Proving Optical Law in plane mirror

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the distance of an image in a plane mirror is equal to the distance of the object from the mirror. The user successfully demonstrated this using similar triangles and congruent triangles, establishing that the size of the image matches the object. They seek further clarification on proving that the angles of the image and object with respect to the principal axis are the same, expressing uncertainty about their initial assumption of both angles being 90 degrees. A suggestion is made to analyze the situation using electromagnetic wave principles to reinforce the proof. Overall, the user is looking for a more rigorous explanation of the angle relationships in the context of plane mirrors.
rktpro
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I tried to prove that distance of image is same as the distance of object in a plane mirror.
The image attached is the ray diagram.

First of all, I have assumed object and image to be parallel to mirror.

First I proved angle TSA = angle TSa

Then I have made similar triangle TSA and triangle TSa with AA similarity. ( where angle ATS = angle aTS ----each 90)

Therefore, TS/TS = TA/Ta
=> TA=Ta ( TS/TS = 1 )
=> AS=aS
( corresponding parts of similar triangle are equal in ratio)
Using this, I have made triangle ABS and abs congruent.
where,
As=aS
angle ASB = angle aSB
angle ABS = angle aBS

=> AB=aB ( corresponding parts of congruent triangles are equal)

Therefor, size of image is same as that of object.

Also, Bs=bS
(corresponding parts of congruent triangles)

That is, distance of image from mirror is same as that of object from mirror.

Now, I want to know how to prove that angle of image is same as that of object with principal axis? Because in my above method I already assumed both to be 90 degree. In other words, how to prove that image is erect too?
 

Attachments

  • optics.jpg
    optics.jpg
    5.6 KB · Views: 426
Science news on Phys.org
If you want to know the right way, you start with the general electromagnetic wave expression. Write it down for the incident, reflected, and transmitted waves, then apply boundary conditions at the surface separating free space from the material. Because the incident and reflected waves exist in the same medium and must obey appropriate boundary conditions at all points on the planar interface, you find that they have the same frequency, same wave number, and same angle to the normal (on opposite sides).
 
rktpro said:
I tried to prove that distance of image is same as the distance of object in a plane mirror.
The image attached is the ray diagram.

First of all, I have assumed object and image to be parallel to mirror.

First I proved angle TSA = angle TSa

Then I have made similar triangle TSA and triangle TSa with AA similarity. ( where angle ATS = angle aTS ----each 90)

Therefore, TS/TS = TA/Ta
=> TA=Ta ( TS/TS = 1 )
=> AS=aS
( corresponding parts of similar triangle are equal in ratio)
Using this, I have made triangle ABS and abs congruent.
where,
As=aS
angle ASB = angle aSB
angle ABS = angle aBS

=> AB=aB ( corresponding parts of congruent triangles are equal)

Therefor, size of image is same as that of object.

Also, Bs=bS
(corresponding parts of congruent triangles)

That is, distance of image from mirror is same as that of object from mirror.

Now, I want to know how to prove that angle of image is same as that of object with principal axis? Because in my above method I already assumed both to be 90 degree. In other words, how to prove that image is erect too?

You have actually already proved it.
You have proved that the image of point A is at the point marked a and that this point is
-behind the mirror
-equidistant
-in the position shown

Now do the same for any other point on the object and you will find the same result.
All points on the object have their image equidistant behind the mirror.
This means point B has an image at b.
Therefore the object as a whole is exactly where you placed it.
 
chrisbaird, I am unaware of this physics of waves. I am going to get a read at it. But, I am very thankful to you that this can be verified.

Stonebridge, The proof by assumption may be wrong. I wanted to know why the angles are same. I have proved it all using this assumption.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top