Talk:Stokes parameters

message: It seems to me that Stokes vector and Stokes parameters should be merged into a single page. Does this seem reasonable, and if so which of the two names should be chosen for the combined page?--Srleffler 21:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should definitely be named either Stokes vector or Stokes parameters. Wikipedia articles are always named by the most common (linkable) name available, if possible.--Srleffler 11:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There's no page for "Jones vector" because it falls under "Jones calculus". The same should be true for Mueller calculus: We don't need extra pages for Stokes vector and Stokes parameter.207.91.187.66 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I removed erroneous equations about eccentricity/ellipticity.  Not sure how they got there in the first place.  Gnixon 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections

message: The figure illustrating the poincare sphere is not correct in the sence that the sphere is not correctly displayed/calculated in this frontal projection! A sphere is somehow stretched in such a projection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.96.200.9 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong sphere illustration 

message: I believe there is an error in the equation for the Stokes parameters in the fixed x,y basis. There should be a minus sign in the expression for the V
V = -2 Im(E_x,E_y*)
See equation 2.51 page 45 Polarimetric Radar Imaging, from Basics to Application, J.S. Lee and Eric Pottier,  2009, CRC Press.  I confirmed the calculation in this reference.
Actually this depends on the phase convention used for Jones matrices.  If, like in Born and Wolf, you use the decreasing phase convention, then you will get 
V = 2 Im(E_x,E_y*)
If you use the increasing phase convention (Collett and others) then you get your answer.  Since the Jones calculus article uses the decreasing phase convention, this should be changed back to the Born and Wolf Definition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.252.75 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probable  Error in Equation for V Stokes parameter in fixed x,y basis 

message: Do we really need 2 different names for each Stokes parameter? (S1,S2,S3,S4) and (I,Q,U,V). It's redundant, but also very confusing because it looks like the first half of the article was written by someone who prefers (S1,S2,S3,S4) notation whereas the latter half was written by someone who prefers the other notation.162.246.139.210 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly have to explain both notations, since readers may have seen one or the other elsewhere. Agree that it would be better if the article were consistent in its own notation, but I'm not going to put in the time to go through and fix it. If you have time, feel free to do so.--Srleffler (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

text: {Sn} vs {I,Q,U,V} is a bit confusing, but at least it is explained well and easy to translate.  However, the whole article is riddled with different notations that are not related to each other.  In fact, it is two or three articles conjoined, not merged, each with their own independent explanations and notations.  For example,  A, B vs Ea, Eb or Ex, Ey,  Chi, Psi vs theta, etc.  I feel that the article should be rewritten, combining the notations, and pulling in the best arguments from each take.  Then there could be a small section explaining the alternate notations. Chris2crawford (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan.--Srleffler (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick one notation, please