Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Pulsed Laser as a Continuous Particle Stream

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mode-locked pulsed laser can be described, without invoking wave superposition, as a continuous stream of photons: photons occupy bright states during the pulses and dark states in the intervals between them, and the theoretical…

desk verdict The pulsed-laser particle-stream story has a load-bearing time-dependence error: the dark-state decomposition drops dU/dt, and the ratio check is near-tautological. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19746 v2 pith:JTBC5SI6 submitted 2024-12-27 quant-ph

Ciro Micheletti Diniz , Franciele Renata Henrique , Bruno Santos de Souza , Lino Misoguti , Paulo Henrique Dias Ferreira , Celso Jorge Villas Bôas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Ct42.55.Ah42.25.Hz
keywords mode-lockedlasersbrightanddarkstatesmultimodeinterferencecontinuousphotonstreamcollectivemodesdouble-slitparticleinterpretationpulsetrainquantumoptics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a mode-locked pulsed laser, normally explained by the interference of many waves inside a cavity, can instead be described as a continuous beam of photons. In this description every photon is either in a bright state, where it couples to a detector and contributes to a pulse, or in a dark state, where it is present but does not couple, filling the interval between pulses. The authors extend a recent particle-based account of the two-mode double-slit experiment to an arbitrary number of modes, and use the resulting collective bright and dark states to reinterpret pulse shaping without wave superposition. They then compare, for several experimental pulsed lasers, the theoretical ratio of bright to dark state counts with the measured ratio of pulse duration to pulse spacing, and report agreement. If the claim holds, the puzzle of how continuously emitted photons remain undetectable between pulses dissolves, and laser emission, shaping, and propagation become one quantum-mechanical particle picture.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the collective bright/dark operator basis c_j = \sum_m O_{j,m} a_m, built from a change-of-basis matrix whose first row is uniform (1/\sqrt{M}) and whose other rows are antisymmetric sign combinations. In this basis the positive-frequency electric field operator becomes \sqrt{M} c_1, so only the symmetric collective mode c_1 couples to matter; all states with zero photons in that mode are dark. A unitary transformation U = \sum_m \exp(i\Phi_m) a_m^\dagger a_m is applied to remove the mode phases from the field operator, and the paper takes U to be time-independent so that the same static basis can describe the temporally evolving phases of a pulsed laser. The ratio computation uses the standard Gaussian-pulse duration formula \$\Delta$\tau = 2\ln 2/(\pi\$\Delta$\nu_L) together with the mode-count estimate M = 4\ln(2)L/(\pi c\$\Delta$\tau).

What would settle it

Include the dropped time-derivative term ˙U = i\sum_m m\$\Delta$\omega e^{i m(\$\Delta$\omega t + \phi_0)} a_m^\dagger a_m in the transformed Hamiltonian and check whether the claimed dark states remain exactly uncoupled; any residual coupling would break the static bright/dark assignment for pulses. A more direct test would use a detector whose coupling pattern matches one antisymmetric collective mode, for example with alternating sign between modes, and look for clicks in the inter-pulse interval: clicks would confirm that dark-state photons are physically present, while their absence would contradict the continuous-stream picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that multimode interference of light is governed by a collective basis in which exactly one symmetric mode, the bright state, couples to matter with coupling enhanced by the square root of the mode number, while the remaining antisymmetric modes, the dark states, carry photons that cannot excite a detector. For N photons the number of dark states grows combinatorially with the number of modes M and the photon number N, whereas the bright state is unique. For the phase-locked linear relation that characterizes both diffraction gratings and mode-locked lasers, the detection amplitude is the geometric sum ($e^{{iM\phi}}$-1)/($e^{{i\phi}}$-1), so dark states occur at M-1 equally spaced phases and bright states at multiples of 2\pi. Applied to mode-locked lasers, this means the output is a continuous stream of photons that are in bright states during pulses and in dark states between pulses; the theoretical bright-to-dark ratio 1/(M-1) is compared with the experimental pulse-to-interval duration ratio and found to match within the paper's stated approximations. The paper explicitly restricts this comparison to lasers whose pulse properties are set by the cavity, excluding cases where additional dispersion components reshape the pulse after generation.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the unitary transformation that removes the mode phases, U = \sum_m $e^{{i\Phi_m}}$ a_m^\dagger a_m, can be treated as time-independent even though the pulsed-laser phases \Phi_m = m(\$\Delta$\omega t + \phi_0) depend on time; Appendix C explicitly drops the ˙U term in the transformed Schrödinger equation, and this step is what lets a static bright/dark basis be applied to temporal pulse interference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mode-locked laser operation can be treated as a quantum particle beam: gain-medium emission, cavity mode-locking, and free-space pulse propagation share one description that never invokes classical wave superposition.
  • The dark intervals between pulses are not empty of light; they contain photons in collective states that ordinary detectors cannot absorb, so the total photon flux leaving the laser is continuous even when the detected intensity is pulsed.
  • The bright-to-dark ratio 1/(M-1) gives a direct experimental signature: measuring pulse duration and repetition rate for a mode-locked laser with known cavity length provides an independent estimate of the number of locked modes.
  • For multislit and grating experiments, the same counting implies M-1 dark fringes (with photons present) for every bright fringe, and the bright-fringe intensity enhancement of \sqrt{M} persists even for single-photon inputs.
  • Because the bright state is unique while dark states proliferate, multimode interference patterns are dominated by undetectable photon configurations, explaining the narrow bright regions and broad dark regions seen in pulsed and grating settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the time-independence of the phase-removing unitary is only an approximation, the framework is likely most accurate when mode phases vary slowly compared with the atom-field interaction time; this suggests the ratio match should be best for narrow-band pulses and may degrade for few-femtosecond or attosecond pulses, a boundary that could be tested.
  • The same bright/dark counting could be applied to other multimode phenomena with fixed phase relations, such as frequency combs, temporal diffraction, or Bragg scattering, where dark time windows would be reinterpreted as uncoupled collective states rather than absent light.
  • A detector engineered to couple to a specific antisymmetric collective mode, rather than to the symmetric field, would be the sharpest probe of whether the photons in dark intervals are really there; the paper itself does not propose such an experiment.
  • The reported numerical agreement compares 1/M with \Delta\tau/\tau using tabulated pulse durations and estimated cavity lengths; recomputing M from an independent spectral measurement of the true oscillating bandwidth for each laser would remove the main source of approximation and sharpen the test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript extends the bright/dark 'particle' state interpretation of interference to multimode fields and applies it to mode-locked pulsed lasers. The authors construct a collective basis in which one symmetric mode couples to detectors (bright) and M-1 antisymmetric modes do not (dark), count dark states for N photons, and apply the same construction to diffraction gratings and pulsed lasers by removing mode phases with a unitary transformation. They claim that a pulsed laser is a continuous photon beam whose photons occupy bright states during pulses and dark states between pulses, and they compare the theoretical bright-to-dark ratio 1/M with the measured pulse-to-interval duration ratio for several experiments. The static-phase algebra and the combinatorial counting are presented in the main text and in the Supplemental Material.

Significance. If the central dynamical claim were correct, the paper would offer a purely quantum, particle-only account of mode locking and would resolve the long-standing question of where continuously emitted photons 'hide' between pulses. The paper has several strengths: the collective bright/dark construction is standard and correctly implemented, the M=4 decomposition in SM Appendix G is explicit, and the authors include comparisons with several experimental datasets and an honest caveat about cases where their formulas fail. However, the two load-bearing steps—the treatment of the time-dependent phase unitary as static and the purported experimental confirmation—are not sound as presented. The conceptual interest of the particle interpretation for spatial interference does not carry over to the pulsed-laser temporal case without a proper dynamical treatment.

major comments (4)
  1. [SM Appendix C, Eq. (S4); main text after Eq. (4)] The unitary transformation U = Σ_m exp(iΦ_m) a†_m a_m is applied with phases Φ_m = m(Δω t + φ0) for a pulsed laser, so it is time-dependent. SM Appendix C, Eq. (S4), explicitly uses ˙U = 0 to drop the term i(˙U)U† from the transformed Schrödinger equation. However, i(˙U)U† = -Δω Σ_m m a†_m a_m is nonzero; in the collective basis this mode-number operator couples the symmetric bright mode to the antisymmetric dark modes. For M=2, acting on the dark state |D⟩ = (|1,0⟩-|0,1⟩)/√2 gives a nonzero component along |B⟩ = (|1,0⟩+|0,1⟩)/√2, so detection probability grows on a timescale of order 1/Δω, comparable to the pulse period. The dark intervals are therefore not dynamically protected, and the central claim that photons persist in dark states between pulses is unsupported. The bright/dark decomposition is an instantaneous phase-space statement, not a dynamical trajectory.
  2. [Main text, 'To check our results'; SM Appendix H] The comparison in this section is not an independent numerical test. The mode count is estimated from the measured pulse duration as M = 4 ln(2)L/(π c Δτ), and the cavity round-trip time is τ_c = 2L/c. Consequently the predicted ratio 1/M and the measured ratio Δτ/τ_c are proportional with the fixed factor π/(2 ln2) ≈ 2.27, independent of the data. The reported agreement of 3.6×10⁻³ with 2.2×10⁻³ is therefore a consequence of the estimation formula. Moreover, the statements that the bright state is unique and that there are M-1 dark states are built into the collective basis (SM Appendix D), so the ratio 1/M does not independently confirm the particle interpretation.
  3. [SM Appendix H, final paragraph] The supplemental material acknowledges 'intermediate states, which are neither bright nor dark states but play a role in the pulse shape.' This is in tension with the Letter's central dichotomy that every photon is either in a bright state during the pulse or a dark state between pulses, and it concedes that the binary bright/dark classification is not sufficient to describe pulse shaping. The manuscript should either reconcile this with the continuous-stream claim or restrict the claim accordingly.
  4. [Abstract; main text Introduction and Conclusion] The abstract claims a unified description of laser generation inside optical cavities and propagation outside them, but the manuscript analyzes only a prescribed multimode state (single-photon or coherent) and does not model the gain medium, cavity dynamics, or the mode-locking mechanism. The claim of a unified particle description of generation therefore exceeds what is demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (6); SM Appendix D, Eq. (S4)] The nested sums defining N_DS are hard to verify as printed, partly because the condition n1 = 0 is implicit; a closed form such as N+M-2 choose (M-2), or an explicit statement that the n1 sum is absent, would make the combinatorics transparent.
  2. [Main text and SM Appendix H] The symbol τ is used for the cavity flying time in the main text and for the pulse interval in Appendix H, while Δτ denotes the pulse duration; this collision makes the ratio comparison harder to follow. Please choose distinct symbols.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract cites 'Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 13360 (2025)', whereas the reference list gives 133603; please correct the typo.
  4. [Figure 1(b), caption] The gray/red circle distinction in the pictographic representation should be explained in the caption itself rather than only by referring to the notation of Ref. [29].

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The bright-to-dark ratio 'prediction' uses the same measured pulse duration to define M, making the agreement algebraic; the dark-state count is built into the basis choice.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, section 'To check our results...'; SM Appendix H]
    "Theoretically, the duration of a pulse that presents a Gaussian shape is given by ∆τ = 2 ln(2)/π∆νL, where ∆νL = M ∆ω/2π is the total bandwidth... we can estimate the number of modes as (considering nr = 1) M = 4 ln(2)L/πc∆τ... yielding a ratio between bright and dark states of ≈ 1/M ∼ 3.6×10−3. For the same laser, the interval between the pulses experimentally observed is close to 256 ns... which results in a 'pulse'/'no pulse' temporal ratio of (570 ps)/(256 ns) ∼ 2.2 × 10−3, matching our previous result."

    M is not an independent measured quantity: it is inferred from the measured pulse duration ∆τ through the standard Gaussian time-bandwidth relation ∆τ = 2 ln(2)/(π ∆ν_L), with ∆ν_L = M ∆ω/(2π) and ∆ω = πc/L. The experimental ratio is ∆τ/τ with τ = 2L/c. Substituting gives 1/M = (π/(2 ln 2))(∆τ/τ) ≈ 2.27 (∆τ/τ). Thus the 'theoretical' bright-to-dark ratio is a fixed algebraic multiple of the 'experimental' pulse-to-interval ratio using the very same ∆τ and L; the agreement is forced by construction and the discrepancy is just the constant π/(2 ln 2). The comparison therefore cannot test the bright/dark-state interpretation.

  2. self definitional [Main text, after Eq. (4): definition of bright and dark states; SM Appendix D, Eq. (S4)]
    "Following this, the state where all photons can be exchanged is defined as the bright state... Hence, for N photons, this state is unique as there is only one possible photon distribution that allows for maximum energy exchange with matter. Conversely, many combinations will result in states that do not interact with atoms, which are known as dark states."

    The 'dominance' of dark states is encoded in the chosen change-of-basis matrix O: one symmetric row O1,m = 1/√M and M−1 antisymmetric rows, with dark states defined by n1 = 0. Equation (6) simply counts photon distributions with zero photons in the symmetric mode. The statement that a mode-locked laser pulse has one bright interval and M−1 dark intervals is therefore a relabeling of the standard phase-locked multimode structure in this basis, not a dynamical derivation. The later 'prediction' of the bright-to-dark ratio inherits this definitional character.

full rationale

The paper's collective bright/dark construction is mathematically self-consistent as a basis change, and the counting of dark states is a well-defined combinatorial fact. However, the central validation step is not an independent prediction: the number of modes M is estimated from the same measured pulse duration ∆τ used to form the experimental pulse-to-interval ratio, and the cavity round-trip time τ is fixed by the cavity length. As a result, 1/M and ∆τ/τ are proportional by the constant π/(2 ln 2) ≈ 2.27, so the reported 'match' is a restatement of the standard time-bandwidth product rather than a test of the particle-stream interpretation. The bright/dark ratio itself is definitional in the chosen collective basis. I did not count the time-dependent unitary issue (SM Appendix C assumes ˙U = 0 although Φ_m(t) = m(∆ω t + φ) for pulsed lasers) as circularity: it is a dynamical-validity concern, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Self-citation to Ref. [29] is present but not load-bearing in a circular way, since the present paper extends rather than merely asserts that framework. Overall, the central quantitative claim is partially circular, warranting a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on the standard mode-locking phase-locking assumption, the collective-basis construction from the authors' earlier work, and a time-dependent unitary transformation treated as time-independent. The experimental ratio comparison uses M derived from the pulse duration, so it does not count as an independent external check.

free parameters (2)
  • Mode count M estimated from pulse duration = 274 for the 570 ps, 53 m example
    M = 4 ln(2) L / (pi c Delta_tau) is derived from the measured pulse duration; the bright-to-dark ratio 1/M is then compared with Delta_tau/tau, making the comparison non-independent.
  • Gaussian pulse shape factor = 2 ln 2 / pi approximately 0.441
    Chosen for pulse duration estimate; different pulse shapes change the factor and the comparison, which already carries a fixed factor pi/(2 ln 2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Modes have equal amplitude E0 and locked phases with constant difference phi_m - phi_{m-1} = phi_0; M odd and M much larger than 1.
    Used in the standard mode-locking field E(t) in Eq. (2), inherited from Svelto and laser textbooks.
  • ad hoc to paper The unitary transformation U = sum_m exp(i Phi_m) a_dagger_m a_m can be treated as time-independent so that U-dot = 0 in the transformed Schrodinger equation.
    Stated in SM Appendix C Eq. (S4), but for pulsed lasers Phi_m = m(Delta_omega t + phi_0) is time-dependent, so the derivation omits the U-dot term.
  • domain assumption The detector coupling is fully described by the symmetric collective operator c1; antisymmetric modes have null coupling.
    Follows from the Jaynes-Cummings interaction with the transformed field E(+) = sqrt(M) c1; this is the basis for calling states dark.
  • domain assumption Spatial phases of a diffraction grating and temporal phases of a mode-locked laser are mathematically equivalent for the interference analysis.
    Stated in the main text and Appendix B; the paper provides no experimental test of the equivalence beyond the analogy.
  • standard math Canonical commutation relations and total photon-number conservation are preserved by the change-of-basis matrix O.
    Used to build the collective basis in Eq. (4) and SM Appendix D.
invented entities (1)
  • Collective bright and dark photon states
    purpose: To describe multimode interference as a photon beam that couples (bright) or does not couple (dark) to detectors.
    These are basis states from the authors' prior PRL 2025; they have no falsifiable handle outside the mathematical basis choice, and the paper does not propose any measurement that distinguishes them from the wave picture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulsed Laser as a Continuous Particle Stream." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JTBC5SI6

@misc{pith2026241219746,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulsed Laser as a Continuous Particle Stream},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JTBC5SI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19746}
}
read the original abstract

With the recently introduced particle interpretation of the double-slit experiment for light fields [Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 13360 (2025)], all related interference phenomena can be reinterpreted in terms of light particle states that either couple (bright) or do not couple (dark) with detectors. Here, we apply this approach to multimode pulsed lasers, unifying the description of their generation inside optical cavities and propagation outside them, now relying solely on quantum mechanics, i.e., without invoking wave superposition to explain pulse shaping. Specifically, we demonstrate that multimode interference presents a dominance of particle dark states over the bright ones and mode-locked pulsed lasers consist of a continuous photon beam, with photons forming bright states during pulses and dark states in between. Additionally, we analyze mode-locked pulsed lasers, showing that the theoretical bright-to-dark state ratio matches the experimental pulse-to-interval duration ratio.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19746 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Illustration of the diffraction pattern resulting from coher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Optimal Planning and Machine Learning for Responsive Tracking and Enhanced Forecasting of Wildfires using a Spacecraft Constellation

    cs.RO 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The abstract and full text are two different papers: the abstract claims a CYGNSS wildfire tracking pipeline, the body is a trapped-ion wave-interference study, so the claimed results are unsupported.

  2. Quantum Origin of Diffraction from Bright and Dark States

    quant-ph 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The single-slit diffraction pattern is recast as the squared projection of the photon state onto the detector-coupled bright mode, with minima corresponding to photons in undetectable dark modes.

  3. Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A trapped-ion qubit can mediate constructive or destructive interference between a phonon coherent state and a laser drive, enabling controllable transparency of an ion chain to propagating phonon pulses.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nature Reviews Physics 2, 221 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Yefet and A

    S. Yefet and A. Pe’er, Applied Sciences 3, 694 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    K. W. D. Ledingham, P. R. Bolton, N. Shikazono, and C.-M. C. Ma, Applied Sciences 4, 402 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    T. K. Para ¨ıso, R. I. Woodward, D. G. Marangon, V . Lovic, Z. Yuan, and A. J. Shields, Advanced Quantum Technologies 4, 2100062 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Kumar Singh, B

    S. Kumar Singh, B. Pratap Banerjee, and S. Raval, Inter- national Journal of Mining Science and Technology 33, 133 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    A. L. Schawlow and C. H. Townes, Phys. Rev. 112, 1940 (1958)

    work page 1958

  7. [7]

    T. H. MAIMAN, Nature 187, 493 (1960)

    work page 1960

  8. [8]

    P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 118 (1961)

    work page 1961

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    P. S. Salter and M. J. Booth, Light: Science & Applications 8, 110 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Midwinter, Optics Laser Technology 12, 160 (1980)

    J. Midwinter, Optics Laser Technology 12, 160 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    Gisin and R

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, Nature Photonics 1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    A. H. Zewail, Science 242, 1645 (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, Ch. Spielmann, G. A. Reider, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. Corkum, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Nature 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 076901 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Einstein, Physikalische Zeitschrift 18, 167 (1917)

    A. Einstein, Physikalische Zeitschrift 18, 167 (1917)

    1917

  8. [16]

    F. J. McClung and R. W. Hellwarth, Appl. Opt. 1, 103 (1962)

    1962

  9. [17]

    L. E. Hargrove, R. L. Fork, and M. A. Pollack, Applied Physics Letters 5, 4 (1964)

    1964

  10. [18]

    H. W. Mocker and R. J. Collins, Applied Physics Letters 7, 270 (1965)

    1965

  11. [19]

    Keller and R

    U. Keller and R. Paschotta, Ultrafast lasers (Springer, 2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Strickland and G

    D. Strickland and G. Mourou, Optics Communications 55, 447 (1985)

    1985

  13. [21]

    Antoine, A

    P. Antoine, A. L’huillier, and M. Lewenstein, Physical Review Letters 77, 1234 (1996)

    1996

  14. [22]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. Milburn, Quantum Optics , 1st ed., Springer Study Edition (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    M. O. Scully and W. E. Lamb, Phys. Rev. 159, 208 (1967)

    1967

  16. [24]

    Thyagarajan and A

    K. Thyagarajan and A. Ghatak, Lasers : fundamentals and ap- plications, 2nd ed., Graduate texts in physics (Springer Sci- ence+Business Media, New York, 2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    W. E. Lamb, Phys. Rev. 134, A1429 (1964)

    1964

  18. [26]

    Stenholm and W

    S. Stenholm and W. E. Lamb, Phys. Rev. 181, 618 (1969)

    1969

  19. [27]

    Allen, Journal of Physics A: General Physics 2, 433 (1969)

    L. Allen, Journal of Physics A: General Physics 2, 433 (1969)

    1969

  20. [28]

    J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 181, 600 (1969)

    1969

  21. [29]

    C. J. Villas-Boas, C. E. M ´aximo, P. J. Paulino, R. P. Bachelard, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133603 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    On the other hand, in pulsed lasers, the interfer- ence arises from the sum of different modes with distinct fre- quencies, which results in time-dependent phases

    In multislit experiments, interference arises from the sum of different spatial modes (with the same frequency), each with time-independent phases determined by their respective paths to the screen. On the other hand, in pulsed lasers, the interfer- ence arises from the sum of...

  23. [31]

    Assuming M odd for simplicity

  24. [32]

    Svelto, Principles of lasers , 5th ed

    O. Svelto, Principles of lasers , 5th ed. (New York: Springer, 2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Tirole, S

    R. Tirole, S. Vezzoli, E. Galiffi, I. Robertson, D. Maurice, 6 B. Tilmann, S. A. Maier, J. B. Pendry, and R. Sapienza, Na- ture Physics 19, 999 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    J. I. Thomas, American Journal of Optics and Photonics 7, 1 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    E. M. Stein and R. Shakarchi, Princeton Lectures in Analysis II: Complex Analysis (Princeton University Press, 2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    J. Zou, C. Dong, H. Wang, T. Du, and Z. Luo, Light: Science & Applications 9, 61 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    X. Yang, Y . Yao, R. Zhang, M. He, H. Wang, Z. Dong, and Z. Luo, Opt. Lett. 50, 1065 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    N. P. Alves, W. F. Alves, A. C. A. Siqueira, N. L. L. Matias, A. S. L. Gomes, E. P. Raposo, and M. H. G. de Miranda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 093801 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    R. Wang, N. Wang, H. Teng, and Z. Wei, Appl. Opt. 51, 5527 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    J. P. von der Weid, M. M. Correia, P. Tovar, A. S. L. Gomes, and W. Margulis, Nature Communications 15, 177 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    V . E. Yashin, A. A. Mak, L. Bakh, E. Yakovlev, R. R. Gerke, and I. Usupov, in Diffractive and Holographic Device Tech- nologies and Applications V , V ol. 3291, edited by I. Cindrich and S. H. Lee, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    Bonod and J

    N. Bonod and J. Neauport, Adv. Opt. Photon. 8, 156 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Palmer, DIFFRACTION GRATING HANDBOOK , 8th ed

    C. Palmer, DIFFRACTION GRATING HANDBOOK , 8th ed. (MKS Newport, 2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Sinha, C

    U. Sinha, C. Couteau, T. Jennewein, R. Laflamme, and G. Weihs, Science 329, 418 (2010)

    2010

  38. [46]

    O. S. Maga ˜na-Loaiza, I. De Leon, M. Mirhosseini, R. Fick- ler, A. Safari, U. Mick, B. McIntyre, P. Banzer, B. Rodenburg, G. Leuchs, and R. W. Boyd, Nature Communications 7, 13987 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  40. [48]

    Edamatsu, R

    K. Edamatsu, R. Shimizu, and T. Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 213601 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Kim and B

    S. Kim and B. S. Ham, Scientific Reports 13, 977 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    B. J. Luo, L. Francis, V . Rodr´ıguez-Fajardo, E. J. Galvez, and F. Khoshnoud, American Journal of Physics 92, 308 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Janszky, P

    J. Janszky, P. Domokos, and P. Adam, Phys. Rev. A 48, 2213 (1993)

    1993

  44. [52]

    W. Zha, J. D. Brandenburg, L. Ruan, and Z. Tang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 033007 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Young, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 94, 1 (1804)

    T. Young, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 94, 1 (1804)

  46. [54]

    Young, A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts (Taylor and Walton, London, 1845)

    T. Young, A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts (Taylor and Walton, London, 1845)

  47. [55]

    Orszag, Quantum Optics, 4th ed

    M. Orszag, Quantum Optics, 4th ed. (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    C. Dong, V . Fiore, M. C. Kuzyk, and H. Wang, Science 338, 1609 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Tian, Phys

    L. Tian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 233602 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    L. O. R. Solak, D. Z. Rossatto, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062620 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    C. M. Diniz, C. J. Villas-Boas, and A. C. Santos, Quantum Science and Technology 10, 025039 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    light”/“no light

    R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, 2020). 7 Supplemental Material for: Pulsed laser as a continuous particle stream Ciro Micheletti Diniz 1, Franciele Renata Henrique 2, Bruno Santos de Souza 1, Lino Misoguti 2, Paulo Henrique Dias Ferreira 1, and Celso J. ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.