In particular, if

2[pi]

f(bt - x) = c sin -------- (bt - x) (5),

[lambda]

we shall have

cdS 2[pi]

[zeta]' = ---------- (1 + cos[theta]) sin[phi]cos -------- (bt - r) (6)."

2[lambda]r [lambda]

It is then verified that, after integration with respect to dS, (6)

gives the same disturbance as if the primary wave had been supposed to

pass on unbroken.

The occurrence of sin [phi] as a factor in (6) shows that the relative

intensities of the primary light and of that diffracted in the

direction [theta] depend upon the condition of the former as regards

polarization. If the direction of primary vibration be perpendicular

to the plane of diffraction (containing both primary and secondary

rays), sin [phi] = 1; but, if the primary vibration be in the plane of

diffraction, sin [phi] = cos [theta]. This result was employed by

Stokes as a criterion of the direction of vibration; and his

experiments, conducted with gratings, led him to the conclusion that

the vibrations of polarized light are executed in a direction

_perpendicular_ to the plane of polarization.

The factor (1 + cos [theta]) shows in what manner the secondary

disturbance depends upon the direction in which it is propagated with

respect to the front of the primary wave.

If, as suffices for all practical purposes, we limit the application

of the formulae to points in advance of the plane at which the wave is

supposed to be broken up, we may use simpler methods of resolution

than that above considered. It appears indeed that the purely

mathematical question has no definite answer. In illustration of this

the analogous problem for sound may be referred to. Imagine a flexible

lamina to be introduced so as to coincide with the plane at which

resolution is to be effected. The introduction of the lamina (supposed

to be devoid of inertia) will make no difference to the propagation of

plane parallel sonorous waves through the position which it occupies.

At every point the motion of the lamina will be the same as would have

occurred in its absence, the pressure of the waves impinging from

behind being just what is required to generate the waves in front. Now

it is evident that the aerial motion in front of the lamina is

determined by what happens at the lamina without regard to the cause

of the motion there existing. Whether the necessary forces are due to

aerial pressures acting on the rear, or to forces directly impressed

from without, is a matter of indifference. The conception of the

lamina leads immediately to two schemes, according to which a primary

wave may be supposed to be broken up. In the first of these the

element dS, the effect of which is to be estimated, is supposed to

execute its actual motion, while every other element of the plane

lamina is maintained at rest. The resulting aerial motion in front is

readily calculated (see Rayleigh, _Theory of Sound_, S 278); it is

symmetrical with respect to the origin, i.e. independent of [theta].

When the secondary disturbance thus obtained is integrated with

respect to dS over the entire plane of the lamina, the result is

necessarily the same as would have been obtained had the primary wave

been supposed to pass on without resolution, for this is precisely the

motion generated when every element of the lamina vibrates with a

common motion, equal to that attributed to dS. The only assumption

here involved is the evidently legitimate one that, when two systems

of variously distributed motion at the lamina are superposed, the

corresponding motions in front are superposed also.

The method of resolution just described is the simplest, but it is

only one of an indefinite number that might be proposed, and which are

all equally legitimate, so long as the question is regarded as a

merely mathematical one, without reference to the physical properties

of actual screens. If, instead of supposing the _motion_ at dS to be

that of the primary wave, and to be zero elsewhere, we suppose the

_force_ operative over the element dS of the lamina to be that

corresponding to the primary wave, and to vanish elsewhere, we obtain

a secondary wave following quite a different law. In this case the

motion in different directions varies as cos[theta], vanishing at

right angles to the direction of propagation of the primary wave. Here

again, on integration over the entire lamina, the aggregate effect of

the secondary waves is necessarily the same as that of the primary.

In order to apply these ideas to the investigation of the secondary

wave of light, we require the solution of a problem, first treated by

Stokes, viz. the determination of the motion in an infinitely extended

elastic solid due to a locally applied periodic force. If we suppose

that the force impressed upon the element of mass D dx dy dz is

DZ dx dy dz,

being everywhere parallel to the axis of Z, the only change required

in our equations (1), (2) is the addition of the term Z to the second

member of the third equation (2). In the forced vibration, now under

consideration, Z, and the quantities [xi], [eta], [zeta], [delta]

expressing the resulting motion, are to be supposed proportional to

e^int, where i = [sqrt](-1), and n = 2[pi]/[tau], [tau] being the

periodic time. Under these circumstances the double differentiation

with respect to t of any quantity is equivalent to multiplication by

the factor -n^2, and thus our equations take the form

d[delta] \

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2)[xi] + (a^2 - b^2) -------- = 0 |

dx |

|

d[delta] |

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2)[eta] + (a^2 - b^2) -------- = 0 > (7).

dx |

|

d[delta] |

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2)[zeta] + (a^2 - b^2) -------- = -Z |

dx /

It will now be convenient to introduce the quantities.[=omega]1,

[=omega]2, [=omega]3 which express the _rotations_ of the elements of

the medium round axes parallel to those of co-ordinates, in accordance

with the equations

d[xi] d[eta] d[eta] d[zeta]

[=omega]3 = ----- - ------, [=omega]1 = ------ - -------,

dy dx' dz dy

d[zeta] d[xi]

[=omega]2 = ------- - ----- (8).

dx dz

In terms of these we obtain from (7), by differentiation and

subtraction,

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2) [=omega]3 = 0 \

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2) [=omega]1 = dZ/dy > (9).

(b^2[Delta]^2 + n^2) [=omega]2 = -dZ/dx /

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Diameter" to "Dinarchus" Volume 8, Slice 4 · 第 76 / 86 题