Talk:Self-amplified spontaneous emission

Recent changes and figure

I explicitly shortened the passage about coherence because this is a highly discussed topic but I extended the explanation of micro-bunching because this is essential. I intend to also add an figure that shows the exponential amplification and visualizes the structure of an micro-bunched eBeam. I want to use http://photon-science.desy.de/sites/site_photonscience/content/e58/e186104/e186305/e186344/e186372/e196992/e186376/Chapter2_p12_2_eng.jpg and I already asked DESY for approval to use it on wikipedia. I will add when I get a reply. There is still a ton of references missing. Other suggestions?Maderthaner (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of copy-editing (pun not intended ;-). Since you asked for suggestions: I think we should explain why the slightly higher speed of the photons leads to microbunching, and why a reduced phase space leads to exponential gain (and what that is). Also: is the light really characteristic of the undulator length? Isn't the length just giving the intensity, while other characteristics of the emitted light, most notably the wavelength, are given by the undulator's period and magnetic field together with the electron beam energy? — HHHIPPO 22:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment and edits; I think those are great! I absolutely like your two suggestions and I think we should elaborate on those points. I also stumbled over the undulator "length" when writing it. I just looked it up again and what I actually meant was the undulator "period". However, it looks like a better parameter would be the undulator "strength" K because it is actually the magnetic field B and the undulator period that are tuning the wavelength (besides electron specific values). I've corrected this.Maderthaner (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited again and tried to elaborate on your two comments. To really explain why the gain is exponential, I think, we actually need some formulas. I will try to add that in a next step. No update on the DESY figure yet but if I can use an figure from this APS article (10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.034801) by citing it we could get around the DESY one... Can I? --Maderthaner (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]