This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
{{
multiple image}}
and avoiding "see below"s and "see right"s;Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Durova Charge! 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
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) Durova Charge! 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
Noted in the Coincidence article that
And yet I find no reference to this in this Optics article? What's up with that? .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 13:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This article says,
In Italy, around 1284, Salvino D'Armate <ref> /info/en/?search=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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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:
{{
multiple image}}
and avoiding "see below"s and "see right"s;Thanks, Sceptre ( talk) 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Durova Charge! 21:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
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) Durova Charge! 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
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.
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:
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)
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)
Noted in the Coincidence article that
And yet I find no reference to this in this Optics article? What's up with that? .`^) Paine Ellsworth diss`cuss (^`. 13:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
This article says,
In Italy, around 1284, Salvino D'Armate <ref> /info/en/?search=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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |