of the E field is deceiving too. They all use ##\vec E_I(\vec r,t)##. But in fact ##\vec r=\hat xx+\hat yy+\hat zz## is not the direction of the propagation. ##\vec r## is only used to provide the c,y and z terms by the dot product. If it is according to Ulaby that I scanned, it should be ##\vec E_I(\vec x_i,t)## as ##\vec x_i## is the direction of propagation of the ##\vec E_I##.

Thanks
 
Back
Top