How Can Fermat's Principle Prove the Second Law of Reflection?

Click For Summary
Fermat's principle can be used to prove the second law of reflection, which states that the incident ray, reflected ray, and normal ray lie in the same plane. The approach involves fixing points for the incident and reflected rays while varying the point of reflection, similar to methods used for Snell's law. A participant graphed the time and its derivative but noted an absence of a minimum in the derivative graph, raising questions about their calculations. Concerns were expressed regarding the clarity of the diagrams and the correctness of specific equations used in the analysis. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexities of applying Fermat's principle to the second law of reflection and the need for clearer geometric representations.
deltafee
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to prove the second law of reflection using fermat's principle and I am not entirely sure how to start it.
By the way the second law of reflection is: The incident ray, reflect ray and normal ray all lie in a single plane.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
Fermat's principle - light follows path of least time?
You do it pretty much the same way as you would for the first rule and for Snell's law... fix a point that the incedent ray passes through, and another that the reflected ray passes through, but vary the point of reflection (constrained by the first law).
 
Yeah I used the three variable Pythagorean Theorem and than took the derivative and than placed values for x and y so I could graph it.

Here's the typed worksheet: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/77575413/F.pdf

on the second page I have the graphs of Time and the derivative of Time and as you can see I don't get a minimum in the derivative of time graph, but I get a minimum on the time graph. So I am really not sure what I did wrong.

Oh by the way just to make it easier to see the graph I left the value of c out from the equation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It looks like at least the derivative is wrong.
You realize you can check your calculations against the actual answer because you know it already right?
I don't get a minimum in the derivative of time graph, but I get a minimum on the time graph.
example: y=x^2 has a minimum, but the derivative function y'=2x does not have a minimum.

I don't follow what you have done though - i.e.
The diagram at the top of the first page has no labels.

That 1/2c looks a little suspect. Comes from the 2d in the first line - but since there are no labels on the diagram I have no idea if it is OK or not.

I see you have written:$$\frac{1}{2c}\left [ \frac{10+z}{\sqrt{58}+z^2}+\frac{z-6}{\sqrt{106}+(20-z)^2} \right ]$$ for both ##T## and ##T^\prime##.
(Last equation page 1, and top pf page 3).

I'm surprised you didn't try for a simpler geometry.
 
Hello! I have recently been reflecting on the formal structure of the second edition of Callen's Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics. Callen essentially postulates the existence of a function U, called the "internal energy", as a coordinate of thermodynamic systems. He doesn't explicitly say this, but it follows from the rest of the postulates that it must be defined for all equilibrium states, be continuously differentiable, additive over constituent subsystems...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
435
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K