 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
This is a terrible article
Unsigned critisism? I agree that it's not great. The English is choppy. But the Physics, though very brief, appears correct eventually deriving the Drude model for dispersion.
It is listed as quantum physics but appears to be mainly optics Bubsir (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that the article needs more work, though it is correctly placed in both quantum physics and optics. Also, I'm not sure gain has any relevance to free carrier absorption since there's no way for thermalized carriers (obeying Fermi-Dirac statistics) to provide inversion within a band.
Mwistey (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, almost none of the terms are defined in these equations. The original "terrible article" criticism wasn't mine, but at best this article appears to be a stub. Mwistey (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
- yeah, this article is terrible. It is at a WAY too high level, and doesn't really even discuss free carrier absorption. Needs a basic-level introduction. Skepticalgiraffe (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)