Cargando…
Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10674269/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38005412 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23229024 |
_version_ | 1785140788469956608 |
---|---|
author | Zhao, Mengyuan Tao, Yazheng Weber, Kevin Kaune, Tim Schuster, Sönke Hao, Zhenxiang Wanner, Gudrun |
author_facet | Zhao, Mengyuan Tao, Yazheng Weber, Kevin Kaune, Tim Schuster, Sönke Hao, Zhenxiang Wanner, Gudrun |
author_sort | Zhao, Mengyuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10674269 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-106742692023-11-07 Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry Zhao, Mengyuan Tao, Yazheng Weber, Kevin Kaune, Tim Schuster, Sönke Hao, Zhenxiang Wanner, Gudrun Sensors (Basel) Article 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. MDPI 2023-11-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10674269/ /pubmed/38005412 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23229024 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Zhao, Mengyuan Tao, Yazheng Weber, Kevin Kaune, Tim Schuster, Sönke Hao, Zhenxiang Wanner, Gudrun Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title | Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title_full | Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title_fullStr | Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title_full_unstemmed | Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title_short | Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry |
title_sort | method comparison for simulating non-gaussian beams and diffraction for precision interferometry |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10674269/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38005412 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23229024 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhaomengyuan methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT taoyazheng methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT weberkevin methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT kaunetim methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT schustersonke methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT haozhenxiang methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT wannergudrun methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry |