Talk:Higher order coherence#Merger proposal

I'm tempted to request this be merged into the article on Coherence (physics), as a brief scan of both tell me they're covering a lot of the same material. {{U|Bibekbabupokharel}}, can you explain why this concept should be treated in a separate article? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is mentioned for g(2), without explanation or reference. Suposedly, is has a gaussian decay of second order coherence. Nonetheless, the formula explicitly given in the main text describes exponential decay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wouterretuow (talk • contribs) 10:09, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The title is capitalized and I believe that this is wrong and forbidden by the wikipedia manual of style 2804:431:C7E2:F7DC:4030:9377:F4D4:FC45 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

{{atop

| status =

| result = Merge. (non-admin closure) ^Queenof_Hearts 22:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

}}

I have moved Orders Of Coherence into Higher order coherence (due to bad title). Now, I propose merging Degree of coherence into Higher order coherence. I think the content in Degree of coherence can easily be explained in the context of higher order coherence, and a merger would not cause any article-size problems in here. Degree of coherence has very few citations so it is not going to be difficult to merge. ReyHahn (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

:I support your proposal.

:However a reader of Coherence_(physics)#Mathematical_definition might reasonably expect that following the link Further information: Degree of coherence would lead to further information on the mathematical definition, esp. since the content in the main Coherence page is intelligible only to an expert.

:My first reaction as a non-expert to "Higher order coherence" is "higher than what?" I would expect an article titled "Orders of coherence" or maybe "Coherence orders".

:I think this Higher Order page would benefit from reorganization: move Young up and call it "Example of first order coherence"

:Then Hanbury Brown and Twiss as "Example of second order coherence". Then Definition. This kind of ramp gives a non expert a chance to get something of the idea of "order of coherence" before a barrage of formulas. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

::I agree, both articles have to be merged into 1, the organization of Degree of coherence is better but Higher order coherence is better cited. As for the name I do not have any strong feelings, but I do see a problem with "higher order coherence", while also explaining first order coherence. If not we can go for "Coherence order".--ReyHahn (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

::I had a chance read Glauber's 1963 paper to try to fix up Coherence_(physics)#Quantum_coherence. Based on that I strongly support your merger.

::Ideally the #Quantum_coherence section will be a summary pointing to your merger. (It's just a kinda muddley hodge-podge now). Johnjbarton (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

{{abot}}