Talk:Corpuscular theory of light

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Peer Review by Paul Little

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggested Edits, Mostly Minor, but then Ending with a Major One 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gravitational light deflection / lensing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  impetus 

message: "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)
thread_title:  other substances or substances