Talk:Laser

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laser article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Laser is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
News On 2008-05-16, Laser was linked from Google, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Contents

[edit] Usage of Laser

I hate youvisually appealing effects either here or "Laser Applications" section, which ever applicable. --87.194.3.52 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

Old discussions with no (big) contributions after Jan 1, 2006 have been archived to Talk:Laser/Archive1. A couple of additions after January 2006 are also present.

[edit] The verb 'to lase'

The article says: 'By back-formation, the verb "to lase" has also been created, meaning "to produce coherent light through stimulated emission".'

Although my dictionary agrees with this definition, perhaps it should be noted that "to lase" is often used to mean, "to apply a laser beam to".

Hmm...I'd never heard it that way. Where'd you hear that usage? — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please cite a reference for the usage "to apply a laser beam to" I've never heard and can't find a reference to this. Graemec2 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

<quote>lase (past and past participle lased, present participle las·ing, 3rd person present singular las·es) intransitive verb Definition: emit radiation: to emit the type of single-wavelength radiation produced by a laser</quote> --Handmedown 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a definition, alright, but where did it come from? Without that, it is not a reference as requested some time ago by Laurascudder
Pzavon 22:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patently False Statement

"Popular misconceptions...a laser beam is never visible in the vacuum of space." Just as in air, a laser beam is visible in "the vacuum of space" according to the dust (whatever particulate) content of the space. If one argues that it's not a vacuum if there is dust content, then they are not talking about the "vacuum of space," but some theoretical vacuum. 12.144.20.254 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether there is some dust to illuminate in space, but whether there is enough dust for a laser beam to be visible. Molecular clouds get up to 106 atoms per cubic centimeter, most of them hydrogen. I'd think that even if it was largely dust a laser beam wouldn't be visible. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, come on. 12.144 is right. We should just get rid of the whole stupid section on lasers in space. It's not educational. Birge 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't care one way or another if the space discussion stays or not. I just think it isn't patently false.
I do like some of the other popular misconceptions, like the finite propagation speed of laser guns. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
he is not "right" he is simply being pedantic to the point of absurdity. the overwhelmingly enormously huge majority of space is so empty that the statement "a laser beam is invisible in space" is correct for probably oh I don't know 99.999999999% of the time. --Deglr6328 04:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree it's pedantic, but science is pedantic. We should write a science article with as much precision as possible, I think. (Also, Laura I completely concur that saying it's patently false is going way overboard.) Birge 06:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a crack at cleaning up the section. It was actually very poorly written in a few places, with meandering explanations that seemed out-of-place and only designed to show off the writers' knowledge of laser facts. (For example, this section is not the place to explain diffraction except to say that all beams spread to some degree or another. A link to the diffraction page suffices.) Birge 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Much improved. — Laura Scudder ☎ 14:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that that's fine. I don't think my "patently false" characterization was overstated, because "never visible in the vacuum of space," for one thing, implies that it's the lack of atmospheric pressure that makes the laser invisible. Even if it had said "never visible in outer space" it would be better. But "never?" Obviously, there will some dusty conditions in space, like any time a rock impacts the moon... the fact that it's in space or in a near vacuum is obviously not going to make the laser invisible in the presence of dust. Someone who didn't know better, and read the former statement, might have been convinced otherwise.

12.144.20.254 21:14, 19 August 2006 (EDT)

While I think you are right about the need to be technically correct, I think you are patently wrong about what it means for something to be patently false. When you have to point out that a statement is false in extreme circumstances that would only matter to a scientist, that's not exactly "openly, plainly, or clearly" false. Birge 08:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In the misconceptions section, the intensity at which a laser's beam becomes visible in air should be an energy density (mW/cm²) instead of a power (~ 10 mW, as now). I'll change it, but I don't know what a realistic value is. A few milliwatt green laser pointer, focused to a few square millimeter spot, doesn't produce a visible beam in a darkened room, so the threshold is at least tens of mW/cm². Rob Mahurin 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misconception?

Someone added the following to the "misconceptions" section:

Another common misconception involves the explanation of coherent light production. Many authors claim that laser light is coherent because stimulated emission is in phase with the stimulating wave. However, in-phase emission only produces gain (since superposed in-phase waves produce a wave of higher amplitude) and incoherent light is only amplified without losing its incoherence. In reality, both spatial and temporal coherence is due to the optical cavity. The cavity produces temporal coherence by excluding any light with wavelength which is not contained an integer numer of times in the cavity length. The cavity produces spatial coherence by acting as a spatial filter with gain; by reflecting only light with a spherical wavefront of a particular radius.

I don't think this is completely accurate. Coherence is more than simply cavity resonance. In particular, the linewidth of a laser above threshold is orders of magnitude narrower than the width of a cavity mode of the same cavity.--Srleffler 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, it's not simply cavity resonance, yet the narrow linewidth still is caused by the cavity. We need to ask ourselves WHY the laser output linewidth is so much narrower than the cavity linewidth. As I understand it, the narrowness arises because the gain of the laser medium, minus the cavity-dependent losses through the partial mirrors, together puts the peak of the system gain vs. frequency right at 1.0. So, as light repeatedly passes through the system, the cavity's frequency curve is repeatedly multiplied by itself. Repeatedly multiplying a mathematical function by itself will produce a delta function, if the original function has a single maximum with a value of one. "The laser's coherence is caused by the cavity" is a compressed explanation. Also, my intent was to point out the common and widespread misconception: the wrong idea that stimulated emission explains laser coherence. Any explanation of the actual cause of coherence should be put elsewhere in the article. --Wjbeaty 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The width of a cavity mode is usally smaller than the linewidth of the gain above threshold, but the original statement is very misleading. Let's take an example: in an Argon ion gain profile is about 4-12 GHz wide, while the linewidth of a one meter long cavity has a free spectral width of 150 MHz and thus a much smaller linewidth (1.5 MHz assuming mirrors of reflectivity 96.8%). But the cavity does not reduce the spectral width, it only clears some spectral regions. To reduce the laser linewidth to the linewidth of the cavity (monomode operation), an etalon is necessary, which is an additional very narrow cavity. And secondly, even without cavities the coherence would have been already excellent. Third, if the cavity becomes very narrow (as in VCSEL diode lasers or photonic crystals) the gain width perhaps becomes smaller than the width of the cavity mode. --danh 16:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have qualified what I was saying better. If you constrain a laser to operate in a single mode (longitudinal and transverse), it will have a linewidth much narrower than the cavity linewidth. For the example of your argon ion laser, the laser initially operates in multiple longitudinal modes. The role of the etalon is to force the cavity to operate in a single longitudinal mode. If you got the laser working with the etalon in, and then turned down the pump source so that the laser was a little below threshold, the on-axis stimulated emission would have linewidth equal to the cavity mode linewidth, as you would expect. If you then raise the current above threshold, you would find that the laser's linewidth gets orders of magnitude narrower. This is a well-known phenomenon that you can read about in any laser physics text. Look for the equation for the Schawlow-Townes limit. This gives the theoretical linewidth of the laser, above threshold. In practice, real lasers always have much larger linewidth than the S-T equation predicts, because vibrations and thermal fluctuations cause the effective cavity length to fluctuate on very short timescales. This introduces an extra source of broadening to the laser output. The laser will still typically be significantly narrower than the cavity modes, though. --Srleffler 00:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose to just keep it out. Mode selection is done in several ways and we don't want to go in the details in the Misconception section. --danh 14:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This misses my point. Many intro textbooks claim that the coherence of laser light arises only because the stimulated emission produces a special type of light called "in phase light." This is wrong, since the in-phase emission process only explains why the laser media is transparent and why it has gain. The light within the cavity is initially incoherent via spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission isn't a recipe for removing this incoherence. To explain the coherence properly, we have to view lasers as acting as amplified narrowband filters, with the light passing repeatedly through the "filter." The partially-mirrored cavity in a conventional laser supplies the "narrowband filter" effect. The Schawlow-Townes limit equation shows why the linewidth isn't zero, but doesn't clarify why the linewidth is so small. --Wjbeaty 04:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I disagree

I take issue with Srleffler over the assertion that "Football field sized Nd:glass lasers have only two significant applications" (namely ICF and weapons design). The applications of giant Nd:glass lasers have expanded widely in the past couple decades. HEDP (high energy density physics) done at these facilities now includes sophisticated astrophysical jet modeling, supernova shockwave physics, liquid metallic hydrogen research, megagauss regime investigations relevant to neutron star environments, shock Hugoniot data for silica to better understand geophysics of conductivity in the earth's mantle and now with the ultra-high energy chirped pulse Nd beams: laser wakefield particle accelerators(!!), fast fusion ignition, visible wavelength photo-fission or photo-transmutation of radionuclei, attosecond regime x-ray spectroscopy. Really it goes on and on. I would even say that some of this research is MORE significant than the fusion stuff. There really should be a HEDP article.--Deglr6328 07:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll adjust the caption. I haven't been following this field for a while and forgot about the other applications.--Srleffler 12:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Error

"These lasers have particularly narrow oscillation linewidths of less than 0.01 cm-1 "

Shoudn't this be 0.01 nm?

Sorry if I misplaced this comment, but I'm in a hurry-

No error. Whoever wrote it was expressing the linewidth in terms of wavenumber instead of wavelength. -- The Photon 05:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It's me again. The linewidth can of course be represented in both ways but 0.01 cm-1=1000000000 nm which doesn't make any scense for a linewidth. The laser would not have a narrow linewidth at all. I may be wrong, which is also the reason that I didn't correct it. (Hauberg 13:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but the computation gives a funny result. He's talking about a center wavelength of, for example, 224 nm, which is 280,499 cm^-1. Similarly, 224.01 nm would be 280,486 cm^-1; so a laser line spanning these wavelengths would have a linewidth of about 12 cm^-1. So 0.01 cm^-1 linewidth is actually about 1200 times narrower than 0.01 nm in this wavelength range. -- The Photon 00:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense for me. Thanks for the explanation :-) I am sorry for the inconvenience. Feel free to delete this section. Hauberg 17:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not use wavenumbers at all, I think they're confusing sometimes too and they're conventionally used in the IR range. changed to Hz. --Deglr6328 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulsed laser plasma

Anything you laser experts could contribute to Volumetric display#Laser plasma would be appreciated. The press releases are rather short on details. In Chirped pulse amplification, it mentions "self-focusing". I assume this is something involving a change in the index of refraction from heating up the air, related to blooming? (needs a real article) It also says 700 gigawatts/cm² will ionize the air. Is that just an arbitrary example that happens to ionize air, or is it the actual breakdown threshold of air? (I'm more familiar with breakdown voltage, which happens at ~30 kV/cm, for instance.) If so, could we get a rough guess of the display's output power? (1 nanosecond pulses at 100 Hz.) — Omegatron 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That 700 GW example is just an example. I'm not sure of the exact intensity level where the kerr effect becomes important in air. Anyway I doubt the laser used in that 3d thingy uses CPA at all. really all it needs to do is use a q-switched high power laser with a conventional lens and a couple mirrors to control the Z and X Y axes respectively. It's virtually certain that the technique used is essentially identical to that used to make those "laser crystal" things. Focus a 1 GW IR pulse down to a few micron spot (easy) and your talking intensities around the quadrillion W/cm^2 range (if I added right). Everything breaks down to plasma at those intensities! no cpa needed. --Deglr6328 07:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Doesn't sound that difficult at all, now. This page has people creating the same effect with $200 Nd:YAG lasers off ebay, apparently. (Though without the mirrors or any long distance.)

"I saw a bright pinpoint flash of light at 1.5 inches from the lens in mid air! Very very cool (first time I have seen this phenomenon, though I have heard of it). I guess this gives another data point to the output power level... Air sparks at 200 to 400 mJ? :)"

"I have also sparked the air using a short focal length (about 1.5 cm) lens."

Hmmm... — Omegatron 01:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal ion lasers

It states the the metal ion lasers have a particularly narrow linewidth of 3GHz. Maybe for that UV wavelength region. but not generally is it? Most gas and fiber lasers have kHz linewidths.

[edit] Military Uses

Has the use of lasers to burn the enemy troops' retinas at a distance been outlawed? Anon user 12:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. One of the later Hague Conventions, I believe. --Carnildo 05:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Although tank laser rangefinders might accidentally have that effect when simply ranging...Midgley 15:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

"Some types of lasers, such as dye lasers and vibronic solid-state lasers can produce light over a broad range of wavelengths; this property makes them suitable for the generation of extremely short pulses of light, on the order of a femtosecond (10-15 s)." It is not apparent to me (I know little of lasers) why this property makes them ... Midgley 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vibronic lasers are often used in a technique called modelocking to produce ultra short light pulses. A large gain bandwidth is needed in order to lock an high number of longitudinal modes. Lasah 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The "why" is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which says that the product of our uncertainty in knowing the momentum and the position of a particle is bounded by a constant, e.g. \Delta x \Delta p > \hbar / 2. A short pulse requires the position be very accurately known, since the duration of the pulse is related to the position of the constituent photons by the speed of light. But the wavelength of the photons is closely related to the momentum, so for the pulse to be very narrow, it must contain a wide range of wavelength components. -- The Photon 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Makes perfect sense. Is it gettable intot he article without moving from encyclopaedic to physics textbook I wonder? I suppose the best way might be as a footnote to the para at which I went "Why?". Midgley 18:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it happens that the Heisenberg uncertainty applies to light as well, but I wouldn't add that as an explanation. It is just a property of the Fourier transformation (from which you can derive the Heisenberg relation): ΔtΔω > 1 / 2 without any fundamental constants. The minimum for a time-bandwidth product also applies to e.g. sound waves, where Planck's constant doesn't play a role. Han-Kwang 12:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should just add a link to another article, perhaps one dealing with the fourier transform or the uncertainty limit. The beauty of a hypertext encyclopedia is that even if you don't have scope in an article to fully explain something, you can probably link to an article that does. Birge 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lasers categorized

FT2, I'm not sure what is added to the article by changing from "Types of lasers" to "Lasers categorized" and adding the "by output power" section. Do you plan to add any further means of categorizing lasers, for example "by wavelength", "by average power", "by efficiency", "by pulsed or cw", "by cost", "by weight", ... The article is already near the maximum recommended article length, and its difficult to imagine adding all these different ways of sorting out lasers without going far beyond the recommendation.

The information added seems to belong more in the "Uses of lasers" section. For example, the list of important laser characteristics currently in the history section might be moved in following some phrase like "Laser characteristics that determine the best laser for a particular application include ..." And the CD, DVD, and DVD-R articles might be updated to include the information on the power of the laser involved in those systems. The information on the most powerful laser claim from Livermore could be moved under "Recent innovations" in the history section (with a citation).

--The Photon 03:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just out of curiosity...

Why does Xaser redirect to laser? The tiny part that mentions a possible X-ray cousin doesn't seem to justify the redirect, especially when uaser/uvaser aren't redirects and graser has an article, even if it is just a stub. BioTube 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, one thing that I'm unable to find out is the shape of the gain medium of solid state lasers, is this shape fixed or does it vary depending on the mediunm used? This has been bugging me for a while now.65.93.199.170 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cold laser

I've recently been hearing a lot about cold lasers. I came to this site expecting to see more information about various types of lasers than I see here.69.6.162.160 01:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

heavens! so sorry to fail you by not including every last form and use of laser ever to exist on earth. you are looking for information on "cold laser therapy" which is bunk and hence does not belong here. maybe if you actually tried searching the internet you would've found the ten billion sites already out there on the subject. [1].--Deglr6328 06:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars

Just wanted to note that the ships in Star Wars do not actually fire lasers. The term blasters is consistently used for their energy weapons, and I believe the mechanics involve kinetically firing highly energized packets of tiberian gas. Thus we have glowing, relatively slow-moving, laser-like weaponfire. This still doesn't excuse the blatantly called "Death Star Super-Laser", but it would have been dealing with extremely high levels of energy which may cause a visual effect even in the near-vaccuum of space. All this aside, I will admit that the whole argument smacks of retroactive explination, but it's canon now, so...

-John (AIM: LordRobertQwert for discussion)

ummm, wow, just.....wow.--Deglr6328 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is mostly true, but i seem to recall at least one scene where lightsabers were referred to as a "laser sword" in the original English versions, and the French versions of the movies call it something which translates to "cut off laser sword". That just REALLY calls into question the validity of Star Wars technology. - Lucy
  • There are lasers and there are beams... A lightsaber is a 'frozen' beam, not laser. - Adler

[edit] Tunable laser needs some serious attention

If anybody feels like doing a little work on it, Tunable laser is currently IMHO a notably ugly stub. (No dig intended at the folks who have already done some work on it!) -- 201.78.233.162 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadite laser

Nd:YVO3, called 'vanadite,' has the same IR line as a Nd:YAG laser but is more efficient, as the absorption bands are better matched to the pump.

YVO also has a weaker line at 1342 nm.--Deglr6328 06:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grain

A point of light from a laser pointer appears grainy in a particular way. Can anyone explain why? —Ben FrantzDale 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called speckle and is common when you shine monochromatic laser light on a rough surface: light scattered from one point will interfere with light scattered from elsewhere nearby. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
By the by, I mention monochromatic because it doesn't happen with broad bandwidth lasers (like Donnelly and Saeta used at HMC), only in lasers with high coherence. — Laura Scudder ☎ 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do they work?

How do lasers actually work?

why do you keep putting this here? Maybe if you actually took the ten seconds you used on posting such an obvious dumb question to actually read the fucking article whose talk page you're posting to you mightn't be in such a clueless state?--Deglr6328 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classes of Laser

Could someone explain the different classes of laser. i.e. My CD-ROM says it is a Class A laser device. 212.2.17.234

I'm not sure about the details but I found this Laser Fact Sheet. —Ben FrantzDale 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Heheh, reminds that of the time that one of my friends was reassembling a laser I had worked with the previous two years. He walks in all casual and asks me whether I thought the pump laser could set anything on fire. I think about it but say no, it doesn't even hurt the skin. He gives a smirk and then gets up and turns around and there's a huge hole burned in the back of his navy shirt, about six inches across.
As to your question, we've got a pretty sizable article on laser safety. A CD-ROM laser probably is type II, class A. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medical uses of lasers

Resspected sir, I'am very pleasant to gather information about lasers in your web.Also mention various medical applications of lasers.


zomg!! c'mon people! see laser applications --Deglr6328 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser Physics

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform and educate.

However, there are many ‘science’ articles where it seems the author (Scientist?) is more concerned with revealing their titanic intellect by proxy through these articles than educating.

The article on how a laser works is relatively complete, i.e. describing the phenomenon of light amplification. However it does not clearly show how the device works (the purpose of the resonant cavity) and too many caveats are introduced into the main body of work; this clouds the understanding of the reader.

Knowledge is not envy nor secretive but should be shared freely whenever gained. I have lost count of how many times I have read the discussion page where contributors cannot resist adding a pedantic piece of information flaunting their knowledge (generally wrong) and how this is refuted infinitum until the point being discussed is neither relevant nor interesting.

All well and good but a forum for this one-up-man-ship an encyclopaedia is not. One would do well to remember the opening line of this article and if you dislike it go to one of many physics chat rooms where you can engage in as much intellectual male member jousting as you wish.

A disgruntled Scientist


gosh! it's good thing you didn't bother to give a single example of your complaints! that'd've been almost helpful! where are people "flaunting thier knowledge"? I swear, this page's talk attracts some of the most bizzare comments. --Deglr6328 22:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of lasers

I merged Laser#Uses into Laser applications because yet again what was intended to be a brief summary pointing to a separate page had evolved into major content forking. Anthony Appleyard 09:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular misconceptions

The paragraphs about popular misconceptions are useful and should stay. They show how members of the public often misunderstand lasers due to how they are portrayed in popular culture. The scene in Goldfinger is the most famous example of this.--Ianmacm 15:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandilization fixed

Someone just vandalized this page with stuff like "peanut butter and jelly" I restored an older version.

[edit] Feature article

The Македонски version has became a feature article. Would anyone who understand Македонски be able to compare that with the english version to see what improvement we can make? --Cyktsui 00:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Makebenbfs/ekfh~apsbn but it doesn't look like there's much there that this page doesn't already have.--Deglr6328 03:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I removed some vandalism, but it seems some other content was lost as well. I'm not sure what is factual, and what is not; could someone review the last few edits? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Optical laser

The article is not clear about what an optical laser is. I would correct it, but I have not been able to find any sources that give a good definition. From some sources, I get the impression that optical lasers are those that emit visible light. However, other sources make it seem like it includes any laser that emits electromagnetic radiation of any type, as opposed to things like atom lasers. -- Kjkolb 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Picture Caption

How encyclopedic (or helpful, for that matter) is it to say that the laser in the first picture is "likely" an argon laser? Why not just plain "laser?"--72.48.22.30 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have issue with that picture as well, alltough I may be being really thick. Why can we see the beam? Doctorp9999 (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

They traditionally blow a light smoke over the table to make a beam visible for photographs, although there are many other tricks involving a long exposure time with only a quick flash illuminating the background so that everything else stays sharp. The amount of glow off the mirrors makes me think they did the latter. And I can say that it really is likely an Argon laser based on the color. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For instance, this photo clearly uses a long exposure time, moving some material through the beam to make it visible. Notice that the beam is brighter just before and after an optic like the material was held there longer. The blue has the advantage of being pretty easy to see with a little dust or smoke. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, that makes more sense. I thought it was the goldfinger thing again. Thanks Laura. 152.78.254.81 (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra spectra pics

I don't think that we need three different spectra pictures in the categories by type section.

  • First of all, having all three of them (sized thumbs in opposition to the MOS) screws up where the edit links end up for the subsections
  • Second, two of the pictures are output from someone's spectrometer and as such represent original research
  • Third, one of those two is a spectra of an LED which is not even a laser.
  • fourth, the navy pic covers a broad range and is a good pic

-- Patrick Berry 19:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


"output from someone's spectrometer" does not constitute original research any more than "output from someone's digital camera" does. There is no "research" involved first of all (just because someone is using a scientific device doesn't make something research) and second there is not a thing original about it, as information on the spectral bandwidth of lasers is absurdly widely available. I don't know why the led spectra was added, I don't think that was relevant ehough to be there but I will re-add the spectrum of the HeNe laser as it demonstrates a property of lasers not shown by any other image on the page, specifically, the high monochromaticity of lasers. --Deglr6328 14:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I am fine with that. You should cite a source with the pic then confirming that it accurately represents the linewidth of that HeNe. In addition, not every laser is that highly monochromatic, so the pic only represents certain types of lasers. --Patrick Berry 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The linewidth of a HeNe is exceptionally fine and as is explained in the image info page the spectrometer can not resolve the actual linewidth. The image serves instead to simply contrast the "ultra"-monochromatic nature of (most) lasers with that of other light sources (like leds) conventionally described as such. I have placed a link to a site showing the linewidth of a brillouin scattered HeNe on the image info page for reference.--Deglr6328 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position" -- in your own image page you state: "The emission spectrum of the HeNe laser is even more monochromatic than seen here and the broadening of the peak in this spectrum is actually a result of the imperfect optics and scattering of light inside the spectrometer which results in some light being detected on the parts of the (linear CCD) sensor which surround the central peak." <-- Are these your conclusions about why the peak is broader or do you have a citation for this?
Also, you add "Spectrum of a very high resolution Brillouin scattered HeNe laser can be seen here [2] for reference." This is citing a webpage which cites a journal article about sideband generation, not linewidth broadening, which makes it not really germane. I am not trying to be a total jerk about this, I just don't think that an individual's spectra is the same as posting a picture and should not be used as an image unless it is in a properly cited and peer reviewed article. I will look for a replacement from a citable source --Patrick Berry 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on now, let's don't go crazy here. The plot I linked to there clearly shows the linewidth of the nonscattered main beam to be ~2GHz fwhm, this is in perfect agreement with our own page on modelocking that states it to be ~1.5GHz (and from many other sources [3], this stuff is widely published) this means of course that the actual linewidth of a HeNe beam is somewhere around an absurdly fine 2 PICOmeters. That's like a thousandth of the resolution the spectrometer is capable of achieving, not to mention the fact that the linewith is in the few ppm level for a plot spanning 500nm. The red line itself in the image is hundreds of times larger than the natural HeNe width! So yes, it is my conclusion for the reason that the line in the plot I uploaded is broadened is probably because of imperfect optics or really..... who knows what. And no this is not original research because that fact is not at all going into the article and the reason for such broadening is totally irrelevant to the purpose that the image is being used for here, which is merely to illustrate and compare the spectral purity of a common laser with that of other sources. If I uploaded a photo of an everyday object that had a slight artefact for some reason I would note that just the same, as othes have done [4]. --Deglr6328 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism, or Fact?

Someone added the name "Jeremy J. Wittig" to the list of those who produced the first maser. Is this correct, or is it vandalism? I would suspect someone would like to add his own name to the list, so it might be a malicious edit. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 21:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. I can't find it in any quick resource, so if the anon IP wants it in, they should cite it. -- Patrick Berry 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro section

I recently rewrote the intro section of this article into:

The simplest type of laser consists of a gain medium surrounded by two mirrors of which one is partially transparent and with a means to supply energy to the gain medium . The gain medium is a material (gas, liquid, or solid) chosen to have appropriate optical properties. Light of the right wavelength that passes through the gain medium is amplified (increases in intensity); the surrounding mirrors ensure that most of the light makes many passes through the gain medium. Part of the light that is between the mirrors (i.e., is in the cavity) passes through the partially transparent mirror and appears as a beam of light. The energy required for the amplification is typically supplied as an electrical current or as light at a different wavelength from a flash lamp or other laser. Most practical lasers contain additional elements that affect properties such as the wavelength of the emitted light and the shape of the beam.

It is now changed into

A laser generally consists of a gain medium inside of an optical cavity along with a means to supply energy to the gain medium . Light of the right wavelength that passes through the gain medium is amplified while the optical cavity ensures that most of the light makes many passes through the gain medium. The optical cavity is typically designed so that a portion of the light in the cavity escapes at each round trip, producing the laser output. The energy required for the amplification is typically supplied through either electrical or optical pumping. Most practical lasers contain additional elements that affect properties such as the wavelength of the emitted light and the shape of the beam.

Although I agree that my version could be improved, I'm don't think this is the kind of improvement I was thinking of. The reason I rewrote the intro section is that it was illegible for someone who doesn't already know what a laser is and has a background in physics. In the current version, the terms gain medium, optical cavity, and pumping are introduced without any explanation. The idea of the lead section is that all specialist terminology is explained on the spot. Although I sinned against this guideline myself in specialistic articles such as Pulse shaping, I think this article is likely to draw readers with no background in physics. Han-Kwang 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a valid point about the lack of explanation for the lay-person. I was writing under the idea that the wiki-links allowed someone who did not know what the words meant to find further information on them. I will however attempt to expand the paragraph somewhat to offer more insight. --Chuck Sirloin 20:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikilinks are nice for the person who wants to know more about a particular thing, but annoying when you have to click on lots of them just to understand a passage, especially for a high visibility topic like this. A slight diversion like, an optical cavity, that is, a special arrangement of partially reflecting mirrors, or some such can cost little while saving a lot of clicking. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have another point which is more subtle about this phrase: it is coherent, monochromatic and collimated.. (1) The vast majority of lasers are in cd and dvd players and they are not collimated. The semiconductor laser itself produces a very divergent beam and rather than being recollimated, it is focused again onto the disc. (2) coherence and monochoromaticity are equivalent properties (apart from the fact that they are unexplained terminology); the degree of coherence is simply the inverse of the linewidth. And lasers are in general not monochromatic. For example, all lasers that I work with have a bandwidth of tens of nanometers. Also in telecom, lasers have a fairly large bandwidth because they are pulsed lasers. Han-Kwang 08:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying and I agree to some extent. However, the counter examples you give are more advanced topics and run counter to your argument that the intro be for the masses. In general, lasers are described this way in most text books because these three properties are typically defining of a laser. Also, coherence and monochromaticity are not equivalent properties; one has to do with bandwidth and the other with photons being in phase with each other. Light can easily be monochromatic without being coherent (however I do not know that the converse is true). With respect to collimated light, any laser, when you get into the fine details, is not really collimated (i.e. its ROC is infinity at all points) but is still much more collimated than other light sources. --Chuck Sirloin 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the counterexamples should be mentioned explicitly, but the wording should not exclude those counterexamples. My version was "well-defined color", which is much less strict than monochromatic. Regarding coherence, I actually meant coherence time, i.e. what is relevant if you try to do interference. Light from a fairly monochromatic source (e.g. sodium emission line) does not have spatial coherence, but use a pinhole and collimate the light that passes through and it will have coherence properties that are very similar to that of a laser. Regarding "photons being in phase with each other": this is an incorrect notion of what photons are. Quantum-mechanically, a photon is an amount of energy that is added to or taken from a radiation field. Coherence is a property of the radiation field as a whole, not of individual photons. A true single photon has a completely undefined phase; the coherent radiation field in a cavity actually has an undefined number of photons (phase and number are mutually exclusive in QM). Han-Kwang 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I always worked with pulsed lasers, so monochromatic is a special problem for me. In general, I would say that the main commonality of lasers is coherence, being rather key for the whole process. Non-monochromatic pulsed lasers also exhibit spatial and temporal coherence, otherwise no pulse. And collimation is merely a by-product of a particular kind of spatial coherence. I'll also resort to the appeal to authority and point out that Verdeyen's Laser Electronics says that the main thing distinguishing lasers from lamps is coherence (page 23).— Laura Scudder ☎ 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. I'll revert. --Chuck Sirloin 17:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gas Lasers

Carbon monoxide is not a hazard to health or equipment when dealing with a CO2 laser. Adding a little bit of water vapour in the laser tube causes the CO to recombine back into CO2. I removed the information stating so from the article. I'm going to add something about the efficiency. Photonicsguy 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I added something about the efficiency of the CO2 laser, and compared it to the He-Ne laser. I think mention should be made of the efficiencies of the various types of lasers. I'll write something when I have time, or if anyone would like to be involved. Photonicsguy 00:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the CO hazard was actually supposed to be mentioned at the CO laser. I didn't know that these exist, though. Han-Kwang 10:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How powerful?

I'm just a little bit confused over the laser classes... Everything is rated by eye damage. Does anyone know a different way to judge how powerful something is? Could someone explain this please? I just want to hear an example, like which class of laser would be able to scorch paper, or pop a balloon, or something everyone can relate to something other than a laser. Thanks a bunch! :-) Ilikefood 21:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They're usually rated by eye damage because that's a major concern. Any other measure would depend on too many things, for instance, laser wavelength and the color of the paper or balloon. Dark paper obviously absorbs more light than white paper, although some white papers have flourescent dyes that will cause them to burn at lower energies.
I can tell you that a 50 fs infrared pulse with 540 GW/cm2 average burned paper and singed the skin surface, creating an itchy kind of sensation. And blue light at I think maybe 10 W/cm2 took a long while to become warm on the skin but set a navy shirt on fire rather quickly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You touched half a terrawatt/cm^2!? I've felt the heat of a 20 watt 1064nm cw beam expanded to ~10cm, it was definitely warm after a few seconds. The unexpanded ~2mm diameter beam would smoke paper easily but only when shone on the black toner covered areas. --Deglr6328 08:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
She said average, but she actually meant peak power (or average over 50 fs). She didn't mention the repetition frequency of the pulses, which is probably on the order of 100 Hz, i.e. 2.5 W average. The main difference with 2.5 W continuous and ultrashort-pulsed regarding burning things is multi-photon processes: an 800 nm pulsed beam can also be absorbed by materials that absorb at 400 nm. Han-Kwang 10:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Ilikefood 16:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I meant average over 50 fs, not peak power or total average power. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are lasers used for cutting?

A lot of energy is pumped in to a laser to produce an industrial cutter. What makes a laser so special for cutting? Why aren't normal light sources used to cut metal? Is a laser more efficient at converting electrical energy to light than say a carbon arc? Why not collimate the light of normal light sources?

A related question, is the coherence of laser light important in cutting applications? Would a collimated light source of the same power and frequency but incoherent be any better or worse for cutting?

Chgenly 15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For cutting, a laser is focused to a small cross-section. This increases the energy density at the point of operation. Because a laser provides essentially monochromatic light, a lens can be very effective in producing a well controlled, small cross-sectional area. Normal, or polychromatic, light sources emit light in a wide range of wavelengths. If you use a lens to focus that light, even after you have columnated it, there will be a larger variance because the focal length of the lens varies with wave legnth of the light being focused, so there is some "spreading" of lens-focused light around the nominal point of interest. As a result, light from a laser is more readilly controlled with greater precision. (This is intended to be a common language explanation and will undoubtedly grate with imprecision for the more technically oriented. My apologies.) Pzavon 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. You could use an achromatic lens, but even then I believe that for cutting purposes the focus is rather weak - the depth of the focus (not the focal length) has to be bigger than the thickness of the material you want to cut. Chromatic abberations would not be very problematic in that case. The deeper issue is that you need (spatial) coherence in order to be able to create a collimated beam in the first place. As I mentioned earlier, the only way to collimate an incoherent source is by sending the light through a minuscule pinhole, followed by a lens. This will actually create spatial coherence, but at the cost of a huge loss of all the light that didn't go through the pinhole. Han-Kwang 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Could it be that the infrared light (heat) generated by a cutting laser is just a lot more efficient at cutting than visible light? --Rick Sidwell 04:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If anything, rather the opposite, since most metals are pretty good reflectors for IR light. The main reason is that a CO2 laser is relatively cheap to build with kilowatts of output power. Han-Kwang 06:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Max power of CO2 lasers?

The current revision of Carbon dioxide laser says "The CO2 laser can be constructed to have powers between milliwatts (mW) and gigawatts (GW)."; this contradicts the current revision of Laser, which says "Carbon dioxide lasers emit up to 100 kW". Neither article gives references for these figures, so can we please have some? -- Whitepaw 19:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I clarified this and added a reference --Chuck Sirloin 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] actually the laser was invented

I don't know how to actually post this but i read an article that says the laser was invented by Edison here's the source http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/columns/1363/laser-driven-dlp-projectors.html check it out. otherwise good job to all. 05:07, 29 May 2007 User:Virgilisleading

no, it says that the light bulb was invented by Edison, which is mostly correct. Han-Kwang 06:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gaussian shaped beam

This edit by LambOfDog changed

The beam in the cavity and the output beam of the laser, if they occur in free space rather than waveguides (as in an optical fiber laser), are often Gaussian beams. If the beam is not a pure Gaussian shape, ...

to read

The beam in the cavity and the output beam of the laser, if they occur in free space rather than waveguides (as in an optical fiber laser), are, at best, low order Gaussian beams. However this is rarely the case with powerful lasers. If the beam is not a low-order Gaussian shape, ...

Which is probably a very sensible thing to say, unless it is similar to the nonsense from this user that seems to be a subtle attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. In reaction I said to LambOfDog "at first glance [this] appears entirely reasonable. However, I think this highlights the problem in the original article as the underlying concept of a photonic probability density function has not first been explained or refered to in order to give the concept of beam intensity and shape a theoretical context in terms of wave particle duality. I am now wondering about your qualifications to write so eruditely upon the subject and are concerned that this knowledge that you have disclosed might be an official secret." Having said that, more or less as a joke, I now wonder if this portion of the article really does need some clarification, because it is not clear to me what is being talked about, or why it appears in that point in the article. Also the physics of what causes the beam to be Gaussian shaped or what we are really talking about, is it intensity, power, photon density, energy density, electric or magnetic field strength in the time domain, or frequency domain, in two or 3 dimensions or more. To me, there is something missing. -- Cameron Dewe 07:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the Gaussian function is that (1) the fourier transform of it is another gaussian function and (2) the function squared is another gaussian function. Therefore if the electric and magnetic fields of a beam have a (TEM 00) gaussian cross sectional beam profile in the time domain, they will also have a gaussian profile in intensity (and therefore in photon density). This is a rather nifty thing and is why we just say that the beam is gaussian without specifying how. Some pulsed lasers are gaussian in the time domain, and therefore also in the frequency domain, but that's never what's meant by "gaussian beam".
It is true that most lasers more complicated than a He-Ne have some sort of higher order beam modes present, although it's so helpful usually to have the same sort of beam shape after a lens (due to the fourier transform property of gaussian functions) that you usually try to maximize the lower order as much as possible. — Laura Scudder ☎ 13:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that a couple of really important fundamental facts have been overlooked by all the experts editing this article. That is electromagnetic radiation has both an electric field and a magnetic field and what we are talking about is the field strength of those fields over both space and time. Thus the article should talk about the field strength of the beam rather than the beam. Also, the observation that the Fourier Transform of a Gaussian Function is another Gaussian Function is interesting and may be worth a mention. But it does not explain the, presumably random, process that gives rise to the existence of a field strength that possesses those Gaussian Function properties in the first place. My question is Why Gaussian? and not any other shape, or does nobody know. -- Cameron Dewe 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The simple answer is because the Gaussian field distribtution 'fits' the mirror surfaces. See J. T. Verdeyen, Laser Electronics, Third ed., Prentice Hall series in solid state physical electronics, Chapter 3. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2000). The Gaussian mode comes straight from the free space divergence equation. --Chuck Sirloin 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This article does skip a lot of the physics, but that might be because the physics of it easily fills a graduate class.
So far as why gaussian, the answer is that you set up your cavity to make sure that mode is stable and has the highest gain-to-loss ratio. A method for this is to use the complex beam parameter to find how a gaussian beam would propagate in a certain cavity design and then appropriately choose the distances and focal lengths so that the beam is the same on the n + 1 th trip as on the nth trip.
The other nice thing about gaussian beams, by the way, is that they have the smallest divergence and highest spatial coherence. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that by careful design of the lasing cavity one obtains a gaussian beam. Indeed, a gaussian beam is the likely outcome of an optimal design for lasing stability and efficiency. -- Cameron Dewe 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the norm is for the gaussian mode to be the most efficient. Picture a cavity with a focus within your lasing medium. Because the TEM-00 focuses to the smallest beam waist the power in the focus will be higher, meaning more stimulated emission meaning higher gain-to-loss. In such a situation, as long as TEM-00 is stable, then it will be the most efficient. There are weird cavities designed for higher order modes, but in your typical laser, the predominate mode is TEM-00 unless something is really wrong (like someone badly maladjusted the optics or there's an irregularity on an optic). — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If a gaussian mode is efficiently focused in a gain medium then significant gain saturation will result. The level of gain for this this mode will be significantly reduced. However the regions of the gain medium surrounding this focal spot will have little laser flux passing through them. Hence spontaneous emission will be significant leading to the generation of higher order spatial modes.

A common type of laser cavity is the positive branch confocal unstable cavity. This cavity is useful for producing relatively high power and low divergence laser beams. A result of the unstable cavity is a hole in the centre of the output beam. In this case, the Gaussian mode makes no sense.

In many gain media the gain is not evenly distributed across the gain medium. In many cases the gain is higher on the outside of the gain medium than in the centre. This can be especially pronounced in flashlamp-pumped lasers. In this situation a gaussian beam is unlikely to be formed. Azimuthal Laguerre modes are more likely. --LambOfDog.

I think most of what you are talking about takes place in flashlamp (and maybe electrically) pumped lasers. In most optically pumped lasers, higher order gaussian modes are not caused by spontaneous emission, but by improper mode matching with the pump beam. I also don't know that I agree with the statement that confocal, unstable cavity lasers are a common type, but even so, there are higher order Gaussian modes with holes in the middle. That being said, Gaussian modes are by no means the only self-consistent field distribution available, just the most common (now that optically pumped lasers are the norm).--Chuck Sirloin 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mirrorless lasers

It came up on the Science RD that coherent light diodes are lasers. I disagreed - stating that they can be laser-like, but not lasers. I am alone in this opinion and obviously wrong. Therefore, it seems that the laser article should be rewritten. Apparently, coherent light is all that is required to form a "laser". No mirrors or cavity is required. It should state that it is possible to create a laser with a mirrored cavity, but it is not common since coherent light diodes are far more common than conventional lasers. -- Kainaw(what?) 17:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, because you misunderstand. Laser diodes have an optical cavity designed into the semiconducting substrate, and light bounces back and forth within the material. No additional mirrors are required because that function is already part of the design. Dragons flight 17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I stated that a gallium arsenide diode shining through a pinhole is not a true laser. Then, I was told that it is because it is the basis of a laser diode. Perhaps I simply misunderstood the replies. -- Kainaw(what?) 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
A laser diode is definitely much more than a normal LED shining through a pinhole. Dragons flight 17:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Laser Application article

Something weird is going on in the article: Laser Application. Seems to have been created for spam, can someone please have a look and maybe delete it. I havn't a clue howto do this - Roidroid 03:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It possibly could've been speedily deleted, but I put it up for WP:AFD since there is some sort of claim of notability made. You can also mark articles for deletion by placing {{prod}} on them. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solid-state lasers and ruby

Dears, ruby and sapphire are varieties of the mineral Corundum. It's wrong, an incoherence, to say ruby is the chromium doped sapphire.

Sapphire and Ruby are populars names. According to IMA (International Mineralogical Association) the mineral name is Corundum.

It is correct to say Ti-sapphire because there are Fe-sapphire and perhaps Mn-sapphire but is wrong to say Cr-ruby because it is only that exists.

Zimbres 21:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma Ray Annihilation Laser

  • BBC just reported a story which mentioned these "Gamma Ray Annihilatoin Lasers" in the passing, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6991030.stm but apprently (doing a search within the page) there isn't anything about "gamma ray" lasers on this page..(other than under "gaser" at the end but that's a different phrase than BBC uses..could someone who is knows more about it, update the page to include mention of this type of laser people are trying to create?

--Harel 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SVG graph needs equations fixed

I have started a tracing of the history graph at commons:Image:History of laser intensity.svg, but I gave up trying to get Greek characters in inkscape on Windows. If I get around to fixing it on my Linux box at home, I'll upload it, otherwise maybe one of you can beat me to it? --Slashme 11:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I see Inkscape didn't put in the arrowheads I asked for. Another thing to fix. --Slashme 11:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got the Greek letters into the equations, but Inkscape's spacing is still messing me around, because the text size differs between implementations of the SVG standard (probably due to font availability). And the arrowheads are still missing. Note that my svg graph is now on commons. --Slashme 14:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, User:Rugby471 sorted the graph out, so I'm putting it on the page. The jpeg was not clear enough for me to be sure about some of the exponents, so please check it for accuracy.--Slashme 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spectral lines

I have also made the "laser spectral lines" diagram an SVG, and in the process I noticed that the original diagram mentioned a "ramen" shift for Nd:YAG! I also changed the axis text from "Wavelength - micrometres" to "Wavelength [μm]", and made the wavelength range blocks translucent. --Slashme 07:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there's something strange in the chart: EI-YAG at 1.64 μm. I can't figure out what that's supposed to be. It could be a misprint for Er-YAG, but then it would also be the wrong wavelength. Any corrections welcome! --Slashme 07:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More accessable intro

I think the intro should be more accessible to the average reader. The description can be more formal and technical later in the article. ike9898 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Seconded. E104421 23:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legality

what are restrictions for owning lasers,, what is the max power of a personally owned laser -- Gunnar Guðvarðarson 02:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diffraction -> dispersion

Light seems to travel in rays, yet diffraction effects makes it seem like a laser (or any other light source) would spill out of its aperture as a spherical wave front. Obviously, that doesn't happen. Why does light appear to travel in rays whereas I can't imagine a "ray" of ocean waves; they would just disperse. —Ben FrantzDale 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

A shot in the dark. Consider that (1) lasers are often approximated as having Gaussian intensity distribution, (2) diffraction acts like a Fourier transform, and (3) an eigenfunction of the Fourier transform is the the Gaussian distribution. Perhaps a wave front with Gaussian intensity profile is exactly right to not disperse? (Or, more accurately, to disperse to form the exact same intensity distribution.) 155.212.242.34 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
That looks plausible, given the intro to Gaussian beam. —Ben FrantzDale 02:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It helps that a gaussian beam is an eigenfunction of laser cavities that contain a focus, since lenses act as a fourier transform. All beams have some divergence (unless your source is actually infinitely far away), it's just possible to get it quite small with gaussian beams. — Laura Scudder ☎ 03:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You are duplicating one of the early objections to the wave model of light, from Newton's day. Scientists of the time just couldn't imagine a wave (like an ocean wave) behaving like a "ray". It comes down to a matter of scale. Visible light has very short wavelengths compared to the objects we can observe. This tends to limit the effect of diffraction, so light in our ordinary experience appears to travel in straight lines. When one introduces changes in intensity across distances closer to the wavelength in scale, diffraction effects cause light to spread in the way that we are used to with other kinds of waves. You can indeed make a "ray" of ocean waves, if you arrange for them to travel through an aperture much larger than the wavelength and look at propagation over long distances (compared to a wavelength).--Srleffler (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military

It does not mention in this article that the military has developed lasers, mounted on jeeps, that are capable of slicing down incoming enemy fire in the form of missiles. It is infrared, therefore invisible to the naked eye, but is capable of great destruction. The army has stated they can not mass produce such a weapon, though, because of the high amount of energy it uses, and that it is too big for the field, at the moment. They do have a working version of one which they displayed on Future Weapons on the Discovery Channel. A seperate group is also working on a much smaller version.

Here we go, the THEL and Airborne Laser. There is no mention of these in the article that I saw.

[edit] Eye damage

Does the potential for eye damage in lasers, such as laser pointers, exist in other situations as well?

For example, if someone were to look through a telescope aimed at the sun on an overcast day (during the day) with a UV index of 1, but the person had his/her eyes shut while doing it, would the person's eye(s) be damaged by the sunlight or UV rays? (As with a laser when it is shown at a person's eyes) Latitude0116 (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just incoherent. One can damage one's eyes with concentrated non-laser light. You can burn things by concentrating the sun's light with a magnifying glass too. Same principle.--Srleffler (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thought it may be useful to note that in the US, the laser safety classification and identification is controlled by the FDA.--Caveman

[edit] Revert intro

I am going to revert the intro (or at least the start of it) to the version of 4:59 March 4 2008. After that edit, the article was vandalized, and subsequent editors improved the vandalized introduction without reverting to the unvandalized version. The result was an intro that is inferior to the earlier version. Wikipedia articles should rarely begin with "The term x is...". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but rather an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles are about things, not about the terms that describe them. This is why things that share a common name have separate articles (with disambiguation), while things that have several names cover all of them in a single article.--Srleffler (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In the revert, I am also restoring the footnote about "lazer" being incorrect. I am doing so not because I necessarily feel that this note is important, but because it was deleted in an edit that was misleadingly labeled as a vandalism revert. (The edit reverted a vandal, and also deleted a footnote that had been present in the article for some time.) I'm not sure whether the editor just made the change by the way and forgot to mention it, or whether it was somehow a mistake.--Srleffler (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation - Australian Fines of $30,000

In the article there is a statement about fines of up to $30,000 and two years imprisonment, however a citation is needed for these. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/11/2213837.htm this news article seems to repeat this information, and, for those not in the know, the ABC is one of the biggest news suppliers in Australia. 59.167.128.135 (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

With a single google search for "Australian Civil Aviation Act penalties" I was able to find their website. By using their site's search engine, I found these references:
http://casa.gov.au/media/2007/DOTARS07_136MV.htm and http://casa.gov.au/rules/1998casr/139/139c23.pdf
What I can't find is something referencing the $30,000 (AU) penalty, only the jail-time.
Jcaturia (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under heading 'Design'

Laser acronym:

'The word light in the acronym Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation'

Should this not be laser.

OakeyDokey (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. There is no word "laser" in the acronym Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. Laser *is* the acronym. It's talking about the fact that the "light" is used as a generic for photons of any electromagnetic energy. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


136.182.158.153 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Read this excerp: Has anyone brought up the acronym "LOSER" was a possibility until the full thought process took place and it was realized LOSER might not be a very good name after all?

In 1959, a year before anyone had built a laser, physicist Arthur Schawlow pointed out
that since the amplification is achieved by bouncing the photons back and forth
within a resonant cavity, the process would be better described as "light oscillation"136.182.158.153 (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You need find a few reliable sources as references that says that. It sounds a bit fringe and apocryphal. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Why does an article about a technology developed by U.S. scientist in a U.S. laboratory use British spelling (e.g., colour)? Moretz (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "colour" isn't used actually though the word "coloured" is used, once. Any other examples you want use to consider ? You're going to have to be a lot more precise if we're going to start bending Wikipedia conventions. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo

please replace "axample" with "example" in the first few paragraphs. page is locked, can't edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.197.200 (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Done [5] but slightly tweaked as well. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acronym

If laser is indeed an acronym, why isn't it written in caps, like SONAR and RADAR? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It probably was, but like sonar and radar, the term has become an ordinary word, even to the extent of the back-formed verb! Dbfirs 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)