Talk:Caustic (optics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This page could use a review by someone who knows more about this than I do.--Srleffler 02:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 New image 2 Name 3 Cardiod or Nephroid? 4 Comments to mbz1 regarding images

[edit] New image

I'm not sure about that new image. It's very nice, but Wikipedia:Profanity seems to say that images that may be objectionable should be used "if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." While the image is clearly relevant in that it shows optical caustics, I'm not sure one can argue that its omission would weaken the article, or that no equally suitable images of caustics are available (there being such an image on the article already). Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean that everything is always appropriate and encyclopedic. --Srleffler 19:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Gone. HighInBC 21:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Such concentration of light, especially sunlight, can burn—hence the name. Something about the ethymology? --Abdull 12:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The word caustic comes from Greek καυστός, burnt, via the Latin causticus, burning. The article presumes readers are at least familiar with the much more common use of the term caustic to refer to aggressive chemicals like acids that can "burn" exposed skin.--Srleffler 16:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cardiod or Nephroid?

See also: User talk:Pne#Cardioid vs. Nephroid

Wolfram says [1] "The cardioid is a degenerate case of the limaçon. It is also a 1-cusped epicycloid (with r==r) and is the catacaustic formed by rays originating at a point on the circumference of a circle and reflected by the circle." But User:Pne changed it to Nephroid. Which is correct? Both, depending on where the light comes from? Dicklyon 17:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Collett's book claims the locus is a cardioid. Of course it wouldn't be the first error I've found in that book. (Reference on my user page.) Nevertheless, if Pne feels this is correct, he/she needs to provide a reference. Otherwise, it's original research.--Srleffler 03:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The operative bit in the quote you gave is 'rays originating at a point on the circumference of a circle'. Parallel rays instead produce a nephroid; rays from a source in between infinity and the circumference of the circle produce something in between a cardioid and a nephroid. So, by my understanding, the answer to your question 'Both, depending on where the light comes from?' is 'Yes'. See this Mathworld page, for example. -- pne (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to mbz1 regarding images

I reverted your original replacement of two images yesterday (but not their re-addition today). As I said in my edit summary, I reverted because the images you removed both illustrated specific points discussed in the text—the first shows a caustic with a nephroid shape, which is important in the theory of caustics and is of some mathematical interest. The second image illustrates the simulation of caustics in computer graphics. The images you added are beautiful, but not as valuable to the text of the article as it stands. Pictures on Wikipedia must be more than merely decorative.

I still object to adding both of these images to the article. This is a short article, with a long history of people adding pretty pictures of caustics to it. The article is just not long enough to support everyone's favourite picture of a caustic. My suggestion is that we keep the picture of the fish and caustic, because it does illustrate how caustics can be seen in nature, which is not well represented in the article now. The photo with the eel, on the other hand, does not seem to add sufficient value to the article. It should be removed. I added both images to the collection Caustic (optics) on Wikipedia Commons, however. --Srleffler 04:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Agree.Leave a fish, remove the eel(of course the eel is interesting because the image really shows rainbow colors), but whatever.Thank you.--Mbz1 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
    • Hmm saw this on my watchlist and decided to take a look. This isn't related to Mbz's images but more to the other images on the article. To put it bluntly they're pretty poor. I was a bit disappointed when my two shots: Image:Light through glass05.jpg, Image:Light through glass02.jpg where pulled off. I think they're better than the existing ones. If you disagree I might do a reshoot. --Fir0002 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I see that it was I who removed your images, although not right after they were added. Other images got added after yours, which I felt were better. I'm not sure what you mean by "poor" here, but let me explain my reasons for preferring the images that are in the article now. This is an article on geometric optics. In this field, one is concerned with the modelling of light as discrete rays, whose propagation through an optical system can be modelled using simple geometrical analysis. As such, I feel that images that display caustics with a simple, clean geometric form best illustrate the optics involved. Your images and Mbz1's are better photographs—more beautiful, more artistic—but they are not better illustrations of the phenomenon that is the subject of this article. --Srleffler 17:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh OK - I wasn't really concerned with the artistic side, it's just that the current images are very low res + noisy. And not knowing better and thinking all caustics are much alike and illustrate the point of the article, I felt that my higher quality images would be better suited and useful for users of the encyclopedia. I might try do the same style shots as in the article in higher quality --Fir0002 22:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)