Saturday, 26 August 2017

reference frames - Deriving the law of reflection for a moving mirror in relativity


I am following a training course and came across this proof, from my colleague, that the ordinary law of reflection θi=θr does not hold in relativity:



Let S be a perfectly reflecting mirrror.


Obviously if it is at rest the canonical law of reflection θi=θr holds. Now suppose the mirror is moving with velocity ¯v in the frame Σ, and let the frame of the mirror be Σ. Then in Σ,


θiθr


which means that


cosθ=cosθi+β1+βcosθi.


For the reflected ray changes θ before was θi is now θ=πθr, similarly θ=πθr waves cosθ=cos(θr) which is replaced provides:


cosθr=cosθr+β1βcosθr,cosθr=cosθrβ1βcosθr



tan(θi2)=1β1+βtan(θi2),tan(θr2)=1+β1βtan(θr2)


hence


tan(θi2)=(1β1+β)tan(θr2)

and the law of reflection is no longer valid.



I don't think this derivation is very clear. Is there anyone who can help me to understand the steps in this unclear derivation, or recommend a book where I can find a proof of the final result?


If more information is needed, a picture of the derivation can be found here and here.



Answer



There are two inertial frames of reference involved; a "primed" frame in which the mirror is at rest, and an "unprimed" frame in which the mirror is moving in the direction opposite the mirror's surface normal. Label the coordinates such that the direction the mirror is moving in (i.e. the direction opposite the surface normal) is the x and x direction, the other direction in the plane containing both the incident and reflected beams is the y and y direction, and the direction that's unimportant to this problem is the z and z direction.


In either frame, the components of an incident photon's three-velocity are given by the projections of the three-velocity onto the coordinate axes. I.e., the three-velocity of an incident photon, as measured in each of the two frames of reference, is


ui=(ccosθicsinθi0)



and


ui=(ccosθicsinθi0)  ,


where θi and θi are the angle of incidence as measured in each of the two frames of reference, and c of course is the speed of light.


The derivation in the question uses a version of the relativistic velocity addition formula, a proof of which can be found in the linked-to Wikipedia article. That formula states that if a primed frame is moving with speed v in the x direction as measured in an unprimed frame, speeds along the x and x direction, as measured in each of the two frames, are related as


ux=ux+v1+vux/c2  .


Plugging in the x and x components of ui and ui into the relativistic velocity addition equation, i.e. setting


ux=ccosθi


and


ux=ccosθi


gives



ccosθi=ccosθi+v1+vccosθi/c2  .


Dividing both sides of that equation by c gives


cosθi=cosθi+β1+βcosθi  ,


where β=v/c.


We can perform a similar procedure with a reflected photon. The three-velocity of a reflected photon, as measured in each of the two frames of reference, is


ur=(ccosθrcsinθr0)


and


ur=(ccosθrcsinθr0)  ,


where θr and θr are the angle of reflection as measured in each of the two frames of reference. In the case of the reflected photon, the values we plug in to the relativistic velocity addition formula are


ux=ccosθr



and


ux=ccosθr  ,


giving


ccosθr=ccosθr+v1+v(ccosθr)/c2  .


Dividing both sides of that equation by c gives


cosθr=cosθrβ1βcosθr  .


The above formulas for cosθi and cosθr are inconvenient for the purposes of comparing θi and θr, largely due to θi and θr each appearing twice in the equations. We can arrive at simpler equations by using the tangent half-angle formula


tan(θ2)=1cosθ1+cosθ  .


Applying the tangent half-angle formula to θi gives


tan(θi2)=1cosθi1+cosθi=1cosθi+β1+βcosθi1+cosθi+β1+βcosθi=1+βcosθi(cosθi+β)1+βcosθi+cosθi+β=(1β)(1cosθi)(1+β)(1+cosθi)=1β1+β1cosθi1+cosθi)=1β1+βtan(θi2)  .



Applying the tangent half-angle formula to θr would proceed similarly, except that θi is everywhere replaced by θr, and β is everywhere replaced by β. The result is thus


tan(θr2)=1+β1βtan(θr2)


or


tan(θr2)=1β1+βtan(θr2)  .


But since the mirror isn't moving in the primed frame, the normal law of reflection is valid in the primed frame, θi=θr, and so we have


tan(θi2)=1β1+βtan(θi2)=1β1+βtan(θr2)=1β1+β(1β1+βtan(θr2))=(1β1+β)tan(θr2)  ,


which was the result to be shown.


Note that for 0<β<1,


0<(1β1+β)<1  ,


so



tan(θi2)<tan(θr2)


and θi<θr.


ADDENDUM:


As a response to the comments on this answer, the following provides additional clarification of the confusing statement in the question that "For the reflected ray changes θ before was θi is now θ=πθr, similarly θ=πθr waves cosθ=cos(θr)":


For a three-velocity u in general, the x component of u, ux, is given by the scalar projection of u onto ˆx, the unit vector in the x direction. As per the scalar projection Wikipedia article, the scalar projection can be expressed as


ux=|u|cosθ  ,


where |u| is the length of u, and θ is the angle between u and ˆx.


The speed of either an incident or a reflected photon is c, i.e.,


|ui|=|ur|=c  ,


so in either case we use |u|=c in the scalar projection equation for ux.



The angle of incidence θi is defined as the angle between ui and ˆn, where ˆn is the mirror surface's unit normal. But that angle is the same as the angle between ui and ˆn, which is the same as the angle between ui and ˆx, since we've defined our coordinate system such that ˆx=ˆn. Thus, when dealing with ui, we just use θ=θi in the scalar projection equation for ux, i.e.


ux=|u|cosθ=ccosθi  ,


as in the original answer above.


On the other hand, the angle of reflection θr is defined as the angle between ur and ˆn. The angle between ur and ˆx differs from θr by π radians, because the angle between ˆn and ˆx is π radians. Thus, when dealing with a reflected photon, we use θ=πθr instead of θ=θi in the scalar projection equation for ux,


ux=|u|cosθ=ccos(πθr)=ccosθr  ,


as in the original answer.


The scalar projection equations for ux are the same as the scalar projection equations for ux, for the same reasons, except that they use θi and θr instead of θi and θr.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...