Talk:Photon antibunching

Uncomprehensible language right from the start

"Photon antibunching generally refers to a light field with photons more equally spaced than a coherent laser field and a signal at detectors is anticorrelated". I am struggling to understand what that first sentence means. It might be because English is not my first language, or because I am simply too stupid to understand it, but I don't think it makes any sense. It seems to me like two unrelated sentences joined by an illogical AND operator.

Sentence 1: Photon antibunching generally refers to a light field with photons more equally spaced than a coherent laser field.
Sentence 2: A signal at detectors is anticorrelated.

These are individual sentences because each has a subject ("photon antibunching" and "a signal at detectors") and a predicate with a single verb ("refers to" and "is") and a direct object ("a light field with photons more equally spaced than a coherent laser field" and "anticorrelated").

I can understand the first sentence if photon antibunching refers to a situation when photons propagating through space from a common source pass over a fixed point at more regular intervals than those of a coherent laser field. If it doesn't, then I guess don't understand the sentence.

The second sentence, however, I cannot understand in any way, due to its excessive ambiguity. "A signal". What signal? Any signal? That light field mentioned in the first sentence? That produced by a coherent light source? "At detectors". What detectors? How many and how are they located with respect to the source? "Is anticorrelated". Fair enough, some signal at some detectors is anticorrelated. Anticorrelated to what? To another signal at the same detectors? Is the signal, as seen by one detector, anticorrelated to the same signal as seen by a different detector?

And when I try combine both using an AND operator, the result makes as much sense as the sentence "Lemons generally refer to fruits that are more sour than oranges and a guy with moustache at parties is taller".

I'd love to clarify the sentence myself, but I honestly don't understand what meaning it is attempting to convey. Can anyone help, please? Greetings. 62.37.5.52 (talk) 08:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Broken link

The link in the Sources section is broken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.45.132.249 (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)