Common interpretation of coherence

AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques the common interpretation of coherence in wave interference, arguing that coherence should not solely be defined by stationary interference patterns. It asserts that two waves with slightly different frequencies create a beat that, while not stationary, can still exhibit infinite coherence length due to its self-similar nature. In contrast, a continuous spectrum of waves, such as that from a laser, results in a finite coherence length because the resulting wave packet is Gaussian and not periodic. The conversation also explores the conditions under which beats are considered periodic and the implications of rational frequency ratios on coherence. Overall, the argument emphasizes a more nuanced understanding of wave coherence beyond traditional definitions.
Anton Alice
Messages
68
Reaction score
1
I don't like the common interpretation of coherence of two waves.
Please tell me if something is wrong in my argumentation:

1.

It is often said, that, if two waves are coherent, then the interference pattern is stationary, which means, that the amplitudes are the same. And often, this statement is used as a definition of coherent waves.
For example, two sine waves with same frequency interfering at a point, having a certain fixed phase difference at that point, would create an oscillation with a constant amplitude, i.e. constant intensity.

Now, if I take two waves with slightly different frequencies, then the interference (i.e. the superposition) at any point would be a beat. And now if I would measure the intensity, it would vary with the beat frequency, and therefore not be constant. According to the above definition of coherence, these two waves would be incoherent.

But from a mathematical point of view (using auto correlation function) the beat signal would have an infinite coherence length:
Those two waves are coherent, if the superposition (which is the beat) is to some extend auto-correlated, i.e. self-similar. And indeed, the beat is self-similar, because its periodic. This is why I would treat them formally as coherent (with infinite coherence-length), although the interference pattern is not stationary.
2.

Now instead of taking two waves with slightly different frequencies, one could also take a continuous spectrum of waves, for example created by a laser with a certain linewidth. If for example the spectrum of the laser looks like a gaussian, then the superposition of all waves is also a gauss-shaped wave packet. This gauss-shaped wave packet has a certain width (which is inversely proportional to the line-width of the spectrum). And the (normalized) autocorrelation of that gauss-shaped wave packet would tell me something about the coherence length. The wave-packet would be nicely correlated to itself for small phase shifts, because it would act approximately like a sine.

Contrary to the above example with two waves of slightly different frequency, the laser would only have a finite coherence length, because the signal is not a periodic beat, but a gaussian, which has a finite width.

Am I right, that the coherence length of the two-wave example is infinite, and the coherence length of the laser is finite?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anton Alice said:
And indeed, the beat is self-similar, because its periodic.
Only if the periods are a rational multiple of each other.
 
DaleSpam said:
Only if the periods are a rational multiple of each other.
Oh yes. f1=f2*Pi would not work.

Is this the only constraint? Am I correct with the rest?

EDIT:
Wait... why do the have to be rational multiples? The beat is still periodic, no matter what the ratio of f1 and f2 is.
 
Last edited:
Anton Alice said:
Wait... why do the have to be rational multiples? The beat is still periodic, no matter what the ratio of f1 and f2 is.
Are you sure? What is the definition of "periodic"? What would be the period of the combined wave?

Edit: How does "least common multiple" figure in?
 
Oh yes, f1=f2*Pi would actually not work, because each single beat would then envelop a different oscillating shape.

What about the rest of post#1?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top