English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Method comparison for simulating non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry

Zhao meng, M., Tao, Y., Weber, K., Haase, T., Schuster, S., Hao, Z., et al. (2023). Method comparison for simulating non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry. Sensors, 23(22): 9024. doi:10.3390/s23229024.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
2210.06905.pdf (Preprint), 23MB
Name:
2210.06905.pdf
Description:
File downloaded from arXiv at 2023-12-12 15:36
OA-Status:
Green
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
:
sensors-23-09024.pdf (Publisher version), 22MB
Name:
sensors-23-09024.pdf
Description:
Open Access
OA-Status:
Gold
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Zhao meng, Mengyuan, Author
Tao, Yazheng, Author
Weber , Kevin1, Author
Haase, Tim1, Author           
Schuster, Sönke1, Author           
Hao, Zhenxiang, Author
Wanner, Gudrun1, Author           
Affiliations:
1Laser Interferometry & Gravitational Wave Astronomy, AEI-Hannover, MPI for Gravitational Physics, Max Planck Society, ou_24010              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: Physics, Optics, physics.optics
 Abstract: In the context of simulating precision laser interferometers, we compare via
several examples two wavefront decomposition methods: the Mode Expansion Method
(MEM) and the Gaussian beam decomposition (GBD) for their precision and
applicability. To judge 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, the quality of the MEM and GBD are
compared in several examples. We test here 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 extreme
far-field of millions of kilometers occurring in space-gravitational wave
detectors. Additionally, we compare the methods for aberrated wavefronts and
the interaction with optical components by testing reflections from differently
curved mirrors. We find that both methods can be generally 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, while for clipped Gaussian
beams and the interaction with surfaces, the GBD is more precise.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2022-10-132023-06-162023
 Publication Status: Issued
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: -
 Identifiers: arXiv: 2210.06905
DOI: 10.3390/s23229024
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Sensors
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 23 (22) Sequence Number: 9024 Start / End Page: - Identifier: -