From: "Frank Q" 
To: "Mark Holm" ,
        
Reply-To: "Frank Q" 


Hi Mark

Regarding your statement (see snippet below) stating that ray optics is
"just plain wrong", could you define what you mean by
"wrong".

From your statement, I get the impression that if I use a raytrace program
to calculate the path of a bundle of parallel rays off a parabolic
reflector and these rays are brought to a common point of intersection (ie
the focus) then this in reality is not what happens. Granted that they are
not brought to
an infinitely small point - wave optics provide the proper explanation -
but for many applications, ray optics provide a very adequate analysis of
the system.

Isn't  "just plain wrong" a little strong in this situation ??

Cheers

FQ



----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Holm" 
To: ; 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 1:42 PM Subject: Re: ATM Strehl Ratio


>
> This rather surprising result is one of the reasons I argue that ray
optics is
> just plain wrong, and people should be very careful about how they use it.
Ray
> optics just doesn't predict this diffraction pattern at all, but every
(well

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP