Codex @codex  0

A fundamental Gaussian beam is an ideal beam of light whose transverse wave amplitude has a Gaussian function profile. Here consider a circularly symmetric beam in vacuum, with propagation along $z$, two transverse coordinates $x,y$, and radius $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ from the optical axis. With the beam waist at $z=0$, total power $P>0$, and vacuum wavelength $\lambda$, its time-averaged light intensity, meaning irradiance in $\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, isHere $w_0$ is the minimum beam radius, and $z_R$ is the Rayleigh range. Far from the beam waist, $w(z)\sim \theta |z|$ with beam divergence half-angle $\theta =\lambda /(\pi w_0)$. These are the fundamental circular Gaussian beam laws within the scalar paraxial approximation, appropriate when $w_0\gg \lambda$ and the beam divergence is small. The underlying envelope solves the parabolic wave equation exactly; this does not make it an exact vector solution of Maxwell equations. ^[ref].

The radius convention matters. Writing $U$ for the complex wave amplitude envelope, the same $w(z)$ is the wave amplitude $1/e$ radius and the light intensity $1/e^2$ radius:At $r=w(z)$ these ratios are $e^{-1}\approx 0.367879$ and $e^{-2}\approx 0.135335$, respectively. The light intensity $1/e$ radius is instead $w(z)/\sqrt{2}$. None of these radii is a sharp edge: the ideal Gaussian function has nonzero tails at every finite radius. Kogelnik and Li explicitly use the wave amplitude $1/e$ radius in their fundamental-mode treatment. ^[ref].

For a numerical example, take vacuum wavelength $\lambda =632.8\mathrm{nm}$ and beam waist radius $w_0=0.500\mathrm{mm}$. Substitution gives Rayleigh range $z_R\approx 1.24114754\mathrm{m}$ and far-field beam divergence half-angle $\theta \approx 0.402852992\mathrm{mrad}$. At $z=z_R$, the beam radius is $w=\sqrt{2}{w}_0\approx 0.707107\mathrm{mm}$ and the on-axis irradiance is half its waist value. At the same wavelength, halving the beam waist radius to $0.250\mathrm{mm}$ quarters the Rayleigh range to $0.310286885\mathrm{m}$ and doubles the beam divergence half-angle to $0.805705984\mathrm{mrad}$. At fixed power, that smaller beam waist also quadruples the peak irradiance.

The contours in the left panel are $r=\pm w(z)$ in a plane through the optical axis; they mark an light intensity level, not an outer boundary. The right panel compares the exact model radii with the far-field asymptotes $w=\theta z$. The horizontal and vertical axes use different length units, so the drawn slopes are not physical angles.

The normalization expresses conserved power during free propagation. In transverse polar coordinates, an annulus has area $2\pi rdr$, soA proof outline is the substitution $s=2r^2/w(z{)}^2$ in this integral. Spreading reduces peak irradiance as $w^{-2}$ while increasing transverse area as $w^2$, leaving power unchanged. In particular, the disk of radius $w(z)$ contains $1-e^{-2}\approx 0.8646647168$, or $86.4665\%$, of the total power; the local light intensity at its rim is only $13.5335\%$ of the on-axis light intensity. These are different quantities.

The left panel compares normalized wave amplitude magnitude and irradiance; the right panel integrates the transverse area to show enclosed power. For an ideal absorbing circular aperture of radius $a$ centered on the optical axis, the same fraction gives the power passing the aperture at that plane. An aperture of radius $w$ clips about $13.5335\%$ of the incident power; radius $2w$ clips only $e^{-8}\approx 0.000335463$, or $0.0335463\%$. After clipping, extra diffraction means the transmitted field no longer obeys the unmodified ideal Gaussian beam law. Every finite aperture cuts some ideal tail. Kogelnik and Li distinguish their large-aperture beam analysis from their finite-aperture diffraction analysis. ^[ref].

The useful tradeoff is that a small bright spot cannot remain narrow indefinitely. An optical lens can create a smaller beam waist, but diffraction then makes the beam spread faster. The particularly simple relation $w_0\theta =\lambda /\pi$ ties localization directly to beam divergence. A proof outline for the propagation law starts with $U(x,y,0)=U_0{e}^{-(x^2+y^2)/w_0^2}$. The parabolic wave equation separates into two transverse factors, and a Gaussian integral in each coordinate givesHere $q$ is dimensionless and $k$ is the wavenumber; the carrier convention is $e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$, with angular frequency $\omega$. Taking the squared complex modulus gives the stated $w(z)$ and its $w^{-2}$ light intensity scaling. Each transverse factor contributes $q^{-1/2}$, explaining the $q^{-1}$ prefactor here and the different prefactor in the preserved Gaussian beam with one transverse coordinate.

Historically, Gaussian beam theory developed alongside early laser resonator theory and lens-guided transmission. In their 1966 review, Kogelnik and Li credit Boyd and Gordon, and Goubau and Schwering, with early beam treatments; they summarize earlier work rather than claim the whole construction as a new discovery. Their paper brings beam propagation, focusing and finite-aperture diffraction into a common practical account. ^[ref].

In incoherent imaging, contributions from distinct object points add as light intensities because their mutual spatial optical coherence is negligible. A single convolution additionally requires translation invariance of the point spread function.

Let $x$ measure position along the line joining two mutually incoherent optical point sources in the focal plane, with equal detected radiant fluxes and separation $s$. Extend the even Airy disk profile $P(u)$ to signed $u$, and put $b=\pi D/(\lambda f)$ as in Airy disk normalization and encircled energy. Relative to the peak of one source carrying the pair's total radiant flux, their summed light intensity isThe two-dimensional point spread functions underlying these line profiles all have the same total radiant flux. The line-profile integrals themselves need not equal one.

The dashed curves show individual contributions; the solid curve is their sum. All panels use the same brightness scale, and the vertical markers indicate the true source centres. At $s=s_{\mathrm{R}}$, the other source contributes zero at each centre, so $Q_{s_{\mathrm{R}}}(\pm s_{\mathrm{R}}/2)=1/2$. At the midpoint,The midpoint is therefore about $26.50\%$ below the source-centre peak. This is a calculation for this particular Airy disk and equal-incoherent-source convention, not a universal experimental threshold. At $0.7s_{\mathrm{R}}$ the two central peaks merge; at $1.5s_{\mathrm{R}}$ the valley is deeper. Changing separation continuously changes the profile, without a discontinuity at the Rayleigh criterion.

To see how information survives when the central peaks merge, set $z=bx$ and $\delta =bs$. A symmetric Taylor expansion givesThe linear terms cancel because the source positions are symmetric. At the midpoint, the Airy disk derivation gives $Q_s(0)=1-{\delta }^2/16+O({\delta }^4)$. Thus a close pair's shape differs from that of one source, but only quadratically at leading order. Detecting this small change becomes sensitive to noise and response calibration. For unequal flux fractions $\alpha$ and $1-\alpha$, the intensity instead becomes $\alpha P(b(x-s/2))+(1-\alpha )P(b(x+s/2))$; its valley and peak positions need not match the equal-source example.

Wave interference is the reinforcement or cancellation that occurs when overlapping wave amplitudes add by the superposition principle. For two monochromatic waves of the same frequency, mutual optical coherence means that their relative wave phase is stable during the observation. Equal wave phases give constructive interference; a half-cycle phase difference gives the destructive interference intensity minimum. Wave amplitudes add before their squares determine wave intensity. ^[ref].

Consider two overlapping beams in a homogeneous medium, with the same polarization of an electromagnetic wave and individual local time-averaged light intensities $I_1,I_2$. Their phase difference $\delta$ is measured in radians. In the scalar detection convention, the combined local time-averaged wave intensity isThe last term records wave interference; adding $I_1+I_2$ alone misses it. The formula describes irradiance when both fields propagate along the same direction, or when the same detector geometry factor is included in all three intensities. For crossing beams it describes the squared electric field response, proportional to scalar wave intensity; a specified component of the Poynting vector also requires the propagation geometry. The ideal crossing plane waves below make that distinction explicit.

For equal individual light intensities $I_1=I_2=I_0>0$, the cosine half-angle identity givesThe constructive interference intensity is $4I_0$ at $\delta =0$ modulo $2\pi$, and the destructive interference intensity is zero at $\delta =\pi$ modulo $2\pi$. At phase quadrature, $\delta =\pi /2$, it is $2I_0$. With $I_1=1$ and $I_2=0.25$ in the same arbitrary wave intensity unit, the maximum is $2.25$, the minimum is $0.25$, and the phase quadrature value is $1.25$: unequal wave amplitudes cannot cancel completely.

Both curves use the same wave intensity unit and a horizontal angle in radians. The dashed levels are the averages over a full phase difference cycle. Equal beams have interferometric visibility one; the unequal example has interferometric visibility $0.8$.

A spatially varying phase difference turns the same law into interference fringes. Take two ideal plane electromagnetic waves with common wavelength $\lambda$, equal individual light intensities $I_0$, and propagation directions at angles $+\theta$ and $-\theta$ from the $z$ axis in the $xz$ plane, with $0<\theta <\pi /2$. Both have linear polarization along $y$, perpendicular to both propagation directions. Choose equal initial wave phases; their wavevectors and phase difference areHere $k$ is the wavenumber and $\omega$ the angular frequency. The common $z$ and time terms cancel, so the interference fringes stay at fixed $x$ for every $z$. Their interference fringe spacing isSet the length unit to $\lambda$, so that $\lambda =1$, and take $\theta =30^{\circ }=\pi /6$: then $\Lambda =1$. The constructive interference intensity bands lie at integer $x/\lambda$; the destructive interference intensity bands lie at half-integer $x/\lambda$.

The grid covers $-3\le x/\lambda \le 3$ and $0\le z/\lambda \le 4$; both axes are dimensionless lengths in wavelength units. The colour scale is $I/I_0$ from zero to four, using the same single-beam normalization as the equal-beam curve above. This is an ideal plane wave superposition, with no slits or point sources and no near-field approximation. For these $y$-polarized plane electromagnetic waves in vacuum, the longitudinal time-averaged Poynting vector obeys $⟨S_z⟩=I\cos \theta$; the plotted scalar $I$ therefore differs from the irradiance through a plane normal to $z$ by that common factor. This relation follows by adding the magnetic fields as well as the electric fields.

The bright peaks do not create energy. Averaging over one interference fringe spacing, or equivalently over one full phase difference cycle, givesbecause the integral of the cosine is zero, with sine as its antiderivative. Equal beams thus average to $2I_0$, despite bright bands at $4I_0$. For the crossing-wave geometry, the average longitudinal energy flux is correspondingly $2I_0\cos \theta$. Bright and dark regions redistribute the incoming energy; conservation of energy concerns the full energy flux, rather than the height of one peak.

Wave interference is useful because phase differences convert small changes in optical path length into measurable changes of wave intensity, as in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Its beauty is that the same superposition principle produces both complete cancellation and fourfold brightening; adding more coherent contributions also produces the narrow peaks of a diffraction grating. Feynman's treatment connects this many-source pattern directly to addition of complex amplitudes. ^[ref].

A short proof outline uses local real fields $E_j(t)=A_j\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_j)$ with parallel linear polarizations. Write $I=C⟨(E_1+E_2{)}^2{⟩}_t$ and $I_j=C{A}_j^2/2$ for the same positive conversion factor $C$. Averaging over many wave periods while the phase difference stays fixed uses $⟨{\cos }^2(\omega t+{\varphi }_j){⟩}_t=1/2$ and $⟨\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_1)\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_2){⟩}_t=\cos \delta /2$, giving the stated law. Equivalently, add the complex amplitudes and take the squared complex modulus. ^[ref].

For different fixed linear polarizations in a common transverse plane, the cross term acquires the dot product of their real unit vectors, equal to $\cos \alpha$ for relative angle $\alpha$. Orthogonal linear polarizations remove the cross term in polarization-insensitive scalar detection; different orientations generally only reduce it. A common polarizer can select overlapping components and recover wave interference. Likewise, rapid random variation of the phase difference removes the observed cross term only when the detector's time average has $⟨e^{i\delta (t)}{⟩}_t=0$. Slowly varying wave phases can instead move resolved interference fringes, and biased or incompletely sampled wave phases can leave residual contrast. Finite optical coherence therefore depends on the observation time as well as the fields.

In a simple two-mirror oscillator, laser threshold is the small-signal optical gain at which a resonant optical normal mode exactly replaces its round-trip intensity loss. Assume constant intensity coefficients $g$ and $\alpha$ throughout a one-way distance $L$, and mirror intensity reflectivities $0<R_1,R_2\le 1$. One round trip has multiplierTwo traversals give the distance $2L$; multiplying the two mirror factors completes the bookkeeping. Setting $M=1$ and taking a logarithm givesThe reflectivities here are intensity fractions, not field-amplitude reflectivities. A shorter gain region or nonuniform loss requires replacing the path exponent by the appropriate path integral. The balance also presumes a permitted resonant optical normal mode. ^[ref].

For $L=0.50\mathrm{m}$, $R_1=1$, $R_2=0.90$ and $\alpha =0.10{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, the threshold is $g_{\mathrm{th}}\approx 0.2053605{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. At $g=0.15{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $M\approx 0.946144$: a small circulating signal decays even though the material has positive optical gain. At $g=0.30{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, $M\approx 1.099262$: the signal initially grows. Raising passive loss or lowering mirror reflectivity raises laser threshold.

For $M>1$, the fixed-gain recurrence predicts startup amplification, not infinite actual output. Growing light intensity depletes the available population inversion, reducing optical gain through saturation. In the simplest steady oscillator, the saturated round-trip gain balances loss and pumping supplies the outgoing power and dissipated energy. The small-signal model locates the onset; it does not determine the final output power. ^[ref].

Here light intensity means the time-averaged energy flux per perpendicular area for light. It is the propagation-direction component of the averaged Poynting vector. For plane electromagnetic waves in the same medium it is proportional to squared electric field wave amplitude, giving the projection-squared factor in Malus's law.

For incident light with linear polarization, an ideal linear polarizer transmitswhere $I$ is light intensity and $\theta$ is the angle between the incident electric field's line of oscillation and the polarizer's pass axis. The input and output are compared in the same medium. The classical explanation is an orthogonal projection: for a unit vector $\mathbf{u}$ along the pass axis,The dot product reduces the transmitted wave amplitude by $\cos \theta$. For a plane electromagnetic wave in the same medium, light intensity is proportional to squared electric field wave amplitude, giving Malus's law. For example, $\theta =60^{\circ }$ transmits one quarter of the incident light intensity, although the transmitted wave amplitude is one half. ^[ref].

Start with light already in linear polarization along the horizontal $0^{\circ }$ axis and let its light intensity be $I_0$. Two ideal absorbing linear polarizers with pass axes $0^{\circ }$ and $90^{\circ }$ give $I_0{\cos }^2{0}^{\circ }{\cos }^{2}90^{\circ }=0$. Insert a $45^{\circ }$ polarizer between them: the first leaves $I_0$ unchanged, the middle transmits $I_0/2$ with linear polarization along $45^{\circ }$, and the last transmits $I_0/4$ with linear polarization along $90^{\circ }$. Each angle in Malus's law is relative to the preceding output, so the final step uses $90^{\circ }-45^{\circ }=45^{\circ }$:

For these ideal absorbing polarizers, the rejected electric field component transfers energy to the filter. In the three-filter arrangement the middle absorbs the fraction $I_0/2$, and the last absorbs $I_0/4$, leaving $I_0/4$ transmitted. Conservation of energy holds at each step. Inserting the middle polarizer changes the linear polarization arriving at the last one; it does not create light. The effect illustrates why successive orthogonal projections cannot generally be replaced by a single comparison of the first and last axes.

The initially horizontal assumption matters. For unpolarized light of light intensity $I_0$, the first ideal linear polarizer transmits $I_0/2$: averaging ${\cos }^2\theta$ over uniformly distributed incident orientations gives $1/2$. The same $0^{\circ },45^{\circ },90^{\circ }$ sequence then transmits $I_0/8$. This extra first-stage factor does not apply to the already horizontally polarized input in the figure.

A Michelson interferometer divides light at a beam splitter, reflects the two arms at mirrors and recombines the returning fields. For vacuum arm lengths ${\ell }_1,{\ell }_2$, the delay magnitude is $|\tau |=2|{\ell }_2-{\ell }_1|/c$. At each coarse delay, a small mirror scan produces maxima and minima of the detected light intensity. A photodiode and its electrical readout resolve these changes; the scan should cover several carrier cycles while changing $|g^{(1)}|$ negligibly. MIT's laboratory guide uses a mirror actuator, photodiode and electrical drive to scan interference fringes and extract interferometric visibility.^[ref]

A verified motivating experiment is Shaoul Ezekiel's MIT demonstration of source-spectrum control. A polarizer selects one or several lines from a laser whose adjacent lines have orthogonal linear polarizations. A sampled beam goes to a scanning Fabry–Pérot interferometer to check the optical spectrum; the main beam enters a Michelson interferometer, and a lens projects its interference fringes onto a screen. With one selected line the fringes retain good contrast through the demonstrated delay range. With several lines their contrast falls and returns as the arm length changes. At a fixed delay with poor contrast, selecting one line restores it; at matched arms both selections give good contrast. This control isolates the role of spectral composition rather than simply the arm position. The presentation is a qualitative demonstration, not a calibrated linewidth measurement. ^[ref].

A deliberately simpler two-line model explains the return of contrast. Take two stationary, mutually uncorrelated monochromatic contributions of equal power at ${\nu }_0\pm \delta \nu /2$. Their normalized wave-field correlation isfor equal detected single-arm light intensities. At $\tau =1/(2\delta \nu )$ the two contributions' interference fringes cancel on averaging; at $\tau =1/\delta \nu$ they agree again. This is a deduction from the stipulated spectrum, not a fit to Ezekiel's two- or three-line source. Finite individual linewidths eventually damp these revivals.

For a quantitative version of the experiment, the visibility law suggests explicit controls. Measure each arm separately at every coarse delay, subtract the detector's dark signal and any measured background, then normalize by $2\sqrt{I_1{I}_2}/(I_1+I_2)$. Keep the returning beams aligned on the same detector region with parallel linear polarizations; keep detector gain fixed and avoid saturation. Resolve the small mirror scan electrically, rather than averaging over its moving interference fringes. Repeat scans to identify vibration or drift. These controls follow from the averaging and mode-matching assumptions in first-order optical coherence; loss of contrast alone cannot distinguish source decorrelation from apparatus motion, misalignment or insufficient spatial resolution. The finite travel range gives access only to a finite range of delays.

The practical gain is that wave interference measures field correlations even when the detector cannot follow the optical oscillation itself. A long optical coherence length allows unequal-arm measurements; a short one localizes high contrast near matched delays. The beautiful feature is that both fading and reappearance of interference fringes are sums of the same rotating complex amplitudes.