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
Click For 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 'Correct statement about size of wire to produce larger extension'
The answer is (B) but I don't really understand why. Based on formula of Young Modulus: $$x=\frac{FL}{AE}$$ The second wire made of the same material so it means they have same Young Modulus. Larger extension means larger value of ##x## so to get larger value of ##x## we can increase ##F## and ##L## and decrease ##A## I am not sure whether there is change in ##F## for first and second wire so I will just assume ##F## does not change. It leaves (B) and (C) as possible options so why is (C)...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
723
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
867
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K