Common interpretation of coherence

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion focuses on the interpretation of coherence in wave phenomena, particularly in the context of interference patterns created by coherent and incoherent waves. Participants explore the implications of coherence length in relation to waves of different frequencies and the characteristics of wave packets generated by lasers.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that coherence is often defined by the stationarity of interference patterns, suggesting that two waves with slightly different frequencies would be considered incoherent due to the varying intensity of the resulting beat pattern.
  • Another participant questions the assertion that the beat is self-similar only if the frequencies are rational multiples of each other, prompting a discussion about the definition of periodicity and its implications for coherence.
  • A participant proposes that while the beat signal has infinite coherence length due to its self-similarity, a laser with a finite linewidth produces a wave packet with finite coherence length.
  • There is a challenge regarding the conditions under which the beat remains periodic and the role of the least common multiple in determining the period of the combined wave.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conditions for periodicity and coherence, particularly regarding the necessity for frequencies to be rational multiples. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing interpretations of coherence and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached consensus on the definitions and implications of coherence length, particularly in relation to the mathematical treatment of wave superposition and the characteristics of periodicity.

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?
 
Science 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?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K