Re: Seeking source for conceptual understanding of light waves

Thanks, Bill. Actually I have no problem with the math part, per se, but I
just want to get a solid conceptual picture quickly without digging into the
math, and then to later dig into the math. University of Colorado has a
site (http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/index.pl?Type=TOC) that takes me
about a third of the way to where I want to go, but I still cannot create an
integrated picture in my mind beyond what has been explicitly stated. I.e.,
the site has given me a richer set of facts, but cannot synthesize new
information with those facts. So I have a factual understanding of parts,
but lack a cohesive overriding understanding of the whole.

But thanks for suggesting that I have to get into the math anyway, as that
may be one of my next steps in really going forward. It is just that the
math often describes a small part of the picture, and I want to conceptually
have a feel for the picture.

Thank you for your book recommendations which I will check out along with
what AES has suggested.

Reece

"Repeating Rifle" <salmonegg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BEA6E135.3A0A6%salmonegg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> in article siegman-068446.12503710052005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, AES at
> siegman@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 5/10/05 12:50 PM:
>
>> Old but simple and good favorites of mine, focusing more on explanation
>> than math, are Andrews, "Optics of the Electromagnetic Spectrum"
>> (Prentice-Hall, 1960); Fowles, "Introduction to Modern Optics" (Holt
>> Rinehart, 1968); and maybe Garbuny "Optical Physics" (Academic, 1965).
>> Also, the 1967 Dover reprint of Wood, "Physical Optics". You might get
>> some of these very inexpensively from online used bookstores. Born and
>> Wolf is NOT what you want for your objectives.
>>
>> You might also have a look at the e-m and optics sections of the famous
>> Feynman Lecture Series (some love his approach, others don't).
>
> To this I would add old books "Fundamentals of Optics" by Jenkins and
> White.
> I also suggest "Waves and Fields in Modern Radio" by Ramo and Whinnery.
> Mathematical requirements for the former is mostly algebra. More advanced
> math is required for the latter.
>
> If you are truly interested in understanding optics, it is difficult to
> avoid mathematics. Your effort to understand optics will be greatly
> reduced
> if you take the time to understand the math required for Ramo and
> Whinnery.
> That is less effort than that required for Born and Wolf.
>
> Bill
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Quaternions and the rotation matrices (was: and the stock market)
    ... > quaternion at each step; even not at each 1000th step. ... > simulation steps (of about 0.1 deg of rotation) the absolute value of my ... With an Intel math coprocessor ... > single pixel in the picture after a full week of running. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Stupid Question
    ... paint a picture of this that agrees pretty well with my picture. ... "HE was and would continue to be a teacher, and as with most skilled teachers, ... You taught me nothing about physics that I ... | I studiously avoid math until the physics is understood. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gun control and rape - The myths and the facts
    ... it seems math is not your strong point either since the ... I NEVER said your calculations were wrong, ... >> above then you should be getting the picture. ... >> relative or a stranger. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: What Delphi users really want (other than bugfixes)
    ... This is picture and math stuff here, heavy-duty, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: USB microscopes for very small SMT
    ... I wouldn't do that for the money. ... I am involved with optics stuff now. ... Disconnect between electronics and optics engineering. ... I never liked math, only learned what I really needed. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)