Is Geometrical Optics Essential for a Deeper Understanding of Light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the necessity of Geometrical Optics (GO) for a comprehensive understanding of light, particularly in relation to Wave Optics (WO). Participants explore whether skipping GO in favor of WO would result in missing essential physics concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a preference for Wave Optics, feeling that Geometrical Optics is more applied and lacks fundamental physics.
  • Another participant argues that skipping Geometrical Optics would mean missing out on important concepts inherent to optics.
  • Some participants suggest that a basic understanding of GO is necessary, as it serves as a foundation for Wave Optics.
  • There is a viewpoint that avoiding foundational topics like ray optics could lead to difficulties in understanding more complex mathematical aspects of optics.
  • Concerns are raised about the risks of neglecting essential topics in favor of a minimalistic approach to learning.
  • Participants discuss the value of a well-designed curriculum and the importance of understanding a broader range of topics in engineering and optics.
  • One participant emphasizes that attempting to learn only the bare minimum is a misguided strategy and may limit future opportunities.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the necessity of Geometrical Optics, with some advocating for its importance while others question its relevance. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the extent to which GO is essential for understanding light.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of skipping foundational topics and the potential consequences on future learning and problem-solving in optics.

LightPhoton
Messages
42
Reaction score
3
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?
 
Science news on Phys.org
LightPhoton said:
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.
 
Why not just learn the basics of it and move on? It's not difficult compared to the other optics stuff.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G, Vanadium 50 and Nugatory
GO is the small wavelength approximation of WO, so you need to have SOME understanding of it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, DaveE and Dale
Frabjous said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz, pines-demon and Frabjous
DaveE said:
Why not just learn the basics of it and move on?
To avoid the horror of learning one crumb more than absolutely necessary.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE
sophiecentaur said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
  • #10
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".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur and Tom.G
  • #11
Vanadium 50 said:
DaveE said:
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."
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K