Proof of Snell's Law can also done by using Fermat's principle of least time on plane surfaces. Can we prove the same result for any curved surfaces ?

  • $\begingroup$ It's an approximation for surfaces that have very low curvature on the scale of a wavelength. The general diffraction problem on very complex surfaces with large curvature can only be solved with the full electromagnetic field equations, which is a very hard problem. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Oct 31 '15 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne Is correct Snells Law is but an simplification that relies on approximations, there are therefore situations that it does not work for. $\endgroup$ – MJC Nov 28 '17 at 11:13

Yes, I do believe so. Whatever "point" your ray of light strikes on the curved surface just assume a tangent along that point on the surface. Then do the same thing that is done for the plane surfaces and you can repeat it for all the points on the surface (interface between the two optical media).

  • $\begingroup$ You rapidly run into problems when the wavelength of variations of the surface become close to the wavelength of light. See, for example, using a CD or DVD as a diffraction grating - Snell's law does not describe that at all. $\endgroup$ – Jon Custer Jan 14 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ @JonCuster When people are using Snell's law, they should know that the range of validity is that of geometrical optics, i.e. they should know that surfaces with variations on the scale of the wavelength are not within the scope of gemetrica optics. Still within the range of validity of geometric optics generalization of Snell law to curved surfaces is a well defined problem. This answer is the correct one, always keeping in mind the general limitations of geometric optics. Otherwise no system of lenses could work! $\endgroup$ – GiorgioP Jan 14 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ I would add that I find odd that people commented on the range of validity instead of starting with a plain and simple "Yes, it can be extended to smooth curved surfaces as well". Warnings on the range of validity should follow an explanation, shouldn't replace it. $\endgroup$ – GiorgioP Jan 14 at 18:24

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.