Proving that the incident intensity is not the same as the sum of others

  • Thread starter Thread starter LCSphysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intensity Sum
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between the coefficients of reflected and transmitted electric fields, denoted as R and T, and their corresponding intensity fractions r and t. The user successfully derived the relationships r = R^2 and t = nT^2, where n is the index of refraction of the second medium. However, confusion arises when attempting to prove that the sum of the reflected and transmitted intensities does not equal the incident intensity, despite using this assumption to derive the relations. The user references external material suggesting that the reflected and transmitted intensities do indeed sum to the incident intensity, questioning their interpretation of the problem. Clarification is sought on how to reconcile these findings and prove the necessary relations.
LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
162
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
I was supposed to find the relation among the coefficients $T$ and $R$ which represent the amplitude of the reflected electric field and the transmitted electric field respectively, that is, $$E_{R} = E_{i} R, E_{T} = E_{i} T$$ as well as the coefficients $t$ and $r$, that represent the fractional part of the intensity incident, that is, $$I_{R} = I_{i} r, I_{T} = I_{i} t$$

In fact, assuming that the first medium is the air/vacuum, I was able to deduce correctly the relations $$r = R^2, t = nT^2$$ where $n$ is the index of refraction of the second medium.

After doing so, I should be able to show that the sum of the intensities of the reflected and the transmitted wave is not equal to the intensity of the incident wave. The main problem is that I used exactly this to drive my relations! That is:

$$S_i = S_t + S_r \implies \frac{B_i E_i}{\mu_1} = \frac{B_t E_t}{\mu_2} + \frac{B_r E_r}{\mu_1}$$
$$B = E/v \implies \frac{1}{\mu_1} = \frac{R^2}{\mu_1} + \frac{T^2 c}{c/n \cdot \mu_2}$$
$$ \mu_{1} \approx \mu_{2} \implies 1 = R^2 + n T^2$$

where I now call $r = R^2, t = n T^2$

So I think you can see why I am confused. How am I supposed to prove the relations between $r$, $t$, $R$, $T$; and how do I prove that the intensities are in fact not equal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Herculi said:
Homework Statement:: .
Relevant Equations:: .

I was supposed to find the relation among the coefficients $T$ and $R$ which represent the amplitude of the reflected electric field and the transmitted electric field respectively, that is, $$E_{R} = E_{i} R, E_{T} = E_{i} T$$ as well as the coefficients $t$ and $r$, that represent the fractional part of the intensity incident, that is, $$I_{R} = I_{i} r, I_{T} = I_{i} t$$

In fact, assuming that the first medium is the air/vacuum, I was able to deduce correctly the relations $$r = R^2, t = nT^2$$ where $n$ is the index of refraction of the second medium.

After doing so, I should be able to show that the sum of the intensities of the reflected and the transmitted wave is not equal to the intensity of the incident wave. The main problem is that I used exactly this to drive my relations! That is:

$$S_i = S_t + S_r \implies \frac{B_i E_i}{\mu_1} = \frac{B_t E_t}{\mu_2} + \frac{B_r E_r}{\mu_1}$$
$$B = E/v \implies \frac{1}{\mu_1} = \frac{R^2}{\mu_1} + \frac{T^2 c}{c/n \cdot \mu_2}$$
$$ \mu_{1} \approx \mu_{2} \implies 1 = R^2 + n T^2$$

where I now call $r = R^2, t = n T^2$

So I think you can see why I am confused. How am I supposed to prove the relations between $r$, $t$, $R$, $T$; and how do I prove that the intensities are in fact not equal?
According to (1232) onwards at https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node104.html the reflected and transmitted intensities do add up to the incident.
The notation is a little different, using R, T where you have r, t.

Are you sure you are reading the question correctly?
 
Thread 'Minimum mass of a block'
Here we know that if block B is going to move up or just be at the verge of moving up ##Mg \sin \theta ## will act downwards and maximum static friction will act downwards ## \mu Mg \cos \theta ## Now what im confused by is how will we know " how quickly" block B reaches its maximum static friction value without any numbers, the suggested solution says that when block A is at its maximum extension, then block B will start to move up but with a certain set of values couldn't block A reach...
TL;DR Summary: Find Electric field due to charges between 2 parallel infinite planes using Gauss law at any point Here's the diagram. We have a uniform p (rho) density of charges between 2 infinite planes in the cartesian coordinates system. I used a cube of thickness a that spans from z=-a/2 to z=a/2 as a Gaussian surface, each side of the cube has area A. I know that the field depends only on z since there is translational invariance in x and y directions because the planes are...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Back
Top