h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A654211

Optics is the part of Physics dealing with the path of light through space and time. It has an interesting history starting in 300 BC and going on until modern times. Along with the development of optics, newer and better theories for the phenomenon 'light' had to be developed - light is still not completely understood. As a by product of this quest science unraveled the secrets of the atomic structure, the quantum theory and the relativity theory. As a by-product of this quest, technology had to find better equipment to perform more accurate measurements...

Please review this entry. Comments - as usual - wellcome.

HELL

A thing that you haven't mentioned is that another major scientist of the time seriously disagreed with newton, due to the chaotic interference that can be seen in some curcumstances. he described newtons explanation as simplistic because it ignored these effects and could not be extended to explain them.

Because of newton's authority, he managed to get the opposing theory dismissed, thus putting the discovery of chaos theory back until the 20th century.

The other scientist might be christian huygens, but I have not been able to verify this.

Hi!

I'd been ignoring this entry, as I thought it was to do with the devices that measure drinks out in pubs . It looks an interesting read (all I know is 'O' level physics stuff).

Do you think I would be the only one who would be misled by the title or do you think it's clear enough to most people?

Interesting question ZSF...

I honestly don't know... You see, I am not a native English speaking person. All I know about English is what I learned in English courses or seen in movies. I absolutely had no idea that there is a device in pubs called 'optics' that is used to measure drinks out....

Maybe you could suggest a better title that is not misleading?

Bye,

HELL

Xyroth: Yes it was Huygens. His wave theory is mentioned in the aether part. Newton's corpuscular view is on another paragraph. The debate between them is well hidden in the sentence 'few dared to seriously doubt him'. I don't know exactly why I chose to hide it.. Maybe it's because both were equally right and wrong in the end.

What about the rest? Is it OK? Did you like it?

Bye,

HELL

Well, you could try the 'History of Optical Science' or something similar.

An optic in the other sense is the measuring device you see underneath spirits which are hung upside down in bars. When you put a glass underneath and press it up to the bottle, a measured amount of liquid comes out. They are called optics because you can see the spirits inside!

Hope that's helpful.

OK. Point made.

But before I change the title I would like to see some other researchers' opinion on that. I still think that 'optics' in the sense of 'optical science' is a more exact use of the word than using 'optics' to describe a booze-dosing-gizmo.

The thread's title I can't change... So, people will may be diverted anyway.

See you around ZSF,

HELL

I have to admit I came here because I though the entry was going to be about bottles. As it is, the entry meant nothing to me as I have no idea about physics, sorry.

I would like to say though, that the headings might look better if they were header, rather than subheader. Just my opinion though.

This is a bit of a tough read, Hell.

Problem is, it's written with the hindsight of someone who knows a fair bit of quantum theory, and sort of alienates those researchers who don't.

eg you don't explain how Balmer and Fraunhofer lines relate to quanta, that quanta relate to corpuscles etc. Specialists understand this without saying but most people don't.

Bits most people might understand such as the simple laws of refraction, perhaps how the path taken is the shortest distance between two points etc aren't explained and I can't remember you using the word 'lens'.

Perhaps you could sectionalise a bit more clearly with a chapter on 'simple' reflection, refraction, and lenses avoiding any reference to QM; a section explaining the slow build up of awkward observations such as spectroscopy and the black-body problem; and a final chapter on how Maxwell and Planck laid out the basis of a unifying theory.

Keep up the good work

Actually I am currently writing another entry on optics, where the stuff and the laws are explained. This one should just concern the HISTORY. People who don't know quantum mechanics should accept it like it is, or ignore it completely. The take-home message in this case, in this entry is that quantum mechanics was invented in the beginning of the 20th century by some guys as by-product of research in optics. And that's all. On the other hand there may be some people who want to have more detailed info. I don't know how to cache this sort of details from the main part. I'll have a look at it.

But you're probably right... Maybe I should go through the entry again and slim down the complicated parts...

I'll try something out.

Bye, and thanks for reviewing.

HELL

I really should have commented before...

To me, when I read the title I thought of optics (the science). Then again, I'm a physicist who normally drinks pints However, given that two people have thought first of pub optics, maybe a name change might be an idea. How about 'The history of optical science', or maybe 'The history of optical physics'? Still reasonably short and snappy, but less ambiguous.

I haven't had time for a detailed reading of this yet, but it looks good. I've never heard of optics as a name for those measuring devices and I think the title should stand as it is. I'll have a good read through this later .. it might be a few days from now.

Thanks Gnomon, Thanks Jamie...

Jamie: I like your suggestions for the title, but the thread's title cannot be changed.

Allright... Bye then,

HELL

Thanks Gnomon, Thanks Jamie...

Jamie: I like your suggestions for the title, but the thread's title cannot be changed.

Allright... Bye then,

HELL

OK, first a suggestion for the title.

"Optics: the history of the science of light"

You can't change the title of *this* thread, but you *can* start a new thread with the new title, link to it from here, and link to here from there. It's not as elegant as being able to just change the title, but it *would* work.

Off to read the actual entry now!

H.

OK, comments, trivial and possibly not so trivial...

"In the end of the 13th cenury " should be "At the end of the 13th century".

Might like to footnote the term "light bodies" with something like "What we now call 'photons'"

Douglas Adams pointed out that light travels so fast it takes most races thousands of years to realise it travels at all. Worth a mention? (to my shame I can't remember *where* he said it)

Each time you quote a measurement of the speed of light, mention how accurate it was. E.g. Olaf Romer estimated about 66% of the correct value. Fizeau got 105%. etc.

You've used the phrase "was a very intelligent man, and few dared to seriously doubt him" twice. If it's on purpose, to draw a comparison between him and Einstein, great. If it's not, you might like to use another phrase in one or other of these cases.

Footnotes to define "corpuscular" = "made up of lots of tiny individual bits", "transverse" = "up and down like waves on the sea", "longitudinal" = back and forth like sound waves, and a couple of others might broaden the appeal.

Einstein got the 1905 Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. Not sure what your date refers to, it may be a typo.

One "m" in "emission", typo in "electricity had to be made available for the masses" (available), and two "p"'s in "applications". I'm not sure if the word "ineleastic" is a typo. You tell me!

Other than that, I like it. It's deep, but there's definitely a place for "deep" in the Guide. In one or two places it does get a bit technical, but I think a couple of footnotes with definitions of the terms would pretty much sort that out. All of this sort of writing, be it here, in New Scientist magazine or in any of the plethora of popular science books, assumes its audience is educated and interested. If you are those two things, you'll read and understand clear definitions of the jargon and the rest is not beyond you.

Good work!

H.

Hello Hoovooloo, thanks a lot for your comments. How flattering of you to call my entry 'deep'... Wow...

Typos should be gone now, most of your suggestions have been incorporated...

Indeed, I have used the phrase "was a very intelligent man, and few dared to seriously doubt him" twice. It has been done so absolutely on purpose, to draw a comparison between Ike and Al. Isn't it nice?

About the titles... The suggestions are nice, but none of them sound as convincing to me. (Rats! Hadn't the 'spirit-dispenser' been named optics...). I've changed the title to: The history of the science of optics (But there are too many 'of's in there... Anyways.

Thanks a lot for all your help,

HELL

Hi Hell,

An interesting history. I have to agree that some people will be scared off by the scientific terms and concepts that you assume knowledge of but then again, perhaps these people would not have been very interested anyway. I agree however that footnotes to define things like "corpuscular" and "stimulated emission" would help.

My memory of this area of science-history is pretty shabby but I seem to remember that a Nobel prize was awarded to someone for "proving" that light was a wave and then another subsequently awarded to his son(?) for "proving" that it was particulate. If this is true it might be worth mentioning and is an interesting demonstration that whatever Newton may say there are no "laws" in science, only better models.

A few minor additional points:

1) You have linked to the Hubble Telescope twice - the adaptive optics link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A603677

2) I don't understand: "These debates turned out to fuel science and technology as interesting by-products of these discussions like several types of spectroscopy, the quantum theory and lasers have been developed." I guess "as" should be "and" but it might be clearer broken up into two or more sentences.

3) "which consequently were named after Joseph Fraunhofer" I think "consequently" should be "subsequently".

Overall, a great entry.

Ugi

Hello Ugi...

3) "which consequently were named after Joseph Fraunhofer" I think "consequently" should be "subsequently".

This was meant as an irony. Maybe I should replace "consequently" by "consequently, as usual" to stress the irony.

Cheers,

HELL

The father (Joseph John) and son (George) were both called thompson.

ps how about "the history of optical science" as a title?