.png){kind=icon}
Return
Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.3390/s23229024.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
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.
Keywords:
optical simulation
diffraction
space interferometry
Journal
IF:
3.5
Papers:
7.2W
Citations:
20.9W
Organization
Cited Papers
Life Cycle Assessment and Circular Economy: A Case Study of a Photovoltaic Solar Panel in Brazil
PREAI
ShareSaveShareSaveShareSaveFunctional possibilities of nonlinear crystals for laser frequency conversion: biaxial crystals
PREAI
ShareSaveThe Taiji Program in Space for gravitational wave physics and the nature of gravity.png)
NATIONAL SCIENCE REVIEWOAAI
NATIONAL SCIENCE REVIEWIF17.1
OAAIShareSave
ShareSave
View more