Snell's Law Variation: Expressing with Cosines

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Cider
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Snell's law
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion addresses the possibility of expressing Snell's Law using cosines of the angles of incidence rather than sines. The user seeks to formulate the law without squared cosines or additional terms within the cosine function. It is clarified that while it is theoretically possible to define angles of incidence and reflection with respect to the surface rather than the normal, this approach is unconventional and may lead to confusion. The user emphasizes the need for clarity in definitions to avoid misinterpretation of angles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Snell's Law in optics
  • Familiarity with trigonometric identities, particularly sine and cosine
  • Knowledge of angles of incidence and reflection
  • Basic principles of wave optics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of Snell's Law using trigonometric identities
  • Explore the implications of defining angles with respect to surfaces in optics
  • Study the differences between angles of incidence with respect to the normal and the surface
  • Investigate alternative formulations of optical laws using cosine functions
USEFUL FOR

Optics students, physicists, and educators seeking to deepen their understanding of Snell's Law and its applications in wave optics.

Cider
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Is there a way to express Snell's Law using cosines of the angles of incidence instead of the sines without the cosines being squared? If no one here knows, is there anywhere I could look into this question?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Note that

[tex]\sin \theta =\cos(\theta - \frac{\pi}{2} )[/tex]

Also,

cos(-x) = cos(x), therefore:

[tex]\cos(\theta - \frac{\pi}{2} ) = \cos( \frac{\pi}{2} - \theta)[/tex]

pi/2 - theta = 90 degrees - theta = the angle the ray makes with the *surface* (instead of with the normal)

So IF you use angles of incidence and reflection defined as the angles the rays make with the surface instead of the angles they make with the normal to the surface, THEN Snell's law would indeed be expressed in terms of the cosines of THOSE angles. However, I would not encourage you to do this, because that is not the conventional definition for angles of incidence and reflection in optics. If you use that definition without telling somebody, and claim the angle of incidence is 35 degrees, he will think you are talking about the angle wrt the normal, which would actually be 55 degrees in that case.
 
Sorry, I probably should have made myself more clear. I need the equation to use only [tex]\cos \theta[/tex] with no subtractions or additions within the cosine. And [tex]\theta[/tex] has to be the angle of incidence. It cannot be the compliment to that angle.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
790