Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:37, 5 September 2009

Physics B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass C‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

This article incorporates text from a sandbox version of this article on Wikisource, the following editors being major contributors: ScienceApologist, Awadewit, Coppertwig and 128.59.171.155; and which also contained material copied from the following Misplaced Pages articles: History of optics, Optical resolution, Dispersion (optics). Polarization, Laser and Optical illusions. A plaintext copy of edit history is preserved here.

A fact from Optics appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that optics began with the development of lenses by the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/June.

To-do list for Optics: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-03-11 There are no active tasks for this page Reference slow light in either the refraction or dispersion section. Add a Gaussian optics section that explains the thin lens and the mirror equations as a general result. Add information about how the microscope and reflecting telescopes were improved. Add summary paragraph to History section. Mention Faraday in the polarization section. I think the following definition of optics is more precise. Optics - Physics of light and vision.

Optics received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Archive 1, 2004 - June 2009

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 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 Misplaced Pages: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. 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 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) Durova 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).

Please answer the questions. Durova 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 Ellsworth (^  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 Ellsworth (^  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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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:

• Progress in Optics, Volume 46 By Emil Wolf 2004 p. 365 "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=%22classical%20optics%22&f=false "when the field is quasi-monochromatic and the statistical ensemble characterizing the field is stationary ... the same authors treat quantum-mechanical..." Sounds like wave theory to me.
• "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=&f=false Classical optics and its applications By Masud Mansuripur 2002 (table of contents): discusses diffraction and interferometry, therefore includes wave theory.
• Quantum optics: an introduction By Anthony Mark Fox 2006 p. 8 "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=%22classical%20optics%22&f=false "overview of electromagnetism and classical optics" begins with Maxwell's equations, so I gather classical optics seems to include electromagnetism. Looking at the table of contents seems to confirm this.
• Modern classical optics By Geoffrey Brooker 2003 "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=&f=false begins with "electromagnetism and basic optics".
• Concepts of Classical Optics By John Strong "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=&f=false 2004 begins with "light as wave motion"
• Twentieth Century Physics By Laurie M. Brown, Abraham Pais, A. B. Pippard 1995 "classical+optics"#v=onepage&q=%22classical%20optics%22&f=false "the end of the nineteenth century marks the close of one era (classical optics) and the start of another (quantum optics)".

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)

• B-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• C-Class glass articles
• Top-importance glass articles
• C-Class glass articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject Glass articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Old requests for peer review