This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prism (optics) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Prism to Prism (optics). The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page is in serious need of work. Some mystical rubbish has crept in here about refraction of Dark.
I don't like to flag work needing attention, but I'm battling on other fronts right now. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
The caption to the first image doesn't make sense to me — what does such that the colored edges meet mean? I will change this unless someone can explain. Michael Fourman 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: "Traditionally, these prisms are built with a triangular base and rectangular sides." Shouldn't this be rectangular base with triangular sides? -- 217.129.246.156
What are the shortest and longest spectrum wavelengths capable of being dispersed by a prism?
Any wavelengths that can be transmitted through the material of the prism can be dispersed. Typical optical glass transmits from somewhere in the near ultra-violet up to a few microns wavelength (near infra-red). Other optical materials may transmit a wider range of wavelengths.-- Srleffler 12:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article, but perhaps we should have a discussion about it:
Prisms in popular culture
This keeps popping up in the article. The fact that someone used a prism on an album cover once is just not that important a fact about prisms, even if the album does happen to be especially famous. It is barely justifiable to even link to DSOM from here. Since the person who added the above felt it was confusing having a link in the See also section, I removed the DSOM reference from the article altogether.-- Srleffler 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here to find out what prisms are made from, and I still don't know. glass? crystals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw melk ( talk • contribs)
In the beginning of the article, it is said that "In optics, a prism is a device used to refract light, reflect it or break it up (to disperse it) into its constituent spectral colours". From this I would suppose that there are refractive, reflective and dispersive prisms. But later in the article, prisms are classifed as reflective, dispersive or polarizing. Could we make this more clear? Jorge Peixoto 10:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Srleffler reverted two changes that I made:
There have been several attempts to rephrase the paragraph on Newton, which I believe change the intended meaning of the paragraph. If I am right, there are a couple of sentences that are poorly phrased, which are leading to confusion. I would rephrase them, but need confirmation that my interpretation is correct. The section in question reads:
Isaac Newton first thought that prisms split colors out of colorless light. Newton placed a second prism such that a separated color would pass through it and found the color unchanged. citation needed He concluded that prisms separate colors.
I believe what is intended here, is that Newton at first thought that prisms produce colors in some fashion from light that is intrinsically colorless (white). By performing the experiment described, he convinced himself that prisms separate preexisting colors, and therefore that white light is not colorless, but rather is composed of a mixture of colors. If I am right, the paragraph needs to be rephrased, because other editors seem to routinely miss the fact that a change in Newton's point of view is seen here. What is needed is a confirmation of this statement from an external source, so we can verify what meaning was intended.-- Srleffler 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is my fault. Quite some time back, it was I that added the word 'colourless' in the place of 'white' light. I did this because today it is often assumed that colourless light is white. Someone subsequently didn't see the sense of it, and rewrote the sentence by adding the phrase, 'first thought' -- and this changed the meaning enough that it devolved into the subtle shift you noted above. There is no change in Newton's thought here from colourless to white. He assumed it was white all along, and used the experiment crucis to prove his point. Johnrpenner 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the "history" section back after the "how prisms work" section. It is often better in science articles to explain the substance of a topic before the history of the subject. How things work is fundamental in a science article. The history of how something was discovered is of secondary importance. Additionally, the text in the "history" section is not really a history of prisms, but a much narrower bit of history about how the spectrum came to be understood using prisms. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
i still don't get how to refract the light from a prism, it didn't explain theat whatsoever, do you shine it through the face, a corner? please could someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.18.41 ( talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Where did this history section go you speak of?! Someone please bring it back, I'm having a hard time finding anything online referencing the origins of the optical prism. - Luminaux ( talk) 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just how old are prisms, anyway? Newton used them, sure, but what's the oldest recorded instance of a prism? How long have they been around? Alphapeta ( talk) 07:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the new section on deviation angle should stay as it is. The form given is only a good approximation if the wedge angle of the prism is small. It's great for a thin wedge, but I'm not sure if it's accurate enough to use for a more typical dispersing prism. Perhaps it would be better to not try to derive a formula, but just give the accurate expression without derivation.-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I unintentionally undid Srleffler's edit here, which was removing a link to dispersion. This happened because I was making a major edit to the same page and the merge editor couldn't parse the differences easily because there were so many. I still think the link is a good idea, since dispersion is not explained on this page. Note that there are two types of dispersion here, and they're not the same thing: spectral dispersion (dependence of deviation angle on wavelength) and glass dispersion (dependence of refractive index on wavelength). This may confuse some people, and so I think a link is a good way of helping people out. NathanHagen ( talk) 02:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
MaterialScientist, why did you delete the animated image of wave dispersion in a prism? Your edit summary describes the image as misleading. How so?-- Srleffler ( talk) 06:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the animated schematic illustration. It shows how the different colors correspond to different wavelengths, and different speeds inside the prism, and how these relate to the different angles. The other one is good, too, but doesn't connect to wavelength and speed at all. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous image (middle here) was misleading in being neat and looking like real photo, yet showing no dispersion inside the prism and no reflection on its second face. I've boldly replaced with the bottom one, which is real, but ugly. I would only welcome if someone finds a better lead image. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
[Moved to end by srleffler. Poster presumably did not see the discussion above.]
is it only me, or does anyone else think it is inconsistent for the two prism illustrations to show two different things within the same article?
the first illustration clearly shows a white beam of light entering the prism, and It Stays White inside the prism, and you see the colours fanning out -- only after the second refraction -- where it EXITS the prism.
the second illustration shows a white beam of light entering the prism -- where you see the colours begin to fan-out WITHIN the prism, and then they exit the prism even further fanned-out from the second refraction.
they can't both be right -- so which is it!? are the colours fanned out when they ENTER the prism, or when they EXIT the prism? -- and who is going to remove the incorrect illustration, or make sure that both illustrations show the same thing? Johnrpenner ( talk) 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Dispersive prism#Merge. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 10:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Especially since Neither of those articles mention Newtons prism experiments. - Rod57 ( talk) 23:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by UpdateNerd. I have several problems with it:
I don't see a better way to fix this than to revert to my previous suggestion "...to show that spectral color is the visible manifestation of the wavelength of light." Rather than immediately reverting before there's an opportunity for discussion I'll instead replace the disputed phrase with "...to explain how color arises from the spectrum of light", which I think is inferior, but at least not nonsense. I'm open to suggestions, but lacking any will eventually revert to my preferred phrase.-- Srleffler ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Prism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Offical book ( talk) 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
There’s some kids make fun of prism and make a joke called Angarano Prism so i want to make a joke under the blog please
The result of the move request was: moved. No primary topic can be determined, as the discussion's investigations into both usage and long-term significance yielded no single primary topic via either route. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
– No WP:primary topic between the optics topic and the geometry topic ( Prism (geometry)). Most dictionaries and encyclopedias put the geometry topic first, then optics after. There doesn’t appear to be a historical reason why we currently have optics at the base name. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prism (optics) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 7 September 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Prism to Prism (optics). The result of the discussion was moved. |
This page is in serious need of work. Some mystical rubbish has crept in here about refraction of Dark.
I don't like to flag work needing attention, but I'm battling on other fronts right now. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:29, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
The caption to the first image doesn't make sense to me — what does such that the colored edges meet mean? I will change this unless someone can explain. Michael Fourman 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: "Traditionally, these prisms are built with a triangular base and rectangular sides." Shouldn't this be rectangular base with triangular sides? -- 217.129.246.156
What are the shortest and longest spectrum wavelengths capable of being dispersed by a prism?
Any wavelengths that can be transmitted through the material of the prism can be dispersed. Typical optical glass transmits from somewhere in the near ultra-violet up to a few microns wavelength (near infra-red). Other optical materials may transmit a wider range of wavelengths.-- Srleffler 12:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following from the article, but perhaps we should have a discussion about it:
Prisms in popular culture
This keeps popping up in the article. The fact that someone used a prism on an album cover once is just not that important a fact about prisms, even if the album does happen to be especially famous. It is barely justifiable to even link to DSOM from here. Since the person who added the above felt it was confusing having a link in the See also section, I removed the DSOM reference from the article altogether.-- Srleffler 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I came here to find out what prisms are made from, and I still don't know. glass? crystals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw melk ( talk • contribs)
In the beginning of the article, it is said that "In optics, a prism is a device used to refract light, reflect it or break it up (to disperse it) into its constituent spectral colours". From this I would suppose that there are refractive, reflective and dispersive prisms. But later in the article, prisms are classifed as reflective, dispersive or polarizing. Could we make this more clear? Jorge Peixoto 10:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Srleffler reverted two changes that I made:
There have been several attempts to rephrase the paragraph on Newton, which I believe change the intended meaning of the paragraph. If I am right, there are a couple of sentences that are poorly phrased, which are leading to confusion. I would rephrase them, but need confirmation that my interpretation is correct. The section in question reads:
Isaac Newton first thought that prisms split colors out of colorless light. Newton placed a second prism such that a separated color would pass through it and found the color unchanged. citation needed He concluded that prisms separate colors.
I believe what is intended here, is that Newton at first thought that prisms produce colors in some fashion from light that is intrinsically colorless (white). By performing the experiment described, he convinced himself that prisms separate preexisting colors, and therefore that white light is not colorless, but rather is composed of a mixture of colors. If I am right, the paragraph needs to be rephrased, because other editors seem to routinely miss the fact that a change in Newton's point of view is seen here. What is needed is a confirmation of this statement from an external source, so we can verify what meaning was intended.-- Srleffler 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is my fault. Quite some time back, it was I that added the word 'colourless' in the place of 'white' light. I did this because today it is often assumed that colourless light is white. Someone subsequently didn't see the sense of it, and rewrote the sentence by adding the phrase, 'first thought' -- and this changed the meaning enough that it devolved into the subtle shift you noted above. There is no change in Newton's thought here from colourless to white. He assumed it was white all along, and used the experiment crucis to prove his point. Johnrpenner 16:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the "history" section back after the "how prisms work" section. It is often better in science articles to explain the substance of a topic before the history of the subject. How things work is fundamental in a science article. The history of how something was discovered is of secondary importance. Additionally, the text in the "history" section is not really a history of prisms, but a much narrower bit of history about how the spectrum came to be understood using prisms. -- Srleffler ( talk) 05:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
i still don't get how to refract the light from a prism, it didn't explain theat whatsoever, do you shine it through the face, a corner? please could someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.18.41 ( talk) 22:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Where did this history section go you speak of?! Someone please bring it back, I'm having a hard time finding anything online referencing the origins of the optical prism. - Luminaux ( talk) 02:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Just how old are prisms, anyway? Newton used them, sure, but what's the oldest recorded instance of a prism? How long have they been around? Alphapeta ( talk) 07:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure the new section on deviation angle should stay as it is. The form given is only a good approximation if the wedge angle of the prism is small. It's great for a thin wedge, but I'm not sure if it's accurate enough to use for a more typical dispersing prism. Perhaps it would be better to not try to derive a formula, but just give the accurate expression without derivation.-- Srleffler ( talk) 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I unintentionally undid Srleffler's edit here, which was removing a link to dispersion. This happened because I was making a major edit to the same page and the merge editor couldn't parse the differences easily because there were so many. I still think the link is a good idea, since dispersion is not explained on this page. Note that there are two types of dispersion here, and they're not the same thing: spectral dispersion (dependence of deviation angle on wavelength) and glass dispersion (dependence of refractive index on wavelength). This may confuse some people, and so I think a link is a good way of helping people out. NathanHagen ( talk) 02:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
MaterialScientist, why did you delete the animated image of wave dispersion in a prism? Your edit summary describes the image as misleading. How so?-- Srleffler ( talk) 06:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I like the animated schematic illustration. It shows how the different colors correspond to different wavelengths, and different speeds inside the prism, and how these relate to the different angles. The other one is good, too, but doesn't connect to wavelength and speed at all. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The previous image (middle here) was misleading in being neat and looking like real photo, yet showing no dispersion inside the prism and no reflection on its second face. I've boldly replaced with the bottom one, which is real, but ugly. I would only welcome if someone finds a better lead image. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
[Moved to end by srleffler. Poster presumably did not see the discussion above.]
is it only me, or does anyone else think it is inconsistent for the two prism illustrations to show two different things within the same article?
the first illustration clearly shows a white beam of light entering the prism, and It Stays White inside the prism, and you see the colours fanning out -- only after the second refraction -- where it EXITS the prism.
the second illustration shows a white beam of light entering the prism -- where you see the colours begin to fan-out WITHIN the prism, and then they exit the prism even further fanned-out from the second refraction.
they can't both be right -- so which is it!? are the colours fanned out when they ENTER the prism, or when they EXIT the prism? -- and who is going to remove the incorrect illustration, or make sure that both illustrations show the same thing? Johnrpenner ( talk) 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Dispersive prism#Merge. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 10:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Especially since Neither of those articles mention Newtons prism experiments. - Rod57 ( talk) 23:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with this edit by UpdateNerd. I have several problems with it:
I don't see a better way to fix this than to revert to my previous suggestion "...to show that spectral color is the visible manifestation of the wavelength of light." Rather than immediately reverting before there's an opportunity for discussion I'll instead replace the disputed phrase with "...to explain how color arises from the spectrum of light", which I think is inferior, but at least not nonsense. I'm open to suggestions, but lacking any will eventually revert to my preferred phrase.-- Srleffler ( talk) 06:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Prism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Offical book ( talk) 13:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
There’s some kids make fun of prism and make a joke called Angarano Prism so i want to make a joke under the blog please
The result of the move request was: moved. No primary topic can be determined, as the discussion's investigations into both usage and long-term significance yielded no single primary topic via either route. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
– No WP:primary topic between the optics topic and the geometry topic ( Prism (geometry)). Most dictionaries and encyclopedias put the geometry topic first, then optics after. There doesn’t appear to be a historical reason why we currently have optics at the base name. Onceinawhile ( talk) 00:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)