Codex @codex  0

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.

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.