Talk:Physical optics

Capitalization
I was capitalizing Physical Optics to make it clear that it is not to be taken literally, but other people thought that was not grammatically correct. Perhaps we should use quotes?--David R. Ingham

The convention is not to capitalize both words. Since you wrote this as an article on a specific approximation within engineering, when physical optics also refers to a large branch of optics, I made the former a section within this article, since the overall article is short. Salsb 23:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have long realized that physical optics is a confusing term, but I had no idea that it is this confusing. The term was already in use in Wikipedia before I started this article, in the sense I defined as well as in the general physics or optics sense. I had been using capitals to help disambiguate elsewhere before I realized how ambiguous it really is, so I now have gone back to doing so. I know it looks funny. It is the name of something specific so capitals are not ungrammatical. I suggest that something should also be done to disambiguate each time the term is used in another sense. In one place I replaced it with "diffraction".

First the word "physical" is very strange for either an approximation or a subfield, let alone both. Second it is very unusual for a physics term to have two meanings, neither of them literal. Third in optics it usually doesn't matter whether or not one uses the approximation, so the two usages are synonymous often enough for people never to get them straight.
 * Salsb 18:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

It would be clearer to have a disambiguation page but the article is too short for that.

I still think my usage is the preferred one and should not be a sub-heading but that is a small point. --David R. Ingham 16:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It may be strange but look in an optics text, or even an introductory physics text. Physical optics is used predominately in the sense, not in the sense you mean it. The scattering approximation you are referring to is a relatively technical and minor usage of the word. Anyway, I am okay with the status now Salsb 18:36, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Title of sub-heading
There is still a problem that needs to be fixed before we are done:

People doing optics don't usually think of it as "scattering". Typically Physical Optics is used for things like calculating the resolution of a camera by integrating the field over the lens area. I might call that scattering, but a camera manufacturer would not read my instructions. I will try now to make it more general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Ingham (talk • contribs) 15:06, September 9, 2005

Electromagnetic Optics
technically speaking, wave optics is the treatment of light in the context of a scalar wave theory whereas electromagnetic optics is the treatment of light in the context of a vector wave theory. scalar wave theory (wave optics) describes interference and diffraction, but not polarization which is described by vector wave theory (electromagnetic optics). i would make additions/changes, but i think that would call for a new "page" titled electromagnetic optics. Most textbooks have such a differentiation between ray, wave, and electromagnetic optics. where ray optics are a subset of wave optics which is a subset of electromagnetic optics. ray optics is an approximation to wave optics that relies on the object dimensions being greater than the wavelength (or conversely, short wavelengths). wave optics is an approximation to electromagnetic optics that uses a SCALAR wave function while electromagnetic optics takes into account the vector field nature of electric and magnetic fields using a VECTOR wave function. electromagnetic optics (electromagnetic theory) encompasses both ray and wave optics and includes the vector nature of the electric and magnetic fields. it should also be noted that scalar waves are used as an approximation to vector waves (to make calculation easier) and have not been observed anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.17.144.125 (talk • contribs) 20:53, May 20, 2008
 * It would be great to have an explanation of this in the article. If you feel like adding something, go for it. I recommend you start by adding information (perhaps a new section) to this article. If it looks like the material is best handled in a separate article on electromagnetic optics, we can easily split off the material into a separate article later.


 * If you have some textbooks handy that make the distinction between these three approaches it would be useful to have a reference in the article. (We like to have lots of references to authoritative sources when we can get them.)--Srleffler (talk)

fumbling around for evidence i found these two webpages that back up what i said. http://www.rmcybernetics.com/science/physics/electromagnetism2_scalar_waves.htm http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/wavefun.htm (search for "scalar wave" on this page)

oh and i flipped through my photonics book. but the problem is it gives you properties of the three types (ray,wave, EM) and the distinction is more of an inference and it is not explicitly stated. it does explicitly state that wave optics encompasses ray optics and EM optics encompasses wave optics. the book is "Fundamentals of Photonics" 2nd edition by B.E.A. Saleh and M.C. Teich and is part of the Wiley series in Pure and Applied Optics Dude fri13 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Applicable
This article is definitely applicable to Metamaterials. I have been looking for an article that describes the incident radiation is such a manner as this article describes it. So I consider this to be a good find as well as a useful article. In addition, I can appreciate the overview of this article. I added this to the Metamaterials category because it seems to be a good fit. Hopefully I can contribute to expanding this article, when I have time. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it from the category. Physical optics is not a subfield of metamaterials, and is much wider in application. If there were an article on the optics of negative-index metamaterials (rather than the materials themselves), it could be put in Category:Physical optics instead. I put the article Negative index metamaterials in Category:Optical materials, where it is a better fit.


 * In case my logic isn't clear, consider that screwdrivers are definitely applicable to automobile maintenance, but the article screwdriver does not belong in Category:Automobile maintenance. Applicability is not the right standard for categorization.--Srleffler (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Your logic is clear. You are correct, this topic is much broader with wider applications, and I didn't realize it. I wasn't thinking in those terms. Thanks for putting the Negative index metamaterial article in the Optical materials category. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Physics
Physical optics explanation only 4 points 182.190.110.174 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

This page needs work.
Heck the "summary" in Optics is way better.

Logically this page either needs to have much more depth than the summary or it needs to redirect back to Optics. As it stands it degrades the reader experience.

Ideas for more depth:
 * act as a hub linking the many wave optics topics scattered about Wikipedia.
 * Set out the conditions for the "wave optics" approximations and how they are related.
 * Much better inline references.
 * Not a copy of Optics

But to be honest this is simply the list of things I wanted to see when I found this page. (My goal was to build up Atom optics leveraging Physical optics by comparison).

@Gavin R Putland I've noticed your work on related pages. Do you have any suggestions? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have my own to-do list, but... It seems to me that any desirable material in Physical optics that is not in Optics should be merged with the latter, and the result should then be edited up as the new Physical optics, and edited down as the new Optics. That would be a reasonable platform for any further improvements that might be envisaged.
 * It also strikes me as awkward that a section referring to a "main article" has multiple subsections; but, unless I'm missing something, this practice is not deprecated in the MOS.
 * &mdash; Gavin R Putland (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)