ebook download A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition. Edition Visser - eBook PDF all chapter

A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition.
Edition Visser - eBook PDF

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/a-tribute-to-emil-wolf-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Physics of Computing 1st Edition Marilyn Wolf -

eBook PDF
https://ebooksecure.com/download/the-physics-of-computing-ebook-
pdf/
(eBook PDF) Business Statistics A First Course First

Canadian Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-statistics-a-
first-course-first-canadian-edition/
(eBook PDF) README FIRST for a User's Guide to

Qualitative Methods 3rd Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-readme-first-for-a-
users-guide-to-qualitative-methods-3rd-edition/
Operative Techniques: Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery 2nd

Edition Emil H. Schemitsch - eBook PDF
https://ebooksecure.com/download/operative-techniques-
orthopaedic-trauma-surgery-ebook-pdf/
Progress in Optics Volume 62 1st Edition Edition Taco
D. Visser (Eds.) - eBook PDF
https://ebooksecure.com/download/progress-in-optics-
volume-62-ebook-pdf/
(eBook PDF) First Aid Q&A for the NBDE Part II (First
Aid Series)
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-first-aid-qa-for-the-
nbde-part-ii-first-aid-series/
(eBook PDF) First Course in Statistics A 11th Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-first-course-in-
statistics-a-11th-edition/
(eBook PDF) Business Statistics A First Course 7th

Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-business-statistics-a-
first-course-7th-edition/
(eBook PDF) A First Course in Probability 9th Edition
http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-first-course-in-
probability-9th-edition/
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD
G.S. Agarwal College Station, TX, United States

Michael V. Berry Bristol, United Kingdom
C. Brosseau Brest, France
Y. Cai Jinan, China
A.T. Friberg Joensuu, Finland
F. Gori Rome, Italy
D.F.V. James Toronto, Canada
P. Knight London, United Kingdom
G. Leuchs Erlangen, Germany
J.B. Pendry London, United Kingdom
J. Perina Olomouc, Czech Republic
W. Schleich Ulm, Germany
J.C. Schotland Ann Arbor, United States
T. Shirai Tsukuba, Japan
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
First edition 2020
Copyright © 2020, Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system,
without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further
information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such
as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website:
www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.
ISBN: 978-0-12-818884-2
ISSN: 0079-6638
For information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals
Publisher: Zoe Kruze

Acquisitions Editor: Jason Mitchell
Editorial Project Manager: Peter Llewellyn
Production Project Manager: Abdulla Sait
Cover Designer: Matthew Limbert
Typeset by SPi Global, India
Contributors
Girish S. Agarwal
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering; Department of Physics and
Astronomy; Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, United States
Miguel A. Alonso
The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; Aix
Marseille University, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, Institut Fresnel, UMR 7249, Marseille
Cedex 20, France
Michael V. Berry
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, Bristol, United Kingdom
Yahong Chen
Institute of Photonics, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland; School of Physical
Science and Technology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
Anton Classen
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering; Department of Physics and
Astronomy; Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX, United States
Fabio Di Pumpo
Institut f€
ur Quantenphysik and Center for Integrated Quantum Science and Technology
(IQST), Universit€at Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Ari T. Friberg
Institute of Photonics, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland
Alexander Friedrich
Institut f€
Greg Gbur
Department of Physics and Optical Science, UNC Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, United States
Enno Giese
Institut f€
Daniel M. Greenberger
City College of the City University of New York, New York, NY, United States
Olga Korotkova
Department of Physics, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States
Mayukh Lahiri
Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, United States
ix
x Contributors
Hartmut Lemmel
Atominstitut, Technische Universit€at Wien, Vienna, Austria
Andreas Norrman
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Erlangen, Germany; Photonics Laboratory,
ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
Sergey A. Ponomarenko
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering; Department of Physics and
Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Ernst M. Rasel
Institut f€
ur Quantenoptik, Leibniz Universit€at Hannover, Hannover, Germany
Albert Roura
Institut f€
(IQST), Universit€at Ulm; Institute of Quantum Technologies, German Aerospace Center
(DLR), Ulm, Germany
Wolfgang P. Schleich
Institut f€
(IQST), Universit€at Ulm; Institute of Quantum Technologies, German Aerospace Center
(DLR), Ulm, Germany; Hagler Institute for Advanced Study and Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering (IQSE), Texas A&M AgriLife
Research, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
John C. Schotland
Department of Mathematics and Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI, United States
Anthony Vella
The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States
Bruno Wolf
E.W. Lupus & Son, Rochester, NY, United States
Preface
This volume of Progress in Optics is dedicated to the memory of Emil Wolf,

the founding editor of this series who passed away on June 2, 2018. His
wide-ranging research has inspired the work of countless optical scientists
around the world. In the nine chapters of this book, his family, friends,
students, and collaborators describe how profound his influence was, not just
as an eminent scientist, but also as a positive source in their lives. I count
myself among the many who greatly miss Emil’s company, deep knowledge,
and zest for life.
The first chapter is written by Emil’s son, Bruno Wolf, and gives some
wonderful insight into the dynamics of the Wolf family.
Chapter 2, by Michael V. Berry, a member of our editorial board,
describes the early days of Emil’s career in Bristol. Incidentally, many years
later, the University of Bristol would be one of the seven institutions who
awarded him the title of doctor honoris causa.
The third contribution is by his former student Agarwal, and Classen.
They highlight the many consequences of Emil’s work on optical coherence
theory and polarization.
Chapter 4 is written by Korotkova, a former postdoc, and Gbur, a former
student. In their article the theory of optical coherence, often viewed as
rather abstract, is shown to have a surprising number of practical
applications.
The next chapter, number 5, is by Chen, Norrman, Ponomarenko, and
Friberg. The latter two both obtained their PhD degree under Emil’s super-
vision. The topic of their article is the role of coherence in the propagation
and scattering of surface plasmon polaritions.
In Chapter 6, Di Pumpo, Friedrich, Giese, Roura, Lemmel,
Greenberger, Rasel and Schleich propose a new type of atomic interferom-
eter with a nonzero time difference. The last author is also a member of the
editorial board.
Chapter 7 is contributed by Vella, who as a student took Emil’s classes,
and Alonso, a colleague at the Institute of Optics. Their topic is how to use
the method of maximum likelihood to reliably extract information from
noisy datasets.
The eighth chapter is written by Lahiri, the last of many people who got
their PhD while working with Emil. He explores how the classical notions
xi
xii Preface
of partial coherence and polarization carry over to the domain of quantum

optics.
The final chapter, number 9, deals with a subject close to Emil’s heart,
namely image formation in random media. It is contributed by his collab-
orator Schotland.
I want to thank all the authors of this volume for sharing with us their
memories of Emil Wolf as a father, scientist, colleague, and beloved friend.
TACO D. VISSER
Amsterdam
CHAPTER ONE
Memories of my father
Bruno Wolf1
E.W. Lupus & Son, Rochester, NY, United States
1
Corresponding author: e-mail address: bruno_wolf 2000@yahoo.com
Abstract
In addition to what he accomplished in his physics career, Emil Wolf raised two children
as a single parent. His son, Bruno Wolf, reflects on growing up with Emil as his father.
Many years ago, one of my father’s students asked me what it was like to have
Emil Wolf as a dad. That’s the first time I can remember thinking how
impossible it seemed that my father was able to have such a distinguished
career in physics while at the same time raising my sister, Paula, and me
as a single parent. In fact, he did it while providing us both with such a
fun and loving childhood that we had no idea that we weren’t the sole focus
of his life.
It’s not possible for me to write about my father without mentioning his
immense, seemingly endless, amount of energy. When I was young, about
the only time I can ever remember seeing my father sleep was when he
would take us to the movie theater. He would inevitably fall asleep just
as the lights went down and wake up as the movie ended. It was a routine
my sister and I knew well.
When I was growing up, I remember my father being extremely
involved in both my sister’s life and mine. Whether it was baseball practices,
swim lessons or music recitals, my father made time to take us to all of our
activities. When I was 8 or 9 years old, I decided I was going to be a famous
major league baseball player, so I talked my father into signing me up for
little league baseball. I played for a number of years, and he came to almost
all of the practices and games in order to support me. Years later, after I grew
up and my father re-married, I learned from my stepmother, Marlies, that
my father really hated sitting through all of those baseball games. Even
though I’m sure he would have much preferred to be writing physics papers,
he watched me play because he knew that it was important to me to have
him there.
#
Progress in Optics, Volume 65 2020 Elsevier B.V. 1
ISSN 0079-6638 All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.po.2019.11.005
2 Bruno Wolf
Fig. 1 The Wolf Family: Emil, Bruno and Paula, Rochester, New York (1965).
One of my father’s closest friends and colleagues was the physicist Len
Mandel. The Mandels had two children who were close in age to my sister
and me, and we all used to spend a lot of time together when we were
young. You can see in Fig. 3 how the two physicists enjoyed a family outing
at the beach.
When my sister and I were young, my father needed someone to care for
us while he was working at the University of Rochester. Fortunately for all
of us, he found a wonderful housekeeper, Mrs. Monds, who, along with her
teenage daughters, helped to raise us. There were times when one of the
daughters would stay overnight with us when my father had to travel to
physics conferences. I learned years later that the daughter caring for us
would put us on the bus to go to school in the morning, and then a taxi
would magically show up at our house to take her to her classes. As Mrs.
Monds used to say, “Emil Wolf thought of everything!”.
Memories of my father 3
Fig. 2 Emil and Bruno at Niagara Falls (1964).
Fig. 3 Emil (left) and Len Mandel (right), working on the physics problem of the day at a
Lake Ontario beach, Rochester, New York (1963).
4 Bruno Wolf
Fig. 4 Paula, Emil and Bruno enjoying a family swim near Toronto, Ontario,
Canada (1969).
Occasionally, there were times when my father needed to travel out of

town for meetings and could not find someone he knew to care for us while
he was away. It was then that he had to turn to a babysitting agency, and that
didn’t always go so well. Back in the late 1960s, when I was 5 or 6 years old
(and my sister was 3 or 4 years old), my father found a sitter to watch us while
he was away in California. Near the end of the conference, he saw an oppor-
tunity to leave a day earlier than planned, so he jumped on a plane and came
home to surprise us. When he arrived, he found a very large moving truck in
our driveway. After he entered our house, he found two very large men in
our kitchen, eating a very large meal made by the babysitter. He told me
years later he noticed some of our furniture had been moved and he was
convinced that if he had returned home the next day, as scheduled, our
house would have been completely empty.
Fortunately, things like that didn’t happen too often, but there were
other factors that added to the stress in my father’s life. When I was in sixth
grade, in the early 1970s, my favorite baseball team had just made it into the
playoffs. The first game of the playoff series was scheduled to be played early
in the afternoon on a school day. On the morning of the game, I decided
I would wake up with a bad stomachache. I thought that my father would
be too busy to realize I was faking it and would let me stay home from
school. It turned out that he had some important work meetings to attend
later that morning, so he put me in the car, and we drove immediately to the
Fig. 5 Emil, Bruno and Paula camping in Ontario, Canada (1972).
family doctor. After examining me, the doctor told my father he could find
nothing wrong, despite my continued insistence that I had a lot of pain in my
stomach. The doctor recommended that I be taken to see a specialist at the
hospital, and so, 30 min later, I was being examined by a second doctor.
After the examination was over, my father and the doctor moved into
the hallway to discuss the situation. I could not make out what they were
saying, until suddenly I heard my father say two words in a very loud and
clear voice: “exploratory surgery.” I ran into the hallway and told my father
my stomach pain was completely gone and that the best thing to do now was
to take me to school so that I did not miss any more classes. My father looked
at me very seriously and then broke into a big smile. I realized at that
moment, like so many other times in my childhood, that my father had
completely outsmarted me.
A few years later, as I was finishing seventh grade, my father told my sister
and me that he would be taking a sabbatical from the University of
Rochester. He planned to do research and teach part-time at a university
in Hamilton, Ontario in Canada. My sister and I would be spending the year
in the Canadian school system. Eighth grade was an important year where
we lived because New York State Regents Exams were offered at the begin-
ning of ninth grade. Students would spend much of eighth grade preparing
6 Bruno Wolf
Fig. 6 Paula, Emil and Bruno on a trip to Europe, Capri, Italy (1974).
for those exams. Before we left for Canada, my father met with my teachers
in my local school. They gave him the course material and practice exams
that he would need to go over with me during the year we were away.
I assumed that since I was taking such complicated subjects like trigonometry,
my father would find the material too difficult, and I would have a very low-
stress year studying on my own. It turned out that my father was pretty good at
math as well as science, and that year turned out to be by far the most difficult
year of studies in my life. We went over all of course work together, and then
did all of the practice exams sent by the teachers. Then, my father presented
me with many more practice exams that he obtained on his own from libraries
in our hometown. After we finally got through all of those exams, my father
produced exams for me that he had made up himself.
I learned a lot about my father that year. For one thing, there were no
shortcuts with my dad. Everything had to be done the right way, the proper
way. I also learned that when my father undertook something, he put every-
thing he had into it. Over the many years that went by after that, I saw him
apply that philosophy not only to his career, but also to his relationships with
his colleagues and students, his friends, his children and stepchildren, and of
course, his beloved wife, Marlies.
Fig. 7 Bruno and Emil at Bruno’s college graduation, Ithaca, New York (1983).
My father was a very happy, outgoing person, and a lot of fun to be

around. Very often, he was funny without trying to be. There is a well-
known story at the senior living community that involves my father
from around the time he moved there in the early 2000s. My father used
to bring his New York Times newspaper to the restaurant to read while he
was waiting for his meal to be served. The restaurant was nicely decorated
and had candles on each of the tables. On one of my father’s visits, while
deeply engrossed in his reading, a corner of his newspaper got a little too
close to the flame from the candle on the table. My father did not notice
this and continued to read in his very focused way. After a few moments,
several of the waitstaff saw the flames and quickly arrived at my father’s table,
throwing water on him as well as on the burning newspaper. The fire was
put out, but my father was left holding only half of his newspaper. He then
said, in an annoyed tone that I know only too well, “What is all the distur-
bance about? I am trying to read!” After that, a new rule was made at the
restaurant that no candles were allowed on the dining room tables. I used
to tease my father that was a “Wolf Law” that won’t be found in a
Physics book.
8 Bruno Wolf
Fig. 8 Bruno and Emil admiring each other’s sense of style at their home in Brighton,
New York (1985).
During one of the last occa-

sions that I had a meal with my
father in that dining room, he
was not able to say more than a
few words at a time. It was a quiet
lunch. Toward the end, while we
were waiting for dessert to be
served, I looked around the room
and told my father that he lived in a
really nice place. Then to joke
with him a bit, I said, “Dad, it
was a really good idea that you
moved here, but I can’t remember
whose idea it was, yours or mine?”
I didn’t expect a response, but
he looked up at me and said,
“Bruno, all the good ideas are Fig. 9 A portrait of Emil (2007).
my ideas”.
CHAPTER TWO
Emil Wolf and Bristol

Michael V. Berry1
H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, Bristol, United Kingdom
1
Corresponding author: e-mail address: asymptotico@bristol.ac.uk
Contents
1. Education and early science in Bristol 9
2. Later interactions with Bristol University 10
References 12
Abstract
Emil Wolf’s scientific life as a world-leading optical theorist began at the University of
Bristol, England. His first papers were published while in Bristol, and there were several
fruitful later interactions with the Physics Department.
Keywords: Emil Wolf, Optical theory, Catastrophe optics
1. Education and early science in Bristol

Emil Wolf was surely the most accomplished and prolific theorist in
optics (mostly classical) in the second half of the 20th century. He spent
his formative years in Bristol, but despite its importance this period of his
life is not well known. My purpose here is to report what I have been able
to find out about it, and also describe some later interactions between Emil
and Bristol University.
After fleeing from Czechoslovakia before World War II, Emil eventually
arrived in the United Kingdom in 1940. He attended high school in Wales
and enrolled as an undergraduate in Bristol University in 1942 at the age of
20. After 3 years he was awarded his first degree: a BSc in mathematics. He
initially registered for an MSc, intending to return to Czechoslovakia after a
year. But the Soviet takeover made this impossible, and he moved to physics
(across the corridor) to begin a PhD, supervised by E.H. Linfoot.
The end of World War II was the start of a heroic period for physics in
Bristol. Nevill Mott (Nobel Prize 1977) was leading research into the
emerging field of solid state physics. Cecil Powell (Nobel Prize 1950) was
#
10 Michael V. Berry
developing his photographic emulsion technique leading to his discovery

of the pion. Charles Frank, newly arrived from his war work in Scientific
Intelligence, was conceiving what came to be called muon-catalyzed fusion
(in parallel with Andrei Sakharov), and beginning his seminal re-creation
and application of dislocation theory.
And, most relevant to young Emil in this vibrant milieu, there was the
brilliant and eccentric C.R. (Bill) Burch (Allibone, 1984), described to me
privately by John Ziman as “The most unusual person I ever met who is not
actually mad.” In the third of his several different careers in industry-related
physics, Burch was devising radical new designs and grinding techniques for
aspheric lenses. It was Burch’s persuasion, immediately before the war, that
had transformed Linfoot from a pure mathematician to a theoretical physicist
specializing in optics.
Perhaps the best known of Emil’s early works were his studies with his
supervisor Linfoot, on the effects of diffraction on imaging and focusing.
But these were published from Cambridge not Bristol. Linfoot had moved
to Cambridge during Emil’s PhD years, and after graduating in 1948,
Emil followed him there, before moving on to Edinburgh for his famous
collaboration with Max Born, and then to Manchester.
Emil’s first papers were indeed from Bristol, but they concerned geomet-
rical rather than wave optics: three contributions (Wasserman & Wolf, 1949;
Wolf, 1948a; Wolf & Preddy, 1947) to the theory underlying Burch’s
aspheric lenses. These papers formed the basis of his PhD thesis (Wolf,
1948b). He acknowledges Linfoot in all three papers, but, perhaps surpris-
ingly, Burch is thanked only in the final one. Burch was undoubtedly the
creative genius who inspired Wolf’s research. His ideas, though largely geo-
metrical, were not expressed fully mathematically; he wrote that his “see-saw
diagram” (Burch, 1942) “…may prove suggestive to those who, like myself,
prefer to hang their mathematical symbols on to easily visualised physical
concepts.” Since Emil was systematically formalizing, developing and exten-
ding Burch’s ideas, it would be interesting to know how, or indeed whether,
the two of them, utterly different in temperament and scientific style,
interacted on a day-to-day basis.
2. Later interactions with Bristol University

Emil and I published only one paper together, a largely pedagogical
work (Berry, Foley, Gbur, & Wolf, 1998). Together with John Foley
and Greg Gbur, we showed that it is possible to drive an infinite string with
forces in a finite region in such a way that no waves propagate outside.
Emil Wolf and Bristol 11
But he influenced my scientific life positively in a different way. When

we first met in Rochester in 1978, he heard me talk about “catastrophe
optics”: the theory and applications of focusing and diffraction near caustics,
based on the recently-developed mathematics of singularity theory. He
immediately invited me to write a review of the subject for Progress in Optics.
The resulting article (Berry & Upstill, 1980), written with Colin Upstill,
became a standard reference. Much later, after I developed and reviewed
the diffraction theory of Hamilton’s conical refraction, Emil again invited
a detailed description of this work for Progress in Optics, leading to an article
(Berry & Jeffrey, 2007) written with Michael Jeffrey. Emil’s contributions
to the theory of aspheric optics can be regarded as prefiguring the current
developments in freeform optics, and therefore (as I realize only now) my
recent “Magic windows” (Berry, 2017).
During each of our meetings in 1978 and several times afterward, Emil
mentioned the problem of defining boundary conditions for waves encoun-
tering a perfectly black object, i.e., one that totally absorbs all the light that
falls on it. This question was one of the influences that led my Bristol
colleagues John Hannay and John Nye, together with W. Liang, to develop
a consistent theory for black screens, supported by experiments (Hannay,
1995; Nye, Hannay, & Liang, 1995; Nye & Liang, 1997).
Emil’s contributions to optics were recognized in Bristol in 1997, by the
award of the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science during a Conference
celebrating the 70-year Jubilee of the H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory. He is
pictured in Fig. 1, together with the other distinguished graduands.
Fig. 1 Bristol University Degree Congregation 1997. Emil Wolf is at the bottom right,
and his Public Orator Balazs Gyo €rffy is at the top right. The other graduands (bottom
left to right) are Christopher Llewellyn-Smith, Yakir Aharonov, and Peter Higgs.
12 Michael V. Berry
I welcome this opportunity to describe, albeit briefly, Emil Wolf’s early

years at his Alma Mater. In Bristol University we are proud to recognize him
as one of our most distinguished alumni.
References
Allibone, T. E. (1984). Cecil Reginald Burch, 12 may 1901-19 July 1983. Biographical
Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 30, 3–42.
Berry, M. V. (2017). Laplacian magic windows. Journal of Optics, 19, 5. 06LT01.
Berry, M. V., Foley, J. T., Gbur, G., & Wolf, E. (1998). Non-propagating string excitations.
American Journal of Physics, 66, 121–123.
Berry, M. V., & Jeffrey, M. R. (2007). Conical diffraction: Hamilton’s diabolical point at the
heart of crystal optics. Progress in Optics, 50, 13–50.
Berry, M. V., & Upstill, C. (1980). Catastrophe optics: Morphologies of caustics and their
diffraction patterns. Progress in Optics, 18, 257–346.
Burch, C. R. (1942). On the optical see-saw diagram. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 102, 159–165.
Hannay, J. H. (1995). Path linking interpretation of Kirchhoff diffraction. Proceeding of the
Royal Society of London, 450, 51–65.
Nye, J. F., Hannay, J. H., & Liang, W. (1995). Diffraction by a black half-plane: Theory and
observations. Proceedings of The Royal Society A, 449, 515–535.
Nye, J. F., & Liang, W. (1997). Near-field diffraction by two slits in a black screen. Proceedings
of the Royal Society A, 454, 1635–1658.
Wasserman, G. D., & Wolf, E. (1949). On the theory of aplanatic aspheric systems. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B, 62, 2–8.
Wolf, E. (1948a). On the designing of aspheric profiles. Proceedings of the Physical Society, 61,
494–503.
Wolf, E. (1948b). A contribution to the theory of aspheric optical systems. PhD Thesis.
In Physics. Bristol University.
Wolf, E., & Preddy, W. S. (1947). On the determination of aspheric profiles. Proceedings of the
Physical Society, 59, 704–711.
CHAPTER THREE
Partial coherence in modern

optics: Emil Wolf’s legacy
in the 21st century
Girish S. Agarwala,b,c, Anton Classena,b,c
a
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX,
United States
b
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
c
Institute for Quantum Science and Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
Contents
1. Introduction 14
2. Wolf’s classic development of the theory of partial coherence 14
3. OCT based on partial coherence 19
4. Role of partial coherence in HBT-like measurements 23
5. HBT as two-photon interference and correlations of light fields from nonclassical
sources 26
6. Ghost imaging with thermal sources 28
7. Speckle illumination imaging—Advantages of intensity–intensity correlations 30
8. Superresolution microscopy via intensity correlations and structured
illumination 33
9. Conclusion 36
Acknowledgments 37
References 37
Abstract
We highlight the impact of Emil Wolf’s work on coherence and polarization on an ever
increasing amount of applications in the 21st century. We present a brief review of how
partial coherence at the level of increasing order of coherence functions is leading to
evolution in the better methods for microscopy, imaging, optical coherence tomogra-
phy, speckle imaging, and propagation through random media. This evolution in our
capabilities is expected to have wide ramifications in Science and Engineering.
Keywords: Partial coherence, Intensity–intensity correlations, Imaging, Microscopy,
Tomography
#
14 Girish S. Agarwal and Anton Classen
1. Introduction
It is a great honor and privilege to contribute this article in the memory
of Emil Wolf. We especially like to celebrate his contributions to the theory
of partial coherence which today finds wide range of applications in Physics,
Engineering, and Biomedical Sciences—some of these applications involve
propagation of laser fields through turbulent atmosphere, optical image for-
mation, medical diagnostics, optical coherence tomography, speckle imag-
ing, superresolution microscopy, and studies of disorder. In this article we
will discuss the basis for some of these applications and bring out especially
the role of partial coherence which may be either due to the source used
to probe or due to the statistical fluctuations in the medium. In the words
of Born and Wolf (1999).
All optical fields undergo random fluctuations. They may be small, as in the output
of many lasers, or they may be appreciably larger, as in light generated by thermal
sources. The underlying theory of fluctuating optical fields is known as coherence
theory. An important manifestation of the fluctuations is the phenomenon of
partial polarization. Actually, coherence theory deals with considerably more than
fluctuations. Unlike usual treatments, it describes optical fields in terms of observ-
able quantities and elucidates how such quantities, for example, the spectrum of
light, change as light propagates.
Our emphasis is going to be on a whole range of observable quantities which

include not only measurements of the intensities but also a whole range of
intensity–intensity correlations of order two and higher. Most of our discus-
sion would be based on classical fields and sources. In Section 5 we also high-
light the role of coherence and its utility in the context of quantum fields.
2. Wolf’s classic development of the theory of partial

coherence
Wolf ’s theory of partial coherence, as developed by Wolf in the 1950s,
characterized electromagnetic radiation fields in terms of the second-order
correlation function of the fields at different space–time points (r1, t1) and
(r2, t2) (Born & Wolf, 1999)
Γαβ ðr1 , t1 , r2 , t2 Þ ¼ Γαβ ðr1 , r2 , τÞ ¼ hEα ðr1 ,t + τÞEβ∗ ðr2 , tÞi: (1)
Here, the h ⋯ i denote the ensemble average over the statistical fluctuations
of the fields. Note that we have assumed that the fields are stationary and
ergodic so that the correlation function depends only on the time difference
Partial coherence in modern optics 15
τ ¼ t1 t2. The fields Eα(r, t) are analytic signals, i.e., they contain only the
positive frequencies. In many applications one drops the vector character of
the field and works with the scalar fields. This is allowed as long as the optical
setup involves no change in the polarization properties of the field.
The time scale over which Γαβ(r1, r2, τ) varies significantly is called the
temporal
P coherence τc of the field. The intensity I(r) at a point can be taken
as ααΓαα(r, r, 0), although more precisely its definition would depend
on the exact experimental measurement scheme. The correlation function
Γ satisfies a set of inequalities which can be derived from the positivity of
the probability distributions characterizing the statistical fluctuations of the
field(s). For instance, for a scalar field (dropping the indices α and β) the
Schwarz inequality gives
jΓðr1 , r2 , τÞj2 Γðr1 , r1 , 0ÞΓðr2 , r2 , 0Þ, (2)

which leads to the so-called normalized coherence function
Γðr1 , r2 , τÞ
γðr1 , r2 , τÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi , jγj 1: (3)
Γðr1 , r1 , 0ÞΓðr2 , r2 , 0Þ
Note that sometimes throughout the article the temporal or spatial coordi-
nates, τ or (r1, r2), respectively, will be omitted which shall represent either
equal-time or equal-point coherence/correlation functions.
An electric field can be defined to be coherent (incoherent) if jγj! 1 (0).
The significance of γ is especially apparent in the celebrated Young’s
double-slit experiment, which has been the landmark experiment in optics
as it established the wave nature of light (and later also the field of quantum
mechanics/optics by means of single-photon interference and single-particle
interference (Bach, Pope, Liou, & Batelaan, 2013; Feynman, Leighton, &
Sands, 1965)). The visibility of the interference fringes depends on the partial
coherence of the source (and the explicit geometry of the experimental setup
and the double-slit). Consider the setup shown in Fig. 1 using a quasimono-
chromatic source with central frequency ωl, leading to the electric field
amplitude Eðr, tÞ ¼ Eðr, tÞeiωl t , where Eðr, tÞ is a slowly varying function
of t. The visibility V at a point r on the screen B is given by
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 I 1 ðrÞI 2 ðrÞ s s1
V¼ jγ 12 ðτÞj, τ ¼ 2 : (4)
I 1 ðrÞ+I 2 ðrÞ c
Here I1(r) and I2(r) are the respective intensities at the position r if either
slit one or slit two is open (while the other slit is closed). More precisely,
the intensities read Iα ðrÞ∝hEðRα , tÞE ðRα , tÞi, where Rα is the transverse
Fig. 1 Young’s double-slit experiment: A quasimonochromatic source S with lateral

width Δs is placed in front of a double-slit in a distance Δz. An interference pattern
on a screen B is visible if the slits at R1 and R2 are located within the coherence area
of the source.
coordinate in the double-slit plane. The time difference τ arises due to dif-
ferent optical path lengths s1 and s2 for light to propagate from the source S
to the screen B via slit 1 and slit 2, respectively. In many cases I1 I2, lead-
ing to V ¼ jγ 12 ðτÞj. Thus the visibility of the interference fringes provides a
direct measurement of the degree of partial coherence between the two
electric fields scattered/diffracted by the two slits. In addition, if the
double-slit geometry and distance is known one can also infer knowledge
on the source S.
In recent literature (Eberly, Qian, & Vamivakas, 2017) another quantity
was introduced, called distinguishability D, which is a measure of how strong
the intensities at the two slits differ
jI 1 I 2 j
D¼ : (5)
I1 + I2
It can be seen from the definitions of V and D, together with the condition
jγj 1 that
V 2 + D2 1: (6)
Extensive literature exists on this inequality, especially when a Young’s
double-slit interference experiment is performed with quantum fields—
where V is associated with the wave character and D with the particle
character.
An important consequence of the analytical result of Eq. (4) is that if the
path difference s2 s1 exceeds the coherence time τc of the source S, then
γ ! 0 and the interference fringes disappear. Wolf further introduced the
remarkable idea of interference in the spectral domain when interferences
in the time domain do not survive. In the setup of Fig. 1 one considered
a measurement of the intensity at the point r. However, now, instead of sim-

ply measuring the intensity at position r, one would measure the spectrum
S(r, ω) defined by
Z +∞
1
Sðr,ωÞ ¼ hEðr, t + τÞE ðr,tÞieiωτ dτ, (7)
2π ∞
R +∞
so that the intensity will be IðrÞ ¼ ∞ Sðr, ωÞ dω. For a fixed τc the mea-
sured spectrum would display modulations in ω. A change in τc changes the
character of the modulations. These modulations depend on the spectral
correlations between the two source points P1 and P2 (at R1 and R2),
defined by
Z +∞
1
SðR1 ,R2 , ωÞ ¼ hEðR1 ,t + τÞE ðR2 ,tÞie +iωτ dτ: (8)
2π ∞
James and Wolf demonstrated Young’s interference (Born & Wolf, 1999)
with broadband light from a black body source. Subsequently the idea of
interference in frequency space led to a new field of research with many
theoretical and experimental works (Agarwal & James, 1993; James &
Wolf, 1991; Kumar & Rao, 2001; Zou, Grayson, & Mandel, 1992) and
with practical applications.
Wolf discovered that the spectrum of a partially coherent source may
change upon propagation (Born & Wolf, 1999; Wolf, 1986). The spectrum
may show shifts, blue or red, depending on the nature of the correlations. This
discovery also opened up a new field of research and surprised many who had
no idea what partial coherence can lead to. Such spectral shifts were observed
in a large number of experiments. An analog of Wolf shifts was found in the
microscopic problem of radiation from two trapped atoms which were sep-
arated within a wavelength of each other (Varada & Agarwal, 1992). In this
case the quantum electrodynamic interaction (Agarwal, 2012) naturally pro-
duces correlation between the two atoms; leading to spectral characteristics of
the two atom system different from that of a single atom. The required cor-
relation needed for a Wolf shift for this system is an inherent property of the
quantum electrodynamic interaction.
Wolf emphasized the importance of the coherent mode decomposition
of the spectral correlation function S(R1, R2, ω)
X
SðR1 , R2 ,ωÞ ¼ Φα ðR1 , ωÞΦ∗α ðR2 ,ωÞλα : (9)
α
The functions Φα are the coherent modes of the system for a frequency ω.
The modes are the eigenfunctions of the integral equation defined over the
domain of interest
Z
SðR1 , R2 , ωÞΦα ðR2 , ωÞdR2 ¼ λα Φα ðR1 , ωÞ: (10)
The hermiticity and nonnegative definiteness of S ensures that the eigen-

values λα are real and nonnegative. In recent years the importance of the
decomposition of Eq. (9) is seen in the context of classical entanglement which
is inherently implied by the structure of Eq. (9) (Agarwal & Banerji, 2002;
Kagalwala, Di Giuseppe, Abouraddy, & Saleh, 2013; Qian & Eberly, 2011).
In another classic work (Born & Wolf, 1999; Wolf, 1959) Wolf formu-
lated the polarization characteristics of partially coherent beam-like fields in
terms of a coherence matrix with entries given by the coherence functions of
the field at the same space–time point
∗
hEx Ex i hEx∗ Ey i
J¼ : (11)
hEy∗ Ex i hEy∗ Ey i
The degree of polarization P is given by
!1=2
4 DetðJÞ
P ¼ 1 , 0 P 1: (12)
½TrðJÞ2
The passage of a partially coherent light field through an optical system can
be formulated by a series of unitary transformations on J, assuming that the
optical system is not lossy. He provided a unified treatment of coherence and
polarization (Mandel & Wolf, 1995; Wolf, 2003). Eberly et al. (2017) and
Qian, Vamivakas, and Eberly (2018) included partial polarization in their
study of the interference with polarized fields. With the inclusion of polar-
ization the inequality of Eq. (6) turns into the equality
V 2 + D2 ¼ P 2 : (13)
They called this equality the polarization coherence theorem (Eberly et al.,
2017). This relation has strong consequences for the wave particle duality in
quantum physics (Qian et al., 2018; Zela, 2018)
Although Wolf concentrated mostly on classical fields, all the second-
order coherence functions can be generalized to quantum fields, where
we write the corresponding quantum field operator as
Eðr, tÞ ¼ Eð+Þ ðr, tÞ+EðÞ ðr, tÞ, (14)

where E(+)(r, t) and E()(r, t) are called the positive and negative frequency
parts of electric field operator. The E(+) part plays the same role as the ana-
lytical signal in Wolf’s theory. Since E(+) and E() do not commute, the
quantum theory uses ordered correlations. In most applications we measure
normally ordered quantities (Glauber, 1963). Thus we replace Eq. (1) by
ðÞ
Γαβ ðr1 , r2 , τÞ ¼ hEβ ðr2 , tÞE ð+Þ
α ðr1 , t + τÞi, (15)
using again scalar quantities. However, there are quantum processes like spon-
taneous emission which are initiated by the vacuum of the radiation field. In
such cases we also need the antinormally ordered correlations of the form
ðAÞ ðÞ
Γαβ ðr1 , r2 , τÞ ¼ hE ð+Þ
α ðr1 , t + τÞE β ðr2 , tÞi, (16)
where we have added a superscript (A) to indicate this antinormal ordering.
Wolf primarily concentrated on developments where the second-order
coherence function of two electric field amplitudes was relevant. Today,
however, his insights play a major role in many fields of optics. This includes
(a) optical coherence tomography (OCT), (b) intensity–intensity correlation
measurements of a (chaotic) thermal light source (TLS) as originally con-
ducted by Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) and in many modern spin-offs
to measure properties of generic scattering media or nonclassical two-level
atoms, (c) ghost imaging with SPDC photon pairs or with thermal light
sources, (d) superresolution speckle illumination imaging and microscopy,
also combined with the analysis of higher-order intensity correlations and
cumulants, and (e) superresolution fluorescence microscopy enabled by
intensity correlation analyses and structured illumination.
3. OCT based on partial coherence

One highly applied field where partial coherence plays a major role is
optical coherence tomography (OCT) (Fercher, Drexler, Hitzenberger, &
Lasser, 2003; Hitzenberger, 2018; Park & de Boer, 2015). OCT investi-
gates discontinuities of the refractive index and the attenuation coefficient
of living tissues, mostly to identify eye diseases.
Tomography in the X-ray and gamma ray regime relies on forward pro-
jections at different angles, i.e., on the Fourier slice theorem to obtain depth
resolution. Since optical techniques are dominated by diffraction it is not
applicable there. Instead, OCT relies on the Fourier diffraction projection
theorem (Wolf, 1969), which derives tomographic images from single back-
scattered radiation. Moreover, OCT is based on interference phenomena of
light waves as well as second-order amplitude (cross) correlation measure-

ments. A full 3D image is obtained by lateral scanning of a probe beam.
Compared to forward projection tomography, OCT bears some outstanding
properties: (1) depth resolution is decoupled from the transverse one, (2) high
depth resolution, in the histological 1μm range, is possible, (3) high dynamic
range and sensitivity, and (4) in medical terms OCT is a noninvasive
technique that yields in vivo data (Fercher et al., 2003).
Initially, OCT techniques were based on low time-coherence Michelson
interferometry (LCI), where depth-scans are performed in the time domain.
A schematic illustration is provided in Fig. 2. The figure of merit for OCT is
the second-order cross-correlation function between the sample wave
amplitude VS and the reference wave amplitude VR
ΓSR ðτÞ ¼ hVS∗ ðtÞVR ðt + τÞi, (17)
for some time delay τ. For τ ¼ 0, the average measured intensity reads
I ¼ hIðtÞi ¼ hV ðtÞV ðt + τÞiτ¼0 , with V ¼ VS(t) + VR(t + τ). After intro-
ducing an adjustable time delay Δt ¼ 2Δz/c (see Fig. 2) the measured intensity
becomes
IðΔtÞ ¼ IS + IR + GSR ðΔtÞ (18)
with the interferogram
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GSR ðΔtÞ ¼ 2 IS IR jγ SR ðΔtÞj cos ðαSR δSR ðΔtÞÞ: (19)
Here, αSR is some constant phase and δSR ðΔtÞ ¼ 2πνΔt. Then, to obtain the
complex-valued ΓSR(τ) of Eq. (17), i.e., the sough-after OCT signal, the
real-valued GSR(Δt) needs to be Hilbert transformed. In the experiment
GSR(Δt) is proportional to the measured photodiode (heterodyne) signal;
Fig. 2 Standard OCT scheme based on a low time-coherence Michelson interfero-

meter (LCI).
for further details see Fercher et al. (2003). Finally, it is helpful to use spectral
relations, which are obtained with the help of the Wiener–Khintchin
theorem, leading to the spectral interference law
Sðν, ΔtÞ ¼ SS ðνÞ + SR ðνÞ + 2Re½WSR ðνÞcos ð2πνΔtÞ, (20)

with WSR(ν) ¼ FT{ΓSR(Δt)} being the so-called cross-spectral density
function.
Modulations of GSR(Δt) only occur due to back-scattering from sample
features within a limited axial range corresponding to Δt τc, where τc is the
coherence time of the utilized light source, which is assumed to have a
Gaussian envelope. In time-domain OCT the depth resolution hence
becomes
2 ln ð2Þ λ 2
cτc ΔzFWHM ¼ , (21)
π ΔλFWHM
with the mean wavelength λ and the bandwidth ΔλFWHM. It is thus imper-
ative to use a broadband low-coherence beam.
Another field comprises so-called Fourier-domain OCT techniques
(Fercher et al., 2003). This includes spectral interferometry approaches.
For monochromatic light of wavelength λ1 the approach equals well-known
coherent scattering methods, where a (scalar) scattering potential V (R)
produces the scattered wave
Z
eikr
Eout ðqÞ V ðRÞ exp ðiq RÞ Ein ðRÞ d3 R (22)
r
in first-order Born approximation. Note that the illumination is often
described as a simple plane wave with envelope Ein(R) ¼ const. The mea-
sured quantity Eout(q) f(q) represents the Fourier amplitudes of the object,
with q ¼kin kout being the momentum transfer vector. In contrast to crys-
tallography, where the entire Ewald sphere is measured (i.e., a 2D manifold
in 3D Fourier space, see Fig. 3), in Fourier OCT only the back-scattered
radiation with kout ¼ kin is recorded, and thus only f(q) ¼ f(2kin).
To obtain useful information more axial Fourier components are required.
Toward that, the process can be repeated with another wavelength λ2
(Agarwal, 1998), as illustrated in Fig. 3. Ideally the entire range between
the points B1 and B2 in Fourier space is accessed by use of a broadband
spectrum. Experimentally this is achieved by wavelength tuning or spec-
tral interferometry techniques. The Fourier transform of the recorded
Fig. 3 Ewald sphere constructions for wavelengths λ1 and λ2. Back-scattering in real
space for the two wavelengths is represented by the two points B1 and B2 in Fourier
space.
cross-spectral intensity provides the sought-after interferogram of Eq. (19).

In contrast to time-domain techniques only the lateral OCT scanning
procedure remains. The disadvantages are the necessary detector array
(camera) and the smaller dynamic range.
Other generalizations of OCT include speckle illumination LCI, since
speckle has become a very useful phenomenon for a series of measurement
techniques (Briers, 2001; Sirohi, 1999). In this case the intensity correlations
(see section below for definition) can be obtained from the amplitude cor-
relation Γ(τ) by Loudon (2001)
hIðtÞIðt + τÞi ¼ hIðtÞi2 ½1 + jΓðτÞj2 : (23)
The temporal coherence length τc of the speckle intensity fluctuations

leads to intrinsic depth resolution [similar to Eq. 21]. Another approach,
beyond the linear optics regime, is based on SPDC and two-photon inter-
ferometry, and has shown the potential to have still higher sensitivities and
twofold enhanced depth resolutions. Moreover, a cancelation of disper-
sion can be achieved (Shirai, 2017). Additional Functional OCT techniques
include polarization-sensitive OCT, where differences in the polarization
state of the emerging light allows for the discrimination of different
types of tissues (Park & de Boer, 2015). Here, the Jones matrix formalism
of Eq. (11) can be utilized. Even other techniques include Doppler OCT,
enabling real-time images of in vivo blood flow in human skin by use of
the Doppler effect (Zhao, Chen, Ding, Ren, & Nelson, 2002), or a com-
bination of Fourier and Doppler OCT which provides high phase stability
and speed.
4. Role of partial coherence in HBT-like measurements

In what follows we transition to the topic of (spatial) intensity–intensity
correlations measurements where the fields to be correlated shall emanate
from (classical) incoherent thermal light sources (TLS) such as stars.
A quantum mechanical view point and correlations of light fields from non-
classical sources will be discussed in Section 5. In 1956, Hanbury Brown and
Twiss (HBT) (Brown & Twiss, 1956a, 1956b) realized that the geometry of a
single star, or even a double-star system, can be inferred from its incoherent
starlight, not by means of an elaborate interferometry setup (e.g., Michelson),
but simply by use of intensity–intensity correlations. While it is well known
that the (mean) intensity in the far field of an incoherent TLS geometry is a
constant I(r) ¼ I0 ¼ const., it turns out that the respective equal-time spatial
second-order intensity correlations function reads
Gð2Þ ðr1 , r2 , τ ¼ 0Þ hE ðÞ ðr1 , tÞEðÞ ðr2 , tÞE ð+Þ ðr2 , tÞE ð+Þ ðr1 , tÞi
(24)
¼ hIðr1 ÞIðr2 Þi ¼ I 20 + jΓðr1 , r2 Þj2 :
with Γ(r1, r2) being the second-order field correlation function of Eq. (15).
The above identification of the four-electric field product as the two-intensity
product is, of course, only strictly valid for classical light fields and is also
known as the Siegert relation (Goodman, 1985). The result can explicitly
be derived via the Gaussian moment theorem (Mandel & Wolf, 1995),
since electric fields of thermal nature can be described by Gaussian random
processes in phase-space with zero-mean expectation value hE()(rj)i ¼
hE(+)(rj)i ¼ 0. In the normalized form Eq. (24) becomes
Gð2Þ ðr1 , r2 Þ
gð2Þ ðr1 , r2 Þ ¼ , gð2Þ ðr1 , r2 Þ ¼ 1 + jγðr1 , r2 Þj2 , (25)
Γðr1 , r1 ÞΓðr2 , r2 Þ
For TLS γ can be calculated by means of the van Cittert–Zernike theorem to
be the (normalized) Fourier transform of the incoherent intensity distribu-
tion I(R) in the object plane
Z
IðRÞeik½ðu2 u1 ÞR d2 R
γðr1 , r2 Þ ¼ Z , (26)
IðRÞd2 R
where uj (j ¼ 1, 2) denotes the unit vector pointing from the origin to the
point rj.
For an incoherent light field jγ(r, r)j ¼ 1 such that structural information
carried by the electric fields is not preserved when measuring the (mean)
intensity across the detection plane. By contrast, g(2)(r1, r2) accesses the
amplitude information of γ(r1, r2), while the phase information is lost.
Aside from the offset of +1, the result is equivalent to coherent diffraction
when measuring the intensity I(q) jEout(q)j2 jf(q)j2. While the ampli-
tude information of f(q) is accessed, the phase information which is equally
required for the inversion of Eq. (22) is lost. A fact and obstacle that is well
known in X-ray crystallography as the phase problem and was taken up by
Wolf in his later years (Wolf, 2009).
In recent years the field of HBT intensity interferometry has been gener-
alized to the measurement of higher-order intensity correlations. For instance,
it has been predicted that superresolving imaging of equidistant 1D arrays
of TLS, but later also arbitrary 2D TLS geometries, can be achieved through
the analysis of higher-order correlations (Classen et al., 2016; Oppel, B€uttner,
Kok, & von Zanthier, 2012; Schneider et al., 2018; Thiel et al., 2007), both
in the optical and in the X-ray regime (Classen, Ayyer, Chapman,
R€ ohlsberger, & von Zanthier, 2017; Schneider et al., 2018). Moreover,
HBT-like intensity correlation measurements have been connected to
the phenomenon of Dicke super- and subradiance (Bhatti, Oppel,
Wiegner, Agarwal, & von Zanthier, 2016; Bhatti, Schneider, Oppel, &
von Zanthier, 2018; Oppel, Wiegner, Agarwal, & von Zanthier, 2014;
Wiegner, Oppel, Bhatti, von Zanthier, & Agarwal, 2015; Wiegner, von
Zanthier, & Agarwal, 2011), and even to the generation of N00N-like inter-
ferences from two TLS (Bhatti, Classen, Oppel, Schneider, & von Zanthier,
2018). Other approaches consider the measurement of triplet correlations to
gain direct access to phase information (at least to a certain degree) (Dravins,
LeBohec, Jensen, & Nunez, 2013; Malvimat, Wucknitz, & Saha, 2014).
Moreover, correlation analysis has become a widespread tool in various fields
of physics, ranging from stellar interferometry to nuclear collisions (Baym,
1998; Padula, 2005).
Aside from spatial correlations, the analysis of temporal correlations is of
equal interest [see, for instance, Eq. (23)]. The temporal intensity correlation
function for quantum fields reads
Gð2Þ ðτÞ ¼ hE ðÞ ðtÞE ðÞ ðt + τÞE ð + Þ ðt + τÞEð + Þ ðtÞi hIðtÞi2 ½1 + jΓðτÞj2 ,
(27)
where the last transformation is again valid only for chaotic light fields and
Γ(τ) is defined by Eq. (15). The normalized version g(2)(τ) reports on the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
"'No,' her ladyship replied, 'I do not know.'
"'But there were other letters, were there not?' the coroner insisted, 'in
which you yourself were interested? The ones Mr. Clarke spoke to you
about?'
"'They existed only in Mr. Clarke's imagination, I fancy,' Lady

Foremeere replied, 'but he was in such a highly excited state that afternoon
that I really could not quite make out what it was that he desired to sell to
me.'
"Lady Foremeere spoke very quietly and very simply, without a single
note of spite or acerbity in her soft, musical voice. One felt that she was
stating quite simple facts that rather bored her, but to which she did not
attach any importance. And later on when Miss Euphemia Clarke retold the
story of the packet of letters and of the quarrels which the deceased and her
brother had about them, and when the damning evidence of the khaki tunic
stood out like an avenging Nemesis pointing at the unfortunate young man,
those in court who had imagination, saw—positively saw—the hangman's
rope tightening around his neck."
§4
"And yet the verdict was one of wilful murder against some person or
persons unknown," I said, after a slight pause, waiting for the funny
creature to take up his narrative again.
"Yes," he replied, "Arthur Clarke has been cleared of every suspicion.

He left the court a free man. His innocence was proved beyond question
through what every one thought was the most damnatory piece of evidence
against him—the evidence of the khaki tunic. The khaki tunic exonerated
Arthur Clarke as completely as the most skilful defender could do. Because
it did not fit him. Arthur Clarke was a rather heavy, full-grown, broad-
shouldered man, the khaki tunic would only fit a slim lad of eighteen.
Clarke had admitted the tunic was his, but he had never thought of
examining it, and certainly, not of trying it on. It was Miss St. Jude who
thought of that. Trust a woman in love for getting an inspiration.
"When she was called at the end of the day to affirm the statements
which she had previously made to the police and realised that these
statements of hers were actually in contradiction with Clarke's own
assertions, she worked herself up into a state bordering on hysteria, in the
midst of which she caught sight of the khaki tunic on the coroner's table. Of
course, she, like every one else in the neighbourhood, knew all about the
tunic, but when April St. Jude actually saw it with her own eyes and
realised what its existence meant to her sweetheart, she gave a wild shriek.
"'I'll not believe it,' she cried, 'I'll not believe it. It can't be. It is not
Arthur's tunic at all.' Then her eyes dilated, her voice sank to a hoarse
whisper, and with a trembling hand she pointed at the tunic. 'Why,' she
murmured, 'it is so small—so small! Arthur! Where is Arthur? Why does he
not show them all that he never could have worn that tunic?'
"Proverbially there is but a narrow dividing line between tragedy and

farce: While some people shuddered and gasped and men literally held their
breath, marvelling what would happen next, quite a number of women fell
into hysterical giggling. Of course you remember what happened. The
papers have told you all about it. Arthur Clarke was made to try on the
khaki tunic, and he could not even get his arms into the sleeves. Under no
circumstances could he ever have worn that particular tunic. It was several
sizes too small for him. Then he examined it closely and recognised it as
one he wore in his school O.T.C. when he was a lad. When he was
originally confronted with it, he explained, he was so upset, so genuinely
terrified at the consequences of certain follies which he undoubtedly had
committed, that he could hardly see out of his eyes. The tunic was shown to
him, and he had admitted that it was his, for he had quite a collection of old
tunics which he had always kept. But for the moment he had forgotten the
one which he had worn more than eight years ago at school.
"And so the khaki tunic, instead of condemning Clarke, had entirely

cleared him, for it now became quite evident that the miscreant who had
committed the dastardly murder had added this hideous act to his greater
crime, and deliberately set to work to fasten the guilt on an innocent man.
He had gone up to Clarke's room, opened the wardrobe, picked up a likely
garment, no doubt tearing a piece of cloth out of it whilst so doing, and thus
getting the fiendish idea of inserting that piece of khaki between the fingers
of the murdered woman. Finally, after locking the parlour door, he put the
key in the pocket of the tunic and stuffed the latter in the bottom of a
drawer.
"It was a clever and cruel trick which well nigh succeeded in hanging an
innocent man. As it is, it has enveloped the affair in an almost impenetrable
mystery. I say 'almost' because I know who killed Miss Clarke, even though
the public has thrown out an erroneous conjecture. 'It was Lady Foremeere,'
they say, 'who killed Miss Clarke.' But at once comes the question: 'How
could she?' And the query: 'When?'
"Arthur Clarke says he was with her until seven, and after that hour there
were several members of her household who waited upon her, notably her
maid who it seems came up to dress her at about that time, and she and
Lord Foremeere sat down to dinner as usual at eight o'clock.
"That there had been one or two dark passages in Lady Foremeere's life,
prior to her marriage four years ago, and that Miss Clarke was murdered for
the sake of letters which were in some way connected with her ladyship
were the only actual undisputable facts in that mysterious case. That it was
not Arthur Clarke who killed his sister has been indubitably proved; that a
great deal of the evidence was contradictory every one has admitted. And if
the police do not act on certain suggestions which I have made to them, the
Hardacres murder will remain a mystery to the public to the end of time."
"And what are those suggestions?" I asked, without the slightest vestige
of irony, for, much against my will, the man's personality exercised a
curious fascination over me.
"To keep an eye on Lord Foremeere," the funny creature replied with his
dry chuckle, "and see when and how he finally disposes of a wet coat, a
dripping hat and soaked boots, which he has succeeded in keeping
concealed somewhere in the smoking-room, away from the prying eyes
even of his own valet."
"You mean——" I asked, with an involuntary gasp.
"Yes," he replied. "I mean that it was Lord Foremeere who murdered
Miss Clarke for the sake of those letters which apparently contained matter
that was highly compromising to his wife.
"Everything to my mind points to him as the murderer. Whether he knew

all along of the existence of the compromising letters, or whether he first
knew of this through the conversation between her ladyship and Clarke the
day of the servants' party, it is impossible to say; certain it is that he did
overhear that conversation and that he made up his mind to end the
impossible situation then and there, and to put a stop once and for all to any
further attempt at blackmail.
"It was easy enough for him on that day to pass in and out of the house
unperceived. No doubt his primary object in going to Hardacres was to
purchase the letters from Miss Clarke, money down; perhaps she proved
obstinate, perhaps he merely thought that dead men tell no tales. This we
shall never know.
"After the hideous deed, which must have revolted his otherwise
fastidious senses, he must have become conscious of an overwhelming
hatred for the man who had, as it were, pushed him into crime, and my
belief is that the elaborate mise en scène of the khaki tunic, and the
circumstantial lie that when he came out of the smoking-room Arthur
Clarke had obviously just come in from outside was invented, not so much
with the object of averting any suspicion from himself, as with the
passionate desire to be revenged on Clarke.
"Think it over," the Old Man in the Corner concluded, as he stuffed his
beloved bit of string into his capacious pocket; "time, opportunity, motive,
all are in favour of my theory, so do not be surprised if the early editions of
to-morrow's evening papers contain the final sensation in this interesting
case."
He was gone before I could say another word, and all that I saw of him
was his spook-like figure disappearing through the swing-door. There was
no one now in the place, so a moment or two later I too paid my bill and
went away.
§5
The Old Man in the Corner proved to be right in the end. At eleven
o'clock the next morning the street corners were full of newspaper placards
with the flaring headlines: "Sudden death of Lord Foremeere."
It was reported that on the previous evening his lordship was examining
a new automatic which he had just bought and explaining the mechanism to
his valet. At one moment he actually made the remark: "It is all right, it isn't
loaded," but apparently there was one cartridge left in one of the chambers.
His lordship, it seems, was looking straight down the barrel and his finger
must accidentally have touched the trigger; anyway, according to the valet's
story, there was a sudden explosion, and Lord Foremeere fell shot right
between the eyes.
The verdict at the inquest was, of course, one of accidental death, the
coroner and jury expressing the greatest possible sympathy with Lady
Foremeere and Miss St. Jude. It was only subsequently that one or two facts
came to light which appeared obscure and unimportant to the man in the
street, but which for me, in the light of my conversation with the Old Man
in the Corner, bore special significance.
It seems that an hour or two before the accident, the chief superintendent
of police had called with two constables at Meere Court and were closeted
for a considerable time with Lord Foremeere in the smoking-room. And
Spinks, the butler, who subsequently let the three men out, noticed that one
of the constables was carrying a coat and a hat, which Spinks knew were
old ones belonging to his lordship.
Then I knew that the funny creature in the loud check tweeds and baggy
trousers had found the true solution of the Hardacres mystery.
Oh, and you wish to know what was the sequel to the pretty love story
between April St. Jude and Arthur Clarke. Well, you know, she married
Amos Rottenberg, the New York banker, last year, and Clarke runs a
successful garage now somewhere in the North. A kind friend must have
lent him the capital wherewith to make a start. I can make a shrewd guess
who that kind friend was.
II
THE MYSTERY OF THE INGRES MASTERPIECE
§1
I did not see the Old Man in the Corner for several weeks after that
strange meeting in the blameless teashop. The exigencies of my work kept
me busy, and somehow the sensational suicide of Lord Foremeere which
had appeared like the logical sequence of the spook-like creature's
deductions, had left a painful impression on my mind. Entirely illogically, I
admit, I felt that the Old Man in the Corner had had something to do with
the tragedy.
But when in March of that year we were all thrilled by the mystery of the
valuable Ingres picture, and wherever one went one heard conjectures and
explanations of that extraordinary case, my thoughts very naturally reverted
to the funny creature and his bit of string, and I found myself often
wondering what his explanation of what seemed a truly impenetrable
mystery could possibly be.
The facts certainly were very puzzling in themselves. When first I was
deputed by the Express Post to put them clearly and succinctly before its
readers, I found the task strangely difficult; this, for the simple reason that I
myself could not see daylight through it all, and often did I stand in front of
the admirable reproduction which I possess of the Ingres "La Fiancée"
wondering if those smiling lips would not presently speak and tell me how
an original and exquisite picture could possibly have been at two different
places at one and the same time.
For that, in truth, was the depth of the puzzle. We will, if you please, call
the original owners of the picture the Duc and Duchesse Paul de
Rochechouart. That, of course, is not their name, but, as you all know who
they really are, it matters not what I call them for the purpose of recording
their singular adventure.
His Grace had early in life married a Swedish lady of great talent and
singular beauty. She was an artist of no mean order, having exhibited
pictures of merit both at the Paris Salon and at the Royal Academy in
London; she was also an accomplished musician, and had published one or
two very charming volumes of poetry.
The Duke and his wife were devoted to one another; they lived for the
greater part of the year at their beautiful château on the Oise, not far from
Chantilly, and here they entertained a great deal, more after the homely and
hospitable manner of English country houses than in the more formal
fashion. Here, too, they had collected some rare furniture, tapestries, and
objects of art and vertu, amongst which certain highly-prized pictures of the
French School of the Nineteenth Century.
The war, we may imagine, left the Duc de Rochechouart and his
charming wife a good deal poorer, as it left most other people in France,
and soon it became known amongst the art dealers of London, Paris and
New York that they had decided to sell one or two of their most valuable
pictures; foremost amongst these was the celebrated "La Fiancée" by
Ingres.
Immediately there was what is technically known as a ramp after the

picture. Dealers travelled backwards and forwards from all the great
Continental cities to the château on the Oise to view the picture. Offers
were made for it by cable, telegram and telephone, and the whole art world
was kept in a flutter over what certainly promised to be a sensational deal.
Alas! as with most of the beautiful possessions of this impoverished old

world, the coveted prize was destined to go to the country that had the
longest purse. A certain Mr. Aaron Jacobs, the Chicago multi-millionaire,
presently cabled an offer of half a million dollars for the picture, an offer
which, rumour had it, the Duc de Rochechouart had since accepted. Mr.
Jacobs was said to be a charming, highly-cultured man, a great art
connoisseur and a great art lover, and presently one heard that he had
already set sail for Europe with the intention of fetching away his newly-
acquired treasure himself.
On the very day following Mr. Jacobs's arrival as the guest of the Duc
and Duchesse de Rochechouart at the latter's château, the world-famous
picture was stolen in broad daylight by a thief or thieves who contrived to
make away with their booty without leaving the slightest clue, so it was
said, that might put the police on their track. The picture was cut clean out
of the frame, an operation which must have taken at least two or three
minutes. It always used to hang above the tall chimneypiece in the
Duchesse's studio, but that self-same morning it had been lifted down and
placed on an easel in the dining-hall, no doubt for closer inspection by the
purchaser. This easel stood in a corner of the hall, close to one of the great
windows that overlooked the gardens of the château.
The amazing point in this daring theft was that a garden fête and tennis
tournament were in progress at the time. A crowd of guests was spread all
over the lawns and grounds in full view of the windows of the hall, and, as
far as the preliminary investigations were able to establish, there were not
more than twenty or twenty-five minutes at most during which some
servant or other inmate of the château had not either actually been through
the hall or had occasion to observe the windows.
The dining-hall itself has monumental doors which open on the great
central vestibule, and immediately facing it similar doors give on the
library. The marble vestibule runs right through the centre of the main
building, it has both a front and a garden entrance, and all the reception
rooms open out of it, right and left. Close to the front door entrance is one
of the main ways into the kitchens and offices.
Now right away until half-past four on that fateful afternoon the servants
were up and down the vestibule, busy with arrangements for tea which they
were serving outside on the lawns. The tennis tournament was then drawing
to a close, the Duchesse was on the lawn with her guests, dispensing tea,
and at half-past four precisely the Duc de Rochechouart came into the
château by way of the garden entrance, went across the vestibule and into
the library to fetch the prizes which were to be distributed to the victors in
the tournament, and which were locked up in his desk. The doors of the
dining-hall were wide open and the Duc walking past them peeped into the
room. The picture was in its place then, and he gave a glance at it as he
passed, conscious of a pang of regret at the thought that he must needs part
with this precious treasure. It took the Duc some little time to sort the
prizes, and as in the meanwhile the afternoon post had come in and a few
letters had been laid on his desk, he could not resist the desire to glance
through his correspondence. On the whole he thought that he might have
been in the library about a quarter of an hour or perhaps more. He had
closed the door when he entered the room, and when he came out again he
certainly noticed that the doors of the dining-hall were shut. But there was
nothing in this to arouse his suspicions, and with the neatly tied parcels
containing the prizes under his arm, he recrossed the vestibule and went
once more into the garden.
At five o'clock M. Amédé, the chief butler, had occasion to go into the
dining-hall to fetch a particular silver tray which he required. He owned to
being astonished at finding the doors closed, because he had been past them
a quarter of an hour before that and they were wide open then. However, he
entered the room without any serious misgivings, but the next moment he
nearly fainted with horror at sight of the empty frame upon the easel. The
very first glance had indeed revealed the nefarious deed. The picture had
not been moved out of its frame, it was the canvas that had been cut. M.
Amédé, however, knowing what was due to his own dignity did not disturb
the entire household then and there; he made his way quietly back into the
garden where the distribution of prizes after the tournament was taking
place and, seizing a favourable opportunity, he caught M. le Duc's eye and
imparted to him the awful news.
Even so nothing was said until after the guests had departed. By the
Duc's orders the doors leading into the dining-hall were locked, and to
various enquiries after the masterpiece made by inquisitive ladies, the
evasive answer was given that the picture was in the hands of the packers.
There remained the house party, which, of course, included Mr. Aaron
Jacobs. There were also several ladies and gentlemen staying at the château,
and before they all went up to their rooms to dress for dinner, they were told
what had happened. In the meanwhile the police had already been sent for,
and M. le Commissaire was conducting his preliminary investigations. The
rooms and belongings of all the servants were searched, and, with the
consent of the guests themselves, this search was extended to their rooms. A
work of art worth half a million dollars could not thus be allowed to
disappear and the thief to remain undetected for the sake of social
conventions, and as the law stands in France any man may be guilty of a
crime until he be proved innocent.
§2
The theft of the Ingres masterpiece was one of those cases which interest
the public in every civilised country, and here in England where most
people are bitten with the craze for criminal investigation it created quite a
sensation in its way.
I remember that when we all realised for the first time that the picture
had in very truth disappeared, and that the French police, despite its much
vaunted acumen, had entirely failed to find the slightest trace of the thief,
we at once began to look about for a romantic solution of the mystery. M. le
Duc de Rochechouart and his pretty Duchesse had above all our deepest
sympathy, for it had very soon transpired that neither the Ingres
masterpiece, nor indeed any of the Duc's valuable collection of art works,
was insured. This fact seems almost incredible to English minds, with
whom every kind of insurance is part and parcel of the ordinary household
routine. But abroad the system is not nearly so far-reaching or so extended,
and there are numberless households in every degree of the social scale who
never dream of spending money on insurances save, perhaps, against fire.
Be that as it may, the fact remained that "La Fiancée" was not insured
against theft, and that through the action of an unknown miscreant the Duc
and Duchesse de Rochechouart would, unless the police did ultimately
succeed in tracing the stolen masterpiece, find themselves the poorer by
half a million dollars. With their usual lack of logic, readers of the
halfpenny Press promptly turned their attention to Mr. Aaron Jacobs, the
intending purchaser. Being a Chicago multi-millionaire does not, it appears,
render a man immune from the temptation of acquiring by dishonest means
the things which he covets. Anyway, the public decided that Mr. Jacobs was
not so rich as he was reputed to be, but that, on the other hand, being as
greedy for the possession of European works of art as any ogre for human
flesh, he had stolen the picture which he could not afford to buy; and ten, or
mayhap fifteen years hence, when the story of the mysterious theft will
have been consigned to oblivion, Mr. Jacobs would display the masterpiece
in his gallery. How this was to be accomplished without the subsequent
intervention of the police those wiseacres did not attempt to explain.
The mystery remained impenetrable for close on two years. Many other
sensations, criminal or otherwise, had, during that time, driven the affair of
the Ingres masterpiece out of the public mind. Then suddenly the whole
story was revived and in a manner which proved far more exciting than any
one had surmised. It was linked—though the European public did not know
this—with the death in July, 1919, of Charles B. Tupper, the head of one of
the greatest cinematograph organisations in the States—a man who for the
past few years had controlled over two thousand theatres, and had made
millions in his day. Some time during the war he had married the well-
known cinema star, Anita Hodgkins, a beautiful entirely uneducated girl
who hailed from Upper Tooting. The will of Mr. Charles B. Tupper was
proved for a fabulous sum, and, as soon as his affairs were settled, Mrs.
Tupper, who presumably had remained Cockney at heart as well as in
speech, set sail for England with the intention of settling down once more in
the country of her birth. She bought Holt Manor, a magnificent house in
Buckinghamshire, sent for all her splendid furniture and belongings from
America, and, early in 1920, when her palatial residence was ready for
occupation, she married Lord Polchester, a decadent young nincompoop,
who was said to have fallen in love with her when he first saw her on the
screen.
Presumably Mrs. Anita Tupper née Hodgkins hugged herself with the
belief that once she was styled my lady she would automatically become a
social star as she had been a cinema one in the past. But in this harmless
ambition she was at first disappointed. Though she had furnished her new
house lavishly, though paragraphs appeared in all the halfpenny and weekly
Press giving details of the sumptuous establishment of which the new Lady
Polchester was queen, though she appeared during the London season of
1920 at several official functions and went to an evening Court that year,
wearing pearls that might have been envied by an empress, she found that
in Buckinghamshire the best people were shy of calling on her, and the bits
of pasteboard that were from time to time left at her door came chiefly from
the neighbouring doctors, parsons, or retired London tradespeople, or from
mothers with marriageable daughters who looked forward to parties at the
big house and consequent possible matrimonial prizes.
This went on for a time and then Lady Polchester, wishing no doubt to
test the intentions of the county towards her, launched out invitations for a
garden party! The invitations included the London friends she had recently
made, and a special train from Paddington was to bring those friends to the
party. Among these was Mr. Aaron Jacobs. He had known the late Charles
B. Tupper over in the States, and had met Lady Polchester more recently at
one of the great functions at the United States Embassy in London. She had
interested him with a glowing account of her splendid collection of works
of art, of pictures and antique furniture which she had inherited from her
first husband and which now adorned her house in Buckinghamshire, and
when she asked him down to her party he readily accepted, more I imagine
out of curiosity to see the objects in which he was as keenly interested as
ever than from a desire to establish closer acquaintanceship with the lady.
The garden party at Holt Manor, as the place was called, does not appear
to have been a great social success. For one thing it rained the whole
afternoon, and the military band engaged for the occasion proved too noisy
for indoor entertainment. But some of the guests were greatly interested in
the really magnificent collection of furniture, tapestries, pictures and works
of art which adorned the mansion, and after tea Lady Polchester graciously
conducted them all over the house, pointing out herself the most notable
pieces in the collection and never failing to mention the price at which the
late Mr. Charles B. Tupper purchased the work of art in question.
And that is when the sensation occurred. Following their hostess, the
guests had already seen and duly admired two really magnificent Van
Dycks that hung in the hall, when she turned to them and said, with a
flourish of her plentifully be-gemmed hands:
"You must come into the library and see the picture for which Mr.
Tupper gave over half a million dollars. I never knew I had it, as he never
had it taken out of its case, and I never saw it until this year when it came
over with all my other things from our house in New York. Lord Polchester
had it unpacked and hung in the library. I don't care much about it myself,
and the late Mr. Tupper hadn't the time to enjoy his purchase, because he
died two days after the picture arrived in New York, and, as I say, he never
had it unpacked. He bought it for use in a commercial undertaking which he
had in mind at one time, then the scheme fell through, and I am sure I never
thought any more about the old picture."
With that she led the way into the library, a nobly-proportioned room
lined with books in choice bindings, and with a beautiful Adam
chimneypiece, above which hung a picture.
Of course there were some people present who had never heard of the
stolen Ingres, but there must have been a few who, as they entered the
room, must literally have gasped with astonishment, for there it certainly
was. "La Fiancée" with her marvellously painted Eastern draperies, her
exquisitely drawn limbs and enigmatic smile, was smiling down from the
canvas, just as if she had every right to be in the house of the ex-cinema
star, and as if there had not been a gigantic fuss about her throughout the
whole art world of Europe.
We may take it that the person by far the most astonished at that moment
was Mr. Aaron Jacobs. But he was too thoroughly a gentleman and too
much a man of the world to betray his feelings then, and I suppose that
those who, like himself, had thought they recognised the stolen masterpiece,
did not like to say anything either until they were more sure: English people
in all grades of society being proverbially averse to being what they call
"mixed up" in any kind of a fuss. Certain it is that nothing was said at the
moment to disturb Lady Polchester's complacent equanimity, and after a
while the party broke up and the guests departed.
Of course people thought that Mr. Aaron Jacobs should have informed
Lord Polchester of his intentions before he went to the police. But Lord
Polchester was such a nonentity in his own household, such a frivolous
fool, and, moreover, addicted to drink and violent fits of temper, that those
who knew him easily realised how a sensible business man like Mr. Aaron
Jacobs would avoid any personal explanation with him.
Mr. Jacobs went straight to the police that self-same evening, and the
next day Lady Polchester had a visit from Detective Purley, one of the
ablest as he was one of the most tactful men on the staff. But indeed he had
need of all his tact in face of the infuriated cinema star when that lady
realised the object of his visit.
"How dared they come and ask her such impertinent questions?" she
stormed. "Did they imagine she had stolen a beastly picture which she
would as soon throw on the dust heap as look at again? She, who could buy
up all the pictures in any gallery and not feel the pinch..." and so on and so
on. The unfortunate Purley had a very unpleasant quarter of an hour, but
after a while he succeeded in pacifying the irate lady and got her to listen
calmly to what he had to say.
He managed to make her understand that without casting the slightest

aspersion upon her honourability or that of the late Charles B. Tupper, there
was no getting away from the fact that the picture now hanging in the
library of Holt Manor was the property of the Duc de Rochechouart from
whose house in France it was stolen over two years before—to be quite
accurate it was stolen on July twenty-fifth, 1919.
"Then," retorted the lady, by no means convinced or mollified, "I can
prove you all to be liars, for the late Mr. Charles B. Tupper bought the old
thing long before that. He had been on the Continent in the spring of 1919
and landed in New York again on May eighteenth. He told me then that he
had made some interesting purchases in Europe, amongst them there was a
picture for which he had paid half a million dollars. I scolded him about it,
as I thought he was throwing his money away on such stuff, but he said that
he wanted to make use of the picture for some wonderful advertising
scheme he had in his mind, so I said no more about it. But that is the picture
you say was stolen from some duke or other in July, when I tell you that it
had been shipped for New York a month at least before that."
Perhaps at this point Detective Purley failed to conceal altogether a

slight look of incredulity, for Lady Polchester turned on him once more like
a fury.
"So you still think I stole the dirty old picture, do you?" she cried, using
further language that is quite unprintable, "and you think that I am such a
ninny and that I will give it up simply because you are trying to bully me.
But I won't, so there! I can prove the truth of every word I say, and I don't
care if I have to spend another million dollars to put your old duke in prison
for talking such rot about me."
Once again Purley's tact had to come into play, and after a while he
succeeded in soothing the lady's outraged feelings. With infinite patience he
gradually got her to view the matter more calmly and above all not to look
upon him as an enemy, but as a friend whose one desire was to throw light
upon what certainly seemed an extraordinary mystery.
"Very well, then," she said, after a while, "I'll tell you all I can. I don't
know when the picture was shipped from Europe but I do know that a case
addressed to Mr. Charles B. Tupper and marked 'valuable picture with great
care' was delivered at our house in New York on July eighteenth. I can't
mistake the date because Mr. Tupper was already very ill when the case
arrived and he died two days later, that is on July twentieth, 1919. That you
can ascertain easily enough, can't you?" Lady Polchester added tartly. Then
as Purley offered no comment she went on more quietly:
"That's all right, then. Now let me tell you that the case containing this
picture was in my house two days before Mr. Tupper died, and that I never
had it undone until a couple of months ago, here in this house. I had it
shipped from New York, not along with all my things, but by itself; and
there is the lawyer over there, Mr. George F. Topham, who can tell you all
about the case. I was too upset what with Mr. Tupper's illness and then his
death, and the will and the whole bag of tricks to trouble much about it
myself, but I told the lawyer that it contained a picture for which Mr.
Tupper had paid half a million dollars, and it was put down for probate for
that amount; the lawyer took charge of the old thing, and he can swear, and
lots of other people over in the States can swear that the case was never
undone. And the shipping company can swear that it never was touched
whilst it was in their charge. They delivered it here and their men opened
the case for us and helped us to place the picture.
"And now," concluded Lady Polchester, not because she had nothing
more to say but presumably because she was out of breath, "now perhaps
you'll tell me how a picture which was over in New York on the eighteenth
of July can have been stolen from France on the twenty-fifth; and if you
can't tell me that, then I'll trouble you to clear out of my house, for I've no
use for Nosey Parkers about the place."
The unfortunate Purley had certainly, by all accounts, rather a rough time
of it with the lady. Nor could he arrive at any satisfactory arrangement with
her. Needless to say that she absolutely refused to give up the picture unless
she were forced to do so by law, and even then, she dared say, she could
make it very unpleasant for some people.
§3
The next event of any importance in this extraordinary case was the
action brought by the Duc and Duchesse de Rochechouart here in England
against Lady Polchester for illegal detention of their property.
It very soon transpired that several witnesses had come over from the
States in order to corroborate tie lady's assertions with regard to her rightful
ownership of the picture, and the public was once more on the tiptoe of
expectation.
The case came on for hearing in March and lasted only two days. The
picture was in court and was identified first by the Duc and Duchesse de
Rochechouart and then by two or three experts as the genuine work of
Ingres: "La Fiancée" known throughout the entire art world as having been
purchased by the Duc's grandfather from the artist himself in 1850, and
having been in the family uninterruptedly ever since. The Duc himself had
last seen it in his own château at half-past four on the afternoon of July
twenty-fifth, 1919.
A well-known peculiarity about the masterpiece was that it had

originally been painted on a somewhat larger canvas, and that the artist
himself, at the request of the original purchaser, had it cut smaller and re-
strained on a smaller stretcher; this alteration was, of course, distinctly
visible on the picture. The frame was new; it was admittedly purchased by
Lady Polchester recently. When the picture came into her possession it was
unframed.
On that lady's behalf on the other hand there was a formidable array of
witnesses, foremost amongst these being Mr. Anthony Kleeberger, who was
the late Charles B. Tupper's secretary and manager. He was the first to
throw some light on the original transaction, whereby "La Fiancée" first
came into his employer's possession.
"Mr. Tupper," he explained, "was the inventor of a new process of colour

photography which he desired to test and then to advertise all over the
world by means of reproduction from some world-famous masterpiece, and
when during the spring of 1919 I accompanied him to Europe, one of the
objects he had in mind was the purchase of a picture suitable for his
purpose. It pretty soon was known all over the art world of the Continent
what we were after and that Mr. Tupper was prepared to pay a big price for
his choice. You would be surprised if I were to tell you of some of the offers
we had in Vienna, in London, even in Rome.
"At last, when we were staying in Paris, Mr. Tupper came to me one day
and told me he had at last found the very picture he wanted. He had gone to
the studio of a picture restorer who had written to him and offered him a
genuine Ingres. He had seen the picture and liked it, and had agreed to give
the owner half a million dollars for it. I thought this a terrific price and
frankly I was a little doubtful whether my employer had a sufficient
knowledge of art to enter into a transaction of this sort. I feared that he
might be badly had, and buying some spurious imitation rather than a
masterpiece. But Mr. Tupper was always a queer man in business. Once he
had made up his mind there was no arguing with him. 'I like the picture,'
was all that he ever said to me in response to some timid suggestion on my
part that he should seek expert advice, 'and I have agreed to buy it for half a
million dollars, simply because the fellow would not part with it for less. I
believe it to be genuine. But if it is not I don't care. It will answer my
purpose and there it is.'
"He then gave me instructions to see about the packing and forwarding
of the picture and this I did. I must say that I had terrible misgivings about
the whole affair. I certainly thought the picture magnificent, but of course I
am no judge. It had a worthless frame around it which I discarded in order
to facilitate the packing. The picture restorer's studio was up a back street in
the Montmartre quarter. He and his wife saw to the packing themselves. I
never saw anybody else in the place. I arranged for the forwarding of the
case, for the insurance and so on, and I myself handed over to the vendor,
whose name was given to me as Matthieu Vignard, five hundred thousand-
dollar bills in the name and on account of my employer, Mr. Charles B.
Tupper. Of course, I presumed that the snuffy old man and his blousey wife
were acting for some personage who desired to remain unknown, and as
time went on and there was no talk in the art world or in the newspapers
then about any great masterpiece being stolen, I soon forgot my misgivings,
and a couple of months later I set out on Mr. Tupper's business for Central
America where I remained for close on two years.
"Half the time during those years I was up country in Costa Rica,
Venezuela and so on where newspapers are scarce, and when the hue and
cry was after a picture stolen from the house of the Duc de Rochechouart, I
knew nothing about it. But this picture now in court is certainly the one
which Mr. Tupper bought in Paris at the end of June, 1919, and which I
myself saw packed and nailed down in its case and forwarded to New York
where it arrived two days before Mr. Tupper's death."
That was the substance of Mr. Kleeberger's evidence, by far the most
important heard on the first day of the action. After that the testimony of
other witnesses went to confirm the whole story. There was the well-known
New York solicitor, Mr. George F. Topham, who took charge of the picture
after the death of his client, Mr. Tupper, and the managing director of the
Nebraska Safe Deposit Company where it was stored until Lady Polchester
sent for it. There were the managers of the shipping companies who
forwarded the picture from Paris to New York in June-July, 1919, and from
New York to Holt Manor in the following year, and there were the removal
men and servants who saw the picture unpacked and taken into the library
at the Manor.
It took two days to go through all that evidence, but it was never either
conflicting or doubtful. Yet the one supreme, mysterious contradiction
remained, namely, that the picture now in court, the wonderful Ingres
masterpiece, was bought by Mr. Tupper in Paris in June, 1919, and then and
there shipped over to him to New York, and that, nevertheless, it was stated
never to have left the Duc de Rochechouart's possession from the day when
his grandfather bought it more than seventy years ago until that memorable
twenty-fifth of July, 1919, when it was stolen on the very day it was about
to pass into the possession of Mr. Aaron Jacobs. One felt one's head reeling
when one thought out this amazing puzzle, and the decision of the learned
judge was awaited with palpitating curiosity.
But after the second day of the action, just before it was adjourned,
counsel on both sides were able to announce that their respective clients had
come to an exceedingly satisfactory arrangement. All aspersions as to the
honourability of the late Charles B. Tupper or of Lady Polchester would be
publicly withdrawn and a notice to that effect would appear in all the
leading newspapers of London, Paris and New York; and Lady Polchester
would now remain in undisputed possession of the Ingres masterpiece,
having paid its rightful owner the Duc de Rochechouart the sum of one
hundred and twenty thousand pounds for it.
So both parties we may take it were completely satisfied; at one time it
had looked as if the unfortunate duke would be done both out of his picture
and out of the money, and another as if Lady Polchester would be so
defrauded. But now all was well and the learned judge declared himself
pleased with the agreement. Not so the public who were left to face a
mystery which every one felt would never now be cleared up.
I for one felt completely at sea, so much so indeed that my thoughts

instinctively flew to the curious creature in the blameless tea-shop who I
felt sure would have a theory of his own which would account for what was
puzzling us all.
And a day or two later I saw him, weaving a fantastic design of knots in
a piece of string. He saw that I wished to hear his explanation of the
mystery of the Ingres masterpiece, but he kept me on tenter-hooks for some
time, wearing out my patience with his sharp, sarcastic comments.
"Do you admit," he asked me at one time, with his exasperating chuckle,
"that the Ingres masterpiece could have been in two places at one and the
same time?"
"No, of course," I replied, "I do not admit such nonsense."
"Very well, then," he resumed, "what is the logical conclusion?"
"That there were two pictures," I said coldly.
"Of course there were two pictures. And as the great Mr. Ingres did not
presumably paint his masterpiece in duplicate, we must take it that one
picture was the original and the other the copy."
Now it was my turn to grow sarcastic and I retorted drily:
"Having done that, we are no nearer a solution of the mystery than we

were before."
"Are we not?" he rejoined with a cackle like an old hen. "Now it seems
to me that when we have admitted that one of the pictures was a copy of the

ebook download A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition. Edition Visser - eBook PDF all chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

ebook download A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition. Edition Visser - eBook PDF all chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ebook download A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition. Edition Visser - eBook PDF all chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A tribute to Emil Wolf First Edition.

Edition Visser - eBook PDF

The Physics of Computing 1st Edition Marilyn Wolf -

(eBook PDF) Business Statistics A First Course First

(eBook PDF) README FIRST for a User's Guide to

Operative Techniques: Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery 2nd

(eBook PDF) First Course in Statistics A 11th Edition

(eBook PDF) Business Statistics A First Course 7th

(eBook PDF) A First Course in Probability 9th Edition

G.S. Agarwal College Station, TX, United States

First edition 2020

Copyright © 2020, Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

For information on all Elsevier publications

Publisher: Zoe Kruze

This volume of Progress in Optics is dedicated to the memory of Emil Wolf,

of partial coherence and polarization carry over to the domain of quantum

Fig. 2 Emil and Bruno at Niagara Falls (1964).

Occasionally, there were times when my father needed to travel out of

Fig. 5 Emil, Bruno and Paula camping in Ontario, Canada (1972).

My father was a very happy, outgoing person, and a lot of fun to be

During one of the last occa-

Emil Wolf and Bristol

1. Education and early science in Bristol

developing his photographic emulsion technique leading to his discovery

2. Later interactions with Bristol University

But he influenced my scientific life positively in a different way. When

I welcome this opportunity to describe, albeit briefly, Emil Wolf’s early

Partial coherence in modern

Our emphasis is going to be on a whole range of observable quantities which

2. Wolf’s classic development of the theory of partial

jΓðr1 , r2 , τÞj2 Γðr1 , r1 , 0ÞΓðr2 , r2 , 0Þ, (2)

Fig. 1 Young’s double-slit experiment: A quasimonochromatic source S with lateral

a measurement of the intensity at the point r. However, now, instead of sim-

The hermiticity and nonnegative definiteness of S ensures that the eigen-

Eðr, tÞ ¼ Eð+Þ ðr, tÞ+EðÞ ðr, tÞ, (14)

3. OCT based on partial coherence

light waves as well as second-order amplitude (cross) correlation measure-

Fig. 2 Standard OCT scheme based on a low time-coherence Michelson interfero-

Sðν, ΔtÞ ¼ SS ðνÞ + SR ðνÞ + 2Re½WSR ðνÞcos ð2πνΔtÞ, (20)

cross-spectral intensity provides the sought-after interferogram of Eq. (19).

hIðtÞIðt + τÞi ¼ hIðtÞi2 ½1 + jΓðτÞj2 : (23)

The temporal coherence length τc of the speckle intensity fluctuations

4. Role of partial coherence in HBT-like measurements

"'They existed only in Mr. Clarke's imagination, I fancy,' Lady

"Yes," he replied, "Arthur Clarke has been cleared of every suspicion.

"Proverbially there is but a narrow dividing line between tragedy and

"And so the khaki tunic, instead of condemning Clarke, had entirely

"Everything to my mind points to him as the murderer. Whether he knew

THE MYSTERY OF THE INGRES MASTERPIECE

Immediately there was what is technically known as a ramp after the

Alas! as with most of the beautiful possessions of this impoverished old

He managed to make her understand that without casting the slightest

Perhaps at this point Detective Purley failed to conceal altogether a

A well-known peculiarity about the masterpiece was that it had

"Mr. Tupper," he explained, "was the inventor of a new process of colour

I for one felt completely at sea, so much so indeed that my thoughts

"No, of course," I replied, "I do not admit such nonsense."

"Very well, then," he resumed, "what is the logical conclusion?"

"That there were two pictures," I said coldly.

Sðν, ΔtÞ ¼ SS ðνÞ + SR ðνÞ + 2Re½WSR ðνÞcos ð2πνΔtÞ, (20)

hIðtÞIðt + τÞi ¼ hIðtÞi2 ½1 + jΓðτÞj2 : (23)