Physically based rendering from first principles

I'm not a fan of how people talk about "first principles" as I think it just leads to lots of confusion. It's a phrase common in computer science that makes many other scientific communities cringe. First principles are things that cannot be reduced and you have to have very good justifications for these axioms. The reason the other scientific communities cringe is because either (most likely case) it's being used improperly and someone is about to demonstrate their nativity, or they know they're about to dive into a pedantic nightmare of nuances and they might never escape the rabbit holes that are about to follow.

In fact, I'd like to argue that you shouldn't learn things from first principles, at least in the beginning. Despite the article not being from first principles, it does illustrate some of the problems of first principles: they are pedantic. Everything stems from first principles so they have to be overly pedantic and precise. Errors compound so a small error in one's first principles becomes enormous by the time you look at what you're actually interested in. Worst of all, it is usually subtle, making it difficult to find and catch. This makes them a terrible place to begin, even when one already has expertise and is discussing with another expert. But it definitely should not be the starting place for an expert to teach a non-expert.

What makes it clear that the author isn't a physicist is that they don't appear to understand the underlying emergent phenomena[0]. It's probably a big part of why this post feels so disordered. All the phenomena they discussed are the same, but you need to keep digging deeper to find that (there's points where even physicists know they are the same but not how or why). It just feels like they are showing off their physics knowledge, but it is well below that which is found in an undergraduate physics degree[1]. This is why you shouldn't start at first principles, its simplicity is too complex. You'd need to start with subjects more complicated than QED. The rest derive out of whatever a grand unified theory is.

But as someone who's done a fair amount of physical based rendering, I'm just uncertain what this post has to do with it. I would highly recommend the book "Physically Based Rendering: From Theory To Implementation" by Pharr, Jakob, and Humphreys that the author says the post is based on. It does a much better job at introducing the goals and focusing on getting the reader up to speed. In particular, they define how the goal of PBR is to make things indistinguishable from a real photograph, which is a subtle but important distinction from generating a real photograph.

That said, I still think there's nice things about this post and the author shouldn't feel ashamed. It looks like they put a lot of hard work in and there are some really nice animations. It's clear they learned a lot and many of the animations there are not as easy as they might appear. I'm being critical but I want them to know to keep it up, but that I think it needs refinement. Finding the voice of a series of posts can be quite hard and don't let stumbles in the beginning prevent you from continuing.

[0] Well that and a lack of discussion of higher order interference patterns because physicists love to show off {Hermite,Laguerre}-Gaussian mode simulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_beam#Higher-order_mod...

[1] In a degree you end up "learning physics" multiple times. Each time a bit deeper. By the end of an undergraduate degree every physicist should end up feeling like they know nothing about physics.

Thanks for the constructive criticism! A few points I'd like to discuss:

Let's suppose the aim of the article was indeed to learn PBR from first principles, what would it look like? Quantum electrodynamics?

I think there is merit in exploring different physical models for fun and scientific curiosity (like I mentioned in the first chapter). I (personally) feel that it's boring to just dump equations like Snell's law without exploring the deeper meaning behind it. I also feel that it's easier to grasp if you have some surface knowledge about more complex physical models.

I agree however that I probably made many mistakes since I didn't study physics, I'd appreciate any feedback to improve that.

I dislike "Physically Based Rendering: From Theory To Implementation", I personally think that the literate programming approach of the book is way too confusing and disorganized. I prefer the SIGGRAPH talk by Naty Hoffman[0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-A0mwsJRmk

> Let's suppose the aim of the article was indeed to learn PBR from first principles, what would it look like? Quantum electrodynamics?

Something like that, yes. A truly from-first-principles treatment of photon-surface interactions would involve an extremely deep dive into quantum numbers, molecular orbitals, solid state physics and crystal lattices (which are metals), including a discussion about how electron waves superpose to produce various conduction/valence bands with various band gaps, and then discuss how photons interact with these bands.

I might be a stupid question but how hard would that be to explain, and to understand?

If you had to teach an alien from another universe physically based rendering:

- In an exhaustive manner and,

- You're only allowed to explain something if it derives from something more "fundamental" until we reach the most comprehensive physical models we have

How hard would be the math behind it for example? Because realistically in my article the hardest piece of math is a very basic integral

Could I for example start reading these Feynman lectures[0] and get up to speed on everything there is to know about photon-surface interaction?

[0] https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

The raw mathematics isn't the hardest; most of this is settled by the end of the second year of undergraduate physics—things like Taylor series, ODEs, PDEs, special functions, a bit of linear algebra (no proofs needed, just use the results); perhaps complex analysis which leads to Fourier transforms and all. Maybe a treatment of tensors.

The issue is the sheer complexity of micro systems, and the unintuitive nature of going deeper than 'EM wave reflects off electrons'.

Consider metal-light interaction. Exactly how does a visible-light EM wave interact with a conduction band of superposed free valence electrons? How does the massive superposition elevate each valence electron up energy levels? Why do only metallic and semi-metallic crystals have no band gap? Why are electrons filled in the order of s, p, d, f, g, h orbitals? Why do these orbitals have these shapes? Why are electrons so much less massive than protons and neutrons? Why does the nucleus not tear itself apart since it only contains positive and neutral particles? Why are protons and neutrons made of three quarks each, and how does the strong interaction appear? Why are the three quarks' mass defect so much more than the individual masses of each quark? How does the mass-energy equivalence appear? Why does an accelerating electric charge produce and interact with a magnetic field, and thus emit EM radiation? What is mass, charge, and magnetism in the first place?

Each question is more 'first principles' than the last, and the answers get more complex. In these questions we have explored everything from classical EM, to solid state physics, to quantum electro- and chromodynamics, to particle physics and the Standard Model, and are now verging on special and general relativity.