Proving the Reflection of Light Ray from Parabolic Mirror on x-Axis

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that a light ray emitted from the focus of a parabolic mirror, defined by the equation y² = 4px, reflects parallel to the x-axis. The user has derived the gradients of the lines PA and FN, confirming they are perpendicular, and is attempting to establish the similarity of triangles PAF and PAN. Key concepts include the properties of angles in reflections and the use of trigonometric identities, specifically tan(2θ) = (2tan(θ))/(1 - tan²(θ)), to demonstrate the relationship between the angles of incidence and reflection.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of parabolic equations, specifically y² = 4px.
  • Knowledge of geometric properties of reflections and angles.
  • Familiarity with trigonometric identities, particularly tan(2θ).
  • Basic concepts of similar triangles in geometry.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of parabolas and their reflective characteristics.
  • Learn about the derivation and application of the tangent double angle formula.
  • Explore the concept of similar triangles and their applications in geometric proofs.
  • Investigate the principles of conic sections, focusing on parabolas and their focal properties.
USEFUL FOR

Students studying geometry, particularly those learning about conic sections and reflections, as well as educators seeking to clarify the properties of parabolas and their applications in optics.

PotatoSalad
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I'm hopelessly stuck on this question. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Prove that if we have a parabolic mirror with focus at F and axis of symmetry the x-axis, then a light ray emmited from F will be reflected parallel to the x-axis.

To prove this consider the parabola y^2=4px (where the focus is at the point (p,0) and the directrix is the line x=-p) and the diagram (below) where N is the point on the directrix which is nearest to P and AP is a tangent to the parabola. Consider the gradients of FN and AP. Use this information to show that the triangle PAF is similar to PAN.


http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3983/parabolayp5.jpg

I have managed to show that the gradient of the line PA is (2p/y) and FN is (-y/2p) so those 2 lines are perpendicular. But this is about the only progress I have made with the question.

Thanks for your help.

EDIT:
Sorry, just noticed my diagram is slightly wrong. The point A should be on the y-axis and should also intersect with FN.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Extend line FP beyond the parabola and extend line NP to the right. You should be able to see that, since reflections have angles of incoming and outgoing rays the same, the angle NP extended makes with the tangent (the angle of the incoming ray) is equal to the angle FP (the outgoing ray) makes with the tangent. Then "vertical angles" shows that the angle FP makes with the tangent is the same as is the same as FP extended makes with the tangent- which is the same that the incoming ray, NP extended, makes with the tangent. But then that angel NP extended makes with FP extended is TWICE the angle NP extended makes with the tangent.

And the angle FP makes with NP extended is ("corresponding angles in parallel lines") the same as FP makes with the axis of the parabola: twice the angle NP extended makes with the tangent. Now use the fact that the tangent of that angle is the slope of line FP and that
tan(2\theta)= \frac{2tan(\theta)}{1- tan^2(\theta)}
 
HallsofIvy said:
Then "vertical angles" shows that the angle FP makes with the tangent is the same as is the same as FP extended makes with the tangent- which is the same that the incoming ray, NP extended, makes with the tangent.
I don't see how you have come to this conclusion.Or are you just trying to say that for it to work those angles must be equal but you have not yet proved it?

HallsofIvy said:
But then that angel NP extended makes with FP extended is TWICE the angle NP extended makes with the tangent.
Again, are you just saying that this must be true (in which case I understand why that is), or are you trying to claim that you have already proved it is true?

HallsofIvy said:
And the angle FP makes with NP extended is ("corresponding angles in parallel lines") the same as FP makes with the axis of the parabola: twice the angle NP extended makes with the tangent.
HallsofIvy said:
Now use the fact that the tangent of that angle is the slope of line FP and that
tan(2\theta)= \frac{2tan(\theta)}{1- tan^2(\theta)}

Please explain why the bold part is true. Sorry I am struggling so much with this question, we only got introduced to conic sections last week so there are still a lot of things I have yet to get my head around with it.

Thanks very much for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K