Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry

Author:

Zhao Mengyuan123,Tao Yazheng425,Weber Kevin63,Kaune Tim36ORCID,Schuster Sönke63,Hao Zhenxiang425,Wanner Gudrun63ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Key Laboratory of Electronics and Information Technology for Space System, National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.1 Nanertiao, Zhongguancun, Haidian District, Beijing 100190, China

2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.19(A) Yuquan Road, Shijingshan District, Beijing 100049, China

3. Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany

4. School of Fundamental Physics and Mathematical Sciences, Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou 310024, China

5. TaiJi Laboratory for Gravitational Wave Universe (Beijing/Hangzhou), University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

6. Institute for Gravitational Physics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany

Abstract

In the context of simulating precision laser interferometers, we use several examples to compare two wavefront decomposition methods—the Mode Expansion Method (MEM) and the Gaussian Beam Decomposition (GBD) method—for their precision and applicability. To assess the performance of these methods, we define different types of errors and study their properties. We specify how the two methods can be fairly compared and based on that, compare the quality of the MEM and GBD through several examples. Here, we test cases for which analytic results are available, i.e., non-clipped circular and general astigmatic Gaussian beams, as well as clipped circular Gaussian beams, in the near, far, and extremely far fields of millions of kilometers occurring in space-gravitational wave detectors. Additionally, we compare the methods for aberrated wavefronts and their interaction with optical components by testing reflections from differently curved mirrors. We find that both methods can generally be used for decomposing non-Gaussian beams. However, which method is more accurate depends on the optical system and simulation settings. In the given examples, the MEM more accurately describes non-clipped Gaussian beams, whereas for clipped Gaussian beams and the interaction with surfaces, the GBD is more precise.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Electrical and Electronic Engineering,Biochemistry,Instrumentation,Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics,Analytical Chemistry

Reference56 articles.

1. Hecht, E. (2001). Optics, Addison Wesley Longman Inc.. [4th ed.]. Optics 4th edition by Eugene Hecht Reading.

2. Ghatak, A. (1989). Optics, Tata Mcgraw Hill Publishing Company.

3. Saleh, B.E.A., and Teich, M.C. (1991). Fundamentals of Photonics, Wiley.

4. Siegman, A. (1986). Lasers, Miller/Scheier Associates. University Science Books.

5. Born, M., and Wolf, E. (2013). Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light, Elsevier.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3