Re: [Phys-l] Physics Grammar

["LaMontagne, Bob" <RLAMONT@providence.edu>]

I suppose that placing an order to incidence and reflection makes some sense if you think of light as traveling as "rays". However, if the light emitted from one position on an object is then detected at some other position in space after reflection, it has traveled over an infinite number of paths that contact each part of the reflecting surface (think of a flat mirror for simplicity). The angles of "incidence" and "reflection" are simply artifacts of where the receiving point happens to be. Those angles represent the narrow bundle of paths that lead to constructive interference at the arbitrary position of the receiver. The receiver determines both angles - so I don't think it is really proper to say one precedes (or somehow determines) the other.
 
Bob at PC

________________________________

From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu on behalf of carmelo@pacific.net.sg
Sent: Wed 1/23/2008 9:29 PM
To: phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Physics Grammar



Quoting Larry Smith <larry.smith@snow.edu>:

> The author has a second grammar point too, but I'm more interested in the
> list's response to the first one.
>
> Cheers,
> Larry

Item # 2:
Law of Reflection: "The angle of reflection equals the angle of 
incidence." This statement follows the light through the process of 
reflection: incidence precedes reflection. The statement, "The angle 
of incidence equals the angle of reflection" implies that incidence 
follows reflection, which is not the way things happen.

You can also nitpick on Item # 2 instead of the first one.
Maybe based on Feynman sum over histories approach?


Alphonsus


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l