Talk:Laser

Laser scienceLaser science was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on 5 June 2026 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laser article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Laser is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 16, 2011, May 16, 2013, and May 16, 2015.

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Materials Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

In the Design section, there is a sentence that reads "A laser consists of a gain medium, a mechanism to energize it, and something to provide optical feedback.". This sentence is ambiguous: is it referring to three different components, or is it saying that the gain medium is a mechanism to energize the laser? (It is intended to be the former).

I tried to fix it but got the meaning wrong; thanks to User:Srleffler for correcting my mistake. However, the current wording is still problematic as it is not clear which of the two meanings is intended.

I am unsure of the best way to resolve the ambiguity. I have a few ideas, including removing the serial comma, replacing the commas with semicolons, and replacing "it" in the second item with an explicit reference to the gain medium, but I'm not sure of the best way to do it. I figured I'd open this up for discussion. Feedback or suggestions would be appreciated. TypoEater (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just say three: "Conceptually a laser has three elements: a source of energy, a lasing medium, and feedback optics." Johnjbarton (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I replaced "it" with "gain medium", which resolves the ambiguity. This is clearer about what the source of energy does (it energizes the gain medium). --Srleffler (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

how do i directly see the document and edit it without acculaly changing because i dont wana have to right the whole thing and then edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-40769-90 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See Help:Edit. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

While most articles can be directly edited by anyone, some pages that have a history of being vandalized get "protected", which prevents new users from editing them directly. If you want to make a change to a protected page, put a request on the talk page (here) that says as clearly as possible what the change is. If other editors agree, one of them will make the change for you. --Srleffler (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The redirect Light Amplification has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 22 § Light Amplification until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:14, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Srleffler We made some edits on this section, but I think it is all off base for this article. The section does not discuss the topic "Quantum vs. classical emission processes". It is really just about A and B, not about laser. I propose to replace the section with content based on Hecht page 583, describing A/B and population inversion. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree the section heading isn't appropriate, and it seems out of place where it is. We really ought to cover A and B and population inversion futher up in the laser physics section.

I did restore the reference to Einstein's paper. While it's a primary source, it is a historically important paper that deserves a mention.--Srleffler (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok I added a section as you suggested. It seems to me the "Quantum vs. classical emission processes" is redundant with the new content and the History section and should just be removed. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply