text:
Fresnel equations

The Fresnel equations (or Fresnel coefficients) describe the reflection and transmission of light (or electromagnetic radiation in general) when incident on an interface between different optical media. They were deduced by French engineer and physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel who was the first to understand that light is a transverse wave, when no one realized that the waves were electric and magnetic fields. For the first time, polarization could be understood quantitatively, as Fresnel's equations correctly predicted the differing behaviour of waves of the s and p polarizations incident upon a material interface.

Overview
When light strikes the interface between a medium with refractive index $n_{1}$ and a second medium with refractive index $n_{2}$, both reflection and refraction of the light may occur. The Fresnel equations give the ratio of the reflected wave's electric field to the incident wave's electric field, and the ratio of the transmitted wave's electric field to the incident wave's electric field, for each of two components of polarization. (The magnetic fields can also be related using similar coefficients.) These ratios are generally complex, describing not only the relative amplitudes but also the phase shifts at the interface.

The equations assume the interface between the media is flat and that the media are homogeneous and isotropic. The incident light is assumed to be a plane wave, which is sufficient to solve any problem since any incident light field can be decomposed into plane waves and polarizations.

S and P polarizations
There are two sets of Fresnel coefficients for two different linear polarization components of the incident wave. Since any polarization state can be resolved into a combination of two orthogonal linear polarizations, this is sufficient for any problem. Likewise, unpolarized (or "randomly polarized") light has an equal amount of power in each of two linear polarizations.

The s polarization refers to polarization of a wave's electric field normal to the plane of incidence (the $z$ direction in the derivation below); then the magnetic field is in the plane of incidence. The p polarization refers to polarization of the electric field in the plane of incidence (the $xy$ plane in the derivation below); then the magnetic field is normal to the plane of incidence. The names "s" and "p" for the polarization components refer to German "senkrecht" (perpendicular or normal) and "parallel" (parallel to the plane of incidence).

Although the reflection and transmission are dependent on polarization, at normal incidence ($θ = 0$) there is no distinction between them so all polarization states are governed by a single set of Fresnel coefficients (and another special case is mentioned below in which that is true).

Configuration
In the diagram on the right, an incident plane wave in the direction of the ray $IO$ strikes the interface between two media of refractive indices $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$ at point $O$. Part of the wave is reflected in the direction $OR$, and part refracted in the direction $OT$. The angles that the incident, reflected and refracted rays make to the normal of the interface are given as $θ_{i}$, $θ_{r}$ and $θ_{t}$, respectively. The relationship between these angles is given by the law of reflection: $$\theta_\mathrm{i} = \theta_\mathrm{r},$$ and Snell's law: $$n_1 \sin \theta_\mathrm{i} = n_2 \sin \theta_\mathrm{t}.$$

The behavior of light striking the interface is explained by considering the electric and magnetic fields that constitute an electromagnetic wave, and the laws of electromagnetism, as shown below. The ratio of waves' electric field (or magnetic field) amplitudes are obtained, but in practice one is more often interested in formulae which determine power coefficients, since power (or irradiance) is what can be directly measured at optical frequencies. The power of a wave is generally proportional to the square of the electric (or magnetic) field amplitude.

Power (intensity) reflection and transmission coefficients

We call the fraction of the incident power that is reflected from the interface the reflectance (or reflectivity, or power reflection coefficient) $R$, and the fraction that is refracted into the second medium is called the transmittance (or transmissivity, or power transmission coefficient) $T$. Note that these are what would be measured right at each side of an interface and do not account for attenuation of a wave in an absorbing medium following transmission or reflection.

The reflectance for s-polarized light is

$$ R_\mathrm{s} = \left|\frac{Z_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i} - Z_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t}}{Z_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i} + Z_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t}}\right|^2, $$ while the reflectance for p-polarized light is

$$ R_\mathrm{p} = \left|\frac{Z_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t} - Z_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}}{Z_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t} + Z_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}}\right|^2, $$ where $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$ are the wave impedances of media 1 and 2, respectively.

We assume that the media are non-magnetic (i.e., $μ_{1} = μ_{2} = μ_{0}$), which is typically a good approximation at optical frequencies (and for transparent media at other frequencies). Then the wave impedances are determined solely by the refractive indices $n_{1}$ and $n_{2}$: $$Z_i = \frac{Z_0}{n_i}\,,$$ where $Z_{0}$ is the impedance of free space and $i = 1, 2$. Making this substitution, we obtain equations using the refractive indices: $$ R_\mathrm{s} = \left|\frac{n_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i} - n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t}}{n_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i} + n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t}}\right|^2 = \left|\frac {n_1 \cos \theta_{\mathrm{i}} - n_2 \sqrt{1 - \left(\frac{n_1}{n_2} \sin \theta_{\mathrm{i}}\right)^2}} {n_1 \cos \theta_{\mathrm{i}} + n_2 \sqrt{1 - \left(\frac{n_1}{n_2} \sin \theta_{\mathrm{i}}\right)^2}} \right|^2\!, $$ $$ R_\mathrm{p} = \left|\frac{n_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t} - n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}}{n_1 \cos \theta_\mathrm{t} + n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}}\right|^2 = \left|\frac {n_1 \sqrt{1 - \left(\frac{n_1}{n_2} \sin \theta_\mathrm{i}\right)^2} - n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}} {n_1 \sqrt{1 - \left(\frac{n_1}{n_2} \sin \theta_\mathrm{i}\right)^2} + n_2 \cos \theta_\mathrm{i}} \right|^2\!. $$

The second form of each equation is derived from the first by eliminating $θ_{t}$ using Snell's law and trigonometric identities.

As a consequence of conservation of energy, one can find the transmitted power (or more correctly, irradiance: power per unit area) simply as the portion of the incident power that isn't reflected: $$T_\mathrm{s} = 1 - R_\mathrm{s}$$ and $$T_\mathrm{p} = 1 - R_\mathrm{p}$$

Note that all such intensities are measured in terms of a wave's irradiance in the direction normal to the interface; this is also what is measured in typical experiments. That number could be obtained from irradiances in the direction of an incident or reflected wave (given by the magnitude of a wave's Poynting vector) multiplied by $cosθ$ for a wave at an angle $θ$ to the normal direction (or equivalently, taking the dot product of the Poynting vector with the unit vector normal to the interface). This complication can be ignored in the case of the reflection coefficient, since $cosθ_{i} = cosθ_{r}$, so that the ratio of reflected to incident irradiance in the wave's direction is the same as in the direction normal to the interface.

Although these relationships describe the basic physics, in many practical applications one is concerned with "natural light" that can be described as unpolarized. That means that there is an equal amount of power in the s and p polarizations, so that the effective reflectivity of the material is just the average of the two reflectivities: $$R_\mathrm{eff} = \frac{1}{2}\left(R_\mathrm{s} + R_\mathrm{p}\right).$$

For low-precision applications involving unpolarized light, such as computer graphics, rather than rigorously computing the effective reflection coefficient for each angle, Schlick's approximation is often used.

Normal incidence
For the case of normal incidence, $θi = θt = 0$, and there is no distinction between s and p polarization. Thus, the reflectance simplifies to $$ R_0 = \left|\frac{n_1 - n_2 }{n_1 + n_2 }\right|^2\,. $$

For common glass ($n_{2} ≈ 1.5$) surrounded by air ($n_{1} = 1$), the power reflectance at normal incidence can be seen to be about 4%, or 8% accounting for both sides of a glass pane.

Brewster's angle
At a dielectric interface from $n_{1}$ to $n_{2}$, there is a particular angle of incidence at which $R_{p}$ goes to zero and a p-polarised incident wave is purely refracted, thus all reflected light is s-polarised. This angle is known as Brewster's angle, and is around 56° for $n_{1} = 1$ and $n_{2} = 1.5$ (typical glass).

Total internal reflection
When light travelling in a denser medium strikes the surface of a less dense medium (i.e., $n_{1} > n_{2}$), beyond a particular incidence angle known as the critical angle, all light is reflected and $R_{s} = R_{p} = 1$. This phenomenon, known as total internal reflection, occurs at incidence angles for which Snell's law predicts that the sine of the angle of refraction would exceed unity (whereas in fact $sinθ ≤ 1$ for all real $θ$). For glass with $n = 1.5$ surrounded by air, the critical angle is approximately 42°.

45° incidence
Reflection at 45° incidence is very commonly used for making 90° turns. For the case of light traversing from a less dense medium into a denser one at 45° incidence ($θ = 45°$), it follows algebraically from the above equations that $R_{p}$ equals the square of $R_{s}$: $$ R_\text{p} = R_\text{s}^2 $$

This can be used to either verify the consistency of the measurements of $R_{s}$ and $R_{p}$, or to derive one of them when the other is known. This relationship is only valid for the simple case of a single plane interface between two homogeneous materials, not for films on substrates, where a more complex analysis is required.

Measurements of $R_{s}$ and $R_{p}$ at 45° can be used to estimate the reflectivity at normal incidence. The "average of averages" obtained by calculating first the arithmetic as well as the geometric average of $R_{s}$ and $R_{p}$, and then averaging these two averages again arithmetically, gives a value for $R_{0}$ with an error of less than about 3% for most common optical materials. This is useful because measurements at normal incidence can be difficult to achieve in an experimental setup since the incoming beam and the detector will obstruct each other. However, since the dependence of $R_{s}$ and $R_{p}$ on the angle of incidence for angles below 10° is very small, a measurement at about 5° will usually be a good approximation for normal incidence, while allowing for a separation of the incoming and reflected beam.

Complex amplitude reflection and transmission coefficients
The above equations relating powers (which could be measured with a photometer for instance) are derived from the Fresnel equations which solve the physical problem in terms of electromagnetic field complex amplitudes, i.e., considering phase shifts in addition to their amplitudes. Those underlying equations supply generally complex-valued ratios of those EM fields and may take several different forms, depending on the formalism used. The complex amplitude coefficients for reflection and transmission are usually represented by lower case $r$ and $t$ (whereas the power coefficients are capitalized). As before, we are assuming the magnetic permeability, $µ$ of both media to be equal to the permeability of free space $µ_{0}$ as is essentially true of all dielectrics at optical frequencies.

In the following equations and graphs, we adopt the following conventions. For s polarization, the reflection coefficient $r$ is defined as the ratio of the reflected wave's complex electric field amplitude to that of the incident wave, whereas for p polarization $r$ is the ratio of the waves complex magnetic field amplitudes (or equivalently, the negative of the ratio of their electric field amplitudes). The transmission coefficient $t$ is the ratio of the transmitted wave's complex electric field amplitude to that of the incident wave, for either polarization. The coefficients $r$ and $t$ are generally different between the s and p polarizations, and even at normal incidence (where the designations s and p do not even apply!) the sign of $r$ is reversed depending on whether the wave is considered to be s or p polarized, an artifact of the adopted sign convention (see graph for an air-glass interface at 0° incidence).

The equations consider a plane wave incident on a plane interface at angle of incidence $ \theta_\mathrm{i}$, a wave reflected at angle $ \theta_\mathrm{r} = \theta_\mathrm{i} $, and a wave transmitted at angle $ \theta_\mathrm{t}$. In the case of an interface into an absorbing material (where $n$ is complex) or total internal reflection, the angle of transmission does not generally evaluate to a real number. In that case, however, meaningful results can be obtained using formulations of these relationships in which trigonometric functions and geometric angles are avoided; the inhomogeneous waves launched into the second medium cannot be described using a single propagation angle.

Using this convention,

$$\begin{align} r_\text{s} &= \frac{ n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i} - n_2 \cos \theta_\text{t}}{n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i} + n_2 \cos \theta_\text{t}}, \\[3pt] t_\text{s} &= \frac{2 n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i}}                          {n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i} + n_2 \cos \theta_\text{t}}, \\[3pt] r_\text{p} &= \frac{ n_2 \cos \theta_\text{i} - n_1 \cos \theta_\text{t}}{n_2 \cos \theta_\text{i} + n_1 \cos \theta_\text{t}}, \\[3pt] t_\text{p} &= \frac{2 n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i}}                          {n_2 \cos \theta_\text{i} + n_1 \cos \theta_\text{t}}. \end{align}$$

One can see that $t_{s} = r_{s} + 1$ and $n_{2}⁄n_{1}t_{p} = r_{p} + 1$. One can write very similar equations applying to the ratio of the waves' magnetic fields, but comparison of the electric fields is more conventional.

Because the reflected and incident waves propagate in the same medium and make the same angle with the normal to the surface, the power reflection coefficient $R$ is just the squared magnitude of $r$: $$R = |r|^2.$$

On the other hand, calculation of the power transmission coefficient $T$ is less straightforward, since the light travels in different directions in the two media. What's more, the wave impedances in the two media differ; power (irradiance) is given by the square of the electric field amplitude divided by the characteristic impedance of the medium (or by the square of the magnetic field multiplied by the characteristic impedance). This results in: $$T = \frac{n_2 \cos \theta_\text{t}}{n_1 \cos \theta_\text{i}} |t|^2$$ using the above definition of $t$. The introduced factor of $n_{2}⁄n_{1}$ is the reciprocal of the ratio of the media's wave impedances. The $cos(θ)$ factors adjust the waves' powers so they are reckoned in the direction normal to the interface, for both the incident and transmitted waves, so that full power transmission corresponds to $T = 1$.

In the case of total internal reflection where the power transmission $T$ is zero, $t$ nevertheless describes the electric field (including its phase) just beyond the interface. This is an evanescent field which does not propagate as a wave (thus $T = 0$) but has nonzero values very close to the interface. The phase shift of the reflected wave on total internal reflection can similarly be obtained from the phase angles of $r_{p}$ and $r_{s}$ (whose magnitudes are unity in this case). These phase shifts are different for s and p waves, which is the well-known principle by which total internal reflection is used to effect polarization transformations.

Alternative forms
In the above formula for $r_{s}$, if we put $$n_2=n_1\sin\theta_\text{i}/\sin\theta_\text{t}$$ (Snell's law) and multiply the numerator and denominator by $1⁄n_{1}sinθ_{t}$, we obtain $$r_\text{s}=-\frac{\sin(\theta_\text{i}-\theta_\text{t})}{\sin(\theta_\text{i}+\theta_\text{t})}.$$

If we do likewise with the formula for $r_{p}$, the result is easily shown to be equivalent to $$r_\text{p}=\frac{\tan(\theta_\text{i}-\theta_\text{t})}{\tan(\theta_\text{i}+\theta_\text{t})}. $$

These formulas  are known respectively as Fresnel's sine law and Fresnel's tangent law. Although at normal incidence these expressions reduce to 0/0, one can see that they yield the correct results in the limit as $θ_{i} → 0$.

Multiple surfaces
When light makes multiple reflections between two or more parallel surfaces, the multiple beams of light generally interfere with one another, resulting in net transmission and reflection amplitudes that depend on the light's wavelength. The interference, however, is seen only when the surfaces are at distances comparable to or smaller than the light's coherence length, which for ordinary white light is few micrometers; it can be much larger for light from a laser.

An example of interference between reflections is the iridescent colours seen in a soap bubble or in thin oil films on water. Applications include Fabry–Pérot interferometers, antireflection coatings, and optical filters. A quantitative analysis of these effects is based on the Fresnel equations, but with additional calculations to account for interference.

The transfer-matrix method, or the recursive Rouard method can be used to solve multiple-surface problems.

History
In 1808, Étienne-Louis Malus discovered that when a ray of light was reflected off a non-metallic surface at the appropriate angle, it behaved like one of the two rays emerging from a doubly-refractive calcite crystal. He later coined the term polarization to describe this behavior. In 1815, the dependence of the polarizing angle on the refractive index was determined experimentally by David Brewster. But the reason for that dependence was such a deep mystery that in late 1817, Thomas Young was moved to write: "[T]he great difficulty of all, which is to assign a sufficient reason for the reflection or nonreflection of a polarised ray, will probably long remain, to mortify the vanity of an ambitious philosophy, completely unresolved by any theory." In 1821, however, Augustin-Jean Fresnel derived results equivalent to his sine and tangent laws (above), by modeling light waves as transverse elastic waves with vibrations perpendicular to what had previously been called the plane of polarization. Fresnel promptly confirmed by experiment that the equations correctly predicted the direction of polarization of the reflected beam when the incident beam was polarized at 45° to the plane of incidence, for light incident from air onto glass or water; in particular, the equations gave the correct polarization at Brewster's angle. The experimental confirmation was reported in a "postscript" to the work in which Fresnel first revealed his theory that light waves, including "unpolarized" waves, were purely transverse.

Details of Fresnel's derivation, including the modern forms of the sine law and tangent law, were given later, in a memoir read to the French Academy of Sciences in January 1823. That derivation combined conservation of energy with continuity of the tangential vibration at the interface, but failed to allow for any condition on the normal component of vibration. The first derivation from electromagnetic principles was given by Hendrik Lorentz in 1875.

In the same memoir of January 1823, Fresnel found that for angles of incidence greater than the critical angle, his formulas for the reflection coefficients ($r_{s}$ and $r_{p}$) gave complex values with unit magnitudes. Noting that the magnitude, as usual, represented the ratio of peak amplitudes, he guessed that the argument represented the phase shift, and verified the hypothesis experimentally. The verification involved Thus he finally had a quantitative theory for what we now call the Fresnel rhomb — a device that he had been using in experiments, in one form or another, since 1817 (see Fresnel rhomb §History).
 * calculating the angle of incidence that would introduce a total phase difference of 90° between the s and p components, for various numbers of total internal reflections at that angle (generally there were two solutions),
 * subjecting light to that number of total internal reflections at that angle of incidence, with an initial linear polarization at 45° to the plane of incidence, and
 * checking that the final polarization was circular.

The success of the complex reflection coefficient inspired James MacCullagh and Augustin-Louis Cauchy, beginning in 1836, to analyze reflection from metals by using the Fresnel equations with a complex refractive index.

Four weeks before he presented his completed theory of total internal reflection and the rhomb, Fresnel submitted a memoir in which he introduced the needed terms linear polarization, circular polarization, and elliptical polarization, and in which he explained optical rotation as a species of birefringence: linearly-polarized light can be resolved into two circularly-polarized components rotating in opposite directions, and if these propagate at different speeds, the phase difference between them — hence the orientation of their linearly-polarized resultant — will vary continuously with distance.

Thus Fresnel's interpretation of the complex values of his reflection coefficients marked the confluence of several streams of his research and, arguably, the essential completion of his reconstruction of physical optics on the transverse-wave hypothesis (see Augustin-Jean Fresnel).

Derivation
Here we systematically derive the above relations from electromagnetic premises.

Material parameters
In order to compute meaningful Fresnel coefficients, we must assume that the medium is (approximately) linear and homogeneous. If the medium is also isotropic, the four field vectors $E,B,D,H$ are related by $$\begin{align} \mathbf{D} &= \epsilon \mathbf{E} \\ \mathbf{B} &= \mu \mathbf{H}\,, \end{align} $$ where $ϵ$ and $μ$ are scalars, known respectively as the (electric) permittivity and the (magnetic) permeability of the medium. For a vacuum, these have the values $ϵ_{0}$ and $μ_{0}$, respectively. Hence we define the relative permittivity (or dielectric constant) $ϵ_{rel} = ϵ/ϵ_{0}$, and the relative permeability $μ_{rel} = μ/μ_{0}$.

In optics it is common to assume that the medium is non-magnetic, so that $μ_{rel} = 1$. For ferromagnetic materials at radio/microwave frequencies, larger values of $μ_{rel}$ must be taken into account. But, for optically transparent media, and for all other materials at optical frequencies (except possible metamaterials), $μ_{rel}$ is indeed very close to 1; that is, $μ ≈ μ_{0}$.

In optics, one usually knows the refractive index $n$ of the medium, which is the ratio of the speed of light in a vacuum ($c$) to the speed of light in the medium. In the analysis of partial reflection and transmission, one is also interested in the electromagnetic wave impedance $Z$, which is the ratio of the amplitude of $E$ to the amplitude of $H$. It is therefore desirable to express $n$ and $Z$ in terms of $ϵ$ and $μ$, and thence to relate $Z$ to $n$. The last-mentioned relation, however, will make it convenient to derive the reflection coefficients in terms of the wave admittance $Y$, which is the reciprocal of the wave impedance $Z$.

In the case of uniform plane sinusoidal waves, the wave impedance or admittance is known as the intrinsic impedance or admittance of the medium. This case is the one for which the Fresnel coefficients are to be derived.

Electromagnetic plane waves
In a uniform plane sinusoidal electromagnetic wave, the electric field $E$ has the form

where $E_{k}$ is the (constant) complex amplitude vector, $i$ is the imaginary unit, $k$ is the wave vector (whose magnitude $$ is the angular wavenumber), $r$ is the position vector, $ω$ is the angular frequency, $t$ is time, and it is understood that the real part of the expression is the physical field. The value of the expression is unchanged if the position $E_{k}e^{j(ωt−k⋅r)};$ varies in a direction normal to $j$; hence $i$ is normal to the wavefronts.

To advance the phase by the angle ϕ, we replace $−i$ by $j$ (that is, we replace $r$ by $k$), with the result that the (complex) field is multiplied by $k$. So a phase advance is equivalent to multiplication by a complex constant with a negative argument. This becomes more obvious when the field ($k$) is factored as $ωt$, where the last factor contains the time-dependence. That factor also implies that differentiation w.r.t. time corresponds to multiplication by $ωt + ϕ$.

If ℓ is the component of $−ωt$ in the direction of $−ωt − ϕ$, the field ($$) can be written $e^{−iϕ}$. If the argument of $E_{k}e^{ik⋅r}e^{−iωt}$ is to be constant, ℓ must increase at the velocity  $$\omega/k\,,\,$$ known as the phase velocity $−iω$. This in turn is equal to $c/n$. Solving for $$ gives

As usual, we drop the time-dependent factor $e ^{jωt}$, which is understood to multiply every complex field quantity. The electric field for a uniform plane sine wave will then be represented by the location-dependent phasor

For fields of that form, Faraday's law and the Maxwell-Ampère law respectively reduce to $$\begin{align} \omega\mathbf{B} &= \mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{E}\\ \omega\mathbf{D} &= -\mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{H}\,. \end{align}$$

Putting $+jω$ and $e^{−iωt}$, as above, we can eliminate $r$ and $k$ to obtain equations in only $E_{k}e^{i(kℓ−ωt)}$ and $e^{i(⋯)}$: $$\begin{align} \omega\mu\mathbf{H} &= \mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{E}\\ \omega\epsilon\mathbf{E} &= -\mathbf{k}\times\mathbf{H}\,. \end{align}$$ If the material parameters $(v_{p})$ and $e^{−iωt}$ are real (as in a lossless dielectric), these equations show that $B=μH$ form a right-handed orthogonal triad, so that the same equations apply to the magnitudes of the respective vectors. Taking the magnitude equations and substituting from ($$), we obtain $$\begin{align} \mu cH &= nE\\ \epsilon cE &= nH\,, \end{align}$$ where $k$ and $$ are the magnitudes of $D=ϵE$ and $B$. Multiplying the last two equations gives

Dividing (or cross-multiplying) the same two equations gives $D$, where

This is the intrinsic admittance.

From ($$) we obtain the phase velocity $c/n=1\big/\!\sqrt{\mu\epsilon\,}$. For a vacuum this reduces to $c=1\big/\!\sqrt{\mu_0\epsilon_0}$. Dividing the second result by the first gives $$n=\sqrt{\mu_{\text{rel}}\epsilon_{\text{rel}}}\,.$$ For a non-magnetic medium (the usual case), this becomes $$. (Taking the reciprocal of ($H$), we find that the intrinsic impedance is $Z=\sqrt{\mu/\epsilon}$. In a vacuum this takes the value $Z_0=\sqrt{\mu_0/\epsilon_0}\,\approx 377\,\Omega\,,$  known as the impedance of free space. By division, $Z/Z_0=\sqrt{\mu_{\text{rel}}/\epsilon_{\text{rel}}}$ .|undefined For a non-magnetic medium, this becomes $$Z=Z_0\big/\!\sqrt{\epsilon_{\text{rel}}}=Z_0/n.$$)

Wave vectors

In Cartesian coordinates $E$, let the region $H$  have refractive index $ϵ$, intrinsic admittance $μ$, etc., and let the region  $k,E,H$  have refractive index $H$, intrinsic admittance $E$, etc. Then the $H=YE$ plane is the interface, and the $k_{i}, k_{r}$ axis is normal to the interface (see diagram). Let $k_{t}$ and $n_{1}$ (in bold roman type) be the unit vectors in the $n_{2}$ and $(x,y, z)$ directions, respectively. Let the plane of incidence be the $y < 0$ plane (the plane of the page), with the angle of incidence $n_{1}$ measured from $Y_{1}$ towards $y>0$. Let the angle of refraction, measured in the same sense, be $n_{2}$, where the subscript $Y_{2}$ stands for transmitted (reserving $xz$ for reflected).

In the absence of Doppler shifts, ω does not change on reflection or refraction. Hence, by ($E$), the magnitude of the wave vector is proportional to the refractive index.

So, for a given $y$, if we redefine $$ as the magnitude of the wave vector in the reference medium (for which $i$), then the wave vector has magnitude $j$ in the first medium (region $x$  in the diagram) and magnitude $y$ in the second medium. From the magnitudes and the geometry, we find that the wave vectors are $$\begin{align} \mathbf{k}_\text{i} &= n_1 k(\mathbf{i}\sin\theta_\text{i} + \mathbf{j}\cos\theta_\text{i})\\[.5ex] \mathbf{k}_\text{r} &= n_1 k(\mathbf{i}\sin\theta_\text{i} - \mathbf{j}\cos\theta_\text{i})\\[.5ex] \mathbf{k}_\text{t} &= n_2 k(\mathbf{i}\sin\theta_\text{t} + \mathbf{j}\cos\theta_\text{t})\\ &= k(\mathbf{i}\,n_1\sin\theta_\text{i} + \mathbf{j}\,n_2\cos\theta_\text{t})\,, \end{align}$$ where the last step uses Snell's law. The corresponding dot products in the phasor form ($$) are

Hence:

The s components
For the s polarization, the $xy$ field is parallel to the $θ_{i}$ axis and may therefore be described by its component in the $j$ direction. Let the reflection and transmission coefficients be $i$ and $θ_{t}$, respectively. Then, if the incident $t$ field is taken to have unit amplitude, the phasor form ($$) of its $r$-component is

and the reflected and transmitted fields, in the same form, are

Under the sign convention used in this article, a positive reflection or transmission coefficient is one that preserves the direction of the transverse field, meaning (in this context) the field normal to the plane of incidence. For the s polarization, that means the $ω$ field. If the incident, reflected, and transmitted $n= 1$ fields (in the above equations) are in the $n_{1}k$-direction ("out of the page"), then the respective $y < 0$ fields are in the directions of the red arrows, since $n_{2}k$ form a right-handed orthogonal triad. The $E$ fields may therefore be described by their components in the directions of those arrows, denoted by $z$. Then, since $z$,

At the interface, by the usual interface conditions for electromagnetic fields, the tangential components of the $r_{s}$ and $t_{s}$ fields must be continuous; that is, {{NumBlk|:|$$\left.\begin{align} E_\text{i} + E_\text{r} &= E_\text{t}\\ H_\text{i}\cos\theta_\text{i} - H_\text{r}\cos\theta_\text{i} &= H_\text{t}\cos\theta_\text{t} \end{align}\right\}\text{at} y=0\,.$$|$n=\sqrt{\epsilon_{\text{rel} } }$}} When we substitute from equations ($$) to ($$) and then from ($k$), the exponential factors cancel out, so that the interface conditions reduce to the simultaneous equations

which are easily solved for $E$ and $z$, yielding

and

At normal incidence $E$, indicated by an additional subscript 0, these results become

and

At grazing incidence $E$, we have $z$, hence $H$ and $k,E,H$.

The p components
For the p polarization, the incident, reflected, and transmitted $H$ fields are parallel to the red arrows and may therefore be described by their components in the directions of those arrows. Let those components be $H_{i},H_{r} ,H_{t}$ (redefining the symbols for the new context). Let the reflection and transmission coefficients be $H = YE$ and $E$. Then, if the incident $H$ field is taken to have unit amplitude, we have

If the $r_{s}$ fields are in the directions of the red arrows, then, in order for $t_{s}$ to form a right-handed orthogonal triad, the respective $(θ_{i}= θ_{t}= 0)$ fields must be in the $(θ_{i}→ 90°)$ direction ("into the page") and may therefore be described by their components in that direction. This is consistent with the adopted sign convention, namely that a positive reflection or transmission coefficient is one that preserves the direction of the transverse field (the $cosθ_{i}→ 0$ field in the case of the p polarization). The agreement of the other field with the red arrows reveals an alternative definition of the sign convention: that a positive reflection or transmission coefficient is one for which the field vector in the plane of incidence points towards the same medium before and after reflection or transmission.

So, for the incident, reflected, and transmitted $r_{s}→−1$ fields, let the respective components in the $t_{s}→ 0$ direction be $E$. Then, since $E_{i},E_{r} ,E_{t}$,

At the interface, the tangential components of the $r_{p}$ and $t_{p}$ fields must be continuous; that is, {{NumBlk|:|$$\left.\begin{align} E_\text{i}\cos\theta_\text{i} - E_\text{r}\cos\theta_\text{i} &= E_\text{t}\cos\theta_\text{t}\\ H_\text{i} + H_\text{r} &= H_\text{t} \end{align}\right\}\text{at} y=0\,.$$|$$}} When we substitute from equations ($$) and ($$) and then from ($$), the exponential factors again cancel out, so that the interface conditions reduce to

Solving for $E$ and $E$, we find

and

At normal incidence $k,E,H$ indicated by an additional subscript 0, these results become

and

At $H$, we again have $−z$, hence $H$ and $H$.

Comparing ($$) and ($$) with ($$) and ($$), we see that at normal incidence, under the adopted sign convention, the transmission coefficients for the two polarizations are equal, whereas the reflection coefficients have equal magnitudes but opposite signs. While this clash of signs is a disadvantage of the convention, the attendant advantage is that the signs agree at grazing incidence.

Power ratios (reflectivity and transmissivity)
The Poynting vector for a wave is a vector whose component in any direction is the irradiance (power per unit area) of that wave on a surface perpendicular to that direction. For a plane sinusoidal wave the Poynting vector is $−z$, where $H_{i},H_{r} ,H_{t}$ and $H=YE$ are due only to the wave in question, and the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. Inside a lossless dielectric (the usual case), $E$ and $H$ are in phase, and at right angles to each other and to the wave vector $r_{p}$; so, for s polarization, using the $$ and $$ components of $t_{p}$ and $(θ_{i}= θ_{t}= 0)$ respectively (or for p polarization, using the $$ and $$ components of $(θ_{i}→ 90°)$ and $cosθ_{i} → 0$), the irradiance in the direction of $r_{p} → −1$ is given simply by $t_{p} → 0$,  which is  $1⁄2 Re\{E×H^{∗}\}$ in a medium of intrinsic impedance $E$. To compute the irradiance in the direction normal to the interface, as we shall require in the definition of the power transmission coefficient, we could use only the $$ component (rather than the full $$ component) of $H$ or $E$ or, equivalently, simply multiply $H$ by the proper geometric factor, obtaining $k$.

From equations ($$) and ($$), taking squared magnitudes, we find that the reflectivity (ratio of reflected power to incident power) is

for the s polarization, and

for the p polarization. Note that when comparing the powers of two such waves in the same medium and with the same cosθ, the impedance and geometric factors mentioned above are identical and cancel out. But in computing the power transmission (below), these factors must be taken into account.

The simplest way to obtain the power transmission coefficient (transmissivity, the ratio of transmitted power to incident power in the direction normal to the interface, i.e. the $$ direction) is to use $E$ (conservation of energy). In this way we find

for the s polarization, and

for the p polarization.

In the case of an interface between two lossless media (for which ϵ and μ are real and positive), one can obtain these results directly using the squared magnitudes of the amplitude transmission coefficients that we found earlier in equations ($$) and ($$). But, for given amplitude (as noted above), the component of the Poynting vector in the $$ direction is proportional to the geometric factor $H$ and inversely proportional to the wave impedance $$. Applying these corrections to each wave, we obtain two ratios multiplying the square of the amplitude transmission coefficient:

for the s polarization, and

for the p polarization. The last two equations apply only to lossless dielectrics, and only at incidence angles smaller than the critical angle (beyond which, of course, $E$).

For unpolarized light: $$T={1 \over 2}(T_s+T_p)$$ $$R={1 \over 2}(R_s+R_p)$$ where $$R+T=1$$.

Equal refractive indices
From equations ($$) and ($$), we see that two dissimilar media will have the same refractive index, but different admittances, if the ratio of their permeabilities is the inverse of the ratio of their permittivities. In that unusual situation we have $H$ (that is, the transmitted ray is undeviated), so that the cosines in equations ($$), ($$), ($$), ($$), and ($$) to ($$) cancel out, and all the reflection and transmission ratios become independent of the angle of incidence; in other words, the ratios for normal incidence become applicable to all angles of incidence. When extended to spherical reflection or scattering, this results in the Kerker effect for Mie scattering.

Non-magnetic media
Since the Fresnel equations were developed for optics, they are usually given for non-magnetic materials. Dividing ($$) by ($$)) yields $$Y=\frac{n}{\,c\mu\,}\,.$$ For non-magnetic media we can substitute the vacuum permeability $k$ for $EH/2$, so that $$Y_1=\frac{n_1}{\,c\mu_0} ; Y_2=\frac{n_2}{\,c\mu_0}\,;$$ that is, the admittances are simply proportional to the corresponding refractive indices. When we make these substitutions in equations ($z$) to ($xy$) and equations ($xy$) to ($-z$), the factor cμ0 cancels out. For the amplitude coefficients we obtain:

For the case of normal incidence these reduce to:

The power reflection coefficients become:

The power transmissions can then be found from $E^{2}/2Z$.

Brewster's angle
For equal permeabilities (e.g., non-magnetic media), if $Z=1/Y$ and $H$ are complementary, we can substitute $E$  for  $EH/2$, and  $(E^{2}/2Z)cosθ$  for  $R+T=1$, so that the numerator in equation ($x$) becomes  $cosθ$, which is zero (by Snell's law). Hence $T=0$ and only the s-polarized component is reflected. This is what happens at the Brewster angle. Substituting $θ_{t}= θ_{i}$  for  $μ_{0}$  in Snell's law, we readily obtain

for Brewster's angle.

Equal permittivities
Although it is not encountered in practice, the equations can also apply to the case of two media with a common permittivity but different refractive indices due to different permeabilities. From equations ($xy$) and ($$), if $μ$ is fixed instead of $T=1−R$, then $$ becomes inversely proportional to $$, with the result that the subscripts 1 and 2 in equations ($$) to ($y$) are interchanged (due to the additional step of multiplying the numerator and denominator by $θ_{i}$). Hence, in ($$) and ($$), the expressions for $θ_{t}$ and $sinθ_{t}$ in terms of refractive indices will be interchanged, so that Brewster's angle ($$) will give $cosθ_{i}$ instead of $sinθ_{i}$, and any beam reflected at that angle will be p-polarized instead of s-polarized. Similarly, Fresnel's sine law will apply to the p polarization instead of the s polarization, and his tangent law to the s polarization instead of the p polarization.

This switch of polarizations has an analog in the old mechanical theory of light waves (see §History, above). One could predict reflection coefficients that agreed with observation by supposing (like Fresnel) that different refractive indices were due to different densities and that the vibrations were normal to what was then called the plane of polarization, or by supposing (like MacCullagh and Neumann) that different refractive indices were due to different elasticities and that the vibrations were parallel to that plane. Thus the condition of equal permittivities and unequal permeabilities, although not realistic, is of some historical interest.

title: Fresnel equations


text:
Talk:Surnames by country

Frankenstein
The claim in the picture caption at the top of the page, that Frankenstein is a compound family name, is quite mistaken. Its a toponymic surname from any one of several places called Frankenstein in various parts of Germany. --81.151.226.154 (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

 * The caption links to Compound (linguistics), and Frankenstein certainly is that: a word composed of two roots. Could be worded better, admittedly. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it also offensive? Out of all the examples the poster could have selected, he chose to associate Jews with the name of a hideous fictional monster? Is anyone fooled by this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.208.94 (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 * No, not offensive. FRANKENSTEIN was being used as a surname by German Jews (Breslau, etc.) 25 years before Mary Shelley's novel appeared. The name referred to a nearby town. Oh, and the monster had no name--Frankenstein was the doctor, and he wasn't Jewish either.RogerLustig (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

FML (First, Middle, Last that is)
Hyacinth, I think your graphic is worthwhile, not least to contribute a very solid basic framework for discussion. Thank you! However, the "Johann" in J S Bach's name is perhaps not the most crystalline example, because it comes from a particular naming tradition in which the majority of male offspring received compound names that began with one of only a very small repertoire of first names. Indeed, J S Bach shared his first name with at least 2 brothers, 3 sons and his father--but also with Mozart, who was baptized Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus, with Sigismundus added at confirmation. Around the house and in much of the world, the various Bachs were disambiguated from other families by their last names and from one another by their 2nd and 3rd names. Nobody ever referred to Mozart as Johann either, aside from the odd moment in church. (Nor as Theophilus, which he preferred to translate in any of a half-dozen ways, Amadeus being none of them except as a jest.)

All of which is to say that there might be a better example to point to. Perhaps "Dwight David Eisenhower," not least because the "David" originally came first, and Ike reversed the names because everyone called him Dwight. Yes, that's a complexity, but a pointed one. And yes, this is an article about family, i.e., last names, but even there, being caused to think about J S Bach as Johann might be distracting to some.

Hmmmm..."Sebastian J Bach"--has a nice ring to it, y'know? I see a series of cheap novels about a hard-boiled musicologist...down these mean staves a man must go... RogerLustig (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction
I've just read this article for the first time and have noticed a very bad contradiction at the top of the section English Speaking Countries. The current article states:

By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later

In the one sentence I am reading that most Scottish people had acquired surnames by 1400, and also that many Scottish people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century". There are no references for either claim.

Could someone who has some knowledge of the subject and can find suitable references please fix this?

--Savlonn (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Family name in Primorje
The article mentiones nothing about family names as used in Primorje. You see, e. g. families in Baška traditionally get family names such as Yoshamÿa – see the Mihovil Lovrić article or e. g. Lozini – after Alojz – this is the name of my maternal grandmothers' family in Vinodol; yet, their legal surname remains the same. These family names are recorded on neither church nor state documents; yet, this tradition has existed for centuries, it seems. I do not know where it comes from; I just know that both my paternal grandfathers' and my maternal grandmothers' familites – both of which are from Primorje have such family names. -- Neven Lovrić (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Swedish, Not Scandinavian?
The article currently states: "Later on, people from the Scandinavian middle classes, particularly artisans and town dwellers, adopted names in a similar fashion to that of the nobility. Family names joining two elements from nature such as the Swedish Bergman ("mountain man"), Holmberg ("island mountain"), Lindgren ("linden branch"), Sandström and Åkerlund ("field meadow") were quite frequent and remain common today. The same is true for similar Norwegian and Danish names."

I'm not aware of this method of creating family names ever being common in Norway. In fact, names of this type are generally assumed to be of Swedish origin when encountered in Norway. Unless someone can provide an example of a Norwegian family name created this way, I will remove the claim that "the same is true for similar Norwegian names". I suspect such names were not commonly created in Denmark, either, but I don't know enough about Danish family names to be certain. Maitreya (talk) 09:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Merge per  and. The simple fact is that in plain English, "surname" and "family name" are complete synonyms. Surname admits as much in its lead; family name tries to bury the idea by claiming surnames are "Western". It then proceeds to use "surname" more often than "family name" in its lead, while discussing surnames from all over the world and within historical contexts having nothing to do with the "West". The OED defines their primary current senses as:
 * surname: The name which a person bears in common with the other members of his family...; a family name
 * family name: A hereditary name shared by members of the same family, as distinct from a given or personal name; a surname.

There is a minor obsolete sense of surname in the use of "generic epithet" that occurs before the 19th century, but the s of these two name spaces entirely overlap as is displayed by the repeated attempts to merge them (see below) and by the pages' treatment of identical content.

Merge to surname (despite its article having a shorter history at Wiki) per. Per ngram, "surname" has been more common than "family name" (usually by orders of magnitude) for the last 400 years; as can be seen at any age of Google Books, that additional usage had very little to do with the sense of "epithet". ("Last name" is on an upswing but obviously does have some y connection to European names.) Google Scholar brings back 85k hits for "family name" (often in its biological sense), 165k generally on-point hits for "last name", and 135k completely on-topic hits for "surname". Google Books and vanilla always break down a little on such common searches, but the estimates are (@books) 1.2m hits for "family name" (mostly on topic), 1.7m hits for "last name", and 3.5m hits for "surname" and (@van) 64.8m, 870m, and 450m, all essentially confirming the ngram.

There have been failed merge attempts before. The voting on those went: Carsten objected because he had his own plan to revamp all Wikipedia's name articles. Undead, JDM, NWW, and Ariadne all objected because they all felt surname was a larger term that included things "family name" doesn't. Except that's untrue both in common usage and specifically: the OED definition of "patronymic" specifically discusses "family names" derived from the father and not "surnames". Meanwhile, any patronym or epithet that is not passed down (as in Iceland, Islamic names, etc.) is not a surname but an epithet, a patronym, a nisba, etc. Even when certain foreign words (like nisba or xing) are translated as "surname", the specifics of their use need to be addressed in a separate article and can't override the of "surname".
 * merge: Vltava 68, Knillis, RoryEAAS, II, Fgnievinski, Felix the Cassowary
 * fork: Undead, JDM1991, Rajakhr, Carsten12345, Ariadne55, Notwillywanka

Felix the Cassowary captured the general confusion by saying he would really like a fork (since family name was considered overlong) but is forced to realize "...a distinction between "surnames" and "family names" is not one that I've ever made; I have long been under the impression (for instance) that Bjork doesn't have a surname, she has a patronym instead." At Talk:Surname, WhisperToMe wondered what information the article could have that wasn't covered at family name; Propaniac replied that he'd just delete the page except "there should be a general article about surnames"

My thoughts? This fork is causing needless confusion and duplication and should be stopped already; family name is overlong and not the actual common name. Your thoughts? — Llywelyn II   04:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Merge to surname: not enough discernible difference. I was neutral about which to merge to until I checked Naming conventions (people) where we use "surname" throughout: "Family name" is only used, twice, in the section on articles about families. Let's go for it. Pam  D  10:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname These words are complete synonyms. Even if there were some difference between family names and surnames, it's minute enough to be a note in the surname article. There is no reason for two separate articles. 98.198.203.82 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname. A merged article can easily cope with the nuances in meaning. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname. Redundant content. Cindy  ( talk ) 10:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname per nom. -- GreenC  16:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname I too am in complete agreement that Family Name and Surname are synonyms and no purpose is served by having them both. To be honest, I wouldn't have even thought that they were being considered different here. Zell Faze (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname - any subtleties that distinguish the two terms are far too esoteric for our purposes here. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  03:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname per above and common sense —Cliftonian (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname per Itsmejudith. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to surname I see no major issues with creating a merged article. Comatmebro  ~Come at me~ 03:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

surname != patriname
The article says at the top
 * In this article, family name and surname both mean the patrilineal (literally, father-line) surname, handed down from or inherited from the father's line or patriline, unless explicitly stated otherwise. Thus, the term "maternal surname" means the patrilineal surname which one's mother inherited from either or both of her parents. For a discussion of matrilineal ('mother-line') surnames, passing from mothers to daughters, see matrilineal surname.

But the word surname should not be abused in that matter. The word surname should be used to refer to "The name which a person bears in common with the other members of his family" as noted in the definition from OED, patriname should be used to refer to a name from the father's line and matriname should be used for a name from the mother's line. This should be resolved during the merge with Surname. ---Vroo (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Origins of African American Family Names and Slavery
NYT offers a primary source from 1998. It states:

 * "After the Civil War, when the passage of the 13th Amendment freed 4 million slaves, most had been barred by their owners from having last names. Many picked the surnames of the former presidents Jefferson and Jackson. Washington also became a popular choice."

 * See: Knowlton, B. (1998, February 19). Among Blacks, Washington Ranks as the Top Surname. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/19/news/19iht-topics.t_15.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monyprice (talk • contribs) 20:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Pakistani surname problem
There seems to be some inconsistency regarding pakistani last names. For starters, names like Shaikh or Khajwa do not indicate arab ancestry since these names are just titles and were brought in during islamic expansion. More or less we can say people with these names adopted them due to conversion to Islam, i think this should be removed or atleast changed to "Islamic names" for that section so people do not become confused. Akmal94 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

are surname and last name different
I've heard last name and surname are two different terms. The word surname, though, might not be familiar for people who don't edit here on Wikipedia. In Western countries, more people use last name and not surname. What's the reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are some countries which have a different name order and the family name appears first rather than last, eg Hungary and much of East Asia. Dahliarose (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This merger is languishing because it'll require achieving not only consensus to merge but also how. This point is one that'll have to be cleared up.  The exegetic Merriam-Webster example under surname, "da Vinci" (along with similar definitions in other dictionaries), shows how a surname may very well not be a family name at all.  Surnames in this sense historically precede last names.  "Last name" here in Wikipedia already redirects to "family name."  That should stay as it is, with the "family name" article clearly explaining that "last name" means the same only in certain locales or contexts.  The "family name" article can probably also handle the bulk of mergeable content from "surname" but the sections on "byname" and the meaning of "surname" that is nearly synonymous with "epithet" or "nickname" will have to remain under "surname" to be treated separately. It seems like a tall order. - phi (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Family name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127041401/http://www.boston.com:80/news/nation/articles/2007/01/12/man_files_lawsuit_to_take_wifes_name/? to http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/12/man_files_lawsuit_to_take_wifes_name

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statement about Eastern cultures
I have removed

 * Last names are more important in Eastern cultures than the given first name, which is why they usually go first.

It's been unsourced for nearly two years now, and it strikes me as unlikely that such a generalization would apply across head-first and head-last languages, both of which are associated with Eastern cultures. 98.16.156.130 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to say it is nonsense. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge to surname
I have completed merging the most important content of Family name to Surname, per the consensus above.

The remaining content of Family name has been restructured and moved to Surnames by country. This was too much to fit comfortably on a single page. This is in conformance with Summary style. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An excellent job on a gargantuan task! - phi (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Surnames by country