So I was reading the proof of law of reflection using Huygens principle but as I am new on this website so I can't attach a picture,so I will try to explain by writing only.

The problem I face is that I believe Huygens principle is used when all the particles of wavefront that is ,the particles which oscillate in same phase can act as source of secondary wavelets.In my book they have selected the reflecting surface as source of secondary wavelets but the incident wavefront is inclined at an angle,so how can I assume reflecting surface to be source of secondary wavelets?

Moreover the particles used as source of secondary wavelets arise at different times,I mean the particles of initial wavefront which are closer to the reflecting surface start producing secondary wavelets as soon as they touch the mirror while the particle of wavefront farthest from the mirror just touches the mirror and becomes the point of secondary wavelets instead being the source of wavelets like other particles on wavefront,is this true?

  • $\begingroup$ Huygen's principle is pure wave optics that has nothing to do with particles. The way to get from there to ray optics (sometimes also identified as particle optics) is trough the eikonal approximation which one can then specialize to the case of plane waves corresponding to flat wavefronts and straight rays. Is that the kind of thing you are looking for? As a physical picture each point on a wavefront is the starting point of a new circular wave with the same phase as the original. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 24 '15 at 22:28
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this question because it appears to have been abandoned by its author and it has no answers. $\endgroup$ – sammy gerbil Apr 14 '17 at 14:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @sammygerbil: whoa now, an abandoned question is not a reason to close a question; there are plenty of examples on MSE about this, if you bothered to even look. $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Apr 15 '17 at 13:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sammygerbil you are objecting to someone answering this question by voting to close it... And Joel's talk is well worth the hour; you might actually learn something $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Apr 15 '17 at 14:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @sammygerbil There's no community decision to be made here - that a question is old and hasn't accrued any interest is not a reason to close it. Questions are to be closed because they are unclear, too broad, off-topic, or otherwise run afoul of established site policy. "This question is old" is not a violation of any policy and therefore not a reason to close it. If the automatic system does not delete it then it's considered fine to stay on the site forever, regardless of attention. I would have no qualms about unilaterally reopening any question closed for such a spurious reason. $\endgroup$ – ACuriousMind Apr 16 '17 at 12:12

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.