User talk:98jakub

Fresnel equations
I reverted your edits to Fresnel equations. As noted in the article, there is an arbitrary sign convention involved in deriving the amplitude equations, so different authors end up with different forms of the equations.--Srleffler (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, I made changes in Fresnel equations, but you reversed it because apparently there is some weird sign convention. Firstly, if you look at the graph, there is (1-n)/(1+n) for rs and -(1-n)/(1+n) which means that one line should be descending and one of them should be ascending. And secondly, in incidence angle phi=0 rp should be the same as rs, which is also written in the article, so if there is some sign convention, it should be used in the whole article, not just once. 98jakub (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look next time I'm on. Yes, the whole article should use one sign convention, which is one of the reasons for reverting changes to the equations. New editors come by every couple weeks, notice that the equations don't match what's in their book and change them to match without understanding that the correct form of the equations depends on an arbitrary choice of convention. Left unattended, the equations get tweaked back and forth over and over and aren't all consistent. Srleffler (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article looks consistent to me as it is now. The equations are consistent with the cited sources, and with the article text. The article used to have a clearer explanation of the definitions that lead to this form of the equations. I'll look into why that was removed and see about bringing it back. With the chosen definitions, rp is positive at normal incidence, and decreases with increasing angle of incidence, as shown on the graph. There is discussion about the sign conventions on the article's talk page, including which common textbook authors use this sign convention and which use the opposite one, and the merits of both approaches. Neither choice of convention is "weird".
 * I don't see where the article says that rp is the same as rs at normal incidence. Rp = Rs in that case, using either choice of sign convention.--Srleffler (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)