2
$\begingroup$

Someone posted a question about why backward waves don't exist according to the Huygens-Fresnel principle: Why doesn't a backward wave exist?

In following up on this question I read the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_principle, which makes a big deal about how its necessary to incorporate an angular dependence factor for the secondary waves in order to get the correct results. To tell the truth, this just seems totally crazy to me. Am I missing something?

To me, the principle works perfectly with the utmost simplicity: to find the future wave, you just back up along a light cone to the previous waves, and add them up with a 1/r factor to account for attenuation with distance. You get the right answer. You don't get backward propagating waves, because they get cancelled out by the forward propagating waves. There is no angular factor and no arbitrary phase correction. It just works, plain and simple.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: In response to the a question in the comments, I see the forward and backward propagating waves something like this:

enter image description here

The forward going wave just keeps going, but the backwards moving ones cancel each other out. I think this is mathematically correct.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

no .u r nt right ...if we follow this theory then..next wave will never be created.. suppose a 'x' wave is acting as secondary source ..and creating 'y' wave... then if a point at 'y' will give energy back ..and will cancel the energy released by 'x' so actually there is no wave formed 'y' wave will simultaneously cancel the effect of 'x' wave

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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