which one is the correct term?

[irfan1]

I was giving a talk during a conference...and someone apparently didn't like my use of English...I myself don't like it either
anyway, during my speech I used the term "index of refraction"...the comment I got was: "there is a 100 year old scientific terminology. and you must use the correct terminology. You must use refractive index".
So, out of scientifici curiosity, I wonder which term is the correct one.

 

[flatulent]

This is part of a general problem where isolated groups create their own language. Frequently contractions mean different things. CP to the British public means Communist Party and to antenna people it means circular polarization. In other cases groups try to fool others into thinking that they are more talented than they are by using special confusing terms only understood by the in crowd of low talented people.

Index of refraction is the scientific term that has been around for the 100 years.

Frequently the lower talented people have good political skills. They end up in high positions is professional societies and labor unions. One of the most inept person I have ever met is a high official in the IEEE. In the early days of circularly polarized antennas some engineers used the opposite rotation term compared to the definition from physics that had been around for years. The US IEEE under the influence of the politically skilled people set the official electrical definition to the opposite of that used in physics. They did not want to admit a lack of knowledge of physics.

 

[ppAntenna]

I totally agree with flatulent. The lower talented people always arround us. They get the benefits by their good political skills always. But what we can do?
:|

 

[dfullmer]

Also in agreement with flatulent! I have worked in the optical engineering enviorment for over twenty years and "index of refraction" is still used today.

 

[FoxyRick]

Another agreement with Flatulent, although I was taught it as 'Refractive Index' about 20 years ago in my Physics classes.

There will always be people who would rather argure about the exact wording of a term, even when everyone knows what is meant, than discuss something more relevent. Possibly because they can't think of anything better to say, but their ego won't let them remain silent. I've experienced them too many times and try to avoid, or at least ignore, them.

Just my 2 lv

FoxyRick.

 

[PaulHolland]

Sorry guys its "refractive index"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index

Why ?. You may ask.

Since a Dutch guy invented it and in my language you talk about BrekingsIndex => if you translate this it becomes "Refrective index" so maybe its not correct in English but look at its origin.

Paul.

 

[flatulent]

Going between languages is not that literal. Here is an example. In describing cattle which have fur that is brown in colour, some languages would say "cow brown" and others "brown cow."

In classical Greek of a few thousand years ago, the last few letters of a word indicate a verb, noun, adjective, or adverb. The writer (or speaker) then puts the words in sequence with the words the speaker thinks is most important at the beginning of the sequence.

"Index of refraction" is used by the American Institute of Physics Handbook as well as the Chemical Rubber Company's Handbook of Chemistry and Physics.

 

[irfan1]

In my opinion, both terms are correct. J. D. Jackson, in Classical Electrodynamics, Ashcroft/Mermin, in Solid State Physics, Hecht, in Optics, use the term "index of refraction". While, Kittel, in Introduction to Solid State Physics, uses the term "refractive index". I myself like to use both terms.

 

[rautio]

As a native (American verion) English speaker, I would not think twice about using either term interchangeably. In fact, I would probably use one, and then the other, just to have a little variety. If someone thinks I sound old-fashioned, that's tough, niether term sounds old fashioned to me. (But I have been told by a very good Scottish friend that my writing is a bit 'colonial'!)

My only guess for the comment is that the questioner felt you had some really useful and important information that he didn't want the audience to think about...so he manufactured an issue to raise and take attention away from what might have been genuinely useful.

As for idiots being in charge, I have seen both good and bad. But it is the bad that was part of my decision to start my own company. Now rather than being told to make mistakes by some high-up idiot, I have the great honor of making my own mistakes! And I am cautious about condeming the big-bosses. We are all human. We all have finite skills in specific areas. Would any of us be any better in high level management in a large company? (The answer: Sometimes yes, sometimes...no.)