Problem with light-ray construction

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter psychics_xxx
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the geometric construction of light rays in relation to rainbow formation, specifically addressing the angles of incidence and reflection at various points. The user incorrectly assumes that angle alpha equals 2 times angle beta, which is proven to be false. The critical angle for internal reflection at the water-air interface is clarified to be approximately 41°, contradicting the user's claim of 30°. The importance of accurately depicting the angles and points of reflection in diagrams is emphasized for correct ray tracing.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of geometric optics principles, specifically reflection and refraction.
  • Familiarity with the concept of critical angles in light behavior at interfaces.
  • Knowledge of ray tracing techniques in optical diagrams.
  • Basic trigonometry to calculate angles of incidence and reflection.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of light refraction at interfaces, focusing on Snell's Law.
  • Learn about the critical angle and total internal reflection in different mediums.
  • Explore ray tracing methods in optical simulations using software like GeoGebra.
  • Investigate the mathematical relationships between angles in optical phenomena, particularly in rainbow formation.
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, optical engineering, and anyone interested in the mathematical modeling of light behavior and rainbow formation.

psychics_xxx
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey, this is my first post so I am looking forward to see your answers! The problem is rather simply, it's about origin of rainbow. As you can see in image below, my calculations implies that always alpha = 2*betha which is of course wrong. Can someone prove why that is? It's all included in my notes but if some things need claryfication, just let me know.

1000014019.webp
 
Science news on Phys.org
psychics_xxx said:
Why do you assume that B is on the dashed horizontal line through O?
 
A.T. said:
Why do you assume that B is on the dashed horizontal line through O?
Well, maybe I am wrong, but if point B was a little bit higher or lower, can't we just "rotate" our refference and the image would be the same?
Ps. Yeah it does not make sens but the equation: theta = 4 beta - 2 alpha is correct and gives right angle 42 for caustic
 
psychics_xxx said:
can't we just "rotate" our refference and the image would be the same?
In your image, the interior rays are symmetrical to a different axis than the exterior rays. Rotating the reference frame cannot fix that.
 
You are showing the ray internally reflected at B. That's fine. However, it means that angle β is equal or greater than the angle of internal reflection. So why do you show the ray reflected at A but not also at C where the internal angle of incidence is also β?

Drop Refraction.webp
Also note that, for the water-air interface, the critical angle for internal reflection is about 41° not 30° as implied in your diagram. This means that your drawing should show the ray exiting at A. The drawing on the right is to scale.
The incoming horizontal ray is tangent to the circle at point A which is at the 12 o'clock position.
The refracted ray is at 41° withe respect to the vertical radius and intersects the circle at point B.
This internal ray is reflected (at what angle?) and intersects the circle at point C.
What is the internal angle of incidence at C and how should you draw the ray past that point?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
748
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K