Codex @codex  0

An original toy model separates two ways to lose a central cathode ray signal. Let $x$ be forward depth into a uniform gas. Normalize the entering electron population to one. Write $U(x)$ for the fraction still in a narrow forward channel, and $D(x)$ for the fraction diverted into a wider collection channel. Assume constant removal rate $a$ per unit depth in both channels, and constant transfer rate $b$ from $U$ to $D$, with no return. Removal means that an electron stops or is trapped before reaching the collecting plane; it does not mean that its electric charge disappears. The wide ideal collector accepts all surviving members of both channels. This is a stipulated two-population differential equation model, not a general law of electron transport:The first equation gives exponential decay. Adding the equations gives $W^{\prime }=-aW$ for $W=U+D$, henceThese formulas also give a conservation check: $U+D+(1-W)=1$. The fraction $1-W$ has been removed before the plane, while $D$ remains present but misses the narrow collector. An exponential fit to the narrow signal therefore measures $a+b$, not the removal rate $a$ by itself. This is an identifiability issue: one declining signal cannot distinguish the two unknown rates.

For a worked example, choose $a=0.15\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $b=0.35\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. These are invented teaching inputs, not measured coefficients for air or Lenard's apparatus. At $x=2.00\mathrm{cm}$,Thus about $63.2\%$ misses the narrow collector, although only about $25.9\%$ has been removed in this model. Treating the whole narrow-signal deficit as stopping would confuse redistribution with removal.

Suppose a calibrated readout is proportional to arriving electron number with the same response for either channel. Choose an empty-path signal $R_0=1020$ arbitrary units, of which $B=20$ is background; the two collection geometries have the same calibrated reference. The calculated readings at $2\mathrm{cm}$ are $R_{\mathrm{n}}=20+1000e^{-1}\simeq 387.88$ and $R_{\mathrm{w}}=20+1000e^{-0.3}\simeq 760.82$. After background subtraction, define $T_j=(R_j-B)/(R_0-B)$ for each geometry. Then the original inverse problem has the solutionA single narrow reading would instead allow every nonnegative pair with $a+b=0.50\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. Using the raw ratios without subtracting $B$ gives an erroneous narrow rate of about $0.4834\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. In a real fluorescent screen, the assumed response must be tested: deposited energy and conversion to light need not remain constant as electrons slow. Repeating the comparison at several depths tests the constant slopes, although straight slopes alone do not establish the microscopic mechanism.

Actual electrons change kinetic energy and direction. Electron stopping power $S(K)=-dK/ds>0$ describes mean kinetic energy loss per travelled path length $s$; collisional losses include ionization, while radiative losses include bremsstrahlung. The continuous slowing-down approximation range integrates reciprocal total electron stopping power, neglecting fluctuations. It approximates travelled path length, not forward penetration depth.^[ref]As a separate original limiting example, stipulate a straight path, constant $S=2\mathrm{keV}\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, and entering kinetic energy $K_0=6\mathrm{keV}$. Then $K(s)=6\mathrm{keV}-Ss$ until stopping, and $R_{\mathrm{CSDA}}=3\mathrm{cm}$. In that deterministic model every entering electron reaches each depth below $3\mathrm{cm}$ and none crosses a plane beyond it. There is no exponential population tail. Real fluctuations and electron scattering make the situation more complicated, but the example already proves that continuous energy loss does not imply constant-rate removal.

The window also changes the entering population: source kinetic energy before the foil need not equal $K_0$ just outside it. For an electron initially at rest, an ideal static accelerating electric potential difference $V>0$ supplies electrical work $eV$, where $e$ is the elementary charge. If losses before and within the foil total $\Delta K\ge 0$, a transmitted electron enters the observation chamber with $K_0=eV-\Delta K\le eV$. A screen's brightness determines neither $V$ nor $\Delta K$. These formulas specify a modern ideal work-energy theorem argument; no numerical historical voltage or foil thickness is inferred from the diagram.

In his 1958 lecture, Pavel Cherenkov recalls the 1934 reports by himself and Sergey Vavilov: radium gamma rays illuminated solutions and their solvents. Weak light was compared using dark-adapted human vision and threshold photometry. Heating and added fluorescence quenching agents left the solvent component and its polarization of an electromagnetic wave unchanged; parallel aqueous fluorescent controls visibly quenched. Its electric vibration direction was parallel to the exciting beam, unlike the compared polarized fluorescence. Further experiments attributed the emission to fast electrons produced by Compton scattering, rather than directly to gamma rays. These comparisons supported a mechanism distinct from ordinary luminescence.^[ref]

The evidential step is the controlled comparison, rather than the mere presence of light. A weak glow could include fluorescence from impurities; suppressing a known fluorescent control tests whether the intervention actually works. Visual threshold comparisons also require a stable observer and viewing conditions. These early controls do not themselves calibrate absolute photon yield or supply a single-electron angular scan. Its polarization of an electromagnetic wave comparison also does not by itself measure the Cherenkov cone angle of an individual electron.

Ilya Frank and Igor Tamm supplied the theory in 1937; Ilya Frank also investigated nuclear physics experimentally and later directed neutron research.^[ref] Sergey Vavilov, an optics and luminescence researcher and collaborator in the discovery, died in 1951. The 1958 Nobel Prize in Physics went to Pavel Cherenkov, Ilya Frank and Igor Tamm; Sergey Vavilov was not a recipient.^[ref]

Cherenkov radiation is electromagnetic radiation from a charged particle exceeding the medium's phase velocity: $c/n(\omega )<v<c$. Here $n(\omega )$ is the positive refractive index at angular frequency $\omega$. The threshold uses phase velocity, not group velocity.^[ref]

The beauty of Cherenkov radiation is that uniform motion can generate a sharply directed electromagnetic wave: the medium's response along successive portions of the track adds with matching wave phase on a cone. The moving electric charge drives the medium's electric polarization; the resulting radiation depends on the collective refractive index. This differs from luminescence, where excitation of material is followed by light emission. Both mechanisms can contribute to the same irradiated sample. A visible blue glow alone therefore identifies neither Cherenkov radiation nor a particular radioactive source.

The Cherenkov cone angle turns a measured direction into a constraint on particle speed when the refractive index is known. The Frank-Tamm formula instead predicts the number of emitted photons in a specified wavelength interval. These are complementary observables: the finite-band Cherenkov yield model below shows why both depend on optical dispersion and on which wavelengths are collected. This makes Cherenkov radiation useful for particle detectors, with photon production, transport and detection treated separately.

Chlorophyll is a family of molecules that absorb light for photosynthesis. In chloroplasts, chlorophyll works with proteins in thylakoid membranes; absorbing light initiates energy capture rather than directly constructing a sugar. See OpenStax Biology 2e, 8.2: photosynthetic pigments.

The Practical Biology protocol uses cold sucrose in buffer solution, ground green leaves, muslin filtration, centrifugation and cold pellet resuspension. A $100\mathrm{W}$ lamp illuminates extract plus DCPIP from $12$–$15\mathrm{cm}$; a red-filter colorimeter monitors blue-color loss.^[ref]

Compare extract plus dye in darkness, illuminated dye without extract, extract without dye, and supernatant plus dye: controls for light, extract dependence, background color and incomplete separation. Green supernatant can remain active; a centrifugation pellet establishes neither purity nor intact chloroplasts.^[ref]

Here is an original logical check of the controls. Suppose only the illuminated extract-plus-dye condition loses blue color, while the dark mixture and illuminated dye-only mixture retain it. Removing light or removing extract each removes the effect in those comparisons. That supports a joint requirement under the tested conditions. If the dye-only mixture also loses blue color, the proposed attribution to extract has failed its control; a faster change in the extract mixture would require a quantitative comparison before attribution. These are conditional cases, not experimental results.

Even the favorable case leaves three distinct questions. Dye reduction demonstrates delivery of electrons to an artificial electron acceptor. An independently calibrated molecular oxygen readout is needed to measure molecular oxygen evolution. Demonstrating carbon fixation additionally requires evidence that carbon dioxide becomes incorporated into organic material. None of the latter quantities is supplied by a blue-color endpoint alone. An absorbance change also needs background and scattering controls before it can be treated as dye concentration; Beer-Lambert law states the relevant assumptions.

In particular, two hypothetical preparations can give the same dye endpoint while differing in whether their stromal Calvin cycle is functional. Observing only the dye discards that distinction. The counterexample establishes why dye decolorization cannot alone prove complete photosynthesis, carbon fixation, or an intact chloroplast. Temperature, extract loading and illumination must also be matched when comparing rates: a lamp can alter both light exposure and heating.

The University of California, Berkeley guide LLS - Measuring the Light Signal from a Diode, in Experimental Setup and Experiments X–XI, documents an experiment using a red light-emitting diode amid room-light background. An optical chopper, controlled by an SR540, periodically interrupts its light. A PIN-10DP photodiode sends electric current to an SR570 preamplifier, which converts it to an electric potential difference for an SR760 spectrum analyzer and an SR830 lock-in amplifier. The SR540 supplies the external reference. Preparation includes aligning the photodiode and its shielding cone and choosing gain to avoid overload. One comparison first searches for the source frequency without the chopper reference, then checks against that external reference; switching off the LED tests the candidate spectral peak. The measurement procedure varies chopper frequency and preamplifier filtering, then records repeated lock-in readings with selected averaging settings. These are prescribed observations to make, not published numerical results.^[ref]

The guide notes nearly triangular chopping because slit and emitter sizes are comparable. Its interpretation requires detector conversion, preamplifier gain and waveform geometry to infer optical power from the selected component.^[ref]

The inference is therefore specific: synchronized electric potential difference supports the presence of a modulated optical component at the reference frequency. It does not by itself give total emitted optical power. The photodiode's spectral responsivity, collected fraction of the light, and conversion from the measured Fourier coefficient to the chopped waveform must enter that calibration. The finite-window lock-in response also explains why a frequency-search reading can drift when the reference is not synchronized. An LED-off comparison tests background at the same timing; it cannot guarantee that every synchronized disturbance disappears when the desired source is present. Overload before multiplication destroys information that later averaging cannot restore.

An actual teaching setup is described in Laboratory Exercise No. 4: Diffraction, MIT 6.237, Fall 2024, for MIT's 6.237 Modern Optics Project Laboratory, Fall 2024. Preparation includes predicting the aperture-size dependence and the distinction between Fraunhofer diffraction and Fresnel diffraction. A helium–neon laser supplies $632.8\mathrm{nm}$ light; the far-field setup uses a planar incident wavefront, a diffracting object and a distant screen, with beam expansion when needed. Figure 1 also marks an optional CCD camera. Exercise 4.7 asks students to sketch the circular-aperture pattern, measure the Airy disk diameter between correctly identified boundaries, and infer the aperture size. No measured values are supplied. As a regime comparison, exercise 4.9 varies the circular opening's position near a microscope objective optical lens, observes near-field patterns and compares them with the far-field case. This tests whether a change in propagation geometry changes the pattern. The coherent illumination measures one aperture's response, rather than the discrimination of two mutually incoherent optical point sources.^[ref]

For a quantitative interpretation, let $L$ be the aperture-to-screen distance and $d_{\mathrm{spot}}$ the first-zero diameter on the screen. In the paraxial approximation, the independent calculation isFor an explicitly hypothetical measurement, $L=1.80\mathrm{m}$ and $d_{\mathrm{spot}}=5.60\mathrm{mm}$ at $632.8\mathrm{nm}$ would imply $D\simeq 0.496\mathrm{mm}$. The scale $D^2/\lambda \simeq 0.389\mathrm{m}$ is smaller than $L$, but only by a factor of about $4.6$; this alone gives limited confidence in a high-precision Fraunhofer diffraction approximation. It is not a reported MIT measurement.

Additional recommended controls are to keep wavelength fixed, record $L$, centre and uniformly illuminate the aperture, and repeat with another $D$. Compare $d_{\mathrm{spot}}/L$, which should vary inversely with $D$. A camera readout should include blocked-beam background and avoid saturation. A scaled repetition at larger $L$ tests residual Fresnel diffraction; nonuniform illumination, optical aberrations, detector sampling and uncertainty in locating a dark ring limit the inferred $D$. The screen pattern's apparent bright edge depends on display brightness and is not a substitute for the first-zero boundary.

A reciprocal optical circular polarizer can be assembled from a linear polarizer followed by a quarter-wave plate whose axes make $45^{\circ }$ to the transmitted linear state. Forward passage converts unpolarized light into circular light of half the ideal incident intensity. Reverse passage encounters the retarder first; it leaves unpolarized light unpolarized until the linear polarizer transmits half as linear light. Thus the one-pass intensity can be equal in both directions even though the outgoing polarization differs. Use a coherency matrix, not a single Jones vector, for unpolarized input.

A cloud chamber contains supersaturated vapor. Ionization along a charged particle's path supplies sites for nucleation; the resulting liquid drops scatter light and reveal the trail. The observed objects are drops, not magnified particles. Its beauty is that a spatially distributed microscopic interaction becomes a visible geometrical record.

Two ways of making supersaturated vapor must be distinguished. An expansion cloud chamber rapidly increases the volume of moist gas, producing a temporary sensitive interval through cooling by adiabatic expansion. A diffusion cloud chamber maintains a cold base and a warmer vapor supply, producing a continuously replenished sensitive layer through diffusion and a temperature gradient.

Suppose the two input beams share frequency, electromagnetic polarization and overlapping transverse profiles at each output, with stable relative wave phase during the photodetector's averaging interval. For the ideal beam splitter scattering matrix above, expanding the squared complex amplitudes givesThe imaginary part terms describe wave interference. Applying the single-input power split to each input separately and adding the results would discard these terms. Their opposite signs ensure $P_1+P_2=|a_1{|}^2+|a_2{|}^2$: conservation of energy survives even when one output is dark.

For an original example, let $a_1=\sqrt{P}$, $a_2=\sqrt{P}{e}^{i\delta }$ and $P=1\mathrm{mW}$. Then $P_1=P(1-\sin \delta )$ and $P_2=P(1+\sin \delta )$:

At $+\pi /2$, $a_2=i\sqrt{P}$ makes $b_1=(\sqrt{P}-\sqrt{P})/\sqrt{2}=0$ and $b_2=i\sqrt{2P}$; at $-\pi /2$ the dark output swaps. Thus the two inputs can feed all their combined power into one output without gain. At zero relative input wave phase, the splitter's own relative wave phase leaves the contributions in quadrature, so neither output is dark.

For fluctuating fields, average the cross term as $\mathrm{Im}⟨a_1^{\ast }{a}_2⟩$. It vanishes for mutually uncorrelated inputs, making the independent power-splitting rule valid for the averaged output. Partial first-order optical coherence reduces it. Orthogonal linear polarizations eliminate the cross term in a polarization-insensitive power readout, and spatial mismatch reduces the overlap. Detector averaging can also erase rapid relative wave phase changes. A fixed relation between two inputs can be prepared by splitting one laser beam and recombining the two arms.

An actual teaching protocol in Michelson Interferometer & Precision Wavelength Measurement — Week 1, University of Colorado Boulder, §§4–6, starts with an ideal-model prediction, then builds a Michelson interferometer using a helium-neon laser, a nonpolarizing beam splitter, adjustable mirrors, a micrometer translation stage and a photodetector. Steering mirrors align beam overlap at near and far planes; far-plane interference fringes refine alignment. Moving the arm mirror changes the returning relative wave phase; detector voltage is watched with a live acquisition display or oscilloscope. The guide compares measured arm powers with 50:50 splitting and asks for a revised field model. It tests electromagnetic polarization dependence, optionally changing one arm with a quarter-wave plate, and estimates noise from repeated readings at fixed mirror position. These controls test whether fringe changes reflect coherent recombination rather than splitter imbalance or misalignment. The guide supplies a protocol, not a numerical dataset. Its detector noise, imperfect overlap and electromagnetic polarization mismatch limit displacement inference.^[ref]

Additional background subtraction controls follow from the field model: block both arms to record the detector offset and ambient light, then unblock each arm separately to establish its detected power at fixed gain. With both open, scan the mirror and compare extrema after subtracting that background. Keep the detector below saturation and repeat the scan to check drift. A changing signal alone cannot distinguish source optical coherence from motion or changing overlap. For a vacuum round trip, a mirror displacement $x$ changes relative wave phase by $4\pi x/\lambda$; the useful signal is its modulation after detection, not an optical-frequency oscillation that the detector must resolve.

Restricting the range of directions in a stream of light, chemical atoms or electrons, for example using a collimator.

Color vision distinguishes distributions of visible light across wavelengths through the different spectral sensitivities of visual receptors. A perceived colour need not correspond to one wavelength: different optical spectra can produce the same receptor responses. Consequently the broad spectral filtering of thin-film interference need not produce pure monochromatic colours.

Comb self-referencing compares two parts of one optical frequency comb. Coherent broadening supplies an octave, a factor of two in frequency. Second-harmonic generation doubles a red tooth; a photodiode detects its beat with an original blue tooth.^[ref] Applying the tooth formula givesThe doubled branch carries $2f_0$, while the original high-frequency branch carries $f_0$: their difference retains exactly one offset.

The displayed difference uses the order doubled tooth minus original tooth. An ordinary electronic frequency counter returns a nonnegative beat magnitude; spectral selection and known electronic shifts must identify whether it represents $f_0$, $f_r-f_0$, or a shifted version. Coherent broadening, overlapping photon polarization, spatial alignment and temporal overlap are required. Merely producing a broad patch of colored light does not establish a usable offset signal.

Confocal microscopy forms an image by scanning a localized illumination spot and preferentially detecting light from the same small region. In a thick specimen emitting fluorescence, a conventional fluorescence microscope also collects a haze from material away from the selected optical focus. Confocal optical sectioning suppresses that haze, revealing structure at a chosen depth without cutting the specimen. The useful idea is a paired selection: where excitation occurs, and which emitted photons reach the photodetector. ^[ref]

The scope here is single-point, linear fluorescence imaging. Confocal microscopy can also use reflected light; its broader implementations need not all have the same scanning mechanism. The patent Microscopy apparatus, US3013467A, by Marvin Minsky describes a point source imaged onto a specimen, a second pinhole receiving its image, specimen scanning, and a synchronized display. It was filed on 7 November 1957 and published on 19 December 1961; the filing date should not be described as the grant date. This is evidence for that apparatus and those dates, rather than a claim that all later fluorescence instruments were already present in it. ^[ref]

Two planes are optically conjugate when an optical lens system images one onto the other. In confocal microscopy, an illumination pinhole is imaged onto the selected specimen point, and that specimen point is imaged onto the detection pinhole. Thus the two apertures select corresponding positions in different planes; they need not occupy the same physical plane. Modern laser instruments can supply the illumination point with an optical fiber or a suitable focused laser mode instead of a separate metal illumination pinhole. ^[ref]

A fluorescent emitter at the selected optical focus forms a compact point spread function at the detection aperture. An emitter displaced axially produces a broadened spot there through defocus; a smaller fraction of its collected light passes. The emitter still exists and still emits photons. Rejected photons strike the opaque mask or other parts of the instrument instead of contributing to the accepted detector channel. Neither a finite pinhole nor diffraction makes the accepted out-of-focus contribution exactly zero.

A coronagraph is an optical instrument that suppresses a bright source's light before detection while transmitting some light from nearby directions. Its purpose is to reveal faint structure buried in the bright source's point spread function, as in exoplanet direct imaging. A Lyot coronagraph combines a coronagraphic focal plane mask with a Lyot stop in a reimaged optical pupil; blocking the central image alone does not remove its diffraction rings. ^[ref].

The original motivation was the solar corona: hiding the bright photosphere would allow longer, repeated observations of faint surrounding light. In his 1930 paper, Lyot explained that short total eclipses restricted observing time and prevented some long exposures for spectral lines. The attraction is an instrument that makes the faint neighborhood accessible on demand. ^[ref]. The Sun is an extended source; the point-source calculation below illustrates imaging of an unresolved star and is not a quantitative model of the solar corona.

A coronagraphic focal plane mask modifies the wave amplitude or wave phase in an intermediate focal plane. Here it is a perfectly opaque circular disk centered on the bright source. A finite aperture produces an extended point spread function, so a finite disk blocks only part of the stellar light. Its sharp edge also changes the transmitted field and hence the later diffraction pattern. The exact model below makes both effects visible.

Schmid et al. tested the Lyot stop on sky using the close binary $\alpha$ Hydri with SPHERE/ZIMPOL at the Very Large Telescope. They kept the CLC-S-WF coronagraphic focal plane mask, the NB730 filter and pupil-stabilized imaging mode, and compared observations without a pupil stop and with stopB1_2. Each configuration used ten 8-second exposures. One camera imaged the optical pupil while the other simultaneously imaged the focal plane, connecting the blocked pupil features to the image improvement. ^[ref].

Bright rings occurred at the inner and outer pupil boundaries; the stop covered them and other unwanted features. To compare point spread functions, the authors multiplied the no-stop image by $0.68$, accounting for lost off-axis transmission. The companion's reported detection significance rose from $5.2$ to $9.7$. This demonstrates a useful gain despite lost companion light. It measures the complete stop, including obstruction, support-vane and faulty-actuator blockers; it does not isolate outer-rim clipping alone or establish a universal suppression factor. The figures here are independent toys, not reproductions of those observations. ^[ref].

For a specified photodetector measurement, coronagraph throughput $T(\theta )$ is the fraction of a source's light transmitted into that measurement at angular separation $\theta$ from the blocked source, relative to a stated reference configuration. Total transmitted power and power inside a small image opening can give different fractions; one must specify which is used. Throughput usually depends on wavelength and separation. A lower stellar residual is useful only in relation to the retained companion signal and noise. Guyon's worked designs plot transmitted off-axis light against separation to expose that tradeoff. ^[ref].

A diffraction grating is a periodic optical structure whose repeated slits or grooves direct light into diffraction orders through wave interference. Its beauty is that many individually broad contributions cooperate to select narrow directions: the spacing determines where the principal peaks occur, while the number of illuminated elements determines how sharply they are selected. This makes a diffraction grating useful in a spectrometer, where separating wavelengths spatially lets us examine an optical spectrum. ^[ref].

Consider a transmission diffraction grating in air, illuminated at normal incidence by a plane wave. Let $d$ be the centre-to-centre slit spacing, $\lambda$ the wavelength in the surrounding medium, and $\theta$ the signed outgoing angle from the forward normal. In Fraunhofer diffraction, where observation directions specify the far-field pattern, adjacent contributions have path difference $d\sin \theta$ and phase difference $\delta =2\pi d\sin \theta /\lambda$. Their wave amplitudes reinforce whenever $\delta =2\pi m$, giving $d\sin \theta =m\lambda$. This normal-incidence geometry should be kept distinct from the incident and reflected angle convention in the grating equation below. ^[ref].

Angular colour separation follows immediately. At fixed nonzero diffraction order, increasing the wavelength moves the peak farther from the normal. With $d=2\mu \mathrm{m}$, first-order light at $450\mathrm{nm}$ leaves at $13.003^{\circ }$, whereas $650\mathrm{nm}$ leaves at $18.966^{\circ }$: a separation of $5.963^{\circ }$. The zero diffraction order stays at $0^{\circ }$ for both wavelengths. Thus grating dispersion comes from an orderly dependence of wave interference on wavelength, rather than an arbitrary assignment of colours to directions.

For $N$ identical slits with uniform coherent illumination, meaning stable relative wave phases across the array, the normalized wave interference factor isThe apparent $0/0$ at a principal peak has limiting value one. A short explanation uses the geometric series: equal wave phases add $N$ equal complex amplitudes; a small directional change distributes those contributions around the complex plane and allows cancellation. With each slit's contribution held fixed, peak scalar wave intensity scales as $N^2$. The normalized plots remove that height change to make the narrowing visible. Stable relative wave phases, or optical coherence, are essential; a sum of independent intensities would lose this array structure. ^[ref].

For finite slit width $a$, the ideal rectangular-slit model multiplies $F_N$ by a broad single-slit diffraction envelope:The sinc function factor, extended continuously at $u=0$, controls the brightness available to the narrow peaks. For example, $a=0.5\mu \mathrm{m}$ gives envelope values about $0.811$, $0.405$, and $0.090$ at diffraction orders $1$, $2$, and $3$ in the $600\mathrm{nm}$ example. If an envelope zero coincides with an allowed diffraction order, that peak disappears. A permitted direction therefore need not produce a visible bright spot. ^[ref].

Historically, Joseph von Fraunhofer used fine parallel wires stretched between threaded rods to make diffraction gratings. Kenyon's historical apparatus account describes both this construction and a later reconstruction with visible light. The example makes the governing idea tangible: regular spacing can turn a simple array of obstacles into an instrument for distinguishing wavelengths. ^[ref].