|
|
|
|
|
by riperoni
882 days ago
|
|
Yeah thank you, that summary is better than the article. The definition of refracitve index in the article is also just wrong, since it is simply not an angle. It can be calculated from incidence and refraction angles of the light beam - very different. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law To add to your answer, the refractive index is not just wavelength dependent, but can also be depending on the polarization of light, leading to birefringence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birefringence |
|
If you break up the Nobel Prizes a bit differently, then the filed of Optics becomes the most dominant. So very many breakthroughs in science are because of some new optics method. Mostly in the bio/chem fields, it's about gaining a new form of 'contrast' (very broadly defined).
People have spent decades trying to align some little crystal just the right way. Or they did it in their living room with cardboard in a weekend. It's a frustrating field.
One fun thing to remember about lenses are that they aren't really light bending thingys, but more accurately a lens is a Fourier transformer. Of a sort. Again, optics s frustrating.
One fun thing for the more matrix-ly minded are Mueller Matrices. Most modern optics SW is based on this calculus, though it goes a lot further nowadays. Also, most developments in optics are all about the little exceptions that Mueller matrices have.
Still, a good little thing to read about, if interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_calculus