180 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A/Vol. 10, No.

1/January 1993 Richard Barakat

Analytic proofs of the Arago-Fresnel laws for the

interference of polarized light

Richard Barakat*
Aiken Computation Laboratory, Division of Applied Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Received February 3, 1992; accepted July 2, 1992; revised manuscript received July 27, 1992
The four laws of Arago-Fresnel governing the interference of polarized light were determined experimentally.
Analytical proofs are derived directly from first principles. The technique used for the proofs is that of the
spectral representation of stationary stochastic processes in conjunction with the Jones matrix description of
a polarizer.

1. INTRODUCTION Such are the laws of interference of polarized pencils, as

"In repeating the experiments of Dr. Young on the law of
interference it occurred to M. Arago, that it would be
worthwhile to examine whether the state of polarization of
the interfering rays would cause any modification in the
phenomena. The experiment was easy in the case where
both rays had the same polarization, being, in fact, the or-
dinary case; but when the interfering rays were required
to have different states of polarization, it will easily be
conceived that it must be a matter of great delicacy and
difficulty to superadd this condition to the others called for
by the nature of the case, which requires that the interfer-
ing rays should emanate at the same instant from a com-
mon origin, and should have executed the same precise
number of undulations or periods (within a very few units)
between their origin and the point where their interfer-
ence is observed. For it is not possible to change the state
of polarization of a ray without either altering its course,
or transmitting it through some medium in which more or
fewer undulations are executed in the same space. The
joint ingenuity of himself and M. Fresnel, who was associ-
ated with him in this interesting inquiry, however, soon
found means of obviating the difficulties and delicacies of
the subject, and the results of their experiments have been
embodied by them in the following laws:
"1. That two rays polarized in one and the same plane
act on or interfere with each other just as natural rays, so
that the phenomena of interference in the two species of
light are absolutely the same.
"2. That two rays polarized in opposite planes (i.e., at
right angles to each other) have no appreciable action on
each other, in the very same circumstances where rays of
natural light would interfere so as to destroy each other.
"3. That two rays primitively polarized in opposite
planes may be afterwards reduced to the same plane of
polarization, without acquiring thereby the power of inter-
fering with each other.
"4. That two rays polarized in opposite planes and then
reduced to similar states of polarization, interfere like
natural rays, provided they belong to a pencil the whole of
which was primitively polarized in one and the same plane.
0740-3232/93/010180-06$05.00
stated by Messrs. Arago and Fresnel." Thus writes Sir
John Herschel in his article "Light" in the Encyclopaedia
Metropolitana,' the first critical review of the transverse-
wave theory of light. The importance of these experi-
ments is that they demonstrate conclusively the transverse
nature of light waves.
The work to which Herschel refers is a joint paper
by Arago and Fresnel2 that is reprinted in the collected
works of both men. 34 An English translation is avail-
able.5 Both Mach6 and Buchwald7 should be consulted for
more of the historical details. Also see Cantor8 for a dis-
cussion of the early history of the wave theory of light in
Great Britain, with its protagonists at Cambridge Univer-
sity (e.g., Airy, Herschel) and its antagonists at Edinburgh
University (e.g., Brewster). The Arago-Fresnel experi-
ments played a major role in these polemics.
In modern terminology these laws are usually stated in
the somewhat weaker form9 :
1. Two waves, linearly polarized in the same plane,
can interfere.
2. Two waves, linearly polarized with perpendicular
polarizations, cannot interfere.
3. Two waves, linearly polarized with perpendicular
polarizations, if derived from perpendicular components
of unpolarized light and subsequently brought into the
same plane, cannot interfere.
4. Two waves, linearly polarized with perpendicular
polarizations, if derived from the same linearly polarized
wave and subsequently brought into the same plane, can
interfere.
Although these laws were quoted in most texts and trea-
tises on physical optics until the 1930's they have passed
into almost complete oblivion; with a few exceptions such
as Ditchburn, 0 Francon," Mathieu,12 and Partington,3
they are unmentioned in modern writing.
Arago and Fresnel were unable to develop analytic
proofs of their laws; small wonder, since it was not until
1852 that Stokes' 4 was able to develop an analytical appa-
ratus (the temporal Stokes parameters) to quantify the
concept of partially polarized light with its extremes of
C 1993 Optical Society of America
Richard Barakat
complete polarization and complete unpolarization. The
first person to grasp the importance of Stokes's research
was Verdet,' 5 who made a significant simplification and
reinterpretation of his research. In fact, Verdet's version
is the one that is now commonly attributed to Stokes. As
usual, Lord Rayleigh 6 was quick to understand and ap-
preciate their research. However, we will use not the
temporal Stokes parameters but rather their cousins, the
spectral Stokes parameters of Wiener 7 in the interpreta-
tion of Barakat, 8" 9 who used the theory of stationary
stochastic processes in the context of the spectral-
representation theorem, rather than generalized harmonic
analysis, for orthogonal increments. Technical reasons
for using the spectral-representation theorem rather than
generalized harmonic analysis are discussed in Ref. 20.
There are several ancillary issues, mainly of a mathe-
matical character, that must be addressed before we can
prove the laws. Section 2 is devoted to such a discussion.
Inasmuch as we are going to be propagating various
waves through polarizing devices, we must work in the
spectral domain rather than in the time domain in order
to use multiplication operations rather than convolution
operations. This point has been emphasized in Ref. 18
and more recently (and in greater detail) in Ref. 21.
2. PRELIMINARIES
Every zero-mean, stationary stochastic process that is
mean-square continuous [such as the electromagnetic
field components ej(t) generated by thermal (Gaussian)
light] possesses the spectral representation 2 0 22
E (t) = )(t = I exp(itwo)dZ(co)
= exp(it,) dZi(w)
dZ 2(wO)
where dZ(w) is a zero-mean, complex-valued stochastic
process of orthogonal increments:
(dZ(&w)) 0,
(dZj(cd)dZj*(W)) =0jj()8(a - )dwo, j = 1,2,
where cjj(wo) is the power spectral density of sj(t), and ( ... )
represents ensemble averaging. The spectral representa-
tion expresses the stochastic process E(t) as a superposi-
tion of exponential functions exp(itco), with a stochastic
weighting factor dZ(Q). These expressions are valid only
for stationary stochastic processes but are independent of
whether the underlying process is Gaussian.
It is often convenient to decompose dZj(&)) thus:
dZj(co) = dUj(co) + idVj(c),
where dUj(Q) and dj(co) are real-valued stochastic pro-
cesses, which obey
(dUj(')dUj(co)) = (dV(W')dVj(c)) '/2jj(Q)6( - )do,
(dU(c')dV(Q) 3 0.
Equations (2.4) are especially important because they
state that the real and imaginary components of dZj(w)
are uncorrelated.
Vol. 10, No. 1/January 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 181
We require interaction of two beams characterized by
dZa((o) and Zb(wO)- It can be shown that if dZii((o) =
dUji(w) + idVj (co), where I = a,b andj = 1,2, then
(dUja( )dVkb(&)) = (dja(co')dUkb()t))
= '1/2qjk(o)8(c' - )dw,
(dUja(W)dUkb(t)) = (dVja(d)dVkb()) = 0,
(dUji(o)') dVii (ok = 0 - (2.5)
Here jk(co), withj $ k, is the cross-power spectral-density
function; it is generally complex valued.
For thermal light, such as we are concerned with in this
paper, then sj(t) is Gaussian, implying that dZj(&) is also
Gaussian. Thus dUj(c) and dV(co) not only are uncorre-
lated but are also statistically independent.
When E(t) is subjected to a linear operation, the input
and output dZ's are related through a 2 2 complex-valued
matrix J(w) that characterizes the optical system; thus
dZ, 0(w&) dZi(,W)
0 (2.6)
dZ2 (co) = J( ) dZ2 (W)
or
dZ(Q) = J(Q)dZ(co). (2.7)
Note that we are working in the spectral domain, not in
the time domain. If we were to work in the time domain,
then E(t) and E(t) would be related by a convolution op-
eration, not by a multiplication operation as connects dZ'
and dZi. Additionally, Eq. (2.7) holds on a sample realiza-
tion basis only; we must eventually deal with the observ-
able power spectral density and cross-power spectral
density of the output.
The only matrix Jo) that we require is obviously that
(2.1)
of a polarizer as given by Ref. 23:
cos O(W)sin 0((o)
J[4 Go)1 = cosc os2 p(&))
4(wQsin 4)(c)
(2.8)
sin' 0 |
where the angle 0(o)) specifies how the pass plane of
(2.2) the polarizer is oriented with respect to the x axis in
the source plane. Note that is a function of o. When
0((o) = 0, r/2, respectively, then:>
1 0 2 0
(2.9)
yielding a horizontally polarized wave for the first case
and a vertically polarized wave for the second case.
For typographic convenience, we omit the explicit depen-
(2.3) dence on c for all relevant functions whenever possible.
The third tool required is the set of four spectral Stokes
parameters S,, (c). They are defined in the following
manner.' 8 Consider the spectral-density matrix that rep-
resents the second-order interactions between the two
components of the plane wave:
(2.4)
b(D)= 11(0) 412() I,
(2.10)
k,2*(&) k22 (0)
where
182 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A/Vol. 10, No. 1/January 1993 Richard Barakat

intrinsic importance is a vis the Arago-Fresnel experi-

SLIT ments and partly because it serves as a useful vehicle
PLANE
to exhibit the technique of the spectral-representation
.~~~~~~~ theorem.
THERMAL: A C Consider the experimental arrangement shown in Fig. 1,
SOURCE L with a thermal source emitting quasi-monochromatic light
(i.e., light with a narrow-power spectral density that is
:SOURCE N peaked about a central frequency w). This light (L, and
SORE TB RECEIVING _
PLANE PLANE L2) then propagates to slits A and B (diffraction effects are
: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I neglected), and the resultant waves combine at point C, on
Fig. 1. Experimental configuration for Young's experiment. the receiving plane.
The spectral decomposition of the light emitted by the
thermal source is
((,w) is the spectral densities at frequency co
of the two components, E =(t)
=f exp(it&))dZ.(w). (3.1)
Ojk(cu)is the cross-spectral density at frequency w
of the two components. Now, since E,(t) is a zero-mean, stationary random pro-
cess, we have, from Section 2,
Now
2 N (dZj,(o))= 0, j = 1,2,
CO(X) = 2 I S(&)) 0., (2.11)
(dZj,(W)dZj*()) =
2n -o -/2
(w)8('-)dwo,
where o'n are the Pauli matrices. The Sn(co) are the spec- (dZ1,(Cd)dZ2*((w))) = 0, (3.2)
tral Stokes parameters given by
where 0,(w) is the power spectral density of the emitted
Sn(w) = tr1n(Dw))], (2.12) radiation at frequency w. When translated into the lan-
with guage of Stokes parameters, these expressions become

So(eO) = kb11(uO)
+ 22(0o) - 0, So = S51 = S2 = S3 = 0; (3.3)
S1(0) = 011(0) - 022(00), i.e., the light is unpolarized.
The optical path length of beams (AC) and (BC) are
S2((o) = 012 (() + ck 22 *(0J),
given by eOAC = kL, and ecTBC = kL 2, respectively, where k
S3((O) = i 2 (w) - j42*(0)- (2.13) is the mean wave number of the radiation at frequency o.
Since only the relative phases are important, we set
They are real because F(co) is Hermitian, positive semi-
definite. Consequently, e = eIBC - Ac = k(L2 - L,). (3.4)
1 So(w) + Si(c) S2 (0w) - iS3(Q) Note that e is also a function of ao.
(2.14)
4>Z = 2 S2 (0w) + iS3(wO) So(Z) - S,() The relation between the instantaneous field at the re-
ceiving plane that is due to beams (AC) and (BC) and
These parameters should not be confused with the aver-
the instantaneous field at the thermal source is
age values of the temporal Stokes parameters that are dis-
cussed in most texts (e.g., Born and Wolf 24). dZAc = dZe,
Although we are going to propagate light through vari-
ous polarizers, we cannot use the relation 8 dZBc = exp(ie)dZ,. (3.5)

'Do(cu) J(Q))i(&)J*(w) (2.15) However,

between the input and output spectral-density matrices dZ.c = dZcAc + dZaBC, (3.6)
[which by Eq. (2.14) will yield the input and output Stokes
parameters]. The reason that Eq. (2.15) is inapplicable is because the two beams are uncorrelated. Taking the ab-
that we must trace the sample realizations of the incident solute square of this expression and then ensemble averag-
spectral components (at frequency co through the entire ing yields
system from source plane to receiving plane) and then
(IdZ.cI 2 ) = 2(IdZ.y2)
carry out the ensemble averaging to obtain the spectral
and cross-spectral densities of s(t) and 2(t), from which + exp(ie)(dZ,*dZ,) + exp(-ie)(dZ,dZ*).
we can evaluate the spectral Stokes parameters governing (3.7)
the various interference laws. The various polarizers are
not independent instruments. Thus
Oec = 2(1 + cos e)o,, (3.8)
3. YOUNG'S EXPERIMENT relating the power spectral density at point C on the re-
We first examine Young's classic two-slit experiment 2 5 by ceiving plane to the power spectral density of the thermal
using the spectral-decomposition approach partly for its source at frequency w).
Richard Barakat Vol. 10, No. 1/January 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 183

(IdZe.j2) = (JdZ 2 aI2) = /240as (4.6)

SLIT
PLANE where 0, is the power spectral density of the thermal
source, we have
THERMAL . v a A C
SOURCE 0Puac = 1/2 COS
2
tp,(l + sin 2 4a cos e)4o, (4.7)
4,Bc = 1/2 sin 2 fr(1 + sin 24p cos 00, (4.8)
SOURCE RECEIVING
PLANE RPLANE where

Fig. 2. Experimental configuration of polarizers for proof of the +PaC 8=|za~2

first and second laws: /i,, = 0, and qi., ip are arbitrary. epc a (IdZ,13cI2 ), (4.9)

The factor (1 + cos e) represents the interference be- for the spectral densities of the beams at point C on the
tween the two beams that results in fringes, in spite of receiving plane.
the fact that the incident radiation from the thermal The cross-spectral-density function of the two beams
source is unpolarized. The corresponding Stokes parame- 0,ac,epc is obtainable from the product (dZac and dZqBc*).
ters (at point C) are However, this product vanishes with ensemble averaging
because
SO = (1 + cos e)0,
(dZ1(0o)dZ 2 *(0w)) a 0, (4.10)
sIc = S2 c = S3 c = 0, (3.9)
as discussed in Section 2. Consequently,
so that the light is still unpolarized.
The really important point of Young's experiment is that 0kicC,aPC 0. (4.11)
interference fringes are created in spite of the fact that
the light is unpolarized. In the usual accounts of Young's The corresponding spectral Stokes parameters SjC at the
experiment, the light is taken to be linearly polarized and receiving plane are given by
then is shown to have interference fringes; the fact that
the source is unpolarized is not discussed. The present S = raC + k,9C,
mathematical machinery that uses the spectral represen- S = eaC - oC
tation theorem is ideally suited to the description of this
experiment. S2 = caaC,o-f6C + tkoao 3 C*,

For recent work on Young's experiment, the reader is S3 = iaC,73C - O.C, o6C*. (4.12)
referred to the recent work of James and Wolf. 2627
Consequently,
4. PROOFS OF THE FIRST AND S0 = /2[cos 2 a(1 + sin 2qica cos e)
SECOND LAWS 2
+ sin qlp(1 + sin 2p cos 010,
Proofs of the first two laws can be established from a SI = 1/2[COS
2
q1a( + sin 2,. cos e)
single configuration, as shown in Fig. 2. The polarizer at
a is set at ql,, = 0 (thereby generating a vertically polar- - sin2 qi3(1 + sin 2 q cos E)]+,
ized beam), while the polarizer at 18 is set at qip = 7/2 S2 = S3 C 0. (4.13)
(thereby generating a horizontally polarized beam). Both
beams then propagate to the polarizer at and then to In general, then, intensity Soc is modulated by the inter-
point C on the receiving plane. ference term cos e, with the strength of the modulation
The various spectral components at point C on the re- governed by tp,. and qi. The light at C is linearly polar-
ceiving plane are related to those at the thermal source by ized because S3 = 0, with degree of polarization

C= isici.
dZ.-aC = EJ()Ja(0)dZu, (4.1) P
dZoc = J(t/)J,,(7r/2)dZ a,
S0C (4.14)
(4.2)
where A proof of the first law follows by the setting of

1 0 a = i, (4.15)
(4.3)
- e so that the pass planes of the polarizers are parallel to
each other, as required by Arago and Fresnel. The
On calculating the norms of the vectors, we have Stokes parameters in Eqs. (4.13) reduce to
IdZ.CI2 = cos 2 41a(l + sin 2qa cos E)IdZiaI 2 , (4.4) So' = (1 + sin 24i cos e)4,
2 2
IdZOcl = sin p( + sin 2 cos e)IdZ 2 ,1 . (4.5) Si = (cos 24i) (1 + sin 2i cos E)0,
The ensemble average is now taken. Since S2 = S = 0, (4.16)
 184 J. Opt. Soc. Am. A/Vol. 10, No. 1/January 1993 Richard Barakat

2
Ipac = 1/2 Cos Adyda,
SLIT
PLANE qloc = 1/2 sin Mya,

IsaacaGc = /2 sin 2ql, . (5.5)

c
THERMAL * a LA Li1 i
SOURCE The corresponding Stokes parameters are
/~~~~~L,
SO = 1/2 ¢ a

* SOURCE -B RECEIVING
PLANE
R
PLANE-
S' = 1/2 cos 2ya ,
S2 = 1/2 sin 2qfrO,
Fig. 3. Experimental configuration of polarizers for proof of the
third law: qpa = r/4, t,, = 0, and q} = 7r/l. s3 = O. (5.6)
Obviously there is no interference, because So' is a con-
while the degree of polarization becomes stant; this is the statement of the third law of Arago and
Fresnel. The light at C is linearly polarized with
Pc = Icos 2qil 1/2. (4.17)
P 1. (5.7)
Note that the maximum intensity at the receiving plane
is obtained at the setting i = r/4. This is exactly the
same result that we obtain from the simplified theory (see 6. PROOF OF THE FOURTH LAW
Ref. 11, p. 436). To prove the fourth law we consider the configuration that
The second law follows by the setting of the angles so Arago and Fresnel used; see Fig. 4.
that the pass planes of the polarizers are now perpendicu- The instantaneous field immediately after the light
lar to each other: beam passes through polarizers or and a (with ff== =T/4

qA a + 7/2. and qfra = 0) is

(4.18)
The corresponding Stokes parameters are
dZa = Ja(0)J.r(T/4)dZu. (6.1)
In like fashion, the instantaneous field immediately after
S = (cos 2 q)., the light beam passes through polarizers o, and a (with
S1, = (cos 2 hic, sin 2ca cos 0O." Off= r/4 and Ma,, = 7/2) is
S2c = S3 0, (4.19) dZap = Jp(T/2)J,(l7/4)dZ,. (6.2)
with degree of polarization Thus

PC = sin 2
a COS el 1 2. (4.20) 1 dZ,, + dZ 2 a| 1 0
doa2 0 2 dZ,. + dZ 2c.
Note that the degree of polarization for this case depends (6.3)
on both Hia,and e, whereas in the first case it depends only
on A. As a result of the combined beams, the instantaneous
field just before polarizer y is
5. PROOF OF THE THIRD LAW 1 dZ1 + dZ2 a_ 1 dZi + dZ 2 l
(6.4)
The configuration employed by Arago and Fresnel for the 2 dZi, + dZ2 f, 2 exp(ie)(dZ1, + dZ2 ,)
third law is shown in Fig. 3. The polarizer at a is set at
HPa = 0, the polarizer at (3is set at Adp = r/2, and the pass
and immediately after the combined beams pass through
plane of the polarizer at y is allowed to be arbitrary. polarizer , the instantaneous field is
The instantaneous fields from beams (a) and (B) just
before the polarizer at y are dZ~ J. (a )1 7 dZli + Z cy (6.5)
2exp(ie)dZ,,. + 2 dIZ2 ,
dZ, = Ja(0)dZa, (5.1)
dZa = Jp(7r/2)dZa, (5.2) * SLIT
* PLANE
while at the point C on the receiving plane,
THERMAL * A C
dZ.c = J,(4i) [dZya. + dZ,0 . (5.3)
SOURCE & [I UT
The two components of dZ c are
dZ,,c = cos 2 ydZl, + cos Miyr
sin Miy exp(ie)dZ 2,r,
dZ2,C = cos 2 Mi,sin qrzdZic + sin 2 f, exp(ie)dZ 2 f. (5.4)
Fig. 4. Experimental configuration of polarizers for proof of the
These expressions lead to fourth law: (, = 0, ik = r/2, and p,, is arbitrary.
Richard Barakat
Following the now familiar procedures, we have
2
4'iC = 1/2(COS B/, + 2 cos3 yi,sin B cos E)tk,
02,C = 1/2(COS
2
Biy + 2 cos B1,sin 3 By, cos E)0,
aC,2.aC = /4(sin 24ik(1 + sin 2ir, cos e)4y.
The corresponding Stokes parameters at point C on the
receiving plane are
SoC = /2(1 + sin 24li cose)(k,
Si' = 1/2(1 + sin 2ir, cos e)cos 24i,0,
S2 = /2(1 + sin 2qli cos e)sin 24i,0,,
S3 = 0.
We still have interference fringes, but they can be made to
disappear if we let Bi,approach 45°. This is the statement
of the fourth law. Note that the light is linearly polarized
because S3 C = 0; furthermore, the degree of polarization
at c is P, 1, even though Pa 0.
7. SUMMARY
I have derived the four Arago-Fresnel laws of the inter-
ference of polarized light directly from first principles
and included the thermal source as part of the system.
Reference is made to Mach, 6 as well as to older texts, for a
detailed discussion of the consequences of these laws.
The methods developed here are readily applied to other
examples of these types of problem. For example,
Stokes 4 makes reference to some experiments conceived
by Herschel as well as by Dove.28 Evidently the Herschel
experiments were never carried out; it would be of some
interest to do so.
*The author is also with the Electro-Optical Research
Center, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155.
REFERENCES
1. J. W Herschel, "Light," in Encyclopaedia Metropolitana
(1841), Vol. 4, pp. 341-586. Copies of this article were pri-
vately printed and distributed in 1827.
2. F. Arago and A. Fresnel, "L'action que les rayons de lumibre
polarisde exercent les uns sur les autres," Ann. Chim. Phys.
2, 288-304 (1819).
3. A. Fresnel, Oeuvres Compl6tes de Augustin Fresnel (L'Impri-
merie Impgriale, Paris, 1866). See Vol. 1, p. 509.
4. F Arago, Oeuvres Compldtes de FrancoisArago (Gide, Paris,
1854-1858). See Vol. 10, p. 132.
5. F Arago and A. Fresnel, "Memoir on the action of rays of po-
larized light upon each other," in The Wave Theory of Light,
H. Crew, ed. (American, New York, 1900), pp. 145-157.
Vol. 10, No. 1/January 1993/J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 185
6. E. Mach, The Principles of Physical Optics, An Historical
and Philosophical Treatment (Methuen, London, 1926),
Chaps. 10-12.
7. Z. Buchwald, The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light (U. of
Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1989), Chap. 7.
8. G. Cantor, "The reception of the wave theory of light in
Britain," in Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences,
(6.6) R. McCormach, ed. (Princeton U. Press, Princeton, N.J.,
1975), Vol. 6, pp. 109-132.
9. T. Preston, Theory of Light, 5th ed. (Macmillan, London,
1928), p. 348.
10. R. W Ditchburn, Light, 2nd ed. (Interscience, New York,
1964), Chap. 12.
11. M. Francon, "Interferences, diffraction et polarisation," in
Handbuch der Physik, S. FlUgge, ed. (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 1956), Vol. 24, Sec. 4.
12. T. P. Mathieu, Optics I. Electromagnetic Optics (Pergamon,
Oxford, 1975), pp. 178-179.
13. J. R. Partington, An Advanced Treatise on Physical Chemis-
try 4 Physical Optics (Macmillan, London, 1946).
(6.7) 14. G. Stokes, "On the composition and resolution of streams of
polarized light from different sources," Trans. Cambridge
Philos. Soc. 9, 399-426 (1952). Reprinted in Mathematical
and PhysicalPapers (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1901),
Vol. 3.
15. E. Verdet, Legons d'Optique Physique (L'Imprimerie Impdri-
ale, Paris, 1869), Vol. 1. See also "Etude sur la constitution
de la lumiere non polarisee et de la lumiere partiellement po-
larisee," Ann. Scientif. 'Ecole Normale Supgrieure 2, 291-
318 (1865).
16. Lord Rayleigh, "Wave theory of light," in Encyclopaedia
Brittanica(1888), Vol. 24. Reprinted in Collected Scientific
Papers (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1920). See Vol. 3,
pp. 140-147.
17. N. Wiener, "Coherency matrices and quantum theory,"
J. Math. Phys. (M.I.T.) 7, 109-115 (1928). See also "General-
ized harmonic analysis," Acta Math. 55, 118-245 (1930).
18. R. Barakat, "Theory of the coherency matrix for light of arbi-
trary spectral bandwidth," J. Opt. Soc. Am. 53, 317-323
(1963). The coherency matrix referred to is a spectral-
density matrix, not a correlation matrix.
19. R. Barakat, "N-fold polarization measures and associated
thermodynamic entropy of N partially coherent pencils of
radiation," Opt. Acta 30, 1171-1182 (1983).
20. J. L. Doob, Stochastic Processes (Wiley, New York, 1953),
Chap. 11.
21. C. Brosseau and R. Barakat, "Jones and Muller-Jones ma-
trices for random media," Opt. Comm. 84, 127-132 (1991).
See Sec. 2.
22. A. M. Yaglom, Stationary Random Functions (Dover, New
York, 1962), Chap. 2.
23. R. Azzam and N. Bashara, Ellipsometry and PolarizedLight
(North-Holland, New York, 1977).
24. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principlesof Optics, 6th ed. (Pergamon,
Oxford, 1980), Chap. 10.
25. T. Young, "Experiments and calculations relative to physical
optics," Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London 94, 1-16 (1804). Re-
printed in H. Crew, ed., The Wave Theory of Light (American,
New York, 1900).
26. D.James and E. Wolf, "Some new aspects of Young's interfer-
ence experiment," Phys. Lett. A 157, 6-10 (1991).
27. D. James and E. Wolf, "Spectral changes produced in Young's
interference experiment," Opt. Comm. 81, 150-154 (1991).
28. P. Dove, "On the phenomena exhibited by polarized light
when its plane of polarization is rapidly rotated," Philos.
Mag. 30, 465-471 (1847).