Sear

Fermat's principle

Fig. 1: Fermat's principle in the case of refraction of

light at a flat surface between (say) air and water.
Given an object-point A in the air, and an observation
point B in the water, the refraction point P is that
which minimizes the time taken by the light to travel
the path APB. If we seek the required value of x, we
find that the angles α and β satisfy Snell's law.

Fermat's principle, also known as the

principle of least time, is the link between
ray optics and wave optics. In its original
"strong" form,[1] Fermat's principle states
that the path taken by a ray between two
given points is the path that can be
traversed in the least time. In order to be
true in all cases, this statement must be
weakened by replacing the "least" time
with a time that is "stationary" with respect
to variations of the path — so that a
deviation in the path causes, at most, a
second-order change in the traversal time.
To put it loosely, a ray path is surrounded
by close paths that can be traversed in
very close times. It can be shown that this
technical definition corresponds to more
intuitive notions of a ray, such as a line of
sight or the path of a narrow beam.

First proposed by the French

mathematician Pierre de Fermat in 1662,
as a means of explaining the ordinary law
of refraction of light (Fig. 1), Fermat's
principle was initially controversial
because it seemed to ascribe knowledge
and intent to nature. Not until the 19th
century was it understood that nature's
ability to test alternative paths is merely a
fundamental property of waves.[2] If points
A and B are given, a wavefront expanding
from A sweeps all possible ray paths
radiating from A, whether they pass
through B or not. If the wavefront reaches
point B, it sweeps not only the ray path(s)
from A to B, but also an infinitude of
nearby paths with the same endpoints.
Fermat's principle describes any ray that
happens to reach point B; there is no
implication that the ray "knew" the shortest
path or "intended" to take that path.

Fig. 2: Two points P and P′ on a path from A to B. For

the purposes of Fermat's principle, the propagation
time from P to P′ is taken as for a point-source at P,
not (e.g.) for an arbitrary wavefront W passing through
P. The surface Σ  (with unit normal n̂ at P′) is the locus
of points that a disturbance at P can reach in the
same time that it takes to reach P′; in other words, Σ is
the secondary wavefront with radius PP′. (The
medium is not assumed to be homogeneous or
isotropic.)
For the purpose of comparing traversal
times, the time from one point to the next
nominated point is taken as if the first
point were a point-source.[3] Without this
condition, the traversal time would be
ambiguous; for example, if the propagation
time from P to P′ were reckoned from an
arbitrary wavefront W containing P  (Fig. 2),
that time could be made arbitrarily small
by suitably angling the wavefront.

Treating a point on the path as a source is

the minimum requirement of Huygens'
principle, and is part of the explanation of
Fermat's principle. But it can also be
shown that the geometric construction by
which Huygens tried to apply his own
principle (as distinct from the principle
itself) is simply an invocation of Fermat's
principle.[4] Hence all the conclusions that
Huygens drew from that construction —
including, without limitation, the laws of
rectilinear propagation of light, ordinary
reflection, ordinary refraction, and the
extraordinary refraction of "Iceland crystal"
(calcite) — are also consequences of
Fermat's principle.
Derivation

Sufficient conditions …

Let us suppose that:

(1)  A disturbance propagates

sequentially through a medium
(a vacuum or some material, not
necessarily homogeneous or isotropic),
without action at a distance;
(2)  During propagation, the influence of
the disturbance at any intermediate
point P upon surrounding points has a
 non-zero angular spread (as if P were a
source), so that a disturbance
originating at any point A arrives at any
other point B via an infinitude of paths,
by which B receives an infinitude of
delayed versions of the disturbance at
A;[Note 1] and
(3)  These delayed versions of the
disturbance will reinforce each other at
B if they are synchronized within some
tolerance.

Then the various propagation paths from A

to B will help each other if their traversal
times agree within the said tolerance. For
a small tolerance (in the limiting case), the
permissible range of variations of the path
is maximized if the path is such that its
traversal time is stationary with respect to
the variations, so that a variation of the
path causes at most a second-order
change in the traversal time.[5]

The most obvious example of a

stationarity in traversal time is a (local or
global) minimum — that is, a path of least
time, as in the "strong" form of Fermat's
principle. But that condition is not
essential to the argument.[Note 2]
Having established that a path of
stationary traversal time is reinforced by a
maximally wide corridor of neighboring
paths, we still need to explain how this
reinforcement corresponds to intuitive
notions of a ray. But, for brevity in the
explanations, let us first define a ray path
as a path of stationary traversal time.

A ray as a signal path (line of sight) …

If the corridor of paths reinforcing a ray

path from A to B is substantially
obstructed, this will significantly alter the
disturbance reaching B from A — unlike a
similar-sized obstruction outside any such
corridor, blocking paths that do not
reinforce each other. The former
obstruction will significantly disrupt the
signal reaching B from A, while the latter
will not; thus the ray path marks a signal
path. If the signal is visible light, the former
obstruction will significantly affect the
appearance of an object at A as seen by
an observer at B, while the latter will not;
so the ray path marks a line of sight.
In optical experiments, a line of sight is
routinely assumed to be a ray path.[6]

A ray as an energy path (beam) …

Fig. 3: An experiment demonstrating refraction (and

partial reflection) of rays — approximated by, or
contained in, narrow beams

If the corridor of paths reinforcing a ray

path from A to B is substantially
obstructed, this will significantly affect the
energy[Note 3] reaching B from A — unlike a
similar-sized obstruction outside any such
corridor. Thus the ray path marks an
energy path — as does a beam.

Suppose that a wavefront expanding from

point A passes point P, which lies on a ray
path from point A to point B. By definition,
all points on the wavefront have the same
propagation time from A. Now let the
wavefront be blocked except for a window,
centered on P, and small enough to lie
within the corridor of paths that reinforce
the ray path from A to B. Then all points on
the unobstructed portion of the wavefront
will have, nearly enough, equal propagation
times to B, but not to points in other
directions, so that B will be in the direction
of peak intensity of the beam admitted
through the window.[7] So the ray path
marks the beam. And in optical
experiments, a beam is routinely
considered as a collection of rays or (if it
is narrow) as an approximation to a ray
(Fig. 3).[8]

Analogies …
According to the "strong" form of Fermat's
principle, the problem of finding the path of
a light ray from point A in a medium of
faster propagation, to point B in a medium
of slower propagation (Fig. 1), is
analogous to the problem faced by a
lifeguard in deciding where to enter the
water in order to reach a drowning
swimmer as soon as possible, given that
the lifeguard can run faster than (s)he can
swim.[9] But that analogy falls short of
explaining the behavior of the light,
because the lifeguard can think about the
problem (even if only for an instant)
whereas the light presumably cannot. The
discovery that ants are capable of similar
calculations[10] does not bridge the gap
between the animate and the inanimate.

In contrast, the above assumptions (1) to

(3) hold for any wavelike disturbance and
explain Fermat's principle in purely
mechanistic terms, without any imputation
of knowledge or purpose.

The principle applies to waves in general,

including (e.g.) sound waves in fluids and
elastic waves in solids.[11] In a modified
form, it even works for matter waves: in
quantum mechanics, the classical path of
a particle is obtainable by applying
Fermat's principle to the associated wave
— except that, because the frequency may
vary with the path, the stationarity is in the
phase shift (or number of cycles) and not
necessarily in the time.[12][13]

Fermat's principle is most familiar,

however, in the case of visible light: it is the
link between geometrical optics, which
describes certain optical phenomena in
terms of rays, and the wave theory of light,
which explains the same phenomena on
the hypothesis that light consists of
waves.

Equivalence to Huygens'
construction

Fig. 4: Two iterations of Huygens' construction. In the

first iteration, the later wavefront W′ is derived from
the earlier wavefront W by taking the envelope of all
the secondary wavefronts (gray arcs) expanding in a
given time from all the points (e.g., P) on W. The
arrows show the ray directions.

In this article we distinguish between

Huygens' principle, which states that every
point crossed by a traveling wave
becomes the source of a secondary wave,
and Huygens' construction, which is
described below.

Let the surface W be a wavefront at time t,

and let the surface W′ be the same
wavefront at the later time  t + Δt  (Fig. 4).
Let P be a general point on W. Then,
according to Huygens construction,[14]

(a)  W′ is the envelope (common tangent

surface), on the forward side of W, of all
the secondary wavefronts each of which
would expand in time Δt from a point on
W, and
(b)  if the secondary wavefront
expanding from point P in time Δt
touches the surface W′ at point P′, then
P and P′ lie on a ray.

The construction may be repeated in order

to find successive positions of the primary
wavefront, and successive points on the
ray.

The ray direction given by this construction

is the radial direction of the secondary
wavefront,[15] and may differ from the
normal of the secondary wavefront
(cf. Fig. 2), and therefore from the normal
of the primary wavefront at the point of
tangency. Hence the ray velocity, in
magnitude and direction, is the radial
velocity of an infinitesimal secondary
wavefront, and is generally a function of
location and direction.[16]
Now let Q be a point on W close to P, and
let Q′ be a point on W′ close to P′. Then, by
the construction,

(i)  the time taken for a secondary

wavefront from P to reach Q′ has at
most a second-order dependence on the
displacement P′Q′, and
(ii)  the time taken for a secondary
wavefront to reach P′ from Q has at
most a second-order dependence on the
displacement PQ.

By (i), the ray path is a path of stationary

traversal time from P to W′;[17] and by (ii),
it is a path of stationary traversal time
from a point on W to P′.[18]

So Huygens' construction implicitly defines

a ray path as a path of stationary traversal
time between successive positions of a
wavefront, the time being reckoned from a
point-source on the earlier wavefront.[Note 4]
This conclusion remains valid if the
secondary wavefronts are reflected or
refracted by surfaces of discontinuity in
the properties of the medium, provided
that the comparison is restricted to the
affect paths and the affected portions of
the wavefronts.[Note 5]

Fermat's principle, however, is

conventionally expressed in point-to-point
terms, not wavefront-to-wavefront terms.
Accordingly, let us modify the example by
supposing that the wavefront which
becomes surface W at time t, and which
becomes surface W′ at the later time
t + Δt, is emitted from point A at time 0. Let
P be a point on W (as before), and B a
point on W′. And let A,W, W′, and B be
given, so that the problem is to find P.
If P satisfies Huygens' construction, so
that the secondary wavefront from P is
tangential to W′ at B, then PB is a path of
stationary traversal time from W to B.
Adding the fixed time from A to W, we find
that APB is the path of stationary traversal
time from A to B (possibly with a restricted
domain of comparison, as noted above), in
accordance with Fermat's principle. The
argument works just as well in the
converse direction. Thus Huygens'
construction and Fermat's principle are
geometrically equivalent.[19][Note 6]
Through this equivalence, Fermat's
principle sustains Huygens' construction
and thence all the conclusions that
Huygens was able to draw from that
construction. In short, "The laws of
geometrical optics may be derived from
Fermat's principle".[20] With the exception
of the Fermat-Huygens principle itself,
these laws are special cases in the sense
that they depend on further assumptions
about the media. Two of them are
mentioned under the next heading.

Special cases
Isotropic media: Rays normal to
wavefronts
…

In an isotropic medium, because the

propagation speed is independent of
direction, the secondary wavefronts that
expand from points on a primary
wavefront in a given infinitesimal time are
spherical,[21] so that their radii are normal
to their common tangent surface at the
points of tangency. But their radii mark the
ray directions, and their common tangent
surface is a general wavefront. Thus the
rays are normal (orthogonal) to the
wavefronts.[22]

Because much of the teaching of optics

concentrates on isotropic media, treating
anisotropic media as an optional topic, the
assumption that the rays are normal to the
wavefronts can become so pervasive that
even Fermat's principle is explained under
that assumption,[23] although in fact
Fermat's principle is more general.

Homogeneous media: Rectilinear

propagation
…
In a homogeneous medium (also called a
uniform medium), all the secondary
wavefronts that expand from a given
primary wavefront W in a given time Δt are
congruent and similarly oriented, so that
their envelope W′ may be considered as
the envelope of a single secondary
wavefront which preserves its orientation
while its center (source) moves over W. If
P is its center while P′ is its point of
tangency with W′, then P′ moves parallel to
P, so that the plane tangential to W′ at P′
is parallel to the plane tangential to W at
P. Let another (congruent and similarly
orientated) secondary wavefront be
centered on P′, moving with P, and let it
meet its envelope W″ at point P″. Then, by
the same reasoning, the plane tangential
to W″ at P″ is parallel to the other two
planes. Hence, due to the congruence and
similar orientations, the ray directions PP′
and P′P″ are the same (but not necessarily
normal to the wavefronts, since the
secondary wavefronts are not necessarily
spherical). This construction can be
repeated any number of times, giving a
straight ray of any length. Thus a
homogeneous medium admits rectilinear
rays.[24]

Modern version

Formulation in terms of refractive

index
…

Let a path Γ extend from point A to point

B. Let s be the arc length measured along
the path from A, and let t be the time taken
to traverse that arc length at the ray speed
(that is, at the radial speed of the local
secondary wavefront, for each location
and direction on the path). Then the
traversal time of the entire path Γ is

   
(1)

(where A and B simply denote the

endpoints and are not to be construed as
values of t or s). The condition for Γ to be
a ray path is that the first-order change in T
due to a change in Γ is zero; that is,

.
Now let us define the optical length of a
given path (optical path length, OPL) as the
distance traversed by a ray in a
homogeneous isotropic reference medium
(e.g., a vacuum) in the same time that it
takes to traverse the given path at the
local ray velocity.[25] Then, if c denotes the
propagation speed in the reference
medium (e.g., the speed of light in a
vacuum), the optical length of a path
traversed in time dt  is dS = c dt, and the
optical length of a path traversed in time T 
is S = cT.  So, multiplying equation (1)
through by c , we obtain
where is the ray index — that
is, the refractive index calculated on the
ray velocity instead of the usual phase
velocity (wave-normal velocity).[26] For an
infinitesimal path, we have 
indicating that the optical length is the
physical length multiplied by the ray index:
the OPL is a notional geometric quantity,
from which time has been factored out. In
terms of OPL, the condition for Γ to be a
ray path (Fermat's principle) becomes
 .   
(2)

This has the form of Maupertuis's principle

in classical mechanics (for a single
particle), with the ray index in optics taking
the role of momentum or velocity in
mechanics.[27]

In an isotropic medium, for which the ray

velocity is also the phase velocity,[Note 7]
we may substitute the usual refractive
index n for nr. [28][29]

Relation to Hamilton's principle …

If x,y,z are Cartesian coordinates and an
overdot denotes differentiation with
respect to s , Fermat's principle (2) may be
written[30]

In the case of an isotropic medium, we

may replace nr with the normal refractive
index  n(x,y,z), which is simply a scalar
field. If we then define the optical
Lagrangian[31] as
Fermat's principle becomes[32]

If the direction of propagation is always

such that we can use z instead of s as the
parameter of the path (and the overdot to
denote differentiation w.r.t. z instead of s),
the optical Lagrangian can instead be
written[33]
so that Fermat's principle becomes

This has the form of Hamilton's principle in

classical mechanics, except that the time
dimension is missing: the third spatial
coordinate in optics takes the role of time
in mechanics.[34] The optical Lagrangian is
the function which, when integrated
w.r.t. the parameter of the path, yields the
OPL; it is the foundation of Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian optics.[35]

History

Fermat vs. the Cartesians …

Pierre de Fermat (1607[36]  –1665)

If a ray follows a straight line, it obviously
takes the path of least length. Hero of
Alexandria, in his Catoptrics (1st century
CE), showed that the ordinary law of
reflection off a plane surface follows from
the premise that the total length of the ray
path is a minimum.[37] In 1657, Pierre de
Fermat received from Marin Cureau de la
Chambre a copy of newly published
treatise, in which La Chambre noted Hero's
principle and complained that it did not
work for refraction.[38]
Fermat replied that refraction might be
brought into the same framework by
supposing that light took the path of least
resistance, and that different media
offered different resistances. His eventual
solution, described in a letter to
La Chambre dated 1 January 1662,
construed "resistance" as inversely
proportional to speed, so that light took
the path of least time. That premise
yielded the ordinary law of refraction,
provided that light traveled more slowly in
the optically denser medium.[39][Note 8]
Fermat's solution was a landmark in that it
unified the then-known laws of geometrical
optics under a variational principle or action
principle, setting the precedent for the
principle of least action in classical
mechanics and the corresponding
principles in other fields (see History of
variational principles in physics).[40] It was
the more notable because it used the
method of adequality, which may be
understood in retrospect as finding the
point where the slope of an infinitesimally
short chord is zero,[41] without the
intermediate step of finding a general
expression for the slope (the derivative).

It was also immediately controversial. The

ordinary law of refraction was at that time
attributed to René Descartes (d. 1650),
who had tried to explain it by supposing
that light was a force that propagated
instantaneously, or that light was
analogous to a tennis ball that traveled
faster in the denser medium,[42][43] either
premise being inconsistent with Fermat's. 
Descartes' most prominent defender,
Claude Clerselier, criticized Fermat for
apparently ascribing knowledge and intent
to nature, and for failing to explain why
nature should prefer to economize on time
rather than distance. Clerselier wrote in
part:

1. The principle that you take as

the basis of your demonstration,
namely that nature always acts
in the shortest and simplest
ways, is merely a moral
principle and not a physical one;
it is not, and cannot be, the
cause of any effect in nature....
For otherwise we would
attribute knowledge to nature;
but here, by "nature", we
understand only this order and
this law established in the world
as it is, which acts without
foresight, without choice, and by
a necessary determination.

2. This same principle would

make nature irresolute... For I
ask you... when a ray of light
must pass from a point in a rare
medium to a point in a dense
one, is there not reason for
nature to hesitate if, by your
principle, it must choose the
straight line as soon as the bent
one, since if the latter proves
shorter in time, the former is
shorter and simpler in length?
Who will decide and who will
pronounce? [44]
Fermat, being unaware of the mechanistic
foundations of his own principle, was not
well placed to defend it, except as a purely
geometric and kinematic
proposition.[45][46]  The wave theory of
light, first proposed by Robert Hooke in the
year of Fermat's death,[47] and rapidly
improved by Ignace-Gaston Pardies[48] and
(especially) Christiaan Huygens,[49]
contained the necessary foundations; but
the recognition of this fact was
surprisingly slow.

Huygens's oversight …
Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695)

Huygens repeatedly referred to the

envelope of his secondary wavefronts as
the termination of the movement,[50]
meaning that the later wavefront was the
outer boundary that the disturbance could
reach in a given time,[51] which was
therefore the minimum time in which each
point on the later wavefront could be
reached. But he did not argue that the
direction of minimum time was that from
the secondary source to the point of
tangency; instead, he deduced the ray
direction from the extent of the common
tangent surface corresponding to a given
extent of the initial wavefront.[52] His only
endorsement of Fermat's principle was
limited in scope: having derived the law of
ordinary refraction, for which the rays are
normal to the wavefronts,[53] Huygens gave
a geometric proof that a ray refracted
according to this law takes the path of
least time.[54] He would hardly have
thought this necessary if he had known
that the principle of least time followed
directly from the same common-tangent
construction by which he had deduced not
only the law of ordinary refraction, but also
the laws of rectilinear propagation and
ordinary reflection (which were also known
to follow from Fermat's principle), and a
previously unknown law of extraordinary
refraction — the last by means of
secondary wavefronts that were
spheroidal rather than spherical, with the
result that the rays were generally oblique
to the wavefronts. It was as if Huygens
had not noticed that his construction
implied Fermat's principle, and even as if
he thought he had found an exception to
that principle. Manuscript evidence cited
by Alan E. Shapiro tends to confirm that
Huygens believed the principle of least
time to be invalid "in double refraction,
where the rays are not normal to the wave
fronts".[55][Note 9]

Shapiro further reports that the only three

authorities who accepted "Huygens'
principle" in the 17th and 18th centuries,
namely Philippe de La Hire, Denis Papin,
and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, did so
because it accounted for the extraordinary
refraction of "Iceland crystal" (calcite) in
the same manner as the previously known
laws of geometrical optics.[56] But, for the
time being, the corresponding extension of
Fermat's principle went unnoticed.

Laplace, Young, Fresnel, and

Lorentz
…
Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827)

On 30 January 1809,[57] Pierre-Simon

Laplace, reporting on the work of his
protégé Étienne-Louis Malus, claimed that
the extraordinary refraction of calcite
could be explained under the corpuscular
theory of light with the aid of Maupertuis's
principle of least action: that the integral of
speed with respect to distance was a
minimum. The corpuscular speed that
satisfied this principle was proportional to
the reciprocal of the ray speed given by the
radius of Huygens' spheroid. Laplace
continued:

According to Huygens, the

velocity of the extraordinary
ray, in the crystal, is simply
expressed by the radius of the
spheroid; consequently his
hypothesis does not agree with
the principle of the least action:
but it is remarkable that it
agrees with the principle of
Fermat, which is, that light
passes, from a given point
without the crystal, to a given
point within it, in the least
possible time; for it is easy to see
that this principle coincides with
that of the least action, if we
invert the expression of the
velocity.[58]
Thomas Young (1773–1829)

Laplace's report was the subject of a wide-

ranging rebuttal by Thomas Young, who
wrote in part:

The principle of Fermat,

although it was assumed by that
mathematician on hypothetical,
or even imaginary grounds, is in
fact a fundamental law with
respect to undulatory motion,
and is explicitly [sic] the basis of
every determination in the
Huygenian theory...  Mr. Laplace
seems to be unacquainted with
this most essential principle of
one of the two theories which he
compares; for he says, that "it is
remarkable," that the
Huygenian law of extraordinary
 refraction agrees with the
principle of Fermat; which he
would scarcely have observed, if
he had been aware that the law
was an immediate consequence
of the principle.[59]

In fact Laplace was aware that Fermat's

principle follows from Huygens'
construction in the case of refraction from
an isotropic medium to an anisotropic one;
a geometric proof was contained in the
long version of Laplace's report, printed in
1810.[60]

Young's claim was more general than

Laplace's, and likewise upheld Fermat's
principle even in the case of extraordinary
refraction, in which the rays are generally
not perpendicular to the wavefronts.
Unfortunately, however, the omitted middle
sentence of the quoted paragraph by
Young began "The motion of every
undulation must necessarily be in a
direction perpendicular to its surface..."
(emphasis added), and was therefore
bound to sow confusion rather than clarity.

Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788–1827)

No such confusion subsists in Augustin-

Jean Fresnel's "Second Memoir" on double
refraction (Fresnel, 1827), which
addresses Fermat's principle in several
places (without naming Fermat),
proceeding from the special case in which
rays are normal to wavefronts, to the
general case in which rays are paths of
least time or stationary time. (In the
following summary, page numbers refer to
Alfred W. Hobson's translation.)

For refraction of a plane wave at parallel

incidence on one face of an anisotropic
crystalline wedge (pp. 291–2), in order
to find the "first ray arrived" at an
observation point beyond the other face
of the wedge, it suffices to treat the rays
outside the crystal as normal to the
wavefronts, and within the crystal to
consider only the parallel wavefronts
(whatever the ray direction). So in this
case, Fresnel does not attempt to trace
the complete ray path.[Note 10]
Next, Fresnel considers a ray refracted
from a point-source M inside a crystal,
through a point A on the surface, to an
observation point B outside (pp. 294–6).
The surface passing through B and given
by the "locus of the disturbances which
arrive first" is, according to Huygens'
construction, normal to "the ray AB of
swiftest arrival". But this construction
requires knowledge of the "surface of
the wave" (that is, the secondary
wavefront) within the crystal.
Then he considers a plane wavefront
propagating in a medium with non-
spherical secondary wavefronts,
oriented so that the ray path given by
Huygens' construction — from the
source of the secondary wavefront to its
point of tangency with the subsequent
primary wavefront — is not normal to the
primary wavefronts (p. 296). He shows
that this path is nevertheless "the path
of quickest arrival of the disturbance"
from the earlier primary wavefront to the
point of tangency.
In a later heading (p. 305) he declares
that "The construction of Huygens,
which determines the path of swiftest
arrival," is applicable to secondary
wavefronts of any shape. He then notes
that when we apply Huygens'
construction to refraction into a crystal
with a two-sheeted secondary
wavefront, and draw the lines from the
two points of tangency to the center of
the secondary wavefront, "we shall have
the directions of the two paths of
swiftest arrival, and consequently of the
ordinary and of the extraordinary ray."
Under the heading "Definition of the
word Ray" (p. 309), he concludes that
this term must be applied to the line
which joins the center of the secondary
wave to a point on its surface, whatever
the inclination of this line to the surface.
As a "new consideration" (pp. 310–11),
he notes that if a plane wavefront is
passed through a small hole centered
on point E, then the direction ED of
 maximum intensity of the resulting beam
will be that in which the secondary wave
starting from E will "arrive there the first",
and the secondary wavefronts from
opposite sides of the hole (equidistant
from E) will "arrive at D in the same time"
as each other. This direction is not
assumed to be normal to any wavefront.

Thus Fresnel showed, even for anisotropic

media, that the ray path given by Huygens'
construction is the path of least time
between successive positions of a plane
or diverging wavefront, that the ray
velocities are the radii of the secondary
"wave surface" after unit time, and that a
stationary traversal time accounts for the
direction of maximum intensity of a beam.
However, establishing the general
equivalence between Huygens'
construction and Fermat's principle would
have required further consideration of
Fermat's principle in point-to-point terms.

According to Adriaan J. de Witte (1959),

the equivalence of Huygens' construction
and Fermat's principle was discussed by
Hendrik Lorentz in 1907.[61] De Witte offers
his own proof, which "although in essence
the same, is believed to be more cogent
and more general." But, he notes, "The
matter seems to have escaped treatment
in textbooks."[62]

See also
Action (physics)
Adequality
Augustin-Jean Fresnel
Birefringence
Calculus of variations
Eikonal equation
 Fermat’s and energy variation principles
in field theory
Geodesic
Hamilton's principle
Huygens' principle
Path integral formulation
Pierre de Fermat
Principle of least action
Snell's law
Thomas Young (scientist)

Notes
1. Assumption (2) almost follows from
(1) because: (a) to the extent that the
disturbance at the intermediate point P
can be represented by a scalar, its
influence is omnidirectional; (b) to the
extent that it can be represented by a
vector in the supposed direction of
propagation (as in a longitudinal
wave), it has a non-zero component in
a range of neighboring directions; and
(c) to the extent that it can be
represented by a vector across the
supposed direction of propagation (as
in a transverse wave), it has a non-zero
component across a range of
 neighboring directions. Thus there are
infinitely many paths from A to B
because there are infinitely many
paths radiating from every
intermediate point P.
2. If a ray is reflected off a sufficiently
concave surface, the point of
reflection is such that the total
traversal time is a local maximum,
provided that the paths to and from
the point of reflection, considered
separately, are required to be possible
ray paths. But Fermat's principle
imposes no such restriction; and
 without that restriction it is always
possible to vary the overall path so as
to increase its traversal time. Thus the
stationary traversal time of the ray
path is never a local maximum
(cf. Born & Wolf, 1970, p. 129n). But,
as the case of the concave reflector
shows, neither is it necessarily a local
minimum. Hence it is not necessarily
an extremum. We must therefore be
content to call it a stationarity.
3. More precisely, the energy flux density.
4. If the time were reckoned from the
earlier wavefront as a whole, that time
would everywhere be exactly Δt, and it
would be meaningless to speak of a
"stationary" or "least" time.
The "stationary" time will be the least
time provided that the secondary
wavefronts are more convex than the
primary wavefronts (as in Fig. 4). That
proviso, however, does not always
hold. For example, if the primary
wavefront, within the range of a
secondary wavefront, converges to a
focus and starts diverging again, the
secondary wavefront will touch the
later primary wavefront from the
 outside instead of the inside. To allow
for such complexities, we must be
content to say "stationary" time rather
than "least" time.  Cf. Born & Wolf,
1970, pp. 128–9 (meaning of "regular
neighbourhood").
5. Moreover, using Huygens' construction
to determine the law of reflection or
refraction is a matter of seeking the
path of stationary traversal time
between two particular wavefronts; cf.
Fresnel, 1827, tr. Hobson, p. 305–6.
6. In Huygens' construction, the choice of
the envelope of secondary wavefronts
 on the forward side of W — that is, the
rejection of "backward" or "retrograde"
secondary waves — is also explained
by Fermat's principle. For example, in
Fig. 2, the traversal time of the path
APP′P (where the last leg "doubles
back") is not stationary with respect to
variation of P′, but is maximally
sensitive to movement of P′ along the
leg PP′.
7. The ray direction is the direction of
constructive interference, which is the
direction of the group velocity.
However, the "ray velocity" is defined
not as the group velocity, but as the
phase velocity measured in that
direction, so that "the phase velocity is
the projection of the ray velocity on to
the direction of the wave normal" (the
quote is from Born & Wolf, 1970,
p. 669). In an isotropic medium, by
symmetry, the directions of the ray
and phase velocities are the same, so
that the "projection" reduces to an
identity. To put it another way: in an
isotropic medium, since the ray and
phase velocities have the same
direction (by symmetry), and since
 both velocities follow the phase (by
definition), they must also have the
same magnitude.
8. Ibn al-Haytham, writing in Cairo in the
2nd decade of the 11th century, also
believed that light took the path of
least resistance and that denser media
offered more resistance, but he
retained a more conventional notion of
"resistance". If this notion was to
explain refraction, it required the
resistance to vary with direction in a
manner that was hard to reconcile with
reflection. Meanwhile Ibn Sahl had
already arrived at the correct law of
refraction by a different method; but
his law was not propagated (Mihas,
2006, pp. 761–5; Darrigol, 2012,
pp. 20–21,41).
The problem solved by Fermat is
mathematically equivalent to the
following: given two points in different
media with different densities,
minimize the density-weighted length
of the path between the two points. In
Louvain, in 1634 (by which time
Willebrord Snellius had rediscovered
Ibn Sahl's law, and Descartes had
 derived it but not yet published it), the
Jesuit professor Wilhelm Boelmans
gave a correct solution to this
problem, and set its proof as an
exercise for his Jesuit
students (Ziggelaar, 1980).
9. In the last chapter of his Treatise,
Huygens determined the required
shapes of image-forming surfaces,
working from the premise that all
parts of the wavefront must travel
from the object point to the image
point in equal times, and treating the
rays as normal to the wavefronts. But
 he did not mention Fermat in this
context.
10. In the translation, some lines and
symbols are missing from the
diagram; the corrected diagram may
be found in Fresnel's Oeuvres
Complètes, vol. 2, p. 547 .

References
1. Cf. Born & Wolf, 1970, p. 740.
2. Cf.  Young, 1809, p. 342; Fresnel, 1827,
tr. Hobson, pp. 294–6, 310–11; De
Witte, 1959, p. 293n.
3. De Witte (1959) invokes the point-
source condition at the outset (p. 294,
col. 1).
4. De Witte (1959) gives a proof based
on calculus of variations. The present
article offers a simpler explanation.
5. A. Lipson, S.G. Lipson, and H. Lipson,
2011, Optical Physics, 4th Ed.,
Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 978-0-521-49345-1, p. 36. (Note:
Where the authors imply that light
propagating along the axis of a
graded-index fiber takes the path of
maximum time, they neglect the
 possibility of further lengthening the
time by taking non-ray detours, e.g. by
doubling back.)
6. See (e.g.) Huygens, 1690,
tr. Thompson, pp. 47,55,58,60,82–6;
Newton, 1730,
pp. 8,18,137,143,166,173.
7. This is the essence of the argument
given by Fresnel (1827, tr. Hobson,
pp. 310–11).
8. See (e.g.) Newton, 1730, p. 55;
Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson, pp. 40–
41, 56.
 9. R.P. Feynman, 1985 (seventh printing,
1988), QED: The Strange Theory of
Light and Matter, Princeton University
Press, ISBN 0-691-02417-0, pp. 51–2.
10. L. Zyga (1 April 2013), "Ants follow
Fermat's principle of least time" ,
Phys.org, retrieved 9 August 2019.
11. De Witte, 1959, p. 294.
12. J. Ogborn and E.F. Taylor (January
2005), "Quantum physics explains
Newton's laws of motion" , Physics
Education, 40 (1): 26–34,
doi:10.1088/0031-9120/40/1/001 .
13. H. van Houten and C.W.J. Beenakker,
1995, "Principles of solid state
electron optics" ,  in  E. Burstein and
C. Weisbuch (eds.), Confined Electrons
and Photons: New Physics and
Applications (NATO ASI Series;
Series B: Physics, vol. 340), Boston,
MA: Springer, ISBN 978-1-4615-1963-
8, pp. 269–303, doi:10.1007/978-1-
4615-1963-8_9 , at pp. 272–3.
14. Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson,
pp. 19,50–51,63–65,68,75.
15. Fresnel, 1827, tr. Hobson, p. 309.
16. De Witte, 1959, p. 294, col. 2.
17. Cf. Fresnel, 1827, tr. Hobson, p. 305.
18. Cf. Fresnel, 1827, tr. Hobson, p. 296.
19. De Witte (1959) gives a more
sophisticated proof of the same result,
using calculus of variations.
20. The quote is from Born & Wolf, 1970,
p. 740.
21. De Witte, 1959, p. 294, col. 2.
22. De Witte, 1959, p. 295, col. 1.
23. This occurs in Born & Wolf, 1970,
pp. 128–30, and persists in later
editions.
24. De Witte, 1959 (p. 295, col. 1 and
Figure 2), states the result and
condenses the explanation into one
diagram.
25. Born & Wolf, 1970, p. 115.
26. Born & Wolf, 1970, p. 669, eq. (13).
27. Cf. Chaves, 2016, p. 673.
28. Cf. Born & Wolf, 1970, p. 740,
eq. (10a).
29. Cf.  V.G. Veselago (October 2002),
"Formulating Fermat's principle for
light traveling in negative refraction
materials", Physics-Uspekhi,
 45 (10): 1097–9,
doi:10.1070/PU2002v045n10ABEH0
01223 , at p. 1099.
30. Cf. Chaves, 2016, pp. 568–9.
31. Chaves, 2016, p. 581.
32. Chaves, 2016, p. 569.
33. Cf. Chaves, 2016, p. 577.
34. Cf.  Born & Wolf, 1970, pp. 734–5,741;
Chaves, 2016, p. 669.
35. Chaves, 2016, ch. 14.
36. F. Katscher (May 2016), "When Was
Pierre de Fermat Born?" ,
 Convergence, retrieved 22 August
2019.
37. Sabra, 1981, pp. 69–71. As the author
notes, the law of reflection itself is
found in Proposition XIX of Euclid's
Optics.
38. Sabra, 1981, pp. 137–9; Darrigol,
2012, p. 48.
39. Sabra, 1981, pp. 139,143–7; Darrigol,
2012, pp. 48–9 (where, in footnote 21,
"Descartes" obviously should be
"Fermat").
40. Chaves, 2016, chapters 14, 19.
41. Sabra, 1981, pp. 144–5.
42. J.A. Schuster, 2000, "Descartes
opticien: The construction of the law
of refraction and the manufacture of
its physical rationales, 1618–29",  in 
S. Gaukroger, J.A. Schuster, and
J. Sutton (eds.), Descartes' Natural
Philosophy, London: Routledge,
pp. 258–312, at pp. 261, 264–5.
43. Darrigol, 2012, pp. 41–2.
44. Clerselier to Fermat (in French), 6 May
1662,  in  P. Tannery and C. Henry
(eds.), Œuvres de Fermat, vol. 2 (Paris:
 Gauthier-Villars et fils, 1894), pp. 464–
72 .
45. D.E. Smith, 1959, A Source Book in
Mathematics, vol. 3 (McGraw-Hill,
1929), reprinted Dover, 1959, p. 651n.
46. Fermat to Clerselier (in French),
21 May 1662,  in  P. Tannery and
C. Henry (eds.), Œuvres de Fermat,
vol. 2 (Paris: Gauthier-Villars et fils,
1894), pp. 482–4 .
47. Darrigol, 2012, p. 53.
48. Darrigol, 2012, pp. 60–64.
49. Darrigol, 2012, pp. 64–71; Huygens,
1690, tr. Thompson.
50. Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson, pp. 20, 
24, 37, 51, 80, 108, 119, 122 (with
various inflections of the word).
51. Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson, top of
p. 20.
52. Cf.  Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson,
pp. 19–21,63–5.
53. Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson, pp. 34–
9.
54. Huygens, 1690, tr. Thompson, pp. 42–
5.
55. Shapiro, 1973, p. 229, note 294
(Shapiro's words), citing Huygens'
Oeuvres Complètes, vol. 13
(ed. D.J. Korteweg, 1916), Quatrième
Complément à la Dioptrique , at
p. 834, "Parte 2da..." (in Latin, with
annotations in French).
56. Shapiro, 1973, pp. 245–6, 252.
57. P.-S. Laplace (read 30 January 1809),
"Sur la loi de la réfraction
extraordinaire de la lumière dans les
cristaux diaphanes" , Journal de
Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire
 Naturelle, 68: 107–11 (for January
1809).
58. Translated by Young (1809), p. 341;
Young's italics.
59. Young, 1809, p. 342.
60. On the proof, see Darrigol, 2012,
p. 190. On the date of the reading
(misprinted as 1808 in early sources),
see Frankel, 1974, p. 234n. The full
text (with the misprint) is "Mémoire sur
les mouvements de la lumière dans
les milieux diaphanes", Mémoires de
l'Académie des Sciences, 1st Series,
vol. X (1810), reprinted in Oeuvres
 complètes de Laplace, vol. 12 (Paris,
Gauthier-Villars et fils, 1898), pp. 267–
298 . An intermediate version,
including the proof but not the
appended "Note", appeared as "Sur le
mouvement de la lumière dans les
milieux diaphanes", Mémoires de
Physique et de Chimie de la Société
d'Arcueil, vol. 2 (1809), pp. 111–142
& Plate 1 (after p. 494).
61. H.A. Lorentz, 1907, Abhandlungen
über Theoretische Physik, vol. 1 ,
Berlin: Teubner, ch. 14, ss. 12, 13, and
ch. 16, s. 18.
62. De Witte, 1959, p. 293n.

Bibliography
M. Born and E. Wolf, 1970, Principles of
Optics, 4th Ed., Oxford: Pergamon Press.
J. Chaves, 2016, Introduction to
Nonimaging Optics, 2nd Ed., Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press, ISBN 978-1-4822-0674-6.
O. Darrigol, 2012, A History of Optics:
From Greek Antiquity to the Nineteenth
Century, Oxford, ISBN 978-0-19-964437-
7.
A.J. de Witte, 1959, "Equivalence of
Huygens' principle and Fermat's principle
in ray geometry", American Journal of
Physics, vol. 27, no. 5 (May 1959),
pp. 293–301, doi:10.1119/1.1934839 . 
Erratum: In Fig. 7(b), each instance of
"ray" should be "normal" (noted in
vol. 27, no. 6, p. 387).
E. Frankel, 1974, "The search for a
corpuscular theory of double refraction:
Malus, Laplace and the price [sic]
competition of 1808", Centaurus, vol. 18,
no. 3 (September 1974), pp. 223–245,
doi:10.1111/j.1600-
0498.1974.tb00298.x .
A. Fresnel, 1827, "Mémoire sur la double
réfraction", Mémoires de l'Académie
Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de
France, vol. VII (for 1824, printed 1827),
pp. 45–176 ; reprinted as "Second
mémoire…" in Oeuvres complètes
d'Augustin Fresnel, vol. 2 (Paris:
Imprimerie Impériale, 1868), pp. 479–
596 ; translated by A.W. Hobson as
"Memoir on double refraction" , in
R. Taylor (ed.), Scientific Memoirs, vol. V
(London: Taylor & Francis, 1852),
pp. 238–333. (Cited page numbers are
from the translation.)
C. Huygens, 1690, Traité de la Lumière
(Leiden: Van der Aa), translated by
S.P. Thompson as Treatise on Light ,
University of Chicago Press, 1912;
Project Gutenberg, 2005. (Cited page
numbers match the 1912 edition and the
Gutenberg HTML edition.)
P. Mihas, 2006, "Developing ideas of
refraction, lenses and rainbow through
the use of historical resources" , Science
& Education, vol. 17, no. 7 (August 2008),
pp. 751–777 (online 6 September 2006),
doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9044-8 .
I. Newton, 1730, Opticks: or, a Treatise of
the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections,
and Colours of Light , 4th Ed. (London:
William Innys, 1730; Project Gutenberg,
2010); republished with Foreword by
A. Einstein and Introduction by
E.T. Whittaker (London: George Bell &
Sons, 1931); reprinted with additional
Preface by I.B. Cohen and Analytical
Table of Contents by D.H.D. Roller, 
Mineola, NY: Dover, 1952, 1979 (with
revised preface), 2012. (Cited page
numbers match the Gutenberg HTML
edition and the Dover editions.)
A.I. Sabra, 1981, Theories of Light: From
Descartes to Newton (London:
Oldbourne Book Co., 1967), reprinted
Cambridge University Press, 1981,
ISBN 0-521-28436-8.
A.E. Shapiro, 1973, "Kinematic optics: A
study of the wave theory of light in the
seventeenth century", Archive for History
of Exact Sciences, vol. 11, no. 2/3 (June
1973), pp. 134–266,
doi:10.1007/BF00343533 .
T. Young, 1809, Article X in the Quarterly
Review, vol. 2, no. 4 (November 1809),
pp. 337–48.
 A. Ziggelaar, 1980, "The sine law of
refraction derived from the principle of
Fermat — prior to Fermat? The theses of
Wilhelm Boelmans S.J. in 1634",
Centaurus, vol. 24, no. 1
(September 1980), pp. 246–62,
doi:10.1111/j.1600-
0498.1980.tb00377.x .

Further reading
A. Bhatia (26 March 2014), "To save
drowning people, ask yourself 'What
would light do?' " , Nautilus, retrieved
7 August 2019.
J.Z. Buchwald, 1989, The Rise of the
Wave Theory of Light: Optical Theory and
Experiment in the Early Nineteenth
Century, University of Chicago Press,
ISBN 0-226-07886-8, especially
pp. 36–40.
M.G. Katz; D.M. Schaps; S. Shnider
(2013), "Almost Equal: the method of
adequality from Diophantus to Fermat
and beyond", Perspectives on Science,
21 (3): 283–324, arXiv:1210.7750 ,
Bibcode:2012arXiv1210.7750K .
M.S. Mahoney (1994), The Mathematical
Career of Pierre de Fermat, 1601–1665, 
2nd Ed., Princeton University Press,
ISBN 0-691-03666-7.
R. Marqués; F. Martín; M. Sorolla, 2008
(reprinted 2013), Metamaterials with
Negative Parameters: Theory, Design,
and Microwave Applications, Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley, ISBN 978-0-471-74582-2.
J.B. Pendry and D.R. Smith (2004),
"Reversing Light With Negative
Refraction" , Physics Today,
57 (6): 37–43, doi:10.1063/1.1784272 .
Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Fermat%27s_principle&oldid=919782916"

Last edited 3 months ago by X1\

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.