Is Geometrical Optics Essential for a Deeper Understanding of Light?

[LightPhoton]

Is Geometrical Optics (GO) essential to fully appreciate the nature of light? I absolutely love Wave Optics (WO) and am currently studying it at the undergraduate level. However, GO feels more like an applied science, where I’m mostly dealing with the geometry of small angles. It doesn’t give me the same sense of fundamental physics, which makes me dread studying it. If I focus solely on WO and skip GO, would I be missing out on some physics?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If I focus solely on WO and skip GO, would I be missing out on some physics?

Yes. You would miss out on geometrical optics.

 

[DaveE]

Why not just learn the basics of it and move on? It's not difficult compared to the other optics stuff.

 

[Frabjous]

GO is the small wavelength approximation of WO, so you need to have SOME understanding of it.

 

[sophiecentaur]

so you need to have SOME understanding of it.

Absolutely. A massive amount of optics in the past was based on geometry and 'rays'. Trying to by-pass that is very risky. If you start with wave optics then you aresoon up to your neck in difficult Maths (transforms and integrals) and the answer that comes out often needs to be interpreted in a conventional way that makes sense.

Trying to avoid simple ray optics and lens equations can leave you out in the open and a long way from an intuitive feel for what happens. One just has to bite the bullet and learn the basics. If that's too much trouble then what sort of problems can one expect later on?

Zere ist no escape, soldier.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why not just learn the basics of it and move on?

To avoid the horror of learning one crumb more than absolutely necessary.

 

[sophiecentaur]

To avoid the horror of learning one crumb more than absolutely necessary.

How many “crumbs” can you afford to neglect? The guys who design courses are probably more able to select appropriate topics than a lazy student would be.
I made my own selection and it did me no favours.

 

[DaveE]

The guys who design courses are probably more able to select appropriate topics

Yes! This! A significant part of what you pay for in higher education is a well designed curriculum and advisors. We don't know what we don't know.

 

[DaveE]

To avoid the horror of learning one crumb more than absolutely necessary.

One of the things I always looked for in interviewing analog EEs was if they knew a bit more than what I thought we needed. It is the engineers that identify and bring in new solutions at the product design level. They can't do that if they aren't studying in a more general sense. You don't have to be an expert, but you do have to know what exists and how it applies to your problems; whether it is worth exploring more.

 

[Vanadium 50]

My point is that to try and carefully carve out the bare minimum to learn is a fool's errand. "I'm never going to use this" is very middle school.

It's almost comical when these people complain that they can't find a job to their liking. We have plenty of jobs for people who learn the minimum. We call them 'minimum wage".

 

[Tom.G]

Why not just learn the basics of it and move on?

To avoid the horror of learning one crumb more than absolutely necessary.

Definitely NOT the approach to "Live Long and Prosper."