Talk:Light

Semi-protection

Why is this page semi-protected? Shouldn't it carry a rationale for this? Martinor (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I found a short notice about unproductive edits in the talk archive from November 2010; semi-protection obtained as a result. Time to reconsider, I reckon. Martinor (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

book to add

Albert Einstein didn’t prove that the photon exists. He did theorize the quantum effect and received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect. Arthur Compton did the experiment to prove that the photon exists in 1923. In 1927 is when he received the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of the photon. Read the Nobel Prize paper in which Arthur Compton mentions for the first time the photon as a particle and the experiment that proves it. The book X-rays and electrons An outline of recent X-ray theory By Arthur H. Compton Ph. D. Copyright 1926 By D. Van Nostrand Company This book includes papers from 1923 on and uses the word photoelectrons for the one particle and electrons for the other. He shortened the word photoelectrons to photon by eliminating electro. The new particles thus became the photons from a shortening of photoelectrons. Read the book. The term’s used for electrons from the many papers are: • photoelectrons • recoil electrons • beta rays The term’s used for photons from the many papers are: • x-rays • x-ray quantum • light • light darts • electromagnetic waves • radiation • radiation quanta • radiation quantum • quantum He used photoelectrons a lot for the electrons but for the photons there was no common term. The photon is the particle form of light. 68.171.143.254 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Poisson's interactions with Fresnel?

I was just looking at the page for Simeon Denis Poisson, where it says that he was a strong opponent of the wave theory of light. In the section wave theory of light, however, the article says that he wrote something in support of Fresnel's theory. I do not know about this subject, so which is it? I don't read French, so the citation on the Poisson page doesn't help. Filodendron (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC) HI my name is bob ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.166.198 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Only humans see light?

I would like to edit the beginning of this page because it says that light is visible to the human eye, but has no mention of animals ability to see light too.

Evolvo365247 00:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You are a registered user so you should be able to make the change yourself. Maybe you will need to wait a few days, I am not sure, and maybe you will need to make some more edits elsewhere.

Let is know if you cannot edit here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That's right. Four days and ten edits will make you autoconfirmed. You are at eleven days and nine edits. Just make one more edit and you will be able to edit semi-protected pages. Welcome, Celestra (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

light is ".. responsible for the sense of sight" (?) horrible! The statement is both technically incorrect and a gross stylistic blunder. Light, taken as a whole, can not be "responsible" for a feature of the human organism, by any ordinary definition of responsibility.

Visible light is the physical stimulus for the sense of sight.

Wisaacs (talk) 11:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Taken in context, the text doesn't seem obviously incorrect. You may find it easier to reach a consensus if you present the old text and the suggested text and explain how yours is better, rather than attacking the existing text and, by extention, the editors who wrote it. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)