Talk:Degree of coherence

Autocorrelation formulation

Is it possible that the equations on this page can be formulated with the autocorrelation of E? Just a passing thought... --HappyCamper 16:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The equations on this pages are just correlation functions which are normalized and applied to optical quantities such as E or I. Since autocorrelation is a special case of correlation function it does show up in these formulae. In the near future, I will add some more links and references to make this clear. J S Lundeen 3 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

Could E, R, and t please be defined in revisions of this page?

Photon Bunching

It seems that there might be an error in the sentence at the bottom regarding photon bunching. Pedantically, I believe it should read g(\Tau)>g(0) as the equality holds for an indeterminate case. At present the equality between the two correlation functions is ambiguously defined as possessing both bunching and anti-bunching. Does anyone agree/understand?Dtlloyd (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in figure1 for g1 function?

I think there's actually a little mistake in Fig1 (g1 function). In the figure and in the caption it says that g1 is printed. But in my opinion it's rather a plot of abs(g1) because there is no fast oscillation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.200.97.56 (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Complex vs. real

Coherence is complex-valued, degree of coherence is real-valued. Fgnievinski (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There might be a nomenclature difference, between physics and engineering. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this is old, but the nature of your dispute with the accuracy here isn't exactly clear. What is inaccurate in your opinion? It's a very old tag at this point.--ObscureFruits (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed the standard definition of the functions in quantum optics. Added a citation and removed disputed tag. --Clickingban (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal with "Interferometric visibility"

It seems no one is interested in a merger, at least not on the talk page.

I find it useful to have an easy article and a hard article. Leave them separate. 178.38.184.78 (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Small additions that could enhance the clarity

I like this article very much. Still, I have a few suggestions for additions that could enhance the clarity of the article:

I will try to make two minor corrections around line 10 of the paragraph "Degree of second-order coherence".

It is not clear what is meant by the "discriminating trigger level." Could someone clarify this?

The paragraph "Examples of g(n)" refers to a "first definition" and a "second definition". It is not clear what these two definitions are, they were not mentioned as such in the previous part of the article. The equation at the end of the line "Using the first definition" obviously contradicts the equation in the first line of the paragraph "Examples of g(2)" for n = 2. The equation at the end of the line "Using the second definition" produces no contradiction.

Photonics-UW (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)