 #1
 5,106
 124
I am reading Griffiths p387. It is my understanding that
[tex]\tilde E(\vec r,t)=\hat r E_0 e^{j(\omega tkr)}[/tex]
Where ##\vec r =\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z## is the positional vector from the origin to the observation point ( x,y,z).
[tex]\Rightarrow\;\tilde E(\vec r,t)=\hat r E_0 e^{jkr}\;=\;\left(\frac {\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}\right) E_0e^{j[(\hat x k_x+\hat y k_y+\hat z k_z)\cdot(\hat x x+\hat y y+\hat z z)]}\;=\; \left(\frac {\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}\right) E_0e^{j[( x k_x+ y k_y+z k_z)]} [/tex]
In Griffiths, he let the incident TEM wave travels in ##\vec k_I## direction. So he let
[tex]\vec E_I(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0I} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_I\cdot \vec r)},\;\vec E_R(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0R} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_R\cdot \vec r)},\;\vec E_T(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0T} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_T\cdot \vec r)},\;[/tex]
To expand one out:
[tex]\vec E_I(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0I} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_I\cdot \vec r)}=\hat x E_{0I}e^{j[\omega t  (xk_{Ix}+yk_{Iy}+zk_{Iz})]}[/tex]
I have a problem with this, as you can see from the scanned page, the direction of the incident, reflected and transmitted wave is in direction of ##\vec k_I,\;\vec k_R\;\hbox { and } \;\vec k_T##. But he gave all three as ##\vec E(\vec r,t)##. This mean all three are in ##\vec r## direction. That is not right.
Later, he actually equated
[tex]xk_{Ix}=xk_{Rx}\;\Rightarrow\;k_{Ix}=k_{Rx}[/tex]
This mean he used the same ##\vec r## in all three, that is questionable. I am not saying the final result is wrong, just the representation is questionable.
Please help.
Thanks
[tex]\tilde E(\vec r,t)=\hat r E_0 e^{j(\omega tkr)}[/tex]
Where ##\vec r =\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z## is the positional vector from the origin to the observation point ( x,y,z).
[tex]\Rightarrow\;\tilde E(\vec r,t)=\hat r E_0 e^{jkr}\;=\;\left(\frac {\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}\right) E_0e^{j[(\hat x k_x+\hat y k_y+\hat z k_z)\cdot(\hat x x+\hat y y+\hat z z)]}\;=\; \left(\frac {\hat x x+\hat y y+ \hat z z}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}}\right) E_0e^{j[( x k_x+ y k_y+z k_z)]} [/tex]
In Griffiths, he let the incident TEM wave travels in ##\vec k_I## direction. So he let
[tex]\vec E_I(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0I} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_I\cdot \vec r)},\;\vec E_R(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0R} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_R\cdot \vec r)},\;\vec E_T(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0T} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_T\cdot \vec r)},\;[/tex]
To expand one out:
[tex]\vec E_I(\vec r,t)= \vec E_{0I} e^{j(\omega t  \vec k_I\cdot \vec r)}=\hat x E_{0I}e^{j[\omega t  (xk_{Ix}+yk_{Iy}+zk_{Iz})]}[/tex]
I have a problem with this, as you can see from the scanned page, the direction of the incident, reflected and transmitted wave is in direction of ##\vec k_I,\;\vec k_R\;\hbox { and } \;\vec k_T##. But he gave all three as ##\vec E(\vec r,t)##. This mean all three are in ##\vec r## direction. That is not right.
Later, he actually equated
[tex]xk_{Ix}=xk_{Rx}\;\Rightarrow\;k_{Ix}=k_{Rx}[/tex]
This mean he used the same ##\vec r## in all three, that is questionable. I am not saying the final result is wrong, just the representation is questionable.
Please help.
Thanks
Attachments

30.6 KB Views: 330
Last edited: