![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is this right: "Depending on the nature of the interface, i.e., dielectric-conductor or dielectric-dielectric, the phase of the reflected wave may or may not be inverted."? I thought the phase inversion of reflected light depended on the relative refractive index of the interfacing materials. Maybe both are right, but probably the article should be more clear. -- Chinasaur 05:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The following phase should be the other way round (if not much mistakening): "When light reflects off a material denser (with higher refractive index) than the external medium, it undergoes a phase inversion. In contrast, a less dense, lower refractive index material will reflect light in phase". Kindly verify so. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:2149:8294:B400:1FC:FCF6:E476:1974 (
talk)
07:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
One thing that this article doesn't explain is why a greater angle of incidents results in more reflection and less refraction. A more fundamental question is, "why does light reflect at all?" If the article answered that question, it might be more obvious how light could be partially reflected and partially refracted in some cases.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.44.11 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 June 2007
Plus the rules of refraction says that transparent refractive substances bend light toward the normal (perpendicular) direction. But I don't see how that can allow an incidence of 180 degree reflection with a single encounter. WFPM ( talk) 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand a 180 degree of reflection. Normal glass mirrors would bend the light toward the normal by refraction. but then as you approach a perpendicular direction from the mirror, you get a 180 degree reflection. so how does the reflective material turn the signal around 180 degrees in direction? Can you do that with 1 encounter? or does it take 2? WFPM ( talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about a Perpendicular beam coming up to an atom of silver and trying to figure out how the beam is (reflected?) back 180 degrees, which doesn't sound practical, or whether it is reflected 90 degrees by 1 encounter and another 90 degrees by a 2nd encounter. In refraction, the deflection is usually an increased bending of the path around the atom, which increases as the frequency (Stress?)increases. But its hard to understand the mechanics of 180 degree reflection. Or should I say kinematics? WFPM ( talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) If we said that the beam went all the way around the atom of silver and then came back out in a perpendicular direction, we might have an explanation for 180 degree reflection. But then we would have a hard time explaining the process of refraction. WFPM ( talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your attention and consideration of my problem, and with regard to it I have noted that the process of (double) specular reflection is able to explain all of what I see in a corner mirror except the narrow line dividing the left side of the reflection from the right, in the exact location where we need to have this 180 degrees of single reflection. And so I guess I'm spoiled but I hate to have to adopt a plane wave absorption and reradiation theory to explain that small portion of the reflection image. And so I was looking for a way of reflection that would explain that small part by a process of redirection of the light, rather than an absorption and re-emission of it. WFPM ( talk) 17:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I guess that what I have left out of my concept is your theory that all the redirected incident light is reflected by a process of absorption and re-emission, even the double reflected light. So thank you. WFPM ( talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject matter of reflection and refraction I'd like to ask you if your theory of absorption and re-emission is such as to explain the "first atom slowdown, last atom speed back up" problem that I have with the theory of refraction. Can you use this to explain how a light beam through a diamond, for instance, is able to regain its speed of propagation after it leaves the medium of the diamond and re-enters the faster medium. WFPM ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that was the alternative, that maybe the path got longer (and zig-zagged?) But you're not sounding like absorption and re-emission. So do you have an explanatory link? WFPM ( talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC). And I appreciate your explanation problem, because I'm trying to understand Feynman's QED, and not having much luck there either. Is that your reference re this matter? WFPM ( talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A quantum mechanical description of reflection would be nice if someone had the ability to explain it, since this article doesn't reveal the reason for which light is actually reflected from a surface.
I agree, but a regurgitation of Feynman's QED lectures just wouldn't do, as however great his explainations were, he did not go into the mechanism (microscopically) of reflection, only assumed that it happeded to explain where the light would reflect to. We don't want any stone-counting Mayans on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.194.215 ( talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"all non-shiny objects that are not black."
It's accurate; I just thought it sounded... amusing, probably because of the use of the word "shiny." Not going to edit to "all objects that do not shine and are not black" because that's a tad verbose and there's no real point. Just throwing that out there. -- 165.134.132.122 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I have some photographs on my userpage of the famous curved, reflective sculpture Cloud Gate that could be illustrative. Spikebrennan 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking a little history could be added to this article such as the Euclid's contributions to the field (is his the earliest known studies? Who are the other people noted for their theories on reflection?) and maybe links to and expansion of the term Catoptrics. 69.72.93.142 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone provide a source for the information provided in this section? Particularly the first paragraph. Thanks!
If "part of the light is reflected and the remainder is refracted", then I guess a black surface does not absorb light. Does it turn all the light into non-visible electromagnetic radiation? (I doubt it). We all know that a black material heats up more quickly than a white material when exposed to solar lignt. Where does that thermal energy come from? Just from absorbed infrared or ultravioolet radiation? ...
The paragraph about the quantic interpretation says that photons are sometimes absorbed. Do you mean that there are some cases in which the light does not produce heat when it strikes an opaque object, or passes through a transparent medium such as the air or water? Cases in which the light is completely "cold"?
In my opinion, these are questions that one should be able to answer after reading this article, but the article is not clear enough with respect to this topic. I am not an expert in optics, I just wanted to give to the experts an advice for improving the article. Regards, Paolo.dL ( talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to understand what happens when a surface gets smoother and smoother e.g., when it is polished, but the same idea applies to sound waves, I am sure. What happens to a surface's reflections as it gets smoother? A metal surface with a small-enough pattern of saw-toothed ridges will reflect sound crisply; if you make the pattern small enough, I think you will even get nice sharp specular reflection of light. But how small do they have to be to appear smooth acoustically? Optically? I assume it will be a function of wavelength... —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 00:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Reflection is described in detail in the article, via laws of reflection, Maxwell's equations, etc., but what I don't see is the reason that reflection occurs.
Maybe I just missed it. But otherwise, I think this article would be distinctly enhanced by an explanation of why reflection occurs. In other words, a ray of light strikes a certain medium. There is something special about that medium -- in part its extreme smoothess, of course -- that causes the light to follow the laws of reflection. Can someone enlighten us about why this happens? This should include an explanation of why some materials make better mirrors than others.
Note: One is tempted to say it's just like a ball bouncing off a hard surface. But for one thing, a photon is much smaller than an atom, and from the point of view of the photon I would guess that what appears to us as a very smooth surface would be quite irregular -- after all, the photon could strike an atom at a relatively small or large distance from its nucleus. Daqu ( talk) 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
But photons aren't only waves, so surely Maxwell's equations can't cover it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.194.215 ( talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed from the article:
On extremely rare occasions a reflection might get miraged, in other words reflection might get refracted. In the process reflection get distorted and magnified. The miraged reflection might show some properties of a reflected object, which cannot be seen well neither in the real object itself nor in the usual reflection of an object. For example, a mirafe of sun glitter clearly shows upper green and lower red rims that the reflected object (the sun) has. A miraged reflection makes the conditions very complex because it creates an interface between not only two different media, as a reflection does, but at least three different media.
I have removed this text and the associated image because:
The article makes clear that a reflective surface may be solid "mirror" or liquid "water".
I'm curious, though, as to whether it is possible to create a reflective surface with an inert gas, such as argon. And if so, how would one go about doing such? Pine ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering if the third law of reflection, light paths are reversible, should be added to the article? It is sort of important to reflection that people know of that and I do believe that it is a law of reflection. Mcfar54 ( talk) 09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If the mirror or reflective surface is moving at very high speed, in the direction of its own plane, then do the angles of incidence and reflection still equal each other? Is the frequency of the reflected light the same as that of the incident light? Has this senario been tested either experimentally or via the equations? Norman Sheldon ( talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And if we describe it from the point of view where the source is at rest and the reflective surface is moving, please? Norman Sheldon ( talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything at Abnormal reflection that's worth merging to this article? That article has no content and looking at its references suggests that it's not a unique physical phenomenon but rather is a pair of words describing any observations of anomolous reflection effects. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section about total internal reflection, shouldn't the example of X-ray actually be " Total external reflection"? -- Cyferz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
This physics article presents itself as a general discussion of the physical phenomenon of reflection. The two opening paragraphs give examples of reflection that include sound waves, water waves, electromagnetic waves, and seismic waves. But what follows is a discussion almost exclusively limited to the reflection of visible light, and which includes no examination of the broader principle of reflection as a consequence of the behavior of waves as they encounter constraints on their motion.
The article states, "Reflection is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated." This statement can be true, but a change of media is not necessary for reflection unless air at different temperatures or water of varying depth is considered different media. Nowhere in the article is it pointed out that the characteristic that results in reflection and refraction is the change (or rate of change) in propagation speed (or phase velocity) of the wave in the medium.
The "Mechanism" section goes into a level of detail that could mislead the reader into thinking that Maxwell's equations are fundamental to an understanding of wave reflection. It's a bit like using a description of gravity and the properties of water to explain reflection in ocean waves. The truly remarkable thing, and something this article manages to miss, is that the reflection of light as it encounters changes in refractive index, and the reflection of ocean waves that encounter changes in depth are really two manifestations of the same thing. Maxwell's equations do not explain reflection in any meaningful way. Rather, they explain why electromagnetic waves obey the same laws as other kinds of waves. -- Alt Livingston ( talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Look at the reflection on the paddle -- it is obviously a reflection of the situation in the sky, so this is not a double reflection. 190.141.37.103 ( talk) 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree; it doesn't look like a double-reflection to me. It looks like the paddle is reflecting the sun directly. Even if somehow this is not the case, I suggest a less ambiguous image. 174.103.118.211 ( talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Bragg Reflection is either a different type/mechanism of reflection or an interesting special case of one - or just a different level of abstraction.
I've been studying it to understand play-of-color in precious opal - including contra-luz opal -- but the Braggs's discovery was for/with X-Rays.
It seems like this article could benefit a lot by including info on that somewhere. PMH232 ( talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is among the worst technical articles I've had the misfortune to find on Wikipedia. Apparently, at some point it included some actual MODERN physics, but if so, it has been removed. (I came to this article expecting to find, at least, a reference to the quantum mechanics behind the 17th Century geometric optical "science". Nothing.) The first sentence insists that reflection must be defined in the optical media in which the "wavefront" travels. Really? OPTICAL media?? Wrong. In the 2nd paragraph, we learn "many" types of EMR reflect. Really? Not "all" but "many"? Rubbish. In the next paragraph we read:"In specular reflection the phase of the reflected waves depends on the choice of the origin of coordinates, but the relative phase between s and p (TE and TM) polarizations is fixed by the properties of the media and of the interface between them." Of course, no explanation, not even a definition, of s, p, TE, and TM is provided. GARBAGE. (Of course, if a reader has to spend 20 minutes somewhere else learning what a "phase" is, nevermind a "wavefront". The next paragraph informs us that a mirror is a model for specular light reflection. A model, not an example, but a model. Brilliant. I could go on, and on, and on, but if anybody thinks this article is useful, perhaps they could spend some time cleaning it up, personally, I think it is so bad that it is beyond redemption. 40.142.182.216 ( talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Bc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.239.109 ( talk) 08:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Reflection (physics has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Reflection (physics until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Is this right: "Depending on the nature of the interface, i.e., dielectric-conductor or dielectric-dielectric, the phase of the reflected wave may or may not be inverted."? I thought the phase inversion of reflected light depended on the relative refractive index of the interfacing materials. Maybe both are right, but probably the article should be more clear. -- Chinasaur 05:42, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The following phase should be the other way round (if not much mistakening): "When light reflects off a material denser (with higher refractive index) than the external medium, it undergoes a phase inversion. In contrast, a less dense, lower refractive index material will reflect light in phase". Kindly verify so. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2A02:2149:8294:B400:1FC:FCF6:E476:1974 (
talk)
07:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
One thing that this article doesn't explain is why a greater angle of incidents results in more reflection and less refraction. A more fundamental question is, "why does light reflect at all?" If the article answered that question, it might be more obvious how light could be partially reflected and partially refracted in some cases.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.44.11 ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 8 June 2007
Plus the rules of refraction says that transparent refractive substances bend light toward the normal (perpendicular) direction. But I don't see how that can allow an incidence of 180 degree reflection with a single encounter. WFPM ( talk) 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand a 180 degree of reflection. Normal glass mirrors would bend the light toward the normal by refraction. but then as you approach a perpendicular direction from the mirror, you get a 180 degree reflection. so how does the reflective material turn the signal around 180 degrees in direction? Can you do that with 1 encounter? or does it take 2? WFPM ( talk) 04:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about a Perpendicular beam coming up to an atom of silver and trying to figure out how the beam is (reflected?) back 180 degrees, which doesn't sound practical, or whether it is reflected 90 degrees by 1 encounter and another 90 degrees by a 2nd encounter. In refraction, the deflection is usually an increased bending of the path around the atom, which increases as the frequency (Stress?)increases. But its hard to understand the mechanics of 180 degree reflection. Or should I say kinematics? WFPM ( talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC) If we said that the beam went all the way around the atom of silver and then came back out in a perpendicular direction, we might have an explanation for 180 degree reflection. But then we would have a hard time explaining the process of refraction. WFPM ( talk) 01:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your attention and consideration of my problem, and with regard to it I have noted that the process of (double) specular reflection is able to explain all of what I see in a corner mirror except the narrow line dividing the left side of the reflection from the right, in the exact location where we need to have this 180 degrees of single reflection. And so I guess I'm spoiled but I hate to have to adopt a plane wave absorption and reradiation theory to explain that small portion of the reflection image. And so I was looking for a way of reflection that would explain that small part by a process of redirection of the light, rather than an absorption and re-emission of it. WFPM ( talk) 17:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC) I guess that what I have left out of my concept is your theory that all the redirected incident light is reflected by a process of absorption and re-emission, even the double reflected light. So thank you. WFPM ( talk) 17:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
And while we're on the subject matter of reflection and refraction I'd like to ask you if your theory of absorption and re-emission is such as to explain the "first atom slowdown, last atom speed back up" problem that I have with the theory of refraction. Can you use this to explain how a light beam through a diamond, for instance, is able to regain its speed of propagation after it leaves the medium of the diamond and re-enters the faster medium. WFPM ( talk) 17:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes that was the alternative, that maybe the path got longer (and zig-zagged?) But you're not sounding like absorption and re-emission. So do you have an explanatory link? WFPM ( talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC). And I appreciate your explanation problem, because I'm trying to understand Feynman's QED, and not having much luck there either. Is that your reference re this matter? WFPM ( talk) 21:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
A quantum mechanical description of reflection would be nice if someone had the ability to explain it, since this article doesn't reveal the reason for which light is actually reflected from a surface.
I agree, but a regurgitation of Feynman's QED lectures just wouldn't do, as however great his explainations were, he did not go into the mechanism (microscopically) of reflection, only assumed that it happeded to explain where the light would reflect to. We don't want any stone-counting Mayans on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.194.215 ( talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
"all non-shiny objects that are not black."
It's accurate; I just thought it sounded... amusing, probably because of the use of the word "shiny." Not going to edit to "all objects that do not shine and are not black" because that's a tad verbose and there's no real point. Just throwing that out there. -- 165.134.132.122 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I have some photographs on my userpage of the famous curved, reflective sculpture Cloud Gate that could be illustrative. Spikebrennan 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking a little history could be added to this article such as the Euclid's contributions to the field (is his the earliest known studies? Who are the other people noted for their theories on reflection?) and maybe links to and expansion of the term Catoptrics. 69.72.93.142 14:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone provide a source for the information provided in this section? Particularly the first paragraph. Thanks!
If "part of the light is reflected and the remainder is refracted", then I guess a black surface does not absorb light. Does it turn all the light into non-visible electromagnetic radiation? (I doubt it). We all know that a black material heats up more quickly than a white material when exposed to solar lignt. Where does that thermal energy come from? Just from absorbed infrared or ultravioolet radiation? ...
The paragraph about the quantic interpretation says that photons are sometimes absorbed. Do you mean that there are some cases in which the light does not produce heat when it strikes an opaque object, or passes through a transparent medium such as the air or water? Cases in which the light is completely "cold"?
In my opinion, these are questions that one should be able to answer after reading this article, but the article is not clear enough with respect to this topic. I am not an expert in optics, I just wanted to give to the experts an advice for improving the article. Regards, Paolo.dL ( talk) 22:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to understand what happens when a surface gets smoother and smoother e.g., when it is polished, but the same idea applies to sound waves, I am sure. What happens to a surface's reflections as it gets smoother? A metal surface with a small-enough pattern of saw-toothed ridges will reflect sound crisply; if you make the pattern small enough, I think you will even get nice sharp specular reflection of light. But how small do they have to be to appear smooth acoustically? Optically? I assume it will be a function of wavelength... —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 00:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Reflection is described in detail in the article, via laws of reflection, Maxwell's equations, etc., but what I don't see is the reason that reflection occurs.
Maybe I just missed it. But otherwise, I think this article would be distinctly enhanced by an explanation of why reflection occurs. In other words, a ray of light strikes a certain medium. There is something special about that medium -- in part its extreme smoothess, of course -- that causes the light to follow the laws of reflection. Can someone enlighten us about why this happens? This should include an explanation of why some materials make better mirrors than others.
Note: One is tempted to say it's just like a ball bouncing off a hard surface. But for one thing, a photon is much smaller than an atom, and from the point of view of the photon I would guess that what appears to us as a very smooth surface would be quite irregular -- after all, the photon could strike an atom at a relatively small or large distance from its nucleus. Daqu ( talk) 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
But photons aren't only waves, so surely Maxwell's equations can't cover it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.51.194.215 ( talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed from the article:
On extremely rare occasions a reflection might get miraged, in other words reflection might get refracted. In the process reflection get distorted and magnified. The miraged reflection might show some properties of a reflected object, which cannot be seen well neither in the real object itself nor in the usual reflection of an object. For example, a mirafe of sun glitter clearly shows upper green and lower red rims that the reflected object (the sun) has. A miraged reflection makes the conditions very complex because it creates an interface between not only two different media, as a reflection does, but at least three different media.
I have removed this text and the associated image because:
The article makes clear that a reflective surface may be solid "mirror" or liquid "water".
I'm curious, though, as to whether it is possible to create a reflective surface with an inert gas, such as argon. And if so, how would one go about doing such? Pine ( talk) 19:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering if the third law of reflection, light paths are reversible, should be added to the article? It is sort of important to reflection that people know of that and I do believe that it is a law of reflection. Mcfar54 ( talk) 09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
If the mirror or reflective surface is moving at very high speed, in the direction of its own plane, then do the angles of incidence and reflection still equal each other? Is the frequency of the reflected light the same as that of the incident light? Has this senario been tested either experimentally or via the equations? Norman Sheldon ( talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And if we describe it from the point of view where the source is at rest and the reflective surface is moving, please? Norman Sheldon ( talk) 18:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there anything at Abnormal reflection that's worth merging to this article? That article has no content and looking at its references suggests that it's not a unique physical phenomenon but rather is a pair of words describing any observations of anomolous reflection effects. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section about total internal reflection, shouldn't the example of X-ray actually be " Total external reflection"? -- Cyferz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC).
This physics article presents itself as a general discussion of the physical phenomenon of reflection. The two opening paragraphs give examples of reflection that include sound waves, water waves, electromagnetic waves, and seismic waves. But what follows is a discussion almost exclusively limited to the reflection of visible light, and which includes no examination of the broader principle of reflection as a consequence of the behavior of waves as they encounter constraints on their motion.
The article states, "Reflection is the change in direction of a wavefront at an interface between two different media so that the wavefront returns into the medium from which it originated." This statement can be true, but a change of media is not necessary for reflection unless air at different temperatures or water of varying depth is considered different media. Nowhere in the article is it pointed out that the characteristic that results in reflection and refraction is the change (or rate of change) in propagation speed (or phase velocity) of the wave in the medium.
The "Mechanism" section goes into a level of detail that could mislead the reader into thinking that Maxwell's equations are fundamental to an understanding of wave reflection. It's a bit like using a description of gravity and the properties of water to explain reflection in ocean waves. The truly remarkable thing, and something this article manages to miss, is that the reflection of light as it encounters changes in refractive index, and the reflection of ocean waves that encounter changes in depth are really two manifestations of the same thing. Maxwell's equations do not explain reflection in any meaningful way. Rather, they explain why electromagnetic waves obey the same laws as other kinds of waves. -- Alt Livingston ( talk) 21:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Look at the reflection on the paddle -- it is obviously a reflection of the situation in the sky, so this is not a double reflection. 190.141.37.103 ( talk) 03:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree; it doesn't look like a double-reflection to me. It looks like the paddle is reflecting the sun directly. Even if somehow this is not the case, I suggest a less ambiguous image. 174.103.118.211 ( talk) 20:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Bragg Reflection is either a different type/mechanism of reflection or an interesting special case of one - or just a different level of abstraction.
I've been studying it to understand play-of-color in precious opal - including contra-luz opal -- but the Braggs's discovery was for/with X-Rays.
It seems like this article could benefit a lot by including info on that somewhere. PMH232 ( talk) 18:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This is among the worst technical articles I've had the misfortune to find on Wikipedia. Apparently, at some point it included some actual MODERN physics, but if so, it has been removed. (I came to this article expecting to find, at least, a reference to the quantum mechanics behind the 17th Century geometric optical "science". Nothing.) The first sentence insists that reflection must be defined in the optical media in which the "wavefront" travels. Really? OPTICAL media?? Wrong. In the 2nd paragraph, we learn "many" types of EMR reflect. Really? Not "all" but "many"? Rubbish. In the next paragraph we read:"In specular reflection the phase of the reflected waves depends on the choice of the origin of coordinates, but the relative phase between s and p (TE and TM) polarizations is fixed by the properties of the media and of the interface between them." Of course, no explanation, not even a definition, of s, p, TE, and TM is provided. GARBAGE. (Of course, if a reader has to spend 20 minutes somewhere else learning what a "phase" is, nevermind a "wavefront". The next paragraph informs us that a mirror is a model for specular light reflection. A model, not an example, but a model. Brilliant. I could go on, and on, and on, but if anybody thinks this article is useful, perhaps they could spend some time cleaning it up, personally, I think it is so bad that it is beyond redemption. 40.142.182.216 ( talk) 16:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Bc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.231.239.109 ( talk) 08:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Reflection (physics has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 3 § Reflection (physics until a consensus is reached.
Utopes (
talk /
cont)
18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)