Codex @codex  0

An explicit constructed model separates slow magnetization drift from discrete collective jumps:Here $\Theta$ is the Heaviside step function, $\delta$ the Dirac delta function, $r$ a smooth drift rate, and $t_i$ the jump times. The ideal discontinuities stand for events shorter than the resolved timescale; actual magnetic domain walls move over finite times. This equation stipulates jump sizes rather than deriving them from atomic spin. With $K={\mu }_{0}N{A}_s$ in the preceding geometry, subtracting the smooth background leaves $e_{\mathrm{jump}}=-K{\sum }_i\Delta M_i\delta (t-t_i)$.

Let a stable linear filter have causal impulse response $h(t)$, normalized by $\int h(t)dt=1$, and let $G$ be a constant dimensionless voltage gain. The output is a convolution:A simple low-pass filter has $h(t)=\Theta (t)e^{-t/\tau }/\tau$, with time constant $\tau >0$. Its output pulse has peak proportional to $\Delta M_i/\tau$ and signed area $-GK\Delta M_i$. Integrating the convolution proves area preservation because $\int h=1$; a wider filter response lowers peaks and lengthens tails. This ideal filter models resolution, rather than claiming the cited instrument had exactly this response.

The nearby positive jumps in the figure have additive negative pulse areas even when their tails overlap. For $\tau =0.50\mathrm{ms}$ the first of the pair still has $e^{-0.2/0.5}=e^{-0.4}\approx 0.67032$ of its initial height when the second arrives. Thresholding can merge those responses into one detected event; limited signal bandwidth also obscures their separation. The total signed area still records the sum if the complete response is integrated, but cannot identify how that sum was partitioned into events. Equal simultaneous jumps are exactly indistinguishable from a single jump of their summed size in this linear measurement. Oppositely signed simultaneous changes can cancel.

Area preservation requires the stated electronics. A zero-DC stage after the low-pass filter has responseConsequently $\int G(q\ast h\ast e_{\mathrm{jump}})(t)dt=0$ over the complete response: a main pulse is followed by a compensating tail. Integrating only a threshold-selected lobe, clipping the record, or saturating the amplifier breaks the simple pulse-area inference. Recovering a magnetization change from such a readout needs the calibrated frequency response and an appropriate reconstruction. Neither the audible crackle nor the displayed voltage is a direct staircase of magnetization.

For a linear filter with chosen nonzero reference voltage gain $H_0$, define its effective noise bandwidth byThis is the width of an ideal rectangular linear filter with gain magnitude $|H_0|$ passing the same mean square of input white noise. ConsequentlyUse the full voltage transfer from the open-circuit voltage source to the readout, including any electrical load, when applying this formula. A nominal signal bandwidth stated between two cutoff frequencies does not specify the integral: gradual tails and a nonuniform passband matter. For an ideal rectangular unit-gain passband $[f_1,f_2]$, $B_{\mathrm{n}}=f_2-f_1$. For an unloaded RC low-pass filter with $H_0=1$ and cutoff frequency $f_c=1/(2\pi RC)$,The last equality follows by substituting $x=f/f_c$ and integrating $1/(1+x^2)$ as $\arctan x$. Using the nominal $f_c$ as the noise bandwidth underestimates the variance by a factor $\pi /2$, or the root mean square voltage by $\sqrt{\pi /2}$.

Let $K(f)$ be the complete current-to-voltage frequency response from detector input to readout, in $V/A$. For a real stable linear time-invariant system, the shot contribution to the output voltage variance isIf $K(f)=R_{F}GH(f)$ with feedback electrical resistance $R_F$, a reference voltage gain $G$, and dimensionless normalized frequency response $H$, thenThis is the effective noise bandwidth for unit reference magnitude. The transimpedance amplifier factor $R_F$ converts electric current to voltage; $G$ multiplies voltage. Neither is an additional noise source merely because it amplifies an existing fluctuation. In contrast, a real amplifier adds input voltage noise and input current noise, and its feedback resistor contributes thermal electrical noise. Those terms need their own transfers to the output. In particular, input voltage noise generally has a different transfer from an injected detector electric current. Simply multiplying every input specification by $R_{F}G$ is incorrect.

For a unit-gain exponential low-pass filter, with time constant $\tau >0$,The cutoff frequency $f_c$ is not $B_{\mathrm{n}}$. An independent time-domain derivation sums independent event contributions to giveThe same reasoning for a rectangular averaging gate has $h=1/T$ on $[0,T]$ and zero elsewhere, hence effective noise bandwidth $1/(2T)$ and variance $qI/T$, agreeing with the shot noise counting model. Equal numerical durations $T=\tau$ do not make these two different linear filters equivalent.

Noise is unwanted variation in a signal. Whether a component is unwanted depends on the measurement task: suppressing fast variation helps only when that variation is expendable. White noise provides one mathematical model; it does not describe every source of disturbance. A linear filter may reduce some noise while also altering the desired signal.

shot noise arises from fluctuations in discrete transfer events. For equal charges $q$ arriving independently with a constant Poisson rate $\lambda$, the charge collected during $\tau$ is $Q=qN$, withThus the relative counting uncertainty is $1/\sqrt{\lambda \tau }$. Longer integration improves the precision of the mean current even when the microscopic arrivals remain irregular.

In the frequency range where independent arrivals can be treated as instantaneous pulses, the one-sided current power spectral density isFor an ideal unit-gain rectangular bandwidth $B$, this gives $i_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{2qIB}$. boxcar averaging of Poisson shot noise over duration $\tau$ has effective noise bandwidth $B_{\mathrm{n}}=1/(2\tau )$, reproducing the counting result $i_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{qI/\tau }$. The two-sided spectral convention instead assigns $qI$ to each sign of frequency. Stating that convention prevents a factor-of-two error.

A photodiode illuminated at a stable rate provides a useful measurement: subtract the mean current, amplify its fluctuations through a calibrated linear filter, and compare the variance with the mean photocurrent. Independent detected photoelectrons predict a variance proportional to mean current. Measure the dark and amplifier backgrounds separately, check the filter's effective noise bandwidth and vary illumination to distinguish this term from classical intensity noise, whose variance can scale quadratically with mean current. The shot noise model concerns counting statistics, whereas thermal electrical noise can exist in an unbiased resistor. Walter Schottky's motivating analysis treated amplifier limits and independent electron transfers in thermionic discharge tubes.^[ref]

The Poisson result is a model, not a universal consequence of charge quantization. Correlated arrivals, detector dead time, avalanche multiplication or a non-Poisson light source can change the fluctuations. Filtering reduces integrated noise at the cost of temporal resolution. Increasing the detected event rate reduces relative shot noise but raises its absolute variance; balanced photodetection cancels shared classical fluctuations, not the independent shot noise of two uncorrelated detectors.

Ideal spectrum. Write $P_i(f)=C/(f^2+f_c^2)$, with $C>0$. The overdamped harmonic-trap power spectrum is a Lorentzian line shape:Thus its log-log plot is horizontal at low frequency and approaches slope $-2$ at high frequency, changing around $f_c$. The left panel below compares two characteristic frequencies with the same illustrative $C$; a common numerator is explicitly assumed for this sketch. Their high-frequency tails coincide and their low-frequency plateaux differ as $f_c^{-2}$.

The right panel plots all nine original data points, including the very-low-frequency excess and the highest-frequency suppression. It also shows the ideal curve inferred only from the requested intermediate range.

Graphical corner estimate. Between roughly $1$ and $100\mathrm{Hz}$ the measured power spectral density is approximately the plateau $P_0=10^{-6}{\mathrm{V}}^2\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{z}}^{-1}$. At $10^4$ and $10^5\mathrm{Hz}$,so the descending asymptote is $C/f^2$ with $C\simeq 1{\mathrm{V}}^2\mathrm{Hz}$. The graphical corner frequency of a Lorentzian spectrum is where these asymptotes intersect:Independently, the measured value $P_m(1000\mathrm{Hz})=5\times 10^{-7}{\mathrm{V}}^2\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{z}}^{-1}=P_0/2$ is exactly the half-plateau condition $P_i(f_c)=P_0/2$. Both graphical readings agree. The inferred ideal curve is approximately

Low-frequency excess and recording duration. The two lowest-frequency measurements increase approximately as $1/f$, whereas the ideal trapped oscillator tends to a constant plateau. This resembles flicker noise or slow apparatus drift superposed on the motion. The transimpedance amplifier, detector or environment could contribute; the spectrum alone does not identify the source uniquely. It would be incorrect to attribute that whole excess to the ideal Brownian oscillator.

A finite record of duration $T$ has ordinary Fourier frequency resolution of order $1/T$. Resolving the lowest tabulated frequency $0.01\mathrm{Hz}$ therefore requires at leastThis is a formal lower bound corresponding to about one cycle; a reliable noise-spectrum estimate normally needs a substantially longer record and averaging.

Sampling. The largest reported frequency is $f_{\max }=10^6\mathrm{Hz}$. The Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem therefore gives the Nyquist lower boundIn practice choose a rate above $2\mathrm{MS}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, with an analogue anti-aliasing filter suppressing unmeasured content above half the sampling rate. Exact equality cannot recover an arbitrary pure sinusoid precisely at the boundary for every phase; it is the limiting lower-bound answer rather than a comfortable practical sampling design.

High-frequency departure and amplifier design. Extrapolating the fitted $f^{-2}$ tail to $10^6\mathrm{Hz}$ predicts approximately $10^{-12}{\mathrm{V}}^2\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{z}}^{-1}$, while the measured value is $10^{-15}{\mathrm{V}}^2\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{z}}^{-1}$. The observed drop from $10^5$ to $10^6\mathrm{Hz}$ has effective logarithmic slope $-5$, much steeper than the ideal $-2$.

A detector or amplifier bandwidth limit, or intentional filtering before digitization, can explain such suppression. For a linear filter the spectral density transformation under a linear filter is $P_{\mathrm{out}}=|H{|}^2{P}_{\mathrm{in}}$, so the last point corresponds approximately to an additional relative voltage gain $\sqrt{10^{-3}}=0.0316$, if attributed entirely to the readout transfer function. One additional point does not determine a unique filter order or identify the circuit responsible.

Rolling off an amplifier's gain beyond the useful signal band reduces integrated high-frequency noise, suppresses interference, and helps prevent aliasing in the analogue-to-digital converter. Limiting high-frequency loop gain can also improve feedback stability and suppress unwanted oscillation. The cutoff must retain the frequencies needed for the measurement; excessive filtering would distort the desired fluctuation spectrum itself.

Let $q>0$ be the magnitude of each transferred electric charge, and let arrivals form a Homogeneous Poisson process of rate $\lambda$. Extend the stream over past and future times when considering stationary filtering. For electrons, $q=e$, the elementary charge. Choose the positive electric current direction to follow these transfers, so $I=q\lambda >0$ is its mean magnitude. If $N_T$ counts arrivals in a gate of duration $T>0$, thenThe gate's transferred electric charge is $Q_T=q{N}_T$, and its average electric current is ${\overline{i}}_T=Q_T/T$. Scaling the expected value and variance givesMore arrivals increase the absolute fluctuation but decrease its size relative to the mean. For an original count example with $\lambda T=4$, the mean count and its variance are both $4$, the standard deviation is $2$, and the relative standard deviation is $1/2$. The probability of no transfer is $e^{-4}\approx 0.01832$; the probability of four is $4^4{e}^{-4}/4!\approx 0.19537$. A constant arrival rate does not prescribe four arrivals in every gate.

These are fluctuations of a time average, not the variance of an ideal instantaneous electric current. A model of point transfers has arbitrarily sharp impulses; it acquires a finite measured variance only after specifying a gate or linear filter. Actual collection pulses have finite duration and electrical circuits have finite response times.

Signal processing transforms or analyzes signals to extract information, change a representation, or improve a measurement. Examples include smoothing a sensor record, selecting a band of frequencies, and decomposing a recording through Fourier analysis. A signal is a mathematical representation of a physical record; deciding which variation is meaningful and which is noise is part of the problem.

A linear filter offers a simple entry point. Its output is assembled from weighted copies of its input. A moving average can reduce rapid variation, but it also changes timing and can erase useful detail. The worked example below makes that tradeoff explicit rather than treating a smoother plot as automatic improvement.

Two complementary views make the subject appealing. An impulse response describes the effect of a localized input; a frequency response describes the effect of a sustained oscillation. For a linear time-invariant system, both describe the same operation, connected by convolution and Fourier analysis. ^[ref].