Jump to content

Talk:Optics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Post-import notes.

Just a few notes that the article, while looking good, needs a little bit of TLC before sending it off to GAC/PR/FAC, namely:

  • Embracing usage of {{multiple image}} and avoiding "see below"s and "see right"s;
  • Preferably, colons before switching to MathML equations;
  • More categories;
  • Suggested but not mandatory: a transliteration of the Ancient Greek word in the lead section.

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sum of incoherent and polarized parts

Re "In general it is possible to describe an observed wave field as the sum of a completely incoherent part (no correlations) and a completely polarized part": surely this would apply only in the monochromatic case? For example, suppose the light is a superposition of linearly polarized blue light and circularly polarized red light; what would be the "completely polarized" part, or in what sense would it be "completely polarized"? Would it be correct if "monochromatic" were inserted before "wave field"? I'm not convinced it's necessarily quite right in any case; "completely polarized" might need to be defined more precisely. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"Incoherent" is the wrong word here. Coherence has a specific meaning in optics, and is not directly related to polarization. Light can be and often is completely incoherent and fully polarized at the same time. That aside, the statement is generally correct, but not universal. It certainly doesn't need to be restricted to monochromatic light: this kind of treatment is commonly used for white light. The case you proposed, with red and blue light with distinct polarizations, is clearly a case where this approach fails. I'm not sure how best to restrict the statement, though. It might be sufficient to say that the light has to come from a single source, and pass through a single optical train.
The misuse of "incoherent" concerns me. I haven't had a lot of time to go over the article in much detail, but this kind of error is typical of what I have seen in the few sections I've looked at closely. The whole article really needs careful review before it proceeds with any kind of GA/FA process.--Srleffler (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That passage was copied verbatim from Polarization.--Srleffler (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten it in both articles.--Srleffler (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks better, and I also like this edit re nonlinearity. Re the polarization, though, I'm still not convinced it's quite right. Your version, while an improvement, still seems to be contradicted by my example re different polarization of different colours. Do you mean that such light wouldn't tend to occur under ordinary circumstances? I would think it would just by random chance when small numbers of photons are involved. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Not contradicted; the statement is just not completely general. The polarized component of light from most sources is consistent across the whole spectrum of the source (although the degree of polarization may not be). Such sources can be described as a simple mixture of polarized and unpolarized light. The kind of light you describe would not occur under ordinary circumstances. If the type or orientation of polarization varies strongly with wavelength, you probably have to spectrally resolve it and describe the Stokes parameters for each wavelength separately. I would think this would be an issue when passing white light through a waveplate or Faraday rotator, since the amount of polarization change induced by these elements varies strongly with wavelength. These devices are typically used with monochromatic light. (Circular polarizers used in photography are an obvious exception, but I don't want to get into that right now..)--Srleffler (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this edit. I think I'm satisfied now. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of article, and summary style

As I and others have commented, this article is much too long. This is not merely a problem of length, but also one of style. The top-level optics article should be an overview; a concise and not very technical summary of the whole field, that links to the articles that cover topics in more detail. At a minimum, most of the sections that have linked "main" articles need to be dramatically pruned back, and written in summary style. The "Geometrical optics" section is a special case. The content here should be moved to the linked "main" article, and the very abstract, technical treatment there should be moved into a section somewhere down in the article. Sections that don't have linked main articles will need some review. Perhaps these should also be put in summary style, and new articles split off with the more detailed treatment.--Srleffler (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's about 3X normal article length, and should be shortened by using summary style and main articles. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the "much too long" and the "need to be dramatically pruned back" are exaggerations. Main text of this article is 59k, which is certainly long, but given that we're dealing with a large subfield of physics, not all that surprising. Going by Wikipedia:Featured_articles/By_length, there are more than 150 featured articles which are longer, and many of them are much, much more narrow in scope. That said, we can certainly decide that the article will benefit from being streamlined, with content moved into the appropriate spin-off articles. But as far as I can see, it's not as clear-cut a case as the previous comments make it out to be. Markus Poessel (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not just a numerical issue. It's a style issue. This article seems to go into greater depth than it should. In many cases, content may not need to be moved into spin-off articles, since SA seems to have copied or paraphrased large amounts of material from already-existing detailed articles.--Srleffler (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest shortening the article somewhat, but not a lot, maybe to something like two-thirds its current length in terms of number of words in the main text. I suggest proceeding as I did when I shortened the Circumcision article around August 2007: first get consensus on the proposed target size of each section, and also make sure all information in this article exists in the "main" articles, copying over any information that doesn't exist there. (At the same time it might make sense to also copy some information from the "main" articles to here.) Then shorten the sections here to the desired length. When copying information from one article to another, please see WP:SPLITTING for how to ensure GFDL compliance. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would rather not focus so much on the length. Rather, the sections that have linked "main" articles should be rewritten as nice, tight, less-technical summaries. I don't really care whether that reduces the article to two thirds its current size or one quarter its current size. Sections that don't have linked "main" articles should then be rewritten in the same style so that the article is consistent. Material removed should of course be copied into other articles (existing or new), unless it is already there.--Srleffler (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. How about this: optionally, people can start or add to a list on this talk page of sections of the article such that all material in the section also appears in the "main" articles linked. Then people will know they're free to shorten those sections without worrying about copying the information. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Proxying for ScienceApologist here: he's not fundamentally opposed to some shift to a summary style, but if it's done he'd prefer to see it done by a consensus of the active editors, rather than as a unilateral action. He's also curious about a recent edit by Srleffler that essentially goes back to an older version of the introduction.[1] The version reverted to eliminates input from Awadewit, Copppertwig, and from myself. SA is curious why Srleffler prefers the older version; the edit summary doesn't really explain the reasons for this choice. DurovaCharge! 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is blocked, and shouldn't be participating here. If you have questions, ask them on your own behalf. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Durova's reply is below, in a new subsection. The ArbComm specifically authorized him to proxy edit this article and talk page for SA. I'm glad to have SA's input in this discussion.--Srleffler (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I plan to edit this article as usual, and in particular plan to put sections into summary style as I have time. I think we have sufficient consensus to proceed. Decisions about how long or short the summarization should be are probably best handled by some back and forth editing. Note that summarizing sections does not actually require consensus in advance, as this is the subject of an established guideline.
I edited the intro yesterday, with reference to the old text. In many cases I felt that the old wording was better and either restored it or merged ideas from SA's version and the old version. I don't expect to do so much restoration of old material in the rest of the article. The previous intro was fairly heavily edited, with the wording arrived at by consensus of many editors. It should not be surprising that a rewrite by a single author might not work on first attempt. My wording may, of course, need further work as well. Some comments on my changes:
  • I didn't like handling of visible, infrared, and uv light in SA's version, and preferred not to belabour the fact that light that is not visible is "not detectable by the human eye".
  • The statement "Other phenomena...can be described with optical principles because all of these...are types of electromagnetic waves," is not completely accurate. Electromagnetic theory describes all of these, but optical techniques are much more specialized, and are primarily used for infrared through ultraviolet light.
  • Optics is regarded by theoretical physicists as a subfield of electromagnetism. Professionals other than theoretical physicists do not necessarily view optics this way.
  • SA's version lost the explanation of why we use geometric and physical optics instead of electromagnetic theory.
  • I personally prefer less history in science article introductions, but would be fine with working some back in if others want it there.
Again, I expect to do much less reversion in the rest of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(from Scienceapologist)

Thanks, Srleffler, for your cogent and thoughtful explanation. I too agree that much of the wording you adopted is better, however, there was some input on the part of amateurs and layfolk that seemed to indicate otherwise. We should get their opinions too. One thing I would like to see included in the intro which is currently excised is mention of the photon. This could be inserted in the sentence about quantum optics. (proxied) DurovaCharge! 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the photon back and made some other changes, some of which reflect conversation on the talk page on Wikisource. Good call on the photon. I shouldn't have excised that.--Srleffler (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Proxies for ScienceApologist

1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

Passed 9 to 0 (with 2 recusals and 1 abstention) on 13:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[2]
Please answer the questions. DurovaCharge! 02:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hierarchy of approximation

Something that's been on my mind a bit, that I wanted to record for others to think about too: Optics has many layers of approximation in practice. Off the top of my head, in order from most complex/most comprehensive to simplest/least comprehensive:

  1. Quantum field theory
  2. Quantum mechanics
  3. Classical electromagnetic theory (vector wave propagation)
  4. Scalar wave propagation
  5. Gaussian beam optics (ray tracing with aperture-free diffraction)
  6. Real ray tracing
  7. Paraxial ray tracing
  8. Gaussian optics/Newtonian equations

The first two fall into the modern optics/quantum optics category. The next two are physical optics, the final three are geometric optics. I'm thinking about how best to communicate this hierarchy of approximation in the article.--Srleffler (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking—help

Could someone who is running an automated editing tool please strip all duplicate internal links out of this article. The article is way overlinked. While there is some merit in linking difficult terms a few times in a long article, there is no excuse for having multiple links for common terms. After all the overlinking has been stripped, we can go back and relink any terms that really need a second link.--Srleffler (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stripped overlinking using AWB. It was a semi-automatic work, and I left many double wikilinks. Materialscientist (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence

Noted in the Coincidence article that

  • "In optics, coincidence is also used to refer to two or more incident beams of light that strike the same point at the same time."

And yet I find no reference to this in this Optics article? What's up with that?  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  13:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not a textbook or a dictionary of optics terms. You shoudn't necessarily expect to find every possible optics term defined in this one article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point. Tho when one thinks of it from the reader's POV, a reference is found in one article, Coincidence, and when a reader clicks on the link to come here to the Optics article to find out more about "coincidence in optics", there is nothing in this article to help. So perhaps a little added info on this subject might improve this article? just a suggestion.  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The usage may be important enough to mention in an article on coincidence. It is not important enough to mention in the top-level article on Optics. I did change the description at Coincidence, though. This usage is broader than just optics, and comes from a more literal interpretation of the term's latin roots. In optics, for example, rays are "incident" on a surface, from the Latin incidere. Two rays that strike the same point are then literally co-incident.--Srleffler (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Polarisation (Elliptical).svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems

  • Refs 13,14 are set up in Harward, but the sources are missing
  • Ref. 39 lacks pages
  • Refs. 37,43,51,58,77 are different chapters of one book. I would setup them up in Harward and provide page numbers.
  • I've reformatted most refs for consistency, trimming unnecessary fields and spaces. Article is too large. As I wrote in the peer review, list of societies should go. Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Optics an independent physics field

Srleffler i have read the discussion which is archived and i have to respectfully disagree with you.

almost everybody learns basic optics in physics at one point or another (reflection, refraction etc.) there is no need to study optics via electromagnetism. also i definitely agree with a lot of the things that the person had mentioned in terms of optics being more geometrical and mechanical also spatial. majority of the trades people such as myself and my friends who work in optics and deal with fibre optics are NON-electrical. the other trade persons such as the guys working on high voltage electrical transmission wires etc. are electricians and have an electrical background. but a lot of the tradespeople like us who work in optics do not have an electrical background and more importantly do NOT require to have an electrical understanding. the manufacture and installation of optic materials is not electrical based since fibre optics does not use electricity.OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that, as a discipline, optics is best viewed as a distinct field of physics, and/or of engineering. The paragraph you were changing was trying to explain how the fundamental theory of optics fits into the bigger picture of theoretical physics. It was probably too early in the article to get into that, though. I tweaked the wording a bit, but didn't return to the earlier phrasing. See what you think. I took out the comment that optics is a field of physics altogether, because it's out of place there. That either belongs in the first paragraph, or not at all. I chose not at all.--Srleffler (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying however there needs to be a significant distinction between what is classical theory and what is practical theory and practical usage. there is no doubt that the article is really good however the first few paragraphs tend to give a different view of what optics is really about. the rest of the article is amazing in its description but if any person were to read the first few paragraphs he would think that optics is about manipulating electricity not light and that is obviously not correct. one of the most important application of optics which is optical fibres is based on applying quantum mechanics to optics, quantum optics. in the quantum model light is treated as packets called photons. Photons do not have an electric charge. the creation of quantum optics led to optical fibers. later in the article i will add some professional optical courses that are taught to people. these courses do not require any pre-requisites or understanding of electromagnetism however they do require a good understanding of geometry and basic physics. there is already one mentioned in wikipedia called optical engineers and obviously a lot of other engineering courses teach optics as well.OpticsPhysics (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the last changes you made to the article. Your concern seems to be that the article gets into categorizing types of optical theory too quickly in the intro, and doesn't explain how optics is done in practice well enough. I'm not sure I agree. The intro explains that one can use EM theory, but that this is difficult so practical optics uses simplified models such as geometric optics instead. I'm not sure how to say that any better.

that is correct, its exactly what i was concerned about. that in some instances the beginning of the article seems to be pulling away from what the real practical theory and practical world. it seems fine except for one grammar mistake that i had corrected before.OpticsPhysics (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who studies optics in physics beyond the first year university level will certainly be exposed to the electromagnetic model of light. Besides being fundamental, it is also of great practical importance, since physical optics (diffraction, interference, etc.) cannot be properly understood without understanding how light propagates as an electromagnetic wave. Optics is not about manipulating electricity, but it is certainly about manipulating electromagnetic waves!

it depends from person to person and from a theoritical or practical point of view. the people who lived in the ancient world manipulated light by rearranging the position and angle of mirrors and objects and trying to get the desired effects. Obviously that has not changed much as position and angle are still the backbones. we use lens (think sherlock) for inspection and zooming in, the average people use glasses and contact lenses. the rest is a case of you say potatoe, i say potato.OpticsPhysics (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Optical fibers can be described using classical optics; there is no need to use quantum mechanics. Multimode fibers can be described using simple ray-based models. Single-mode fibers can be modeled using an electromagnetic model very similar to how one models propagation of radio frequency signals in a hollow waveguide or coaxial cable.--Srleffler (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I used to work in fibre optic communications. That's not entirely true. Some important effects in fibre optics can only be understood in terms of quantum effects, and some fibres are pumped up and lase to act as repeaters; these are quantum effects also.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
good information, we can add that to the main article later. i will be adding an optics text box later so that the article can be properly put into sections. so it will not appear as long. OpticsPhysics (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, lasing is best viewed as a quantum effect, although one can get surprisingly far without actually using any quantum mechanics (see Einstein coefficients). There are other quantum effects that can occur in fibers. Simple propagation of light in optical fiber is classical, though. OpticsPhysics wrote "optical fibres [are] based on applying quantum mechanics to optics", and "the creation of quantum optics led to optical fibers". Neither of these statements is true.--Srleffler (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
ok i guess the first sentence is good and gets to the point. i also want to mention later in the article the courses that are offered in optics. there are some realy good ones out there that require good geometrical and basic physics skills.OpticsPhysics (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with essentially everything that is being discussed on this talk page, but I reverted to a version that Srleffler had made simply because it was slightly more comprehensive, contained fewer errors (including a few verb tense agreements), and seemed to be generally of higher quality. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for marking my edits as good faith edits. i want to contribute to optics and the other thing i want to do is show people that you need good geometry and basic physics to start applying and learning optics. not complicated theories which you will never use.OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Please try to steer clear of excessive reverting. This can run afoul of WP:3RR. I left a warning on your talkpage to that effect. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
ok i forgot about the 3 reverting thing, good thing you reminded me.OpticsPhysics (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Will be arranging optics page soon

i will start making the optics box. the same way the other fields of physics have their own boxes and contents etc. i will get started on this soon. i will add the optics text box later so that the article can be properly put into sections. so it will not appear as long.OpticsPhysics (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Please outline the changes you want to make, and seek support and feedback here first. Verbal chat 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I oppose this edit by OpticsPhysics: editwarring is not the way to get new changes in. Please follow WP:BRD or some other reasonable method. Verbal has reasonably asked you to describe your changes and the reasons for them here on the talk page, and I don't think you've done that. Please use the talk page and dispute resolution methods rather than editwarring. An appropriate dispute resolution method here might have been WP:3O instead of editwarring, if the dispute involved only two editors. OpticsPhysics, I would appreciate it if you would revert your changes for now and discuss your changes on the talk page and wait for consensus before restoring them. I see one problem, for example: one of the sources you're using is a first-year-level textbook; my understanding of Wikipedia's reliable sources standards is that that may not be adequate to use as a source.
OpticsPhysics, your edit includes "Some authors define "classical optics" instead as the study of optics prior to the acceptance of the wave model of light, in the 19th century." Please provide at least one source verifying this statement; also please delete the comma if you're asserting that it was the acceptance of the wave model of light that occurred in the 19th century, as opposed to asserting that such study, or such definition by authors, occurred then. I'd like to see verification of the alternative definition of "classical optics" as pre-wave-theory optics. (I'd like to know, for example, the year of publication of material using such alternative definition, and whether they meet the standards for reliable sources.) Once that's verified, we can consider what would be NPOV wording; for example, we might consider saying something like "Here, by "classical optics" is meant electromagnetic wave theory as opposed to quantum mechanics" to avoid asserting that one definition of "classical optics" is used universally in other publications.
In general, it's OK to be bold and make changes if you think they won't be controversial, but once someone has reverted them or objected, I think it's better to discuss it on the talk page: please explain why you consider these changes to be an improvement. In this case, two editors (Verbal and Srleffler, above) had already objected to your changes; now I'm a third. Even if it had been only one objecting, you should still have avoided editwarring. Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The footnote beginning "Some authors define..." was my addition, attempting to clarify the usage of the term. It was a quick, temporary-fix addition. My (uncited) source for the statement was a website.[3] I haven't evaluated whether the site is a reliable source. --Srleffler (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I had originally gotten mixed up and thought that was part of OpticsPhysics' additions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical optics

I think we need a change in terminology in the article. Right now, it uses "classical optics" and "modern optics", with the distinction being whether quantum mechanics is used. The term "classical optics" is also used, as OpticsPhysics has pointed out, to describe the study of optics before the adoption of the wave model of light. We need to choose a better term to describe the distinction we are making, so as not to create confusion.

I reverted OpticsPhysics's edit, because he responded to this terminology issue by deleting an entire section of the article.--Srleffler (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was completely wrong the way it was explained in the article. there should have been a more proper disctinction. geometrical optics came before obviously. i did not delete the paragraph but was going to put it in the proper section before you changed the edits. it needs to be placed in a proper position now. OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not wrong; it's just approaching the subject differently from how you want to, and using a different definition of "classical". What you are proposing seems to involve significant restructuring of the article. There is nothing wrong with that in principle, but if you want to dramatically change the structure of an article, the new version has to be overall better than the old version. If the changes introduce too many errors, or change part of the article and leave it out of sync with the rest, other editors will revert the change rather than leave the article damaged. It's not easy to make structural changes in a big article like this one. With experience, you'll be able to do it better. In the meantime, let us help you. Explain what you're trying to do here. If we all agree that a change in the structure of the article is needed, people will help you instead of reverting.--Srleffler (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

for the username "verbal",

consensus for topic is already achieved. the only issue remaining is the position in the article. pls do not revert without first explaining on discussion page. the article cannot remain in the previous form because it is highly misleading. it gives the reader the wrong meaning of "classical optics". as a wikipedia article it should show the correct meaning and not mislead readers.OpticsPhysics (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please point out where your changes were proposed and gained consensus. Verbal chat 11:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

look above in the beginning of this section, srleffler has mentioned that i have pointed out that there is a problem in regards to the "classical optics" section. you are simply reverting without giving any explanations this can constitute as vandalism. i have clearly pointed out to you that the article cannot remain in the previous form since it is incorrect and completely misleads the reader. i have added nothing in the article apart from the first part which deals with the classical optics and the subsection geometric optics. the wave model is in the next section. the article has to remain in this form since the previous form is incorrect and cannot be used.OpticsPhysics (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The change I am proposing is to replace the term "classical optics" with something else to avoid the confusion, not to completely restructure the section using your definition. The whole article is structured around the division of optics into models: "classical" vs. quantum, then within "classical" wave vs. ray, etc. Your changes break the whole structure of the article. Reformatting it using your definition requires much more than what you have done, and in the end it might not be a better article.--Srleffler (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Srleffler, what we need is simple clarification - not a major change. Classical optics does mean without quantum effects (trust me), and may also be a term applied to historical optics models. We need to distinguish, but not pretend the modern use of the term in physics is wrong. As it matches with quantum/classical in all other branches of science, I would say OPs term is the "incorrect" usage. Verbal chat 14:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Re definition of "classical optics": to get a rough idea, I'm doing a Google Books search on "classical optics". I'm not claiming these are necessarily usable as reliable sources; for convenience I'm just looking at the first few hits. Here they are:
All of these first 6 hits seem to accept that wave theory and/or electrodynamics are part of classical optics. (I got tired and didn't look at the 7th hit since the others were all agreeing, but just now looked at the 7th and it may disagree; hard to tell since no book preview is given. Archive for history of exact sciences, Volume 1 By Clifford Truesdell 1962 "classical+optics"&dq="classical+optics" From 1962, though; the terminology may have changed since then. The 8th hit is also interesting. "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=%22classical%20optics%22&f=false I didn't look at the others.) So I guess using that definition here is OK. Alternatively, we might consider using "modern classical optics" (the title of one of the above books) or "basic optics" (which appears in that book), although I think just using "classical optics" may be better because it's probably the more commonly used term. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I did run across one website that defines the term explicitly the way OpticsPhysics suggests:[4]. I would guess that the usage in the article is most common among physicists (in analogy with classical mechanics, etc.), but we at least need to be clear for the benefit of those who may be thinking of the other sense of the term.--Srleffler (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not familiar with the website so I don't know whether it would count as a reliable source or not, but at a glance it looks pretty scientific, so I accept that it's been verified that the term is used, although not necessarily as a significant minority in reliable sources. So I think it's OK to have a footnote saying that this alternative definition has also been used; although without the comma. You said it was a temporary fix; what do you have in mind more long-term? [5] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed "classical" to "traditional". The article doesn't actually divide non-quantum from quantum optics, but rather divides pre-20th century from ≥20th century ("modern") optics.--Srleffler (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Classical optics part 2

Note: please note that in the following paragraph the term wave model refers to the "electromagnetic" wave model and not to physical optics (wave model of light) else you can read the next section in which i have explained myself better

i hate to say this but i think everyone has completely misunderstood what i am trying to say. i am just trying to give a clear picture to the reader of the beginnings and then move on to the other sections, i have no intention at all of changing the structure of the article. the article begins very clearly with the "classical optics" part that describes how light was considered before the wave model. the problem our current presentation is that the wave model is right in the begining, this is a bit strange.

that is why i arranged the article such that you had the classical optics and its further explanation in geometrical optics, then wave modeln then comparison to quantum optics and finally modern optics. in other words nothing in the article changed except for the position. copper i feel that in the sources you have shown they are considering classical optics as the entire thing which is both the particle and wave model. however what i am doing is showing the beginning of optics. there are other google hits that take classical optics purely as the earlier concepts before the introduction of wave model but anyway there is no point of going through them and listing them. one google book on fourier optics does not mention the word "electromagnetism" till page 365!

anyway i feel that we cant put the wave model in the beginning, it just would not make any sense. its like we are skipping everything and landing on maxwells equations which happened much later. the current form is ok.

it follows a good pattern - classical, geometrical, wave model, comparison with quantum optics finally modern optics. OpticsPhysics (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand. You are trying to explain optics chronologically, in the order that concepts were developed historically. That might work, but it isn't the only way to organize the material. Personally, I'm not fond of overemphasis on history in science articles. A good science article should explain the modern understanding of a subject as clearly as possible, even if that treatment doesn't follow the course by which the modern understanding was originally developed. The article before your edits explains what light is before it launches into the discussion of geometric optics, and emphasizes that geometric optics is an approximation—a simple model that is easy to apply, but doesn't cover all situations. I think this is important, but I can imagine that we might be able to go from simple to complex instead, focusing on geometric optics first. The text would need to be adjusted, though, so it doesn't use concepts like wavefronts before they are explained. I'm open to the argument that we should reformulate the article along the lines you propose, but we need to all agree that that is the right direction to take the article in, so we can work to make it all consistent.--Srleffler (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I think it would be OK to discuss geometrical optics (i.e. non-wave, non-quantum-mechanical) before other stuff. It seems simpler as well as being earlier historically. However, I also think it's probably OK to jump right into what light is, as Srleffler says: I take the point that science articles don't need to begin with history. Srleffler, I think in the article now, it's not very clear what is meant by "traditional optics". Actually, I find the whole "modern optics" section rather unclear. What if anything, besides quantum mechanics, is definitely included in "modern optics" but not other optics? What's an example of something that needs quantum mechanics to explain it? Does the laser require non-classical (quantum-mechanical?) optics to explain it -- and if so, perhaps the article should say so. Anything else? The modern optics section could use more actual information rather than just naming things and giving wikilinks to them. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Some topics that come to mind, but which aren't specifically quantum: nonlinear optics, photonic crystals, non-imaging optics, near-field optics. Fiber optics would probably also best be categorized as "modern". Optical waveguides generally, too. Yes, the section could use some expansion as some of these things aren't even mentioned.--Srleffler (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the "modern optics" section should be larger and have more subsections to be closer to the size of (or larger than) "traditional optics". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that the section heading "Traditional optics" be changed back to "Classical optics" or to something else. Yes, "Classical optics" is somewhat ambiguous; but I think "Traditional optics" is even more ambiguous. We could use an unambiguous phrase such as "Nineteenth century optics" (if that's the right time period?) or "Optics before quantum mechanics". I notice that the way the section starts, it's not talking about a branch of optics, but giving information within that branch; that is, it's not saying "Traditional optics is...." but "Light is an electromagnetic wave...", therefore, a heading such as "Light as an electromagnetic wave" or "Electromagnetic properties of light" or "Electromagnetic waves" or something might be more appropriate.
In the Google Books search I described in another thread, I found that the meaning of "Classical optics" seemed to be fairly consistent. It's also used more than "traditional optics", having about twice the Gb-hits, and I have the impression it may be much more frequent than "traditional optics" in recent Optics textbooks. (Google Books search limited to 2002-2009: 143 for "traditional optics", 583 for "classical optics".) A quick Google Books search for "traditional optics" suggests that the phrase has a variety of meanings, including (if I'm not confused; remembering this from a search I did yesterday) two sources using it to mean optics before Descartes. I think that just as we're free to write new sentences, we're free to write new section headings such as "Optics before quantum mechanics", even if that exact phrase doesn't appear in any source, provided that phrases such as "quantum mechanics" are used according to standard meanings; but when we use a phrase such as "traditional optics" it's more problematic.
I think, given my impression of the preponderance of usage in sources, that it's OK to have a section heading "Classical optics" and use it to mean pre-quantum-mechanics optics, but probably not OK to have a sentence saying "Classical optics is ..." because this would contradict the few sources that use it in another sense; instead, we can just have the section heading and then start talking about electromagnetic waves. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am leaning toward your position. OpticsPhysics's definition seems to be a minority one; given his latest proposal perhaps a tiny minority definition. We probably should define both reference-supported senses of "classical optics" explicitly in the text, possibly in the history section rather than the "classical optics" section. --Srleffler (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This discussion ended some time ago, but I don't think the outcome is satisfactory. The first section of 'Classical optics' is solely concerned with the electromagnetic wave model. Geometric, or ray optics, does not requrie any understanding, or even knowledge of the wave nature of light. See, for example, the first ten chapters of Jenkins & White, or the statement in Born & Wolf as follows: "The branch of optics which is characterised by the neglect of wavelength, i.e. the case where lambda approcahes zero, is known as geometrical optics.
It would therefore make more sense to state in the introduction to Classical Optics that it is made up of two branches, Geometrical or ray optics where light is considered to travel in straight lines blah blah blah, and physical or wave optics, where it is considered to be an electromagnetic wave whose behaviour ss governed by blah blah blah.
I will put something together in a sandbox for discussion Epzcaw (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The article does say what you propose. The last statement in the introduction to classical optics is "Traditional optics is divided into two main branches: geometrical optics and physical optics." This is followed by subsections covering these two branches.--Srleffler (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but only after a detailed discussion of light as a wave. Geometric optics does not require any understanding of wave optics and predated it by many hundreds of years. I will let you know when I have completed my amended version, and will welcome your views then.Epzcaw (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created an amended version at User:Epzcaw/Classical Optics. See "Physical Optics - Maxwells equations or Huygen's Fresnel?" section below for details of what I have done and why. Epzcaw (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

OpticsPhysics, please stop trying to archive the older discussions on this page. The talk page was just archived in June. It's too soon to archive it again.--Srleffler (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

i feel that its really congested. OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Could you be more specific about how the length of the page affects you? I just press the "End" button on my keyboard and my browser takes me to the bottom of the page, and I then scroll up a bit to find the parts I want to read. (Also, control-F and control-G on many browsers allow you to search for phrases.) Or I use the table of contents to jump to the part I'm interested in; by looking at the page history I can usually see which sections people have been editing. So unless the page is so long that my browser has trouble handling it, a long page doesn't cause any inconvenience for me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continuation

(Copied from User talk:OpticsPhysics)

i think i have created a bit of confusion, what i should have said is that the "electromagnetic" wave model should not be in the beginning.

the chronological order is:

classical opitcs containing geometrical optics and physical optics (wave model of light)

then electromagnetic wave model with maxwell equation (the paragraph which is now in the beginning)

discussion of quantum optics.

and everything else as usual.

so in reality nothing much has changed except for the position of one paragraph and adding one or two paragraphs for explanation. i still dont understand why you keep on saying restructuring of the article?? when did i ever say that i want to fill the article with history or completely change the article.

the article is perfectly fine the classical optics should contain the geometrical optics and physical optics (wave model of light). the only problem is that the electromagnetic wave model of light paragraph which is now in the beginning should be put after the physical optics (wave model of light).

it is just changing the position of one paragraph, there is no history involved. it will be scientifically and chronologically accurate.

i will discuss more when my block time is over.OpticsPhysics (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the self-revert.
It would be a good idea to somehow arrange your communications with your friends so that it doesn't look as if you're using sockpuppets. Note that if accounts act like sockpuppets, they're treated like sockpuppets; see WP:MEAT.
Re changing the order of paragraphs: I suppose that's probably OK with me. I might change my mind when I study it more carefully, but what you say here makes sense. If others don't object, I suggest doing an edit where all you do is move one paragraph (and state that clearly in the edit summary). Then it's easier to see what you're doing. If you want to make other changes, you can make them in a separate edit (if people haven't objected to them, etc.) If you're already done that, you can tell me the exact date and time of the edit so that I can look at it and see whether I support it.
One of the problems may have been that you made so many changes at once that people didn't have time to look at them carefully, and may have reverted because they opposed some of the changes even though there might have been other changes that might have been OK. I was even confused about what changes you were making: for example, the footnote added by Srleffler I thought was added by you, etc. If you want to add material, I would find it helpful if you would say on the talk page "I want to add this:" and then quote the exact words you want to add. That's not always necessary, but it makes things easier, I find. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you don't edit the article, but post an outline on the talk page and await discussion. I'm also rather disappointed with the response above. Verbal chat 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

coppertwig that is exactly what i am trying to say. as far as the structure of the article nothing much changes except for the placement of the paragraph after physical optics (wave model of light). i dont understand why you guys felt like i was ripping apart the whole article. i will give an outline later in the discussion page.

verbal could you clarify why you are disappointed with the response? i am not quite sure i follow if you meant my response or coppertwig response?OpticsPhysics (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I may not have expressed what I meant very well. My response was not intended to encourage you to re-insert into the article any of the changes which have already been opposed (whether the opposition was expressed explicitly on the talk page, or by reverting or both) without first getting an indication of approval from others. Agreement from just me is not enough, since others have also opposed some changes. I think Verbal was disappointed that I seemed to be encouraging you to go ahead and repeat some edits. Try WP:BRD: if something has been reverted once, I think it's a good idea to discuss it and get consensus before restoring it. Often the resulting consensus will settle on some other edit that's been formed by interaction and discussion among editors. If anyone had explicitly opposed moving the one paragraph, I'm sorry if I hadn't noticed or had forgotten; and you would have to take that into account. Just because I myself don't oppose an edit doesn't necessarily mean I think it's OK for you to do it if others have expressed opposition to it. Verbal, if you oppose moving the paragraph, perhaps you could explain why or tell me the date and time of a comment on the article talk page that explains why. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
No, coppertwig I've been impressed with your efforts here, although I'd rather see OP go the talk page first with his suggestions - giving the outline I'd asked for on the talk page. At the moment I think having the modern, more correct, model first is better for an encyclopaedia, and for readers. OP should give his justification and outline on the article talk so more than just us few can discuss. My disappointment is with the rather poor explanation of another user, with a name related to this user, would edit this users posts to correct errors and add material. That doesn't seem reasonable. However, OP can rejoin the conversation when he is unblocked. This just leaves a bitter taste. Verbal chat 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

yes ofcourse i am going to discuss the outline first before making any changes. verbal i think the person maybe corrected my discussion topic and grammar but he never edited the main article. i should have made it clear to him not to edit my changes. atleast its not something serious like editing the main article.OpticsPhysics (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

(End of material copied from User talk:OpticsPhysics)
Thanks, Verbal!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back. I'll reply to your comments once I've had a chance to read them more carefully. By the way, it is a good idea not to edit your own comments once other editors have replied to them. Spelling and grammar fixes aren't important, but anything that changes the substance of what you wrote should be avoided, so that the text on the page is the actual text that the other person responded to. --Srleffler (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see how your proposal could work. Light is an electromagnetic wave. How can you explain the wave model of light without first explaining that light is an electromagnetic wave? The short section you moved doesn't really deal much with Maxwell's equations; it only mentions them in passing. What it does do, is explain the relationship between frequency, period, and wavelength of a light wave, and the relationship between index of refraction and the speed of the light. I don't see how one could explain physical optics without covering these fundamental wave concepts first. Geometrical optics can be explained without these concepts, maybe, but you still need to explain index of refraction to cover refraction. Covering geometrical optics without first covering the fundamentals of wave propagation leaves the reader in the dark way too long, as to the nature of light. This is important, since not every reader will slog through the whole article.
I like the fact that the current version is clear about what light is, and about the fact that geometrical optics is only an approximation. An encyclopedia should not present falsehood as truth, even temporarily.--Srleffler (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I removed the reference to Maxwell's equations from that paragraph. It's kind of off-point, and may confuse or put off readers with less background in physics. There may be a suitable place to link to them somewhere lower in the article. Classical electromagnetism is linked in the intro. The reference to Maxwell's paper needs more bibliographic data. I'll fix that when I have a chance.--Srleffler (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

i have the discussion above actually, saying that i should have explained myself properly. i was not talking about physical optics (wave model of light) but the electromagnetic wave model of light.

wavelength (length of a wave), period, frequency etc. are all wave terminology in general for eg. sound waves use the same terminology. they are not specific to any subject.

both the geometrical and wave model of light comes under classical optics. after which you have the electromagnetic wave model of light. i should have made myself clearer that i was talking specifically about the mention of maxwell in the beginning of the article. i felt that was a bit incorrect. since chronologically first you had geometrical and wave model of light. then the introduction of the electromagnetic wave model with uncle maxwell coming into the picture.

i guess the way you have presented it now is alright. i am not quite sure i follow when you say that changing it might mislead the readers. actually it would not mislead readers at all. you would just have a small paragraph at the beginning called "classical optics", a small paragraph to explain that first light was considered as particles, covered in geometrical optics. then came the wave model of light when people had a similar thought process to surface waves in water, covered in physical optics. then finally came uncle maxwell with his theory. i am sure the readers would be able to understand that much. but anyway have a think about it and maybe a small draft of the paragraph in the discussion page.OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Light is an EM wave (at least, if one neglects quantum mechanics). I do not want the article to deal with light as a wave without dealing with it as an electromagnetic wave. There is no benefit in walking the reader through the historical development of optics while explaining the physics. The article needs to explain the modern understanding of optics as clearly as possible. We do have a "history" section that explains the chronological development of optics. That is where information about how optics was developed historically belongs.--Srleffler (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ok look, we seem to be going round and round and round.

i have come up with the best possible solution and compromise.

how about a small line between traditional optics and geometrical optics which goes:

classical optics

classical optics refers to the optics that was developed before the electromagnetic wave model of light. classical optics is divided into two sections, geometrical optics and physical optics. done.

there cant be any reason at all to not accept this. it is scientifically and chronologically correct. it does not change the position of paragraphs, does not put history first etc. etc.

i am sure it is not possible to twist this in any negative way. OpticsPhysics (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not even sure that the statement you propose to add is true. Do you have any sources that define "classical optics" this way? I thought, above, that you were proposing to define "classical optics" as optics that precedes the acceptance of the wave model, i.e. just geometric optics; no modern physical optics. I did find one source that explicitly defines it that way. This is a different thing from defining it to include the wave model, but not the electromagnetic wave model.
As noted by Coppertwig, above, an overwhelming number of modern reliable sources use "classical optics" to mean optics that doesn't use quantum mechanics. I am leaning toward changing the article back to that definition, with a better explanation of alternate uses of the term.--Srleffler (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

srleffler please reade above. as you can see i have corrected myself.

i should have stated more clearly that i was talking about the electromagentic wave model. i have made this abundantly clear in the above paragraphs and have left notes to that effect. had i not been blocked i would have emphasised it sooner.

otherwise you can simply mention a line before geometrical optics that explains to the reader that both the geometrical and wave model were made before the electromagnetic wave model. this is obvious and also apparent in the history section of optics. which shows that both those models came before the electromagnetic wave model.

there should no problems in mentioning such a simple statement as it does not harm the article in anyway and does not put history first. it is scientifically and chronologically sound. if you feel that "classical optics" is not defined this way and you have an issue with it then fine. but there has to one line before geometrical and physical optics that says that these concepts were developed before the electromagnetic wave model of light.

a mirror is a fine example of optics that people have been using for centuries. the people in the past have contributed a lot to the development and understanding of optics, in the form of geometrical optics and wave model of light. it is only towards the end that you get the electromagnetic wave model of light. yes this is apparent in the history section but putting one line to explain this does not harm anybody and is scientifically correct. due credit must be given and credit should not be stolen. of that there can be no compromise. especially since it is only one statement that is scientifically and chronologically correct. OpticsPhysics (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this? I added a brief comment on the history of the models to the introduction, since that is where the relationship between the different models is explained.--Srleffler (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. I searched the History of optics page history, and found 60 edits by Jagged 85 (copy pasted here on May 16, 2009). Tobby72 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Optics|b00774t5}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Dispersion image

A triangular prism, dispersing light; waves shown to illustrate the differing wavelengths of light. (Click to view animation)

An image was deleted from this article today. Discussion of this at Talk:Prism (optics)#Dispersion image.--Srleffler (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationship Between Optics and Photonics

The Optics article says "Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties".

The Photonics articles says "The science of photonics[1] includes the generation, emission, transmission, modulation, signal processing, switching, amplification, detection and sensing of light. The term photonics thereby emphasizes that photons are neither particles nor waves — they are different in that they have both particle and wave nature. It covers all technical applications of light over the whole spectrum from ultraviolet over the visible to the near-, mid- and far-infrared. Most applications, however, are in the range of the visible and near infrared light".

There seems to be a large overlap. Discuss.109.154.68.246 (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Photonics is a subfield of optics, so the overlap is 100%. --Srleffler (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Optical illusions?

I do believe optical illusions are psychological (a consequence of your brain) rather than physical (a consequence of Maxwell's equations), such that they should be removed from this article? One really angry guy (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that formulation. All that is really needed in this article is a link in the 'See also' section.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Physical Optics - Maxwells equations or Huygen's Fresnel?

I think the discussion of classical light wave propagation should be based on Maxwell's equations rather than Huygens-Fresnel. The former provide the fundamental physics for 'quite a lot of everything' which is based on experimental measurements, whereas the latter is an empirical equation based on a proposition by Huygens about secondary waves, and Fresnel's addition of the superposition principle, to which has to be added an arbitrary inclination factor to obtain agreement with experimental results.

In fact, the introductory section of 'Classical Optics' would be more appropriate here with some additional material - see my comments in 'Classical Optics 2' further up in the discussion page. Epzcaw (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

An awful lot of physical optics gets by just fine building on the Huygens–Fresnel approach as an abstraction of the underlying EM and QM principles. It's OK to mention and discuss the latter, but except for polarization effects they don't really help with a lot of what one does in optics. So let's integrate them carefully, not swap out the approach to describing wave propagation. Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I see what you are saying. I am working on an amendment, and will take it on board. I will let you know when I have finished for your approval (or not!).Epzcaw (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
I have created a modified version of the "Classical optics" section at User:Epzcaw/Classical Optics. The only aterations are
(1) the introduction to "Geometric Optics"
(2) the introduction to "Physical optics". I have also split this in two, naming the second section "Modelling and Design of Optical systems".
(3) A new section called "Relationship between geometric and physical optics"
I have deleted relatively little of the existing material - mainly moved it about.
The reasoning behind the modifications is to keep the introductions as simple as possible, covering only the fundamental ideas need to understand each of the models.
Comments and constructive criticism welcome Epzcaw (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with the overall change in structure. It does need some copyediting, though, and some important links like speed of light have been lost. In your introductions, you appear to limit both geometric and physical optics to isotropic media. Neither limitation is correct. There is no such thing as a "magnetic charge", and I'm not sure what you mean by a "source of electric charge". I'm not sure about the change in focus to Maxwell's equations. While they are fundamental to the physics, they do not play as important a role in optics. --Srleffler (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have modified the draft in line with your comments. I have corrected as many of the typos etc as I could find. Further comments welcome. Epzcaw (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Some comments: In the title, "optics" should be lowercase. It needs a lead. Your new Snell's law diagram is gnarly ugly looking. And the Thin lens images.svg image is ugly and confusing, too; trying to do too much. And wave.png has the inappropriate label "displacement" in it. The Born & Wolf ref needs fixing. I haven't read most of the text yet, but it seems mostly OK. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by a lead? I was proposing to replace the "Classical Optics" section in the "Optics" article with mine. Strictly speaking, I would replace the current introduction to "Classical Optics", the introduction to "Geometrical Optics" and the introduction to "Physical Optics", while adding a new section called "Modelling and designing optical systems". The rest of "Classical Optics" would be unchanged. To clarify this, I have removed all the unaltered stuff, and replaced with sections entitled "Stuff from existing Optics article".
Re Snells law diagram - do you mean this one:
Geometry of reflection and refraction of light rays
or this
Illustration of Snell's Law for the case n1 < n2, such as air/water interface
If it is the first, not sure what is wrong with it. Gnarly? Not a term I am familiar with!!
The Thin lens image was already there, and I have not done anything with these bits. Is no longer in the amended sections.
The wave image was also already there. I would be happy to dispense with it but am reluctant to remove other psople's stuff without good reason. A reader not familiar with waves would be better going to the Wave article for information about waves, in my opinion. Cheers. Epzcaw (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced the first Snell's law diagram with a modified version of the scond one - do you prefer that one? needs a bit of tweaking - my Inkscape skills are a bit limited.
I have removed the wave diagram. Epzcaw (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Amended version now subsituted Epzcaw (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Kapitsa–Dirac effect

I placed the Kapitsa–Dirac effect along with optical tweezers at the article it did not previously describe using light to focus, diffract, or position matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Optical Art

Shouldn't there be a disambiguation page for "Optical"? I was looking for the art style, but "Optical" redirects straigt here. The disambiguation at the top points only to "Optical (artist)", and it took me forever to find the correct page, which is actually at "Op Art". Thanks! 85.218.29.220 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Partial title matches are usually not disambiguated re: "do not create entries merely because xxxxx is part of the name" Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, per Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia article titles are usually nouns or noun phrases, not adjectives. If you want optical art you should be searching for "optical art", not just for "optical".--Srleffler (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

contradictory entries

This article says,

In Italy, around 1284, Salvino D'Armate <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvino_D'Armate</ref>invented the first wearable eyeglasses.[19]

However, the Wikipedia article linked to Salvino D'Armate describes as a hoax the attribution of the invention to D'Armate.

Excuse me for any violations of protocol here, I am long-registered but extremely inexperienced.

Oreskios (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your right, its a claim put in Wikipedia's voice, so should be fixed. A quick look at the related Wikipedia articles on this show one big mess.... including a POV fork ------> Salvino D'Armate, Salvino degli Armati. I'll take a WP:BOLD whack at it (including deleting one of those article) unless someone beats me to it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I resolved the fork, putting the article at Salvino D'Armati for the moment. It's possible that the best solution is to delete Salvino degli Armati and move the article there. All the other wikis (now linked) use that form of his name. We should first look at the form used in English references, however. It's the form best known in English that matters.--Srleffler (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I fixed this article.--Srleffler (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Optics/Archive_2&oldid=1137061139"