Talk:Corpuscular theory of light

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled[edit]

I think it would be good to mention similarities to the idea of photons and the impact that this theory had on the development of new physics that changed the understanding of particles dramatically. Was this a novel idea that Newton had or did he modify the thoughts of another scientist?Loured36 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)oa[reply]

Improving this article (work in progress)[edit]

I am creating this list for my research project in my History of Science college course at the University of Oklahoma, in Norman Oklahoma. Please consult my user and user-talk pages

Bibliography (tentative list of relevant sources; subject to change)[edit]

Petesimon2 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


@Petesimon2: It looks like you're on the right track with these sources. One thing you should be thinking about as you explore these is the distinction between primary and secondary sources. The account of the corpuscular theory and it's importance in the broader history of physics should be based on the secondary sources... probably for the most part, the ones by modern historians of science (the Shapiro and the Osler). If you can find a good biography of Gassendi, that might also be a very useful source for researching the origins of the theory.--ragesoss (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Petesimon2: You asked on my talk about about what kind of content and how much to add. I guess I'd suggest thinking about what a good account of this topic would look like overall, and start with a summary that could serve as an outline for a more detailed full article. The lead section of a Wikipedia typically consists of 1-4 paragraphs (depending on how long the article itself is) that provides a capsule summary of the whole article. In this case, I'd think that the basic things to cover would include:
  • The origin of the theory with Gassendi; why he came up with it and how he used it
  • How Gassendi's writings influenced Newton (and others?)
  • How Newton developed and used the theory, and how that fit into his broader work
  • How Newton's (and other people's?) versions of the theory faired after Newton but before the advent of modern physics
  • What role the theory played (if any) after mainstream physics began to adopt the perspectie of wave-particle duality.
Note that the article Wave–particle duality has several historical sections that partially overlap with this topic, but they are not very well-referenced. They might give you some ideas for things that are relevant to this article, but treat them with caution based on your own readings of the secondary sources. The main portion of this article should probably cover the theory as developed by Gassendi and Newton (as opposed to the more historically complicated topic of how it fits in with the rise of wave-particle duality and other related aspects of modern physics), at least for now.
Be sure to check out the overlapping sections of Isaac Newton, which have some additional sources that will probably be useful. Other overlapping topics to be aware of (if just for understanding the broader context) are atomism and corpuscularianism.--ragesoss (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ragesoss:. Thanks you very much Mr. Ragesoss for your valuable help. I read over your comments here several times in the past weeks, and they definitely helped. Well, I hodge podgedly wrote up some text for the article and committed my edits about 30 minutes ago (local CST). Feel free to critically review it, and let me know what you think. --Petesimon2 (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]




Peer Review by Paul Little[edit]

Hi Peter! I think the article is coming fantastically. It's such an interesting subject matter. I can offer some criticism, but I'm sure it's minor and/or nothing you haven't already thought of. I wonder if your article contains too many pronouns. I tend to think that pronouns are especially useful only if it is plainly obvious what the pronoun is in reference to. For example, under the heading "Sir Isaac Newton" it begins by saying "It". I assume that you might be talking about corpuscular theory, but I think it could be better said by beginning with the proper noun and then following it with a pronoun.

As far as content, I could be mistaken here, but wasn't Descartes instrumental in corpuscular theory? I see no mention of him.
- Good point. but I don't know. I can't find a good source to tell me yay or nay either way. Petesimon2 (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning description of the article, it mentions that "This was based on an alternate description of atomism of the time period." Would it be better stated as "this was an alternate theory to atomism..."? Under the heading "Pierre Gassendi's atomist matter theory", on of the links to your references seem to be out of place, the "1" reference. Shouldn't that be at the end of the previous line or some other line rather than at the beginning of the paragraph?

Under the "Isaac Newton" heading, the sentence " To some extent, Newton's corpuscular(particle) theory of light re-emerged in the 20th century, as light phenomenon is currently explained as particle and wave" is very interesting. I would like to know a bit more about the comparison between Newton's theory and the 20th century particle and wave theory. Also, if you can provide a specific page for your [7] reference here I think that would be better. The link provided by your reference takes me to a very excellent source for Newton's book on optics, but then I'm not sure exactly where to read from there. This is also true of many of the other references listed. They are lacking page numbers. I'm not certain if these are all your sources, but either way you can contribute to the article by putting page numbers in the citation.

The entire paragraph under the heading "Corpuscularian theory to describe light" is without citation. Perhaps you can include at least one citation?

In summary, I think this article is really coming along. It looks very good. I would only suggest providing page numbers with your citations, rewording a few sentences, adding a bit more content, perhaps a few more pictures, and adding citations within the text.

Excellent work, Peter!--Paullittle1979 (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]



Suggested Edits, Mostly Minor, but then Ending with a Major One[edit]

A very interesting article! I cannot comment on its historical accuracy. But in terms of readability and quality of the writing, I have a few suggestions.

1. Under "Mechanical Philosophy" 

 * "seeking new information" seems not to be the best term.  Perhaps "seeking a new framework" ?
 * "sometime between around ..." is awkward.  Can you drop the word "around", as it is essentially
   redundant to "sometime"?
 * "were made of atoms, infinite number ..." -- it seems you would not want to use "infinite".  Did you
   mean "a finite number" ?

2. Under "Pierre Gassendi's atomist matter theory" 

* Item 4 ("Free will") is not grammatically similar to the other items.  Can you state this as a proposition?
         (for example, "Free will exists", or perhaps "humans were given a free will" ?)
* Item 5 should be capitalized like the others, so just change that first letter -- "A human soul exists".

3. Under "Corpuscularian theories" 

 * "except that in which the case atoms were supposed to be indivisible, corpuscles could in
    principle be divided."
   seems to have left out a few words.  I'm thinking your intent could be captured by:
   "except that whereas Atomism held that atoms are indivisible, the corpuscles of Corpuscularianism
    could in principle be divided."
 * "Gassendi asserts that", I would change to:  "Gassendi asserted that"
 * In the following sentence, I think the word "by" has been moved to the wrong place.  Instead of:
      "Robert Boyle was a strong proponent of corpuscularianism by using the theory to
       exemplify the differences between a vacuum and a plenum, which he aimed to
       further support his mechanical philosophy and overall atomist theory."
   I think it makes more sense to say:
      "Robert Boyle was a strong proponent of corpuscularianism, using the theory to
       exemplify the differences between a vacuum and a plenum, by which he aimed to
       further support his mechanical philosophy and overall atomist theory."

4. The Conclusion of the Article 

 * The title of the entire article is "Corpuscular Theory of Light"
 * The last 3 sections are:
    * Corpuscularian theories ,
    * Corpuscularian theory to describe light , and
    * Sir Isaac Newton
   So, what is the overall goal of the article?
    * Are there multiple corpuscularian theories you want to enumerate?
    * Or is it just about the one corpuscular theory that has been given for light?
    * And do you want to trace the theory as it developed and resurfaced over time,
      or just focus on the one development of it by Newton?
 * Whatever your goal, these 3 final sections do not seem to build a part of the article,
   but just seem to wander.
 * If you tell me the ultimate goal of the article, I can suggest a reorganization that would
   be less dis-orienting to the reader.  (But I assume that once you address the question
   squarely as to what is the main thrust of your article, then you will have no trouble
   reorganizing its ending yourself, without my help.)

Best wishes with this article.

MarkGoldfain (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Where I find some confusion in this article is in the opening paragraph where it states, "This theory cannot explain refraction, diffraction, interference and polarization." However, when you get to the section on Isaac Newton, the same claim is repeated with refraction omitted. For the sake of consistency within the artice, a possible improvement might be to consider the phenomenon unexplained by the corpuscular theory to be "diffraction, interference, polarization, and--to some extent--refraction." Perhaps there is a better approach, but I am not supportive of omitting refraction in one spot but including it in the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmathematics (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Question[edit]

In §section Isaac Newton it is stated that Newton viewed light corpuscles as "perfectly elastic, rigid, and weightless". However, the cite is confusing since it points to no specific page of Newton's Opticks. Furthermore, searching for these words in the e-book shows no such result. Please refer to specific page/s. Q-Bit. (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational light deflection / lensing[edit]

It's interesting to note the corpuscular light theory also predicts light to be deflected by gravity, at a solar eclipse, or with lensing of distant galaxies. Remarkably the effect is exactly half the amount given by Einstein's theory of relativity. One reference on this is here, perhaps there are better ones:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2009ASPC..409...57V&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf 2601:281:8200:45E0:8D94:F489:8942:9BC3 (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

impetus[edit]

called "corpuscles" (little particles) which travel in a straight line with a finite velocity and possess impetus.

The article linked to "impetus" makes no mention of the word. WithGLEE (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

other substances or substances[edit]

"are particles that carry other substances or substances and are of different types."

Am having difficulty understanding the meaning here. WithGLEE (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Corpuscular_theory_of_light&oldid=1217801269"