Talk:Photonics

message: the vernacular "light" used here, apparently a neologism of "telecommunications network operators" in the subdiscipline that calls itself "photonics," is incorrect. if vernacular "light" means a photon, then photonics is just applied radiology loosely defined and must deal with microwave, radio wave and gamma ray signal manipulation. if it does not, then this should be specified: if what is intended is radiation in the optical range (for example, that can be carried by fiber cables), then "optical radiation" is accurate and unambiguous. and photons are not "light" -- light comprises only those photons that stimulate the human visual sense. "visible light" is a tautology, "infrared light" is an oxymoron and "x ray light" is something from pulp science fiction. for that matter, photonics is not a "science" but an engineering technology; it applies scientific understanding to practical problems, like any other engineering endeavor. overall this article has dragged encyclopedial objectivity into trade school misnomer. Drollere (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: inappropriate terminology

message: * Sajeev John
* Eli Yablonovitch
* K.M. Ho
* C.T. Chan
* C.M. Soukoulis
* John Joannopoulos
* Yoel Fink
* Cyrus Cantrell
* Sergiusz Patela
--Sergiusz 22:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Researchers in photonics 

message: In science land we define photonics by the band structure of light that is created basically by very tiny regular arrays of holes on the size scale of the wavelength of the incident light. In fact opalescence is a well known photonic phenomenon that (in nature) is the result of tiny regular arrays of spheres that cause different wavelengths of light at different angles and polarizations to refract non uniformly... At any rate the result is the photon analog of an electronic band structure which is where the term "photonic" comes from. I think this entry needs to include this definition of photonics as, from my point of view, it is far more common than the definition provided. I am definitely not the person to write such an entry though as I know very little about photonics. Fearofcarpet 17:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing the noun "photonics" with the adjective "photonic", as in "photonic crystals" and "photonic bandgap". Most applications of photonic phenomena fall into the field of photonics, but the field is broader than that. Photonic crystals already have their own page, and it is linked to from this page.--Srleffler 06:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "other" photonics 

message: Please note that this is a photonics’ page. Please provide links to photonics program descriptions, curricula etc. Links to university home pages or laboratory staff listing are not relevant here.
--Sergiusz 20:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  University programs in photonics 

message: I was just reading about photonic clocking on Slashdot RSS　EMail; it seems like its important.--McDogm 09:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photonic Clocking 

message: I have rewritten the introduction, primarily, taking into account what was already provided by earlier writers and editors.  IMHO a key issue for "Photonics" is the overlapping use of synonymous terms.  Another challenge arises because "Photonics" is virtually without bounds and is evolving as we speak.
I agree that the condition of the page was not ripe for a listing of key photonics researchers.  I have linked the inventors of the first room temperature diode laser which I believe is timely given relevance to "Photonics" at the introductory level.  
Perhaps someone else can add more to this page by the time I visit it next.
Jabeles 00:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jabeles, the lead is way too long now.  It includes a lot of pieces that should be moved into the history section, and maybe could use another section on something like "subfields and related fields".  And while you're at it, it would sure be useful to have references to go with all that stuff. Dicklyon 01:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to main page 

message: The section on photonic research is very narrow, only covers optical communication topics - I'm sure there are many more.  Does anyone have time to update? --Opticalgirl (talk) 12:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too comms focused 

message: The Optics article says "Optics is the branch of physics which involves the behavior and properties of light, including its interactions with matter and the construction of instruments that use or detect it.[1] Optics usually describes the behavior of visible, ultraviolet, and infrared light. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays, microwaves, and radio waves exhibit similar properties".
The Photonics articles says "The science of photonics[1] includes the generation, emission, transmission, modulation, signal processing, switching, amplification, detection and sensing of light. The term photonics thereby emphasizes that photons are neither particles nor waves — they are different in that they have both particle and wave nature. It covers all technical applications of light over the whole spectrum from ultraviolet over the visible to the near-, mid- and far-infrared. Most applications, however, are in the range of the visible and near infrared light".
There seems to be a large overlap. Discuss.109.154.68.246 (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If we describe electronics as signal processing with electrons, by analogy we could say photonics is signal processing with photons. or maybe "Photonics is the control, manipulation, transfer and storage of information using light." from [ What is Photonics? ] ? - Rod57 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is fine as written. Optics and photonics are different topics. What more can I say? Read both articles again, several times, and think about what you're reading. User:Linas (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship Between Optics and Photonics 

message: The picture caption talks of "waves of photons". This makes about as much sense as "deserts of water". Someone should rethink and rewrite the caption. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes lots of sense to me. Photons come in waves. You should think of oceans, not deserts, when thinking about water. And, when thinking about photons, you should think about waves. Photons are merely quanta by which electromagentic waves are emitted and absorbed, see quantum harmonic oscillator for mathematical exposition. See Talk:Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect  for a discussion about what happens when you think photons are, ummm ... 'particles'. They are .. and yet they're really waves. User:Linas (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: contradictory caption

message: Note that this is an erroneous depiction of how a prism is supposed to "split" light into component "parts" in geometric precision, both within the prism and outside the prism. Actual light through a prism shows no spectrum within the prism. Nor does it appear immediately out of the prism. The band of yellow-to-red and the band of blue-to-violet emerge from the edges, while a beam of white is still visible in the middle. The green color develops further out when the polar colored light bands disperse and unite.
Great takedown. The credibility of the picture is now in the basement. Maybe you should have simply have deleted this monstrosity. A pity.
But is there a more accurate "artist's depiction" in existence somewhere? Or are there only explorer's diaries and text fragments? A picture is worth a thousand words. 178.38.18.115 (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Pix or it ain't so

message: New to talk pages, feel free to provide guidance on how this works.
The last image on the article (shown right) does not appear to be photonics-related, and does not have a caption on the page itself.
Here's the link to the offending section.
Carterpape (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for belated request but I would like to see the source of this image explaining what kind of devices it depicts. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted. I've removed the image as the uploader never suggested it is photonics-related. If it is, we should expect some more details and evidence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for heads up. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  is it actually a photonics wafer 

message: Not sure whether it's worth mentioning at the page but the company luminous computing seems to be working on a photonic chip, ie for machine learning purposes.
Genetics4good (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have enough sources you surely can mention it. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Luminous computing