Talk:Physics/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Smith 2001 citation p.372

It's not clear what talk page you were citing. Please compare what you refer to with Smith 2001 Book 1 [6.54 p.372]. A link would be useful. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

For proving/disproving intramission theory of vision see interview with Mark Smith [1] starting at 26 minutes. Or you can read his book From Sight to Light where he addressed it. And I never seen any claims that he significantly influenced Newton. If you can provide we source for that that would be great. The "source" that you provided seems to you own original research. Also the claim that "important inventions such as eyeglasses, magnifying glasses, telescopes, and cameras were developed." is simply incorrect, and it is pretty standard knowledge in history of optics. Invention of eyeglasses and telecope was not based on optical theory, here is source regarding invention of eyeglasses [2] DMKR2005 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

See Newton's prism experiment (Opticks 1704). Newton's darkened room, stems from the darkened rooms of Alhacen's Basra, Iraq (think the sunlit rooms of California). The claim about eyeglasses came from another editor. Be bold if you want to fix that using your citations. The translation of extramission theory being "superfluous and useless" is directly from Smith 2001 p.372. And that rests on Lindberg 1976, (Smith's Ph.D. advisor, I think). Euclid's Optics are mathematically the same as Ptolemy's Optics, but the extramission theory is wrong. That is due to Alhacen. It's not original research, which means no citation.

I have to say that when I read Smith's translation of Alhacen, my reading is influenced by my lifelong career/studies in physics/optics (remote sensing), and that passages from Alhacen read like a modern physics/engineering book (think radar). It helps to read Alhacen after investing one's time in technical training in physics/engineering.

Note: when Alhacen calls outer space a 'transparent body' he is claiming something new to his time, the discovery of the vacuum in outer space ('the body of the heavens is rarer than the body of air' —Smith 2010 Book 7, [4.28] p.270), one thousand years before our time. See Smith 2004 'What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really about?' and the influence of Giambattista della Porta on Kepler.

Basically Kepler used a darkened room to discover that the light rays imaged through an aperture (the entrance pupil to a water-filled glass sphere(Smith 2004 'What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really about?' p.192) —Giambattista della Porta's contribution) are focused on the back of the sphere (Kepler's model for the retina of the eye). This was the missing part of the optical train from the stars to the eye (Kepler, Johannes. Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena. Translated by William Donahue, "Optics: Paralipomena to Witelo and Optical Part of Astronomy". Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press, 2000. As cited by AM Smith (2022) Optics to the time of Kepler). With that discovery, Kepler could return to his astronomical studies. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis, You seems to be doing Original Research here. Wikipedia is no a place for it, it is supposed to be a summary of reliable sources. I am not aware of any historian of optics talking about Alhacen influence on Newton. I Think influence on Descartes is more realistic, I remember reading Mark Smith's book Descartes's Theory of Light and Refraction, and he talks about perspectivist's influence on Descartes. Also even ignoring this, darkening room is not an influence, it's completely trivial procedure. Also please listen to Mark Smith interview that I posted. This article claim, without any reliable sources, that Alhacen disproved extramission theory, which is simply not true. He developed his intromission theory, by incorporating Ptolemaic optics with Aristotle intomission, which proved to be superior and superseded all previous theories. But he did not proved it. You can read Mark Smith From Sight to Light chapter on Alhacen for it or listen to his interview. There are also quite a few problems here like claiming Alhacen used dissection.

Also you continue doing Original Research here regarding Alhacen discovery of vacuum. I am not aware of any historians of optics claiming this. Also keep in mind in pre-17 century science it was thought that beyond atmosphere lays the either, not void. See discussion here [7]. DMKR2005 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have been providing citations to the translations. Alhacen's darkened rooms came before the discoveries; it is trivial when some one else states it, so you are missing a necessary concept for understanding optics. It helps to have a technical background in order to understand the issues. What you are alluding to is the problem of historians who do not have the scientific background to understand the issues. Matthias Schramm brought up this problem with the history of science; I did not invent this issue. What is needed are historians with the background, or else scientists like Abraham Pais who are willing to do history. Smith is a special case; he has a brother who is a Nobel Laureate, so there is no issue with Smith's requisite intellect. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should stick to what reliable sources say and not do original research by trying to interpret Alhacen text ourselves. Wikipedia is not a place for it. This article currently contains a lot of unsources extraordinary claims, that are contradicted by what professional historians of science say. So I am gonna remove and trim those claims down. DMKR2005 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Durer's use of perspective, 1525

Please remember that A. Mark Smith's English translation of the 18 extant Latin manuscripts of the Arabic Book of Optics is a Reliable Source; there are only 5 Arabic manuscripts, and there are more diagrams from the Latin manuscripts.

It makes sense that you update the eyeglasses passage from your citations using your Reliable Sources. I will be on the lookout for the page numbers in your inline citations.

That said, I endorse the reading of Smith's contribution to the history of optics. Durer's woodcut on the use of perspective would also be useful for students of optics. Durer's depiction of perspective is completely in line with Alhacen's recommendation that taut strings be used to verify the propagation of light in a transparent medium. "Light travels in straight lines through a transparent body" —from Alhacen, Treatise on light

You can read Smith 2001 in JSTOR (need to have 500 WP edits)-- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Smith 2022 says "Early in the Kitāb al-Manāẓir, for instance, [Alhacen] takes great pains to show empirically that the eye sees by reception of light and luminous color rather than by its own agency—in short, that sight depends entirely on intromission". —A. Mark Smith, "Optics to the Time of Kepler," Encyclopedia of the History of Science (November 2022), accessed 3 June 2023. https://doi.org/10.34758/9482-n985 . --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I also cited where Newton used his darkened chamber for the prism experiment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

There are some illustrative pictures of light rays entering a darkened room which are still copyrighted.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but you continue to do original research. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. You can't interpret Alhacen text by yourself and draw conclusions, Wikipedia is not a place for it. The same is stand for you claim about Newton calculus invention and Barrow. I also not sure why are you posting this links to Smith edition of Alhacen work, I never denied that Alhacen made big contribution to optics. So, sorry but my points from previous post stands. DMKR2005 (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I have cited Smith's synopses (for example Smith 2022), as you have (Smith 2015). Please point to the OR. The Verifiability is taken care of by the citation. Smith is not a primary source, but stands as a secondary source (his translations). The primary source is Alhacen. Further, in his critical editions, Smith serves as tertiary source in his commentary and annotation of the translations: Smith compares and synthesizes Roshdi Rashed as well as A.I. Sabra, and Friedrich Risner in their translations. The Galen and Ptolemy sources are secondary as well. Shmuel Sambursky could read Greek, as could Mathias Schramm, but their education should not disqualify them as sources. And Alhacen suffered through the neoplatonic education of the House of Wisdom; but that should not disqualify his extensive, exhaustive critiques of Ptolemy. Alhacen gives conclusions that multiple hypotheses from the Greek thinkers failed empirical verification.

Really, it is strange that Aristotle's failed hypotheses take up so much of the article (e.g., his Physics etc.). To me they are a waste of time, considering how much more physics one needs to study for a technical education. In fact Francis Bacon's critique of the Aristotelian education shows his strength. Francisco Sanches showed the same strength.

For Kepler there are multiple secondary sources, including Smith 2004 (but I have not cited Max Caspar because Smith is closer to the physics, which is my primary motivation) and Voelkel. Kepler's method of projecting the sun's rays on a piece of paper I got from Voelkel, during his description of the 1604 eclipse; but Smith 2022 mentions this method as well for his crucial description of the water-filled spheres of Giambattista della Porta (Smith 2004). That was what solved the optical train puzzle for Kepler 1604 (which meant he could return to astronomy). I find it significant that Kepler did not criticize Alhacen, as he did Witelo.

In summary: See the citations. They solve verifiability. Smith serves as tertiary source in his commentary, and in his annotation which solves the Synthesis criterion. To accept Euclid's or Ptolemy's axioms of optics as given, guarantees failure of the empirical requirement of experiment (Aristotle's Physics).

It is my belief that I am adhering to the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that Alhacen influenced Newton is Original Research, no historian of optics says so. The claim that Alhacen "conclusively disproved the ancient Greek idea about vision" is Original research and the citation that you added does not back it up. In fact it directly contradicts what Mark Smith says, see his interview which I linked. You also claimed that Alhacen discovered vacuum, which is again your own interpretation of Smith translation of Alhacen.

Also I am not sure what are you pint about Kepler. I didn't dispute Alhacen influence of Kepler, it is very well documented by all historians of optics. DMKR2005 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The Smith citation you cite is from 2015. The Smith citation I cite is 2022. There is a difference between historical reasoning and scientific reasoning: take away the darkened rooms of Alhacen from Newton's Optics 1704 prism experiment, and Newton's experiment would have failed. Therefore Alhacen's foundation is crucial to the prism experiment. This is part of the Scientific citation guidelines referenced above. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

No it is not part of Scientific citation guidelines. This guideline talk about well-known and uncontroversial information, information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject, which is not the case here. Influence of Alhacen on Newton is not well-known and uncontroversial, and it is not available anywhere. It is actually you own thoughts. If Alhacen influence on Newton was well-known and uncontroversial information, it would be mentioned by multiple historians of science. Regarding claim that Alhacen "conclusively disproved the ancient Greek idea about vision" the citation that you give "he takes great pains to show empirically that the eye sees by reception of light and luminous color rather than by its own agency" , that does not contradict what Smith talks in interview. He made empirical arguments for intromission theory, but he did not proved it, or disprove extramission as Smith says. His intromission theory became dominant, as it was simpler and more compelling, but if he proved it empirically Smith would just says so. DMKR2005 (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy section -- Mathematics as analytical

The philosophy section advocates an understanding of physics as synthetic and mathematics as analytical. The status of mathematics as analytical vs. synthetic is a core point of divergence in various philosophies of mathematics. Mathematics as synthetic is argued by numerous proponents, the most prolific being Immanuel Kant, as articulated in the introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Synthetic_a_priori_judgments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.100.152 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

I would replace the verb "understand" in "understand how the universe behaves..." with, for example, "describe and predict".

the word "understand" is often understood -- if you will pardon the pun -- as comprehend and presumes some underlying actuality for the physicist to grasp. like all other "human" sciences, even the natural ones, physics is a construct. it is, this is true, inspired by our experience of nature and built upon possibly the only truth accessible to us, the mathematical one, but cannot make inferences about any actuality that may underlie that experience. 178.74.7.149 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)