Talk:Geometrical optics

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Optics, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.OpticsWikipedia:WikiProject OpticsTemplate:WikiProject OpticsOptics articles

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Heads up[edit]

I plan soon to move a more general description of geometrical optics to this page, focusing on the optics, rather than on the abstract mathematics. At that time, the mathematical treatment currently here may move to a subsection, or to a more specialized article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrical optics is primarily primarily concerned with a discussion of rays and surfaces. Modern optics is now included as part of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light and quantum optics. --Jbergquist (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huygen's theory of interference may be considered to belong to the wave theory of light. --Jbergquist (talk) 07:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray diagram[edit]

Would this article be a good place to introduce the basic conventions of ray diagrams ? Redbobblehat (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!--Srleffler (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title is wrong[edit]

It should be geometric optics, not geometrical optics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.202.195 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Does anyone object to moving the article? (I reverted the changes in text, until we decide on whether to move the article.)--Srleffler (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geometrical Optics is a subject heading at the British Library and the Library of Congress. --Jbergquist (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have two adjectives with similar meanings? We talk about electricity, electrical engineering and electric motors for instance. I've been thinking about this and my impression is that its a little tricky. The -al may indicate a distinction of some kind and suggests a topic for discussion, an area of research or a field of study. No -al is more often associated with uses and methods. Another set is the ellipse, an elliptic integral and an elliptical oval. This is just an impression and not intended to be the final word on usage. --Jbergquist (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the standard usage in physics is "geometrical". I don't know why but there you have it. JanBielawski (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]