MHB Where is the minimum intensity point between two bright lights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarkFL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eyes Light
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Suppose two bright lights are separated by a distance $a$, with one light having intensity $I_1$ and the other having intensity $I_2$. I am situated between the lights, trapped in a narrow passageway, and the light is blinding me. (Sweating) Please find the point at which the light I receive is a minimum. (Whew)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I have to say Mark that the challenge is severely underdetermined. Assuming the most likely interpretation, my solution is below:

Let the first light be located at position $x = 0$, and the second light at position $x = a$. Then, at any position $x$, the amount of light received from the first light is $I_1 x^{-2}$ and the amount of light received from the second light is $I_2 (a - x)^{-2}$. So the total light received is:

$$I(x) = I_1 x^{-2} + I_2 (a - x)^{-2}$$

Differentiating with respect to $x$ to find the minimum:

$$\frac{d}{dx} I(x) = -2 I_1 x^{-3} + 2 I_2 (a - x)^{-3}$$

And setting this to zero:

$$-2 I_1 x^{-3} + 2 I_2 (a - x)^{-3} = 0$$

$$I_2 (a - x)^{-3} - I_1 x^{-3} = 0$$

$$I_2 (a - x)^{-3} = I_1 x^{-3}$$

$$\left (\frac{a - x}{x} \right )^{-3} = \frac{I_1}{I_2}$$

$$\left (\frac{a - x}{x} \right )^3 = \frac{I_2}{I_1}$$

$$\frac{a - x}{x} = \sqrt[3]{ \frac{I_2}{I_1}}$$

$$\frac{a}{x} - 1 = \sqrt[3]{ \frac{I_2}{I_1}}$$

$$\frac{a}{x} = \sqrt[3]{ \frac{I_2}{I_1}} + 1$$

$$\frac{x}{a} = \frac{1}{\sqrt[3]{ \frac{I_2}{I_1}} + 1}$$

$$x = \frac{a}{\sqrt[3]{ \frac{I_2}{I_1}} + 1}$$

So this would be the position where the light received is minimized. Notice the solution is linear in $a$. Indeed, the problem is scale-invariant, since increasing the distance between the two lights does not change their intensity ratio.

Note the singularity at $I_1 = 0$. Let us depart from the abstract realm of mathematics for a moment and consider the physical implications of turning off the first light. Take a few minutes to convince yourself that the solution is going to be $x = 0$ ("as far as possible from the second light") and the issue is resolved.

Here is a plot of where you should be (in terms of $\frac{x}{a}$), against $\frac{I_2}{I_1}$ ratios (higher $x$-values mean the second light is brighter than the first):

9DcqZwE.gif


Notice that $\frac{x}{a} = \frac{1}{2}$ when $I_1 = I_2$, as can be reasonably expected.


Of course this analysis is not very rigorous, but then again, radiometry is not well-defined in one dimension (though I think it could easily be made to be) so I think this is what you meant.

 
Last edited:
Yes, it is intended to be in one dimension, where the inverse square law of radiation is used to determine the sum of the intensities. Your answer is correct! (Sun)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top