Talk:Laser

How to resolve ambiguity

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2026

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)

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

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)

"Light Amplification" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Quantum vs. classical emission processes

@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)

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)

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)