Is Isotropic Surface Roughness Assumption Valid?

Irid
Messages
207
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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?
 
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 :(
 
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?
 
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 :)
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top