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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-11-01
|
| Series: | Sensors |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/22/9024 |
| _version_ | 1797457823892766720 |
|---|---|
| author | Mengyuan Zhao Yazheng Tao Kevin Weber Tim Kaune Sönke Schuster Zhenxiang Hao Gudrun Wanner |
| author_facet | Mengyuan Zhao Yazheng Tao Kevin Weber Tim Kaune Sönke Schuster Zhenxiang Hao Gudrun Wanner |
| author_sort | Mengyuan Zhao |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T16:28:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-64c141674db74289ab1a5ab61121f141 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1424-8220 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T16:28:27Z |
| publishDate | 2023-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Sensors |
| spelling | doaj.art-64c141674db74289ab1a5ab61121f1412023-11-24T15:05:02ZengMDPI AGSensors1424-82202023-11-012322902410.3390/s23229024Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision InterferometryMengyuan Zhao0Yazheng Tao1Kevin Weber2Tim Kaune3Sönke Schuster4Zhenxiang Hao5Gudrun Wanner6Key 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, ChinaSchool of Fundamental Physics and Mathematical Sciences, Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou 310024, ChinaInstitute for Gravitational Physics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, GermanyMax Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, GermanyInstitute for Gravitational Physics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, GermanySchool of Fundamental Physics and Mathematical Sciences, Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou 310024, ChinaInstitute for Gravitational Physics, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, GermanyIn 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.https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/22/9024optical simulationdiffractionspace interferometry |
| spellingShingle | Mengyuan Zhao Yazheng Tao Kevin Weber Tim Kaune Sönke Schuster Zhenxiang Hao Gudrun Wanner Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry Sensors optical simulation diffraction space 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 | optical simulation diffraction space interferometry |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/23/22/9024 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mengyuanzhao methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT yazhengtao methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT kevinweber methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT timkaune methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT sonkeschuster methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT zhenxianghao methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry AT gudrunwanner methodcomparisonforsimulatingnongaussianbeamsanddiffractionforprecisioninterferometry |