Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry

Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/16944
dc.identifier.uri https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/17071
dc.contributor.author Zhao, Mengyuan
dc.contributor.author Tao, Yazheng
dc.contributor.author Weber, Kevin
dc.contributor.author Kaune, Tim
dc.contributor.author Schuster, Sönke
dc.contributor.author Hao, Zhenxiang
dc.contributor.author Wanner, Gudrun
dc.date.accessioned 2024-04-09T05:46:54Z
dc.date.available 2024-04-09T05:46:54Z
dc.date.issued 2023
dc.identifier.citation Zhao, M.; Tao, Y.; Weber, K.; Kaune, T.; Schuster, S. et al.: Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry. In: Sensors 23 (2023), Nr. 22, 9024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23229024
dc.description.abstract 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. eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Basel : MDPI
dc.relation.ispartofseries Sensors 23 (2023), Nr. 22
dc.rights CC BY 4.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
dc.subject diffraction eng
dc.subject optical simulation eng
dc.subject space interferometry eng
dc.subject.ddc 620 | Ingenieurwissenschaften und Maschinenbau
dc.title Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry eng
dc.type Article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.essn 1424-8220
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.3390/s23229024
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 22
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 23
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 9024
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Die Publikation erscheint in Sammlung(en):

  • An-Institute
    Frei zugängliche Publikationen aus An-Instituten der Leibniz Universität Hannover

Zur Kurzanzeige

 

Suche im Repositorium


Durchblättern

Mein Nutzer/innenkonto

Nutzungsstatistiken