Talk:Wave interference

This page is obviously very very hard to understand by a general public

While the start is almost OK for a science-educated reader, jargon is used more and more often and at the end most readers will be lost, except those who know it all (and argue about details, as above), but those do not really need this page!!! I think that we need a pedagogic science writer here. 86.192.110.239 (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The page does mix up material waves (water waves, elastic waves) and quantum waves (light, matter waves). Both exhibit interference, because they are waves. But everything else about them differs. For quantum waves, three major complications: waves are not directly experienced, the amplitudes are complex, and coherence is required for interference.

I think reorganizing the article along these lines would help.

The basics of interference for material waves is simple. To say more than the simple combination immediately bring in math. I don't see any practical way around this, or value to be honest. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure how more simple this can be made. Math will immediately come up if you wish to go beyond the simple explanation. And I feel like the basics of Wave Interference that an average person would want to know has been provided in the initial part of the mechanism section. Beyond that, they do have accept that there is going to be some math(most of which are at a highschool level). ShinigamiSenpai (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Wave optics

Write about the topic with full explanation and proper example with clearity ~2025-36550-59 (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Please post about wave optics on the wave optics Talk page. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is someone using the talk page as ChatGPT and posting a prompt. Such comments should be deleted per WP:NOTFORUM and not responded to and left to spam the page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

In the section "Complex valued wave functions", what justified using complex-valued functions to describe waves?

In the section "Complex valued wave functions", there is the below sentence, saying that optical and matter waves are not directly observed so they must be described in complex-valued wave functions, but is it really true?

"Mechanical and gravity waves can be directly observed: they are real-valued wave functions; optical and matter waves cannot be directly observed: they are complex valued wave functions. Some of the differences between real valued and complex valued wave interference include:"

For an optical wave, for low frequency wave like ~ 1 kHz, even if our human eyes are not directly seeing it, but a simple electronics would notice the motion of electrons of a circuit responding to this wave in a formed of the observed electrical current flowing in the circuit. In this sense, I would say that we "directly" measure the wave. Then I think we can describe such optical wave in a real-valued function.

What is a more concrete criteria to use real or complex-valued functions to describe waves? Goodphy (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

So, my bad: seems I created that section without including sources.

Based on my old edit summaries I was trying to make sense of the article organization. It had/has an odd mixup of math and physics. But it is an article on interference and not on, say, the relationship between math and physical models in some general way. So in addition to being unsourced, the first sentence is off topic. It is true that matter waves are fundamentally different from water waves in this way but I need to have a source to have this in the article. I'll delete the section. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I was incorrect about the optical waves, the complex representation is only a mathematical convenience. The electric field is real. Matter waves however cannot be represented with real functions. I don't have a perfect source for this but I don't think it matters: it's off topic here. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your correction:) Goodphy (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Etymology

The section says The word interference is derived from the Latin words inter which means "in the mid" and fere which means "hit or strike", and was used in the context of wave superposition by Thomas Young in 1801. Three sources are cited:

• On the mechanism of the eye / by Thomas Young.; Young, Thomas; University College, London Library Services (1801). Young, Thomas, 1773-1829. University College London (UCL) UCL Library Services. London : printed by W. Bulmer and Co., Cleveland Row, St. James's. This source is available and searchable but has not mention of "interference" or "latin" etc.
• Jones, Peter Ward (2001). Oxford University Press. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.20622. This source is too poorly identified to verify anything. All we have is an author and a publisher.
• Kipnis, Nahum (1991). History of the Principle of Interference of Light. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-8652-9. ISBN 978-3-0348-9717-4. I found nothing in this source to verify the latin derivation. This source says
• Since Young and his predecessors used different words to describe the effects of intersecting waves, we can compare their contributions by using modern terms, such as "interference", introduced by Young, and "superposition", of a later origin. Unfortunately, there is no agreement among historians on how to interpret these terms. Kipnis has a lengthy discussion of Young principle of interference and it is clear to me that the work "On the mechanism of the eye" is not core to Young's principle.

The OED says "interference" was first used in the 1700s and thus the derivation dates from that time. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the etymology is important to mention here, as the English word interfere in its non-technical meaning dates from the 16th century. The etymology provided by the OED does confirm the above "hit or strike" etymology for interfere. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)