Talk:Radiant energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] Electrostatics

I'm not sure what to do with the new addition to the introduction, which mentions electrostatics. There is such a thing as electrostatic waves, but AFAIK they occur only in plasmas. I'm not aware of the use of the term "radiant energy" to apply to such waves, although one could do so. The quote from the new reference isn't quite long enough to make the context clear. Also, the reference is quite old, so I'm concerned that the usage may be not in accord with current terminology.--Srleffler 13:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you are not aware of it, that means it's wrong? The information is referenced. This is in accord with current terminology. 172.146.167.95
I'm removing it for now. This book is so old that the author thinks light propagates through the Luminiferous aether. Google books link.--Srleffler 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Bell, Louis (1901). Electric Power Transmission; a Practical Treatise for Practical Men, p. 10. Retrieved on 2007-02-15.  "Both kinds of strains exist in radiant energy, [...] The stresses in electro-magnetic energy are at right angles both to the electrostatic stresses and to the direction of their motion or flow."

This is where the term originates from. So disreguard the true meanings and origins? This is why wikipedia suffers. 172.146.167.95 21:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Note
a quick google of "Terminology+history" shows that alot of articles di this. Terminology @ top. J. D. Redding 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. In scientific articles, the current state of knowledge must be presented clearly and unambiguously. Terms and concepts that are no longer in use, if they appear at all, must be presented in historical context. This reference is clearly not useful. In the cited passage, the author is talking about electrostatic and electromagnetic stresses and strains in the ether. Given that the ether was shown not to exist over a hundred years ago, this passage is of little use as a citation in a science article in a modern encyclopedia.--Srleffler 01:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I gather user:Reddi and User:172.146.167.95 are the same person. Please do not keep sticking this outdated reference into the article. You can't support a claim about current usage of terms with references that are almost a hundred years old. If you want to talk about usages that old, you have to discuss them as history, not as if they were current usage.--Srleffler 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited material. This material is:

  • sourced and providing useful information.
  • isn't original research.
  • credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.

Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. J. D. Redding 01:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to a section further down in the article, discussing historical terminology.--Srleffler 01:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the information to a "Terminology use and history" section discussing use and the historical uses. J. D. Redding 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it back down to the end of the article. The historical usage is not important enough to appear at the very top, and certainly not important enough to break up the introduction's discussion of what radiant energy is.--Srleffler 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical usage is important enough to appear at the top. Most article's introductions have such information at teh top and certainly important enough to break up the introduction's discussion of what radiant energy is. J. D. Redding 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note
a quick google of "Terminology+history" shows that alot of articles di this. Terminology @ top. J. D. Redding 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is most common when the terminology is interesting, or in dispute. An alternate historical use of the term that is around a century out of date is not interesting or important enough to be placed prominently in the article. --Srleffler 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm OK with the terminology section where it is. It does work in this article. There is a genuine terminology issue since the usage of the term "radiant energy" is more common in some fields than in others, and there is the distinction between the energy of the waves, and the waves themselves.
The last sentence of the section is still a problem, however. I'm not sure what you mean by "conductive". The hypothetical aether was certainly not electrically conductive, if that's what you mean! If you don't know what the aether was, you should take a look at the article on it. In any event, your citation does not provide evidence of any use of the term in reference to electrostatics other than electrostatic "stresses" and "strains" in the aether, so any suggestion that goes beyond the citation needs to be removed unless another source can be found. The paragraph before the one quoted above provides the context: "Whenever the strains in the ether, such as we recognize in connection with the electrical charge..."(emphasis mine) In the following paragraph, when the author refers to "both kinds of strains", he is explicitly talking about strains in the ether. This puts this concept completely outside the modern scientific framework, since in our modern understanding the ether does not exist, and a light wave is not composed of stresses and strains the way that mechanical waves are. Because of these issues, this citation is extremely weak.--Srleffler 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No. In plasmas and electrostatics, there are longitudinal waves. There exists other things and ideas; Not just dominant "single-focused" modern understanding of transverse 'light waves'. J. D. Redding 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (... talk about being weak, seesh ...)

Fine, but this being Wikipedia, you have to be able to provide a citation that supports the use of the term "radiant energy" for these longitudinal waves. I am not aware of any usage of the term in that context, and the reference you have provided does not support anything beyond the use of the term in the context of the long-dead aether theory.--Srleffler 13:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is alot out there ... IF someone takes the time to look. Briefly, two that I came across:

  • William H. Preece, "On the transmisson of electric signals through space", electrostatic induction, The Electrical engineer. (1884). London: Biggs & Co. Page 200
  • "Hermann von Helmholtz" (Obiturary). Royal Society (Great Britain). (1854). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. London: Printed by Taylor and Francis.

I have been adding in other radiant energy books and publications. J. D. Redding 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, due to their age these references are not going to be useful for much other than historical context. --Srleffler (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus

This article appears to have lost focus a bit. It started out as an article explicitly on the energy of electromagnetic radiation, as still reflected in the first sentence. In places it has been broadened to treat energy carried by all forms of radiation. I'm not sure whether it would be better to narrow the article again to focus on EM radiation, or make the broadening of the article consistent. --Srleffler (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)