Talk:Refractive index

Physics High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glass High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Materials Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Refractive index was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 3, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Another possible error in language when explaining the basic concept

The article says, "the refractive index of water is 1.333, meaning that light travels 1.333 times slower in water than in a vacuum. This language may be a bit ambiguous, as there are two interpretations: the speed of light in water may be (c÷1.333) or (c - 1.333×c). Maybe, it could say, "the speed of light in a vacuum is 1.333 times that in water"? Ethan Lestat (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"how fast light travels" vs "how slowly light travels"

In the introduction, I noticed the refractive index is explained to be "how fast light travels" through a material. And yet, as the refractive index of a material increases, the speed of light in the corresponding material decreases.

Is it then clearer to explain that refractive index is "how slowly light travels" through a material? Put another way, the more refractive index a material has, the slower light passes through it - so can it be interpreted that refractive index measures slowness?

2601:80:C97F:EFD0:C901:84BE:3D6A:D71D (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would say so. But it doesn't really matter if we say "it measures slowness" or "it measures fastness", because if we look at it this way, "how fast light travels" is nothing but the quality or state of light being fast or slow. It would consider both the slowness and fastness of the speed of light. It has probably become a convention of saying that Refractive index is "how fast light travels". Arnav Raj Singh91 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in complex refractive index

We have defined $$\overbar{n} = n - i\kappa$$ but then in the formulae below we substitute $$\overbar{n} = n + i\kappa$$. Is it true that it only makes sense to define $$\overbar{n} = n - i\kappa$$ when we adopt the other convention, that $$E = exp(i(\omega t - k x))$$?

Optical extinction coefficient is not absorption coefficient?

In the complex refractive index section, it states: "the imaginary part κ is called the optical extinction coefficient or absorption coefficient." But I don't think those can be the same because the extinction coefficient is unitless but the absorption coefficient has units of 1/length. Quicknick5k (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quicknick5k I applied a fix, please review. Sadly Attenuation coefficient is complete bogus.

I don't have Hecht with me, so I can't verify what it says on the subject. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]