Introduction to Classical and Modern Optics (4th Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Yes and No
Review: A previous reviewer has suggested that this book's breezy style contributes to readability but limits the utility of the book for those who seek a substantive and quantitative understanding of optics. In this he is correct. In his assertion that the book's oversimplifications are, "presumably," appropriate for optometry students, he is mistaken. To suggest this is analagous to suggesting that cliff's notes are acceptable for students of physics but not of literature. After all, physicists, bless their sweet souls, could not comprehend the full text versions!

If you are a student in an introductory optics course (in any field), this book's style may help you get your footing. If you are not a beginner, or you want to understand the mathematical basis (derivations) of paraxial optics' formalisms and assumptions, this book is not for you.

Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that any work is, by itself, sufficient for the study of any discipline.

Rating:
Summary: Pleasant light intro, but exercises too trivial.
Review: For several semesters, I used the text by Pedrotti and Pedrotti in my 1-semester Optics course for Physics majors. But needing a change, I eventually switched a few years ago to Meyer-Arendt, and despite growing misgivings, have taught the course from his book 3 times so far. It appealed by its brevity, large variety of topics offered, lively historical anecdotes, and appeared somewhat more amusing and less dry than the solid, thorough, careful book by P & P. In those respects, it did not disappoint.

However, I need to warn potential readers and adopters of a serious downside: exercises are TOO simple--usually 1-step plug-and-chug jobbies. They may be adequate for future optometrists, who were, presumably, a large part of Dr. Meyer-Arendt's original audience. But they offer no real workout or skill-building exercise worthy of a Physics or Math major. The text also seems to bend over backwards to be "user-friendly" to the least skillful readers--rather than "scare away" anyone still at the "Sophomore level," it tends to fade out into vague descriptive language at the ends of chapters or whenever the topic at hand threatens to become a little bit sophisticated. No science student can solve any quantitative problems based on such hand-waving "snippets," so what good does this do?? No skill is imparted by these weak chapter-endings--but every mature Physics student knows that skill-building ability is the one indispensable criterion of value in a textbook. Unless a reader/teacher has the wherewithal to invent adequate problems to accompany the text, he should be aware of this practical limitation of the book as a learning tool.

With all respect, I APPEAL TO THE AUTHOR to rescue his rather entertaining, breezy book by adding problems worthy of intelligent science students. And to shore up many chapter-ends, replacing the descriptive fluff with usable, quantitative material--if need be, putting it in optional sections that "eyeglass-doctors," bless their good souls, can skip.