Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Aufsatznummer | 9024 |
| Seitenumfang | 1 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Sensors |
| Jahrgang | 23 |
| Ausgabenummer | 22 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 7 Nov. 2023 |
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.
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
- Chemie (insg.)
- Analytische Chemie
- Informatik (insg.)
- Information systems
- Physik und Astronomie (insg.)
- Instrumentierung
- Physik und Astronomie (insg.)
- Atom- und Molekularphysik sowie Optik
- Ingenieurwesen (insg.)
- Elektrotechnik und Elektronik
- Biochemie, Genetik und Molekularbiologie (insg.)
- Biochemie
Zitieren
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTex
- RIS
in: Sensors, Jahrgang 23, Nr. 22, 9024, 07.11.2023.
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Forschung › Peer-Review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry
AU - Zhao, Mengyuan
AU - Tao, Yazheng
AU - Weber, Kevin
AU - Kaune, Tim
AU - Schuster, Sönke
AU - Hao, Zhenxiang
AU - Wanner, Gudrun
N1 - The authors would like to acknowledge the DFG for funding the Clusters of Excellence PhoenixD (EXC 2122, Project ID 390833453) and QuantumFrontiers (EXC 2123, Project ID 390837967), which offered an excellent scientific exchange on optical simulations.
PY - 2023/11/7
Y1 - 2023/11/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - diffraction
KW - optical simulation
KW - space interferometry
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85177749683&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/s23229024
DO - 10.3390/s23229024
M3 - Article
VL - 23
JO - Sensors
JF - Sensors
SN - 1424-8220
IS - 22
M1 - 9024
ER -