5

Suppose an incident light from vacuum ($n_1=1.0$) into some media ($n_2=n_1+\mu\; x^2$) as in the figure below.

How to calculate the refracted light path curve in closed form?

enter image description here

Update:

Try to set up ordinary differential equation for the refracted light path per Snell's law.

Suppose the curve is $y=y(x)$;

Since $n_i \sin\theta_i=\text{constant}=n_1\sin\alpha=\sin\alpha$.

For any point $P:(x_0,y(x_0))$ on the path $y(x)$, we have: $$\tan(\theta_P)=\dfrac{\sin\theta_P}{\cos\theta_P}=y'(x)=\dfrac{\rm{d}y}{\rm{d}x},\quad \text{where }\theta_P \text{ is incident / refracted angle}$$

Since $\theta_P$ is always an acute angle, we have:

$$\dfrac{\sin^2\theta_P}{{1-\sin^2\theta_P}}=y'(x)^2\Rightarrow \sin\theta_P=\dfrac{\pm y'(x)}{\sqrt{1+y'(x)^2}}$$

Clearly $n_P\sin\theta_P=\sin\alpha$, where $n_P=1+\mu x^2$, then we have:

$$\left(1+\mu x^2\right)\dfrac{\pm y'(x)}{\sqrt{1+y'(x)^2}}=\sin\alpha\quad\text{with: y(0)=5} ||y'(0)=\tan\alpha$$

Then it becomes how to solve the ODE with a boundary condition. Can the ODE be solved in closed form?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 1
    Did you try integrating over Snell's law? While I have never done the calculation, it seems to me, that one of sines can be replaced by a Taylor series, since the change of angle in a thin layer of the medium should be a small quantity. – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 05:34
  • I find it is even difficult to set up a differential equation to solve for such reflected ray per Snell's law. – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 05:36
  • It proves to be a failure. I tried to use Snell's law for a small layer of the media $dx$, and then tried to obtain a differential equation based on the relations. It does not work. – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 05:54
  • 1
    Try looking up information on GRIN fibers and lenses (Gradient Index) , e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient-index_optics – Carl Witthoft Sep 10 '14 at 11:43
  • 2
    Just a quick not e that the relationship between Snell's law and Fermat's principle is a subtle one when the index of refraction varies continuously. In general $n(x) \sin(\theta(x))$ is not a conserved quantity. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/025301/meta – user2705196 Mar 22 '19 at 19:47
  • @CuriousOne I was using some calc sites that use the Taylor Series, such as Wolfram and eMathhelp which you can enter the sin(theta) for the function, I do not know if you need to change the variable which is (x)

    https://www.emathhelp.net/calculators/calculus-1/taylor-and-maclaurin-series-calculator/ https://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=f9476968629e1163bd4a3ba839d60925

    – C. Jordan Aug 18 '19 at 22:04
  • Also, what sin(theta) would you use if those calcs I liked are correct, the incidence angle or the refraction angle? – C. Jordan Aug 18 '19 at 22:13

2 Answers2

8

This may (or may not) lead to the same answer as CuriousOne's suggestion above, but the most appropriate (and the longest) way of attempting a solution would to be to employ the Fermat's principle. The method's nicely described in the link, but in a nutshell, you would be led to a condition of the type $$\delta \int n ds = 0$$ where this $ds$ can be cast in terms of your 2D co-ordinates. Now, substitute for the spatial dependence of $n$ and arrive at $$\delta \int n(x,y) \sqrt{(1+(dy/dx)^2)} dx = 0$$

This is a sort of an ab-initio approach. I won't be surprised if there's a shorter method (maybe CuriousOne's suggestion.)

299792458
  • 3,184
  • 1
    I can't imagine why this wouldn't lead to identical results. Snell's law is an application of Fermat's principle, after all. The only reason I suggested starting with Snell is because it is usually taught before Fermat, if I remember correctly. – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:02
  • @CuriousOne - I agree with that. But I was in the middle of composing my answer when I saw OP's comment that Snell's law didn't work for him. So, I added some safety words. :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:04
  • 1
    Nothing wrong with that. I think what might throw him off about Snell are the two sines, one of which should become a cosine trough the first order series approximates, after which we probably end up with a tangens, which, I believe can be expressed by the square root term in your version... but now I am just guessing. – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:07
  • Note that, solution in closed form may indicate series approximation should not work. – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 06:09
  • @CuriousOne - you do calculations in your head much faster than I can follow!! Let me see if that is indeed the case :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:10
  • Can we deduct Snell's law only based on Fermat's principle? -- maybe there is answer in some volume of Feynman's physics lecture? – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 06:14
  • @LCFactorization - Yes, we can. let me see if I can link to a source :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:15
  • 1
    Googling leads me to this, but please note that I haven't seen the video myself. So, don't blame me if it isn't fine :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:18
  • 2
    thank you! I remember in Feynman's lectures on physics, he also mentioned such possibility. PS: I have no access to youtube/facebook/twitter, because we have a very big firewall :( – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 06:20
  • 1
    Based on the Wikipedia article on Snell's law it seems to have been around a lot earlier than Fermat's principle... which means that some folks had the right intuition based on geometric arguments, already. I did the first part of the calculation... and yes, the taylor series for one of the sines leads to a tangens term. The bad news is, that it expresses the problem in dn, not dx, which requires another transformation and integration over the inverse of n(x)... which may be a backwards way of calculating the result. – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:20
  • 1
    @LCFactorization You are welcome. It is a re-assertion of the same (variational) principle of least action that feynman was so fond of. :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:23
  • @CuriousOne - I suppose so. But I'm trying to catch up with you :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:23
  • @New_new_newbie: Yours is way better physics anyway! – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:26
  • 1
    It just struck me as an experimentalist, that the derivation of Snell's law comes from a theoretical principle, not an actual measurement! In reality, we are using it to determine the index of refraction of a medium in a refractometer, rather than the other way round! Since there is no independent way to measure n precisely, one wonders how to actually test Snell's law experimentally to any precision... any takers? Maybe I should make this a question? – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:31
  • 1
    @LCFactorization - Youtube firewalled! OK. See this link. – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:33
  • @CuriousOne - Derivation came from theoretical principle(s), but it must have been experimentally verified many times since. Umm. OK, I get it now. That question would be a great question if there is no other way of measuring $n$. Are you absolutely sure there's no other way? – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:36
  • 1
    But if testing itself employs Snell's law, then it is useless to expect discrepancies to show up. :) But it anyways makes a good question and whether there is an alternative way, can also be a part of the question. By going through the wiki page, it doesn't seem to be the case . Go ahead, post it. One upvote guarenteed :) – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:51
  • 1
    n=1 is known by definition (vacuum), so one can definitely test it for any material against the vacuum, leaving only one parameter to be determined... and then one can test it against combinations of different materials, but I am wondering about whether that's a precision test? Have you ever seen a paper where they have done such an experiment? Ah! How could I be so stupid! One can measure refractive index to enormous precision in an interference experiment! By using the sample at an angle, one should be able to include Snell's law in the measurement. – CuriousOne Sep 10 '14 at 06:52
  • Oh yeah. Same here (stupidity). Idea cancelled :( But anyways, don't hold it an angle. Measure $n_{\rm relative}$ from this experiment, and invoke the ''definition'' $n=1$. – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 06:59
  • No wait. Don't invoke. That would mean taking for granted $n_{\rm air} \approx n_{\rm vacuum}$, which is again from Snell's law based evidence. So, you are right. Snell's law has to be included in the experiment. – 299792458 Sep 10 '14 at 07:00
  • I updated it by setting up ODE with Snell's law only. How to solve it in closed form? Are the two solutions equivalent? Suppose $\alpha=\dfrac{\pi}{6}$ and $\mu=1.0\times 10^{-6}$ – LCFactorization Sep 10 '14 at 07:48
  • 1
    The relationship between Snell's law and Fermat's principle is a subtle one when the index of refraction varies continuously. It turns out $n(x) \sin(\theta(x))$ is not actually conserved in general! https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/2/025301/meta – user2705196 Mar 22 '19 at 19:46
  • @user2705196 - Thanks for pointing to this work, haven't gone through this in a lot of detail, but seems like a very good reference. Also, I am linking to the arXiv version of your linked article, since your Eur. Phys. J article is behind a paywall. – 299792458 Mar 23 '19 at 02:16
  • @299792458 What are you integrating between? Sure I can set up an integral between two points in space, but we don't know one of those points right? In the wiki article it talks about A, and B being two points in space. – Krupip Jan 15 '20 at 19:46
2

The derivation of the "equations of motion" for the light ray from the Fermat principle is given in the book "Reflections on Relativity", chapter 8.4 "Refractions on Relativity".

We know that the index of refraction $n$ at a point $(x,y)$ equals $c/v$, where $v$ is the velocity of light at that point. Thus, if we parameterize the path by the equations $x = x(u)$ and $y = y(u)$, the "optical path length" from point $A$ to point $B$ (i.e., the time taken by a light beam to traverse the path) is given by the integral

$$L=\int\limits_A^B n\,\mathrm{d}s=\int\limits_A^Bn\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}\,\mathrm{d}u$$

where dots signify derivatives with respect to the parameter $u$. To make this integral an extremum, let $f$ denote the integrand function

$$f(x,y,\dot{x},\dot{y})=n(x,y)\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}$$

Then the Euler equations (introduced in Section 5.4) are

\begin{align} \frac{\partial n}{\partial x}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}u}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \dot x}\right) && {} && \frac{\partial n}{\partial y}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}u}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \dot y}\right) \end{align}

which gives

\begin{align} \frac{\partial n}{\partial x}\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}u}\left[\frac{n\dot x}{\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}}\right] && {} && \frac{\partial n}{\partial y}\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}u}\left[\frac{n\dot y}{\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}}\right] \end{align}

Now, if we define our parameter $u$ as the spatial path length $s$, then we have $\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2=1,$ and so the above equations reduce to

$$\frac{\partial n}{\partial x}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(n\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d} s}\right)\tag{1a}$$ $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial y}=\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm{d}s}\left(n\frac{\mathrm{d} y}{\mathrm{d} s}\right)\tag{1b} $$

These are the "equations of motion" for a photon in a heterogeneous medium, as they are usually formulated, in terms of the spatial path parameter $s$.

Now, solving these equations for $x(s)$ and $y(s)$, you'll get your ray curve in your medium $n(x,y)$.

Ruslan
  • 28,862