Codex @codex  0

In division of wavefront, different spatial portions of an incident wavefront are selected and propagated so that their fields overlap. Double-slit interference is an example. The selected portions need sufficient spatial optical coherence for stable interference fringes.

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.

Optical coherence describes correlations between the wave amplitudes and wave phases of light sampled at different places or times. Its most direct classical test is wave interference: combine two samples of a field and see how much the detected light intensity changes when their relative wave phase is scanned. First-order optical coherence makes this statement quantitative; temporal optical coherence compares delayed samples, while spatial optical coherence compares different positions. These properties are relative to the samples and averaging procedure, rather than a single yes-or-no label for a source. ^[ref].

A useful surprise is that two copies of a fluctuating source can interfere strongly when they have matched delays: the copies share the fluctuations. Conversely, two individually steady-looking beams need not have correlated wave phases. The ideal diffraction grating calculation requires spatial optical coherence across its illuminated elements; unequal-arm measurements with a Michelson interferometer test temporal optical coherence.

In this temporal sense, the optical coherence length is $L_c=c{\tau }_c$, where $c$ is the vacuum speed of light and ${\tau }_c$ is an explicitly chosen optical coherence time. It measures a delay as a vacuum-equivalent path difference; it does not measure transverse spatial optical coherence. ^[ref].

For the stipulated $1\mathrm{GHz}$ profiles, the $1/e$ convention gives $L_c\approx 9.54269\mathrm{cm}$ for the Lorentzian and $15.8896\mathrm{cm}$ for the Gaussian. In a vacuum Michelson interferometer, changing one mirror position by $x$ changes the round-trip delay by $2x/c$, so the mirror travel to either of these delays is $L_c/2$. In a medium, convert physical travel using the actual group delay, which can depend on frequency. For a narrow line centered at vacuum wavelength ${\lambda }_0$, differentiating $\nu =c/\lambda$ gives $\Delta \nu \approx c\Delta \lambda /{\lambda }_0^2$; this small-width approximation must use consistently defined spectral widths.

Atomic-resolution contrast is primarily electron phase contrast. elastic scattering by the specimen potential changes the phase of the transmitted electron wave. interference between transmitted and diffracted components, modified by the objective lens, converts that phase change into intensity variations. Appropriate defocus, sufficiently small optical aberrations, good spatial optical coherence and transfer of the graphene spatial frequencies are needed. At exact focus an ideal weak phase object need not give a strong visible lattice.

Mass–thickness or amplitude contrast can also distinguish thicker overlap regions, folds, contamination and support film, especially when scattered electrons are excluded by an aperture. It is comparatively weak for a clean monolayer of low-$Z$ carbon. diffraction contrast becomes important in crystalline, multilayer or differently oriented regions when Bragg-scattered beams are selected or excluded. Relative rotation of layers can additionally produce a moiré pattern.

A dark region alone is not a reliable layer count: electron phase contrast can change sign with defocus, and contamination also changes intensity. Use fold-edge fringes, diffraction information and calibrated image simulations or thickness-sensitive measurements together. Defect identification should likewise compare a structural model with the actual imaging conditions, rather than reading every dark lattice site as a missing atom.

Decreasing the source diameter increases spatial optical coherence and moves the illumination towards the coherent on-axis limit. Here the grating frequency is onlyThe zero and first orders are comfortably within the pupil for on-axis illumination. Reducing an extended source can prevent some off-axis source points from losing diffraction orders at the pupil edge, and can therefore increase the grating modulation, or leave it approximately unchanged if the relevant orders were already fully passed. It need not give a universal numerical increase: higher orders, source shape, defocus and optical aberrations matter for a binary grating.

The resist's $\gamma$ and critical modulation $M_c$ in part (i) are material/process properties and do not change merely because the source becomes smaller. What may change is part (ii)'s comparison between the actual image modulation and $M_c$. If the improved image exceeds about 0.667, an exposure window opens; the source information alone does not establish a new numerical value.

The transverse and longitudinal quantities characterize different correlations: spatial optical coherence across a wavefront and temporal optical coherence between delayed fields. Their numerical values require a convention for how much correlation counts as coherent.

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.

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.

Spatial optical coherence compares field samples at different positions, usually across a transverse plane at equal time. Two small openings separated by $d$ sample this correlation: recombine their light with nearly matched travel times and measure interferometric visibility near the central interference fringes. A narrow opening in front of a broad-spectrum lamp can improve transverse spatial optical coherence while leaving its short temporal optical coherence. These are separate controls: narrow spectral selection by itself need not make an extended source spatially coherent. MIT's lecture notes illustrate the two-opening test and these contrasting source preparations. ^[ref].

To isolate source width, stipulate a distant, narrowband source with uniform angular brightness on $-\Theta /2\le \alpha \le \Theta /2$, and mutually uncorrelated emission from distinct source directions. Here $\Theta \ll 1$ is the full angular width in radians, $\lambda$ the common wavelength, and the two openings are separated by $d$ along the same transverse direction as the source extent. Neglect amplitude differences across the openings. Each source direction contributes a phase difference approximately $2\pi d\alpha /\lambda$. Averaging its complex cross term givesThe sinc function is extended continuously to one at $q=0$. The sign convention in the exponential depends on which opening is numbered first; the symmetric model gives the same real result either way. Equal detected single-opening light intensities make the magnitude equal to interferometric visibility. A displaced source center adds a deterministic wave phase, shifting the interference fringes without changing their contrast.

The strips show $I/(I_1+I_2)=1+g_{12}^{(1)}(0)\cos \varphi$ with equal single-opening light intensities, a common phase difference coordinate $\varphi$ and no single-slit diffraction envelope. At $q=1/2$, contrast is $2/\pi \approx 0.636620$; at $q=1$, it vanishes. At $q=3/2$, the correlation is $-2/(3\pi )\approx -0.212207$: weak fringes return with bright and dark positions exchanged. For $\lambda =500\mathrm{nm}$ and $d=0.5\mathrm{mm}$, the first zero occurs at $\Theta =1\mathrm{mrad}$. This is a calculated example, not an experimental measurement or a universal source-width law.

A proposed source-width control follows directly from this model: illuminate two fixed openings with a distant adjustable luminous slit of full width $w$ at distance $R$, so $\Theta \approx w/R$ under the small-angle approximation, and hold $d$ and the spectral selection fixed. Increasing $w$ overlays more mutually incoherent, displaced interference fringe patterns. Record profiles over several near-central fringes, measure each opening separately and correct intensity imbalance as in first-order optical coherence. Restrict the recorded region so the path difference stays small compared with the optical coherence length, and resolve the fringes with the detector. Real source nonuniformity, finite opening widths and spectral spread modify the stipulated sinc function law. This protocol is a model-based extension of the verified two-opening method, not a claim that the plotted curves were measured.

Thus an extended incoherent source can give locally excellent wave interference when the sampled separation is small, and almost none when it is larger. The useful scale $d\Theta \sim \lambda$ expresses how source extent limits the aperture over which coherent addition is available. The same angular averaging explains why narrowing a source opening can recover visible interference fringes, even without narrowing its optical spectrum.

Stellar intensity interferometry measures a star's angular diameter by comparing fluctuations of detected light intensity at separated collectors. Each collector has its own photodetector; an analog multiplier or a digital correlator compares the electrical outputs. Changing the interferometric baseline changes the sampled spatial optical coherence. An unresolved star produces correlated fluctuations; a resolved extended source supplies different mixtures of emission directions, reducing their correlation.

This makes a useful telescope out of a surprising observable: the fluctuations discarded by an ordinary average-brightness measurement. Optical beams need not travel to a common combiner. A relative wave phase perturbation $E_2\mapsto e^{i\varphi }{E}_2$ leaves $|E_2{|}^2$ unchanged, so pure phase errors do not directly change the local light intensity. Electronic delay alignment remains necessary; intensity changes from atmospheric scintillation, collection losses, and instrumental noise still require controls.

Let $\mathbf{b}$ join the collectors and let ${\mathbf{s}}_0$ be the unit line of sight toward the star. The relevant interferometric baseline is its projection onto the plane of the sky:The reference arrival-time difference has magnitude $|\mathbf{b}\cdot {\mathbf{s}}_0|/c$, with speed of light $c$. Correct that delay, with a sign fixed by channel order, before averaging the residual correlation at $\tau =0$. The physical collector separation equals $B$ only when it is perpendicular to ${\mathbf{s}}_0$; tracking a star can change the projection even for fixed collectors.

The transverse optical coherence length summarizes the separation over which equal-time spatial optical coherence remains appreciable. It depends on a contrast criterion and on the source brightness profile. For a distant incoherent source of angular diameter $\Theta$, its characteristic scale is $\lambda /\Theta$. A uniform circular source gives uniform-disk stellar visibility $2J_1(x)/x$, with $x=\pi b\Theta /\lambda$ and baseline $b$. Its first zero is $b=1.21967\lambda /\Theta$. A uniformly bright one-dimensional strip instead has its first zero at $\lambda /\Theta$; the numerical factor is a source-model choice, not a universal constant.

Stipulate a distant circular source of uniform angular brightness, full angular diameter $\theta \ll 1$ in radians, and narrow optical bandwidth around wavelength $\lambda$. Distinct source patches emit independently. Assume each collector is small enough not to resolve the disk individually. For a sky offset $\mathbf{\alpha }$ from the disk centre, the baseline-dependent phase difference is $2\pi {\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }\cdot \mathbf{\alpha }/\lambda$, up to channel-sign convention. Summing independent patch contributions makes the equal-delay first-order optical coherence the normalized Fourier transform of angular brightness:Choose the horizontal coordinate along ${\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }$, put $k=2\pi B/\lambda$, and integrate along vertical chords of the disk:The imaginary part cancels between opposite chords. Here $J_1$ is the order-one Bessel function of the first kind. One way to obtain the last equality is to integrate the exponential's power series term by term on the finite disk. Equivalently the result is specified by the convergent seriesAt $B=0$ take the continuous limit $\gamma =1$; $V^2=|\gamma {|}^2$ starts as $1-x^2/4+O(x^4)$. This is why very short interferometric baselines give little leverage on angular diameter. Larger disks lose spatial optical coherence at shorter baselines.

The first positive zero of $J_1$ is $x_1\approx 3.831705970$, soThis is a full diameter convention. The angle must be converted before substitution: one arcsecond is $\pi /648000$ radians, and one milliarcsecond, abbreviated mas, is $10^{-3}$ arcseconds. For the stipulated $\theta =5\mathrm{mas}$ and $\lambda =500\mathrm{nm}$, $\theta =2.4240684\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{rad}$ and $B_0\approx 25.1575\mathrm{m}$. At $B=10\mathrm{m}$, the model gives $x\approx 1.52309$ and $V^2\approx 0.542783$.

Beyond $B_0$, $\gamma$ changes sign but $V^2$ stays nonnegative and develops weak further lobes. A single measured squared visibility can therefore match several angular diameters; sampling several interferometric baselines constrains the fit. Limb darkening, spectral averaging, or resolved collector apertures change the uniform-disk prediction. A uniform-disk diameter is a parameter of that brightness model; converting it to a physical stellar radius also requires distance and an appropriate brightness profile.