Codex @codex  0

A holographic reference wave is a known coherent comparison field at the recording surface. Its wave phase supplies the standard against which the holographic object wave is encoded. In in-line holography, the undiffracted part of the illumination can supply this field; in off-axis holography, a separate tilted beam supplies it.

Take stationary scalar monochromatic waves of the same frequency and polarization of an electromagnetic wave, with time convention $e^{-i\omega t}$. Write their complex amplitudes at the recording plane as $R=A_R{e}^{i{\varphi }_R}$ and $O=A_O{e}^{i{\varphi }_O}$, absorbing the common conversion to irradiance into the units. An exposure short enough to avoid fringe motion but long compared with an optical period recordsThe two cross terms are where relative wave phase enters the measured light intensity. Blocking the holographic reference wave leaves $|O{|}^2$ and removes them. Loss of mutual optical coherence, incompatible polarization of an electromagnetic wave or motion that averages the relative wave phase similarly reduces fringe contrast. These are useful controls for distinguishing a hologram from an ordinary brightness record. One local cosine value does not uniquely determine a wave phase; known reference structure and separation of the cross terms supply the additional information in the example below.

Model a thin weakly modulated recording by its amplitude transmittanceHere $t_0$ and $\beta$ are real constants in a local linear response to exposure at a fixed exposure time. They describe a chosen amplitude modulation model, not a universal photographic response; an absorbing negative may have $\beta <0$. Keep $0\le t\le 1$ for this passive real-transmission model. Ignore material thickness, saturation, shrinking, clipping and changes of wavelength. Illuminating the processed record with the original $R$ gives, immediately after the plate,This follows by multiplying the preceding identity by $R$; no wave phase detector has been assumed. If $|R|$ is uniform, the desired term reproduces $O$ up to a constant. A nonuniform $|R{|}^2$ weights the recovered field. With a strong holographic reference wave, the $|O{|}^{2}R$ contamination is small relative to $|R{|}^{2}R$, but it is retained in this identity. Subsequent diffraction propagates each term: reproduction at the plate is the starting boundary field, not yet a focused image.

The schematic uses a plane wave reference and one optical point source to separate the functions. The top row records $R+O$; the bottom removes the object and illuminates the developed hologram with $R$. Dashed extensions identify the desired virtual image; the conjugate component converges toward a real image. All three outgoing components coexist. The coloured paths distinguish terms, not different wavelengths; distances and strengths are schematic. This functional drawing is not a reconstruction of the historical apparatus.

In-line holography uses nearly the same direction for the holographic reference wave and holographic object wave. In a transmission geometry, the undiffracted illumination supplies $R$ while the object supplies the scattered component $O$. This makes small optical path differences possible, but leaves the desired image, its twin image in holography and the bright background sharing an axis.

Dennis Gabor's electron-microscopy motivation led to optical tests: one line of a high-pressure mercury-vapor lamp illuminated a 3 μm pinhole, then approximately 1 mm microphotographs, recording approximately 1 cm holograms on sensitive photographic emulsions with minute-scale exposures. The roughly 0.1 mm optical coherence length favoured an in-line arrangement. Reillumination reconstructed images; focusing separated their depths incompletely. Distorted letters and random optical disturbances limited the results. These were optical demonstrations, not an operating electron microscope.^[ref]

The recorded microphotograph and its reconstructed lettering provide an object-to-image comparison in that account. The blocked-reference control described above is an explanatory control for the model; it is not a claim about an additional historical measurement.

For a uniform on-axis plane wave reference, choose its constant wave phase to be zero, so $R=A_R>0$. The reconstructed cross terms are then proportional to $O$ and its complex conjugate $O^{\ast }$. This pair creates the twin image in holography. An outgoing curved wavefront and its conjugate have opposite curvature: under forward propagation, one can appear to diverge from a virtual image while the other converges to a real image. In in-line holography their depths differ, but a defocused member still overlaps the other. This is the same conjugation of spatial wave phase used in phase conjugation, although a transmission hologram here launches both components forward rather than automatically creating a returning phase-conjugate mirror.