Talk:Transfer-matrix method (optics): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 20 April 2009

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

A fact from Transfer-matrix method (optics) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 June 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

Wikipedia

Comment

I debated proposing a merge with Ray transfer matrix analysis, but I think this technique is distinct enough to benefit from having its own article. Do others agree?--Srleffler (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure to what prior debate you're referring. When I was searching on Wikipedia for existing material on TMM, it appeared to me that TMM is a very generic technique that is applied to problems with very little in common other than that the effect on a system state can be described by a matrix. See google. For example, it is also used in Anderson localization, which is not likely to resemble what's described here.

I think Wikipedia is lacking an article on the generic principle of transfer matrix method. The statistical mechanics TMM article could move to Transfer-matrix method (statistical mechanics) and instead there could be a general introduction at Transfer-matrix method, referring to the more specific articles.

Han-Kwang (t) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "debate" was with myself. This is a common figure of speech in English; a synonym for "considered" or "thought about". I was not referring to a prior debate on Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the method is the same as the Abeles_matrix_formalism but without the correct credits given. Altough one has to be careful as the form as it is presented in Abeles_matrix_formalism is only applicable to x-rays and is thus a simplified case of the method described here but this restriction is not present in Abeles original paper. 129.206.42.213 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :[[User:Hankwang|Han-Kwang]] ([[User talk:Hankwang|t]]) 06:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 ::The "debate" was with myself. This is a common figure of speech in English; a synonym for "considered" or "thought about". I was not referring to a prior debate on Wikipedia.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 06:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
+I guess the method is the same as the [[Abeles_matrix_formalism]] but without the correct credits given. Altough one has to be careful as the form as it is presented in [[Abeles_matrix_formalism]] is only applicable to x-rays and is thus a simplified case of the method described here but this restriction is not present in Abeles original paper. [[Special:Contributions/129.206.42.213|129.206.42.213]] ([[User talk:129.206.42.213|talk]]) 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)