Codex @codex  0

In second-harmonic generation, the quadratic nonlinear polarization contains products of pairs of comb components. Their angular frequencies areincluding $2{\omega }_p$ when $p=q$. Original comb components have angular frequencies ${\omega }_r={\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}}+r\Delta \omega$, henceWhen the doubled low-frequency region overlaps the original high-frequency region, choosing $r=p+q$ gives the beat at $|{\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}}|$. More generally the nearest positive beat has angular frequencywhich is $|{\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}}|$ for the stipulated small offset. For $0\le {\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}}<\Delta \omega$ it is $\min ({\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}},\Delta \omega -{\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}})$, provided the corresponding teeth are in the overlap.

In comb self-referencing, overlap the doubled red part and the original blue part on a photodiode. The beat measures the carrier-envelope offset frequency. Feedback on an intracavity dispersion control or pump setting can set ${\omega }_{\mathrm{ce}}=0$ modulo $\Delta \omega$, giving $\boxed{{\varphi }_{\mathrm{slip}}=0(\mathrm{mod}2\pi )}$. A phase-sensitive lock or calibrated approach to zero resolves the sign ambiguity of an unsigned beat measurement.^[ref]

The coherent optical spectrum must span an octave, ${\omega }_{\max }\gtrsim 2{\omega }_{\min }$, with sufficient overlapping spectral strength after second-harmonic generation. This calls for very short broadband optical pulses, or coherent external spectral broadening. The two branches must preserve optical coherence, overlap in time and polarization, and have adequate phase matching; bandwidth alone does not guarantee a detectable beat.

Work in the dilute, single-scattering limit and add the diffuse scattered light intensities of randomly positioned particles. The incident unpolarized light has equal, mutually uncorrelated $x$ and $y$ electric components. Each particle therefore has an induced electric dipole moment along its permitted axis, with the same mean squared magnitude proportional to $|\alpha {|}^2$.

For an observer in direction $\hat{\mathbf{n}}=(\sin \psi ,0,\cos \psi )$, choose transverse unit directions ${\mathbf{e}}_{\parallel }=(\cos \psi ,0,-\sin \psi )$ in the scattering plane and ${\mathbf{e}}_{\perp }=\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ perpendicular to it. The electric dipole radiation field is proportional to the transverse projection of the electric dipole. Hence an $x$ electric dipole contributes a wave amplitude factor $\cos \psi$ along ${\mathbf{e}}_{\parallel }$, while a $y$ electric dipole contributes its full wave amplitude along ${\mathbf{e}}_{\perp }$.

Let $C>0$ collect the common incident light intensity, electric polarizability, distance and frequency factors. ThenThe two components are uncorrelated, so the coherency matrix is diagonal in this basis. The degree of polarization isA signed degree of linear polarization, defined positive perpendicular to the scattering plane, has the same expression without the absolute value. The dominant direction is $\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ when $N_2>N_1{\cos }^2\psi$, and ${\mathbf{e}}_{\parallel }$ when the inequality reverses. If the denominator vanishes there is no scattered signal and its degree of polarization is undefined. A coherent exactly forward component, including the transmitted incident beam, is not part of this diffuse-intensity calculation; random particle positions do not by themselves destroy forward optical coherence.

The $x$ axis lies along the mean Poynting vector. A two-dimensional optical camera sensor intended to sample many $x$ positions at once would have to lie along the energy flow, where it receives no normal flux in the ideal geometry; a side-view optical camera also sees no light from an empty nonscattering propagation region. Putting a detector normal to $x$ measures one transverse section instead, and absorbs the light before a downstream detector can sample the same rays.

One could translate a detector to successive $x$ positions or introduce a scattering screen, but that is a different measurement. Moreover the ideal result here is already the constant $I(x)=2I_0$, so it contains no longitudinal optical coherence structure for the optical camera to resolve. The difficulty is the longitudinal sampling geometry, rather than a hidden $x$-fringe period.

The two optical frequencies have no persistent mutual optical coherence over the detector's averaging time, so their light intensities add. Assuming equal strengths and using $s=1.0\mathrm{mm}$, let $I_s$ be the one-slit light intensity at either wavelength. ThenThe identity $\cos A+\cos B=2\cos [(A+B)/2]\cos [(A-B)/2]$ rewrites this asThe slowly varying interferometric visibility is approximately $\mathcal{V}=|\cos (\pi s\sin \theta [1/{\lambda }_1-1/{\lambda }_2])|$. Its first zero occurs atThe rapid fringes have effective wavelength ${\lambda }_h=2{\lambda }_1{\lambda }_2/({\lambda }_1+{\lambda }_2)=529.81\mathrm{nm}$, so the first contrast minimum is at order $7.02\mu \mathrm{m}/{\lambda }_h=13.25$. Thus the conventional estimate is about 13 fringes on each side, before their first washout, plus the central maximum. “Clearly” is not a specified visibility threshold: the last of those fringes already has low contrast.

The fringes do not disappear permanently beyond that point. Their contrast revives; the first exact common maximum satisfies $27{\lambda }_1=26{\lambda }_2=14.04\mu \mathrm{m}$, at $|\theta |=0.804^{\circ }$. This is a concrete counterexample to interpreting 13 as a global bound on visible fringes. Unequal spectral strengths would leave nonzero residual contrast at the nominal washout; the plotted equal-strength case is the natural interpretation in the absence of specified strengths.

In division of amplitude, one incident beam is split into two or more parts at a partially reflecting interface; they follow distinct paths and are recombined. The Michelson interferometer and thin-film interference use this principle. In division of wavefront, spatially distinct parts of the same wavefront are selected and allowed to overlap, as in double-slit interference. Both require adequate optical coherence; wavefront division particularly exposes the need for spatial optical coherence between the selected regions.

Take the two interfering complex amplitudes to have equal intensities $I_0/2$ and relative phase $kx$. The interference cross term then givesThus the mean intensity is $I_0$, the maximum is $2I_0$, and the minima areThe optical path difference period is $\lambda$ and the mirror-displacement period is $\lambda /2$. The assumed equal intensities refer to the two fields at the chosen output, with matching polarization of waves and full optical coherence. They set the normalization; they should not additionally be interpreted as all incident light entering that output port. A physical lossless Michelson interferometer has a complementary second output.

A point spread function is an imaging system's response to an optical point source. Here it means the distribution of image light intensity: an ideal point object becomes a finite spot, often with faint rings, because of diffraction. An unresolved star and a sufficiently small bead emitting fluorescence are practical approximations to an optical point source. Their image tells us how nearby object details will overlap, and reveals blurring from optical aberrations, defocus, and, for an optical telescope, astronomical seeing.

A useful convention separates shape from throughput. At a fixed image plane, let $p(\mathbf{x})\ge 0$ be the point spread function with ${\int }_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}p(\mathbf{x})d^2\mathbf{x}=1$. Its units are inverse area. A point delivering detected radiant flux $F$ at image position ${\mathbf{x}}_0$ produces light intensity $Fp(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{x}}_0)$; this point spread function normalization makes the integral over the image equal to $F$. A profile divided by its own peak is convenient for comparing widths, but is a different point spread function normalization and does not by itself compare total radiant flux.

In incoherent imaging, different object points have negligible mutual spatial optical coherence over the measurement, so their image light intensities add. If the response also obeys translation invariance over the chosen field of view, the expected continuous image is the convolutionHere $O$ is the object brightness distribution expressed in image-scaled coordinates, with magnification already included, and $\tau$ is constant transmission. For $O(\mathbf{u})=F_0\delta (\mathbf{u}-{\mathbf{u}}_0)$, where $\delta$ is the two-dimensional Dirac delta function, this gives $I=\tau F_{0}p(\mathbf{x}-{\mathbf{u}}_0)$. A changing response across the field of view instead requires a position-dependent integral kernel $p(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{u})$; one measured point spread function is then only a local calibration.

In coherent imaging, the superposition principle applies to the complex wave amplitudes. With amplitude spread function $h$, the corresponding ideal model isThus $|h\ast E{|}^2$ generally differs from $|h{|}^2\ast |E{|}^2$: coherent contributions produce wave interference terms that depend on their relative wave phases. Their time average vanishes for mutually incoherent emitters, which explains the intensity convolution. Partial optical coherence requires the correlations between object points as well.^[ref]

The figure is an original diffraction model, not measured data. All panels have the same total radiant flux: each member of a pair contributes half the single-source radiant flux. Dashed curves show the separate light intensity contributions; the solid curve is their sum. The point spread functions have tails, so even sources satisfying the Rayleigh criterion overlap. As separation decreases, the image changes continuously; there is no abrupt disappearance of all information at one separation.

A motivating measured example is Measurement of point-spread function (PSF) for confocal fluorescence microscopy by InCheon Song and others (2005). A $543.8\mathrm{nm}$ laser, delivered through an optical fiber, excited fluorescent beads on a slide through a $100\times$, numerical aperture $1.3$ oil-immersion objective. A moving stage scanned the bead; emitted light returned through the objective, an emission filter and a pinhole to a photodiode. The readout was fluorescence light intensity against scanned position. Under the same setup, nominal bead diameters $0.17$, $0.5$, and $1\mu \mathrm{m}$ produced progressively broader measured spots. The size comparison controls for the finite object: the measured response is the convolution of bead emission with the effective point spread function, rather than a pure point response. Inverting this convolution model gave a response compared with the theoretical one. The smaller bead gave a weaker signal relative to noise; uncertainty in actual bead diameter also affected the restored width. These are limits of the calibration. In confocal microscopy, excitation and pinhole detection jointly determine the effective point spread function; this experiment does not measure the ideal widefield Airy disk plotted above.^[ref]

For a new calibration, useful additional controls are to measure detector background, avoid saturating the photodetector, repeat the scan to check stability, and compare isolated beads at several positions in the field of view. Record wavelength, numerical aperture, pinhole setting, sampling interval and optical focus. These are practical recommendations, not extra measurements claimed for the published experiment.

A Michelson interferometer turns displacement into a count of interference fringes: a moving mirror changes both the outward and return paths. This lets a wavelength act as a ruler whose divisions need no engraving. Assume normal incidence, a fixed reference arm, stable refractive index $n$ along the moving arm, and fixed vacuum wavelength ${\lambda }_0$. Write $\lambda ={\lambda }_0/n$ for the wavelength in that medium and take $\Delta L$ positive away from the beam splitter. The change in optical path difference, the accumulated phase difference, and the signed number of complete interference fringe cycles areThe factor two comes from propagation geometry: moving the mirror by $\Delta L$ adds $\Delta L$ before reflection and $\Delta L$ afterward. One bright-to-bright cycle means mirror travel $\lambda /2$; bright-to-dark means $\lambda /4$, half a cycle. All lengths must use compatible units, and $\Delta N$ is dimensionless. A constant reflection phase difference changes the initial fringe position but cancels from this change formula.

For an original hypothetical example, suppose $\lambda =600\mathrm{nm}$ in the actual surrounding medium and a continuous scan gives $40.25$ cycles, including the final fractional cycle. Then $\Delta L=(600\mathrm{nm})(40.25)/2=12075\mathrm{nm}=12.075\mu \mathrm{m}$. With the wavelength treated as exact, a fringe-reading measurement uncertainty of $0.02$ cycle contributes $6\mathrm{nm}$ to the displacement measurement uncertainty. An uncertainty of $0.01\mathrm{rad}$ in a local phase difference instead corresponds to $600(0.01)/(4\pi )\mathrm{nm}\approx 0.477\mathrm{nm}$. This illustrates measurement resolution, not a complete claim of accuracy: wavelength calibration, air changes, mirror tilt and missed cycles can dominate.

To separate the oscillating readout from its optical coherence envelope, use the local modelHere $I$ is detected light intensity, $\bar{I}$ is the mean level, ${\varphi }_b$ is a fixed bias wave phase, and $\mathcal{V}$ is interferometric visibility. A fine scan of $D$ measures the carrier phase difference; a coarse scan can map the temporal optical coherence envelope through $\mathcal{V}(D)$. The envelope maximum locates matched delays only under the source and apparatus assumptions; it is not a bright fringe identifying an arbitrary mirror position. Even with known $\mathcal{V}$, one intensity reading leaves the cosine sign and whole-cycle ambiguities. Continuous motion of known direction, or an independently obtained pair of signals in phase quadrature, is needed to recover signed travel through reversals.

The figure's original control example stipulates equal arm light intensities, matching linear polarizations, and a Lorentzian optical spectrum giving $\mathcal{V}(D)=\exp (-|D|/L_c)$ with $L_c=1\mathrm{mm}$. In vacuum, arm mismatches $|L_2-L_1|=0.60\mathrm{mm}$ and $0.10\mathrm{mm}$ give $\mathcal{V}=e^{-1.2}\approx 0.301$ and $e^{-0.2}\approx 0.819$. Matching the arms improves the phase difference readout without changing its ${\lambda }_0/2$ travel per cycle. A fine mirror scan of one cycle changes $D$ by only $600\mathrm{nm}$ for the stipulated $600\mathrm{nm}$ source, much less than $L_c$. These are calculated values, not historical data.

A proposed measurement sequence follows from this model. Overlap the returning beams, match their linear polarizations, find a high-contrast delay and use a small calibrated mirror scan to determine the sign and fringe period. Read a fixed spatial sample of the interference fringes with a photodiode; record each arm separately and the dark signal, avoid detector saturation, and retain enough time resolution to count every cycle. Approach mechanical settings consistently and repeat the return scan to expose lost motion or drift. For very small changes, bias near phase quadrature, where $|dI/d\varphi |=\bar{I}\mathcal{V}$ is largest; an intensity extremum has zero first-order sensitivity. A known drive voltage alone does not provide measurement calibration for mirror travel: compare the actual travel with the fringe count using an independently known wavelength.

Control temperature, pressure, vibration and air currents because the instrument measures optical path difference, not mirror motion alone. For a fixed reference arm and fixed ${\lambda }_0$, the first-order change of the moving arm's round-trip path is $\Delta D\approx 2n\Delta L+2L\Delta n$. Thus an unrecognized $\Delta n$ mimics $\Delta L_{\mathrm{app}}=L\Delta n/n$. A hypothetical $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$, $n\approx 1$, and $\Delta n=10^{-7}$ give $10\mathrm{nm}$ apparent travel. Holding the mirror still while varying or monitoring the air conditions tests this confounder. Separate checks of alignment, wavelength stability and thermal expansion are necessary before sub-fringe measurement resolution becomes a defensible measurement uncertainty.

Fix a detected position and polarization of waves. Write the electric field operator as $\hat{E}(t)={\hat{E}}^{(+)}(t)+{\hat{E}}^{(-)}(t)$, where the positive-frequency part contains annihilation operators and ${\hat{E}}^{(-)}=({\hat{E}}^{(+)}{)}^{†}$. An ideal absorbing photodetector responds towith density matrix $\rho$. The diagonal gives the single-count rate up to the detector coupling. Multiple absorptions require higher, normal-ordered field products. Roy J. Glauber used these correlations to develop the quantum account of optical coherence.^[ref]

The ordering follows from a detection amplitude. If absorption takes an initial pure state $|i⟩$ to an unobserved final state $|f⟩$, its field factor is $⟨f|{\hat{E}}^{(+)}|i⟩$. Squaring its complex modulus and summing over a complete orthonormal basis of final states gives $⟨i|{\hat{E}}^{(-)}{\hat{E}}^{(+)}|i⟩$. Averaging over initial preparations replaces this expression by a trace. Thus a detector that absorbs cannot count the Fock vacuum, although the vacuum has quantum fluctuations.

For one selected normal mode, ${\hat{E}}^{(+)}(t)=\mathcal{E}u(t)a$. All Fock states with nonzero occupation, coherent states, and thermal light in this same mode havewhere both denominators are nonzero. Its magnitude is one even when the expected value of the field vanishes. Perfect first-order optical coherence therefore does not identify a coherent state. Pair detection supplies additional information.

The Rayleigh criterion calls two equal, mutually incoherent optical point sources just resolved when one circular-pupil Airy disk's centre coincides with the other's first zero. It is a specified discrimination convention, distinct from full width at half maximum and from precision in estimating one source's position.

For this circular optical pupil, the Rayleigh criterion uses angular separation $s_{\mathrm{R}}={\theta }_1\simeq 1.22\lambda /D$, or $s_{\mathrm{R}}=r_1\simeq 1.22\lambda f/D$ in the paraxial approximation to the focal plane. The point spread functions still overlap.^[ref]

For the Airy disk design example with $D=5.00\mathrm{mm}$, $f=100\mathrm{mm}$ and $\lambda =550\mathrm{nm}$, the angular convention gives $s_{\mathrm{R}}=1.34164\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{rad}$, or about $27.67$ arcseconds, and the image-plane separation is $13.4164\mu \mathrm{m}$. Two equally bright, mutually incoherent optical point sources at separations $0.7$, $1$ and $1.5$ times this scale would have image separations $9.391$, $13.416$ and $20.125\mu \mathrm{m}$ respectively. These calculated cases are compared in incoherent two-source Airy profile.

The Rayleigh criterion is useful because it ties an easily recognized two-peak convention to a predictable optical scale. It does not assert that all information vanishes below that separation. Inferring two unknown positions also depends on photon shot noise, background, unequal brightness and uncertainty in the point spread function; locating a single isolated source is a different task. A theoretical analysis shows that alternative optical measurements can estimate the separation of two incoherent optical point sources below this scale.^[ref]

The mutual optical coherence condition is essential. In incoherent imaging, time-averaged light intensities add. In coherent imaging, wave amplitudes add before squaring, leaving a wave interference term controlled by relative wave phase. Two holes illuminated by the same coherent laser therefore do not implement the equal-incoherent-source convention merely because their individual patterns resemble Airy disks. The coherent single-aperture laboratory test establishes the response of each aperture; it does not establish the pair's mutual incoherence.

A physicist working on the quantum theory of optical coherence.^[ref]

For a stationary rotating apparatus driven by a source with optical coherence and proper frequency ${\nu }_0$, define ${\lambda }_0=c/{\nu }_0$. The source wave phase advances by $2\pi {\nu }_0\Delta \tau$ between the emission times of the two contributions that meet at one readout spacetime event. Define the signed phase lag $\Delta \varphi$ of the $+$ contribution and the corresponding displacement $N$ in units of one interference fringe byThe sign of a photographed spatial displacement also depends on the imposed fringe orientation; this definition fixes the theoretical sign through the delayed beam. In an equal-amplitude output, a representative light intensity is $I(x)=I_{\max }[1+\cos (Kx-\Delta \varphi )]/2$, where $K$ sets the chosen spatial interference fringe spacing $2\pi /K$. Moving $\Delta \varphi$ by $2\pi$ shifts the pattern by one fringe. A fixed output exactly at a bright or dark fringe has zero first-order intensity slope, so a known phase bias or a spatial fringe readout is useful for determining a small signed delay.

Choose a square of side $0.30\mathrm{m}$, a rectangle $0.40\mathrm{m}$ by $0.20\mathrm{m}$, ${\lambda }_0=633\mathrm{nm}$ and $\Omega =+10\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, with angular velocity parallel to the positive normal vectors. Both perimeters are $1.20\mathrm{m}$, but the areas are $0.090{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $0.080{\mathrm{m}}^2$. Using $c=299792458\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, the leading predictions areThese are original model choices and predictions, not measured points. The square has $9/8$ times the response despite the equal path lengths. Reversing from $+\Omega$ to $-\Omega$ gives $N(-\Omega )-N(+\Omega )=-2N(+\Omega )$: the displacement magnitude between opposite rotations is twice the displacement magnitude from rest. Confusing these two comparisons introduces a factor-of-two error.

A Sagnac interferometer uses a beam splitter to send light with optical coherence around a common closed optical path in opposite directions, then recombines the beams to read their phase difference. Mirrors or a guiding path define the loop; the source, beam splitter, loop and readout rotate together in the basic experiment. A small relative beam tilt makes spatial interference fringes whose displacement reveals a change of phase difference. At one fixed output, a photodetector can instead record the corresponding change in light intensity.

Single-slit diffraction is the spreading of light transmitted by one slit. Consider an ideal rectangular slit of width $a$, illuminated normally by a uniform plane wave with a single wavelength $\lambda$ in the surrounding medium. This monochromatic wave has uniform wave amplitude and equal incident wave phases across the slit, providing the required optical coherence. In the scalar Fraunhofer diffraction model, the normalized angular wave intensity isHere $\theta$ is measured from the forward normal in the plane across the slit width. The sinc function uses the unnormalized convention $\mathrm{sinc}u=\sin u/u$. The limit makes the central value one. This ideal envelope neglects additional direction-dependent propagation and detector factors; near the forward direction it describes the normalized screen irradiance. ^[ref].

The noncentral zeros satisfyThe restriction follows from the range of the sine of a real angle. The first minima have $\sin \theta =\pm \lambda /a$ when $\lambda /a\le 1$. If $a<\lambda$, this model has no noncentral zero in the forward hemisphere; equality puts the first zeros at grazing directions, outside the small-angle approximation and off any finite perpendicular screen. ^[ref].

For $0<\lambda /a<1$, define the central width as the separation between the two first minima. Its angular width and its width on a perpendicular screen areThe angular approximation uses radians and requires $\lambda /a\ll 1$; the screen approximation uses $y\approx L\theta$. The tangent relation is exact straight-line geometry, even though the underlying Fraunhofer diffraction field is approximate. This width is distinct from the full width at half maximum.

For $\lambda =500\mathrm{nm}$, $a=0.1\mathrm{mm}$ and $L=1\mathrm{m}$, the positive first minimum isThe dimensionless far-field parameter is $a^2/(\lambda L)=0.02$. Doubling the slit width to $a=0.2\mathrm{mm}$ gives $W\approx 5.00002\mathrm{mm}$ and parameter $0.08$; both curves below use the Fraunhofer diffraction approximation. Choosing $L=2\mathrm{m}$ halves those parameters and doubles both screen widths.

Each curve is normalized to its own $I_0$; the arrows measure between first minima. The calculation uses $\theta =\arctan (y/L)$ before evaluating the sinc function, rather than replacing $\sin \theta$ by $y/L$. The lower diagram shows the exact screen geometry with the vertical scale enlarged. Normalization removes the change in peak brightness when the slit width changes.

The wave interference explanation is especially simple: divide the slit into equal narrow strips and add their complex amplitudes, rather than their wave intensities. With wavenumber $k=2\pi /\lambda$, the continuous slit givesIntegrating the complex exponential gives the endpoint difference; its continuous value at zero is one. Taking the squared complex modulus gives the stated wave intensity. This is the Fourier transform of an interval indicator expressed in angular coordinates. Feynman's continuous-source argument obtains the same pattern by letting the number of sources tend to infinity. ^[ref].

At the positive first minimum, the wave phases span exactly $2\pi$ across the slit. Every strip in one half has a partner $a/2$ away, with equal wave amplitude and phase difference $\pi$, so the pairs cancel. At $\theta =0$, all the wave phases align instead. ^[ref].

The drawing uses $N=8$ equally weighted midpoint samples $x_j/a=-1/2+(j+1/2)/8$, with $j=0,\dots ,7$. At the first minimum their complex amplitudes are a common rotation of the eight roots of unity, so their head-to-tail polygon closes exactly. This finite sum illustrates cancellation; the continuous integral, rather than eight point sources, defines the slit pattern at general angles. The circle shows the continuous range of wave phases; coloured arrows show the eight samples.

A narrower aperture requires a larger angle to accumulate the cancelling phase difference, so narrowing the slit widens the beam. This is a useful limit on geometrical optics: confining light more tightly at an opening increases its subsequent angular spread. At fixed incident irradiance and slit height, reducing $a$ also reduces transmitted power, exposing a practical balance between diffraction-limited resolution and light throughput. In a diffraction grating, this single-slit diffraction envelope modulates the wave interference between different slits.

A physicist working on optical coherence and spectroscopy.^[ref]

Stimulated emission is emission induced by incident light, in contrast with the unprompted decay in spontaneous emission. It supplies the amplification mechanism of a laser. ^[ref].

For an emitter with upper and lower energy values $E_2>E_1$, the resonant photon has frequency $\nu$ satisfyingwhere $h$ is the Planck constant. In the elementary photon picture, an incident photon stimulates an emitter in the upper quantum state to emit an additional photon into the same optical normal mode, with the same frequency, propagation direction and photon polarization. The emitter supplies the extra energy; the stimulating photon is not consumed. This builds the existing field and its optical coherence. An emitter in the lower quantum state can instead undergo photon absorption, so stimulated emission alone does not establish net optical gain.

For example, a $2.0\mathrm{eV}$ gap corresponds to $\nu \approx 4.8360\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Hz}$ and a vacuum wavelength of about $620\mathrm{nm}$. One ideal stimulated emission event converts one incoming photon into two outgoing photons in the selected optical normal mode, adding $2.0\mathrm{eV}$ of light energy while lowering the emitter's energy by that amount.