Re: REFRACTION - REFLECTION

["Daniel L. MacIsaac" <macisaac@bohr.phy.nau.edu>]

> > Refraction is fundamentally a *wave* behavior and, as such, any analogy using
> > particle-type models such as lawn mowers, tricycles, etc. have nothing to do
> > with the effect.  If the messy details of the wave nature of the phenomenon
[snip]
> > David Bowman
> > dbowman@gtc.georgetown.ky.us
>
> Actually, until one can measure the speed of light in different media
> Newton had a pretty good particle base explanation of refraction.  Once we
> could measure the speed of light in different media, we found that the
> relative sizes of the speeds in Newton's model were backwards.
>
> Dewey

Interestingly enough, Feynman's QED does a wonderful job of extending the
particle model of light to diffraction using probabilities.  His book (QED)
starts with Newton's particle model, modifies and extends it, then solves
several geometric and physical (wavelike) problems and properties.  He claims
ALL can be solved via his treatment and I believe him.  He has no wave/particle
duality problem and explains quantum behaviour nicely.

I wonder what a basic intro optics sequence that involved ray optics, then
physical optics (mostly Young's double slit) then a 3rd section based on QED
would look like.  It would be a wonderful opportunity to present a sequence 
of ever-sophisticated (and ultimately incomplete) models of science and would
take us to present understandings.  And since Feynman shows QED in a graphical
largely nonmathematical treatment, it clearly could be done at appropriate
levels of mathematics for freshman.  Maybe we need freshman optics for a
semester :^).

DEFINITELY check out QED ($9 at amazon.com) if you haven't read it yet/recently.

Dan M

Dan MacIsaac, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Northern AZ Univ
danmac@nau.edu  http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/homepage.html