I recently tried to derive the reflection coefficient $R$. This is not a complicated task, however after making some literature research I found two derivations which arrive at seemingly different results:
- The first derivation is from Griffiths ‚Introduction to Electrodynamics‘. In chapter 9.1.4 he derives the reflection coefficient of a 1D string to be $$R=\frac{c_2–c_1}{c_1+c_2}$$ where $c_{i}=\frac{\omega_i}{k_i}$ is the wave velocity, $k$ the wave number and $\omega$ the angular frequency.
- The second derivation is from this webpage and refers to the transmission and reflection of sound waves. There, they arrive at the result $$R=\frac{r_2–r_1}{r_2+r_1}= \frac{\rho_2c_2–\rho_1c_1}{\rho_2c_2+\rho_1c_1} $$ with $r_i=\rho_i c_i$ the so-called acoustic impedance and $\rho$ and $c$ are the density and wave velocity of the medium.
Both derivations look very similar and I am not sure why the solution differ. Maybe someone of you has an idea where the difference comes from?
My attempt
I first thought that there may be some differences in the boundary conditions, because we also treat different systems (strings vs sound waves). However, it seems that the boundary conditions in both derivations seem to be the same. For example: The continuity condition used by Griffiths ($f(0^–,t)=f(0^+,t)$) seems to be the same as for acoustic waves ($\dot{f}(0^–,t)=\dot{f}(0^+,t) $), because they only differ by a factor $\omega$ which is a constant in space an cancles on both sides.