1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Scattering from a rough surface

  1. Nov 29, 2012 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    I'm studying scattering from a rough surface, and my textbook defines h(x,y) as a small vertical deviation from a flat surface. Then they proceed calculations by assuming that the height difference between two points h(x,y)-h(x',y')=some f(x-x', y-y'), i.e. it depends only on the relative position of the two points. In other words, the surface is isotropic.


    2. Question
    I don't see what kind of surface would ever fulfill this condition, except some very special one, like a constant inclination. If there are any bumps or dips, obviously Δh will not be the same as me move around the surface using the same bar of length (x-x')... Could anybody explain this assumption?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 29, 2012 #2

    haruspex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I agree, it would imply that all points with rational offsets from a given point would form a plane. Are you sure that's what is being assumed, rather than some statistical relationship?
     
  4. Nov 29, 2012 #3
    I'm referring to the book 'Modern X-Ray Physics'. They first assume this isotropic surface to evaluate a 4-D integral, and the statistical correlation between different points comes in later (uncorrelated surface and Gaussian correlation are treated in detail). My Prof. hinted that the isotropic assumption is valid on a scale intermediate between the rapid oscilations at atomic level and the flat surface at macroscopic distances. Apparently this is an isotropic roughness assumption, but I can't find any clear info on it :(
     
  5. Nov 29, 2012 #4

    haruspex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    It still only makes sense to me as a statistical statement, e.g. that the probability distribution of h(x,y)-h(x',y')=some f(x-x', y-y'). Can you quote the book in some detail?
     
  6. Nov 29, 2012 #5
    I think I got it figured out. The assumption in that crap book is plain wrong, but the final answer is correct, even though for a completely different reason... since the roughness is isotropic, the integral over x' over a sufficiently large distance will not depend on where x was chosen, which renders integral over x trivial. Thanks for inspiration anyway :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook