Find Correlation Length of Auto-Correlation

AI Thread Summary
To find the correlation length of an auto-correlation, it is often defined as the width between half-power points, also known as the full width at half max (FWHM). This can be measured by squaring the autocorrelation function and determining the width halfway down from the peak. Different definitions may apply based on the context, such as coherence length in optics being defined as the standard deviation of the Gaussian spatial autocorrelation. For exponentially decaying quantities, coherence length is defined as the distance at which the field decays to 1/e of its original value. Various definitions, including those introduced by Woodward, can be useful depending on the specific application in question.
Shaddyab
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
How can I find the correlation length of an auto-correlation?

Is it the distance to the first zero of the auto-correlation?
Is it the distance to the first min. of the auto-correlation?
Is it the distance to the first max. of the auto-correlation?

or should I integrate?

Thank you
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
It is often defined as the width between half-power points. Square the autocorrelation function and measure the width halfway down from the peak. You will also see this referred to as the full width at half max (FWHM).

(Equivalently you could measure the width between the sqrt(2) high points of the unsquared autocorrelation function.)
 
Last edited:
I should point out that definitions differ depending on the application, and other definitions may be more useful to you. In optics where Gaussian beams are common, the coherence length is often defined as the standard deviation of the Gaussian spatial autocorrelation. The standard deviation is also taken as the coherence bandwidth of a Lorentzian line.

For exponentially decaying quantities (attenuation of light passing through a lossy medium, attenuation of waves penetrating a conductor, etc.), the coherence length is defined as the distance at which the field or current decays to 1/e of its original value. These lengths go by names like optical depth, skin depth, Debye length.

Woodward (who first applied information theory applied to radar detection) introduced a different definition of coherence time that has been widely used. Consider a function u and its Fourier transform U. If u is finite energy and normalized such that
\int{|u(t)|^2 dt}=1
then the coherence time tau may be defined in terms of the autocorrelation function rho of u by
\tau=\int{|\rho|^2 dt}
Since rho is the inverse transform of the power spectrum |U|^2 by the Wiener-Khinchin theorem, we have equivalently
\tau=\int{|U|^4 df}
This definition has also been adopted in optics and other fields as well. (Note that these results apply coherence length by substituting the variable x for t).
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top