Talk:Refraction
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the last paragraph of the "On Water" section, replace superscript lowercase o with actual symbol for degrees (90o → 90°) 67.42.15.205 (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to add a reference at the end of the caption to the figure of a pencil part immersed, in the section == On water ==. The desired reference is a link to the document describing how to determine the location of the refraction image of objects under water. The URL of the file is https://github.com/mingshey/geometrical_optics/blob/main/refimg_en.pdf. The title of this work is "How A Pencil under Water Looks: Utilizing Astroidal Virtual Caustic for the Location of Refraction Image by Flat Boundary". I believe this work can enhance our understanding of the refraction image.
Thank you for your consideration. Mingshey (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done: References aren't meant to be writings editors create and supply themselves. See WP:V, in particular the section WP:V#Self-published sources, about Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the requirements pertaining to references. Largoplazo (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, I found a prior work to the same topic.
- Georg Glaeser, Hans-Peter Schröcker, Reflections on Refractions, Journal for Geometry and Graphics
- Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1–18 (2000)
- url=https://www.heldermann-verlag.de/jgg/jgg01_05/jgg0401.pdf
- I believe this will satisfy the requirement for proper reference. Mingshey (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- That is an outstanding reference for this article. Its qualitative discussion is especially good on the mixture of reflection and refraction. However I don't see anything in there that explains the pencil. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- My reaction is similar to Johnjbarton's. How would any reader figure out what part of that verifies the pencil illusion? Speaking of which, the picture illustrates the text; it's the text that needs a source. But not that one. It's beyond overkill. Largoplazo (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- The subject of this article is refraction. A pencil partially dipped in water is only a teaser, a familiar object that draws attention to the section subject of how the refraction image is formed. The Glaeser paper solves the problem of how the image location of any object is determined, in a once-and-for-all fashion. If the reference should clarify some part of the text, you could link it to some relevant part of the text instead. I just hope that this wiki article is enriched by contents that inspires people of interest. Best regards. Mingshey (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Footnotes are intended for verification of specific assertions or short sequences of them. A source meant to serve as a backbone for the entire subject would be weird to drop into an arbitrary spot in the middle of it and would probably confuse a reader. It might be a good resource to include in the "external links" section (or, if this article had one, a "further reading" section). Largoplazo (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could write a short paragraph connecting to Caustic (optics) using the paper as a source. You are clearly knowledgeable on the topic. It should be a simple factual extract of key point(s) in the source. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- The subject of this article is refraction. A pencil partially dipped in water is only a teaser, a familiar object that draws attention to the section subject of how the refraction image is formed. The Glaeser paper solves the problem of how the image location of any object is determined, in a once-and-for-all fashion. If the reference should clarify some part of the text, you could link it to some relevant part of the text instead. I just hope that this wiki article is enriched by contents that inspires people of interest. Best regards. Mingshey (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2025
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The concept of refraction is not "the redirection of a wave as it passes from one medium to another". The real meaning of refraction is the wave's change in speed by passing between different medium (change in medium). The redirection only occurs for non-right angles of incidence of light rays. GuiOcean (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not done: I had to browse past maybe 20 sources, including the one cited in the article, defining refraction as the "change of direction" or the "bending" of the light before I found one, a wiki, that conformed to your definition. Add to that the etymology, "breaking up", suggesting that the word referred to the effect rather than the cause, which I don't think had even been established at the time the term was first used (which was no later than the OED's 1563 attestation). Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
'Causes prims and rainbows to divide white light'
[edit]The frasing is illogical because Rainbows ARE the divided white light, i.e. the disperssion effect, which is caused by refraction of light in water droplets. So instead of 'prisms and rainbows' it should be 'prisms and water droplets'. 2A02:2F0D:C010:9500:DC3B:7050:576B:380 (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)