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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Mengyuan, Tao, Yazheng, Weber, Kevin, Kaune, Tim, Schuster, Sönke, Hao, Zhenxiang, Wanner, Gudrun
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