1
$\begingroup$

One can define an electromagnetic pulse numerically through a field with a Gaussian temporal profile, $$E(t) = E_0\cos(\omega t)\exp(-t^2/t_p^2)$$

Here $E_0$ is the peak field, $\omega$ is the angular frequency, $t$ is time, and $t_p$ is the pulse duration. You can change the central wavelength, $\lambda$, by adjusting $\omega = 2\pi c/\lambda$ accordingly ($c$ is the speed of light).

Doing this for $\lambda = 4\:\rm \mu m$ and $10 \:\rm \mu m$, with $t_p = 60\:\rm fs$, I notice that the spectral widths are different: longer central wavelengths always have a broader spectral width. For example, I can define the wavelength range where the spectral intensity is at the $10^{-2}$ (normalized) intensity level. In that case, my range for $\lambda = 4\:\rm \mu m$ is $3.55\:\rm \mu m$ - $4.58\:\rm \mu m$, while for $\lambda = 10\:\rm \mu m$, my window is $\lambda = 7.6\:\rm \mu m$ - $\lambda = 14.6\:\rm \mu m$.

Is there any insight about why longer central wavelengths yield broader spectra?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Is there any insight about why longer central wavelengths yield broader spectra?

This is exclusively an effect (I would call it an artifact) of the fact that you're looking at the wavelength spectral decomposition instead of the frequency domain. The width in the frequency domain doesn't depend on the carrier frequency, but a constant frequency width translates to a different span of wavelengths depending on where you are in the spectrum.

To start with, there's no need to fiddle with numerics - the frequency-domain spectral representation of your pulse is easy enough to calculate, at $$ \tilde E(\Omega) = \int E(t) e^{i\Omega t} = \sqrt{\pi } t_p \frac{ e^{-\frac{1}{4} t_p^2 (\omega-\Omega )^2} + e^{-\frac{1}{4} t_p^2 (\omega+\Omega )^2}}{2} , $$ and it is just two gaussians of $\omega$-independent width $2/t_p$ centered at $\pm\omega$. So long as those two gaussians are far enough that they don't mess with each other (i.e. so long as $\omega t_p\gtrsim \pi$), then the $\Omega>0$ part of the spectrum is just a single gaussian of constant width.

For the examples you mention, a $t_p = 60 \:\rm fs$ pulse with a carrier wavelength of $4\:\rm \mu m$ and $10 \:\rm \mu m$, the widths are identical:

($4\:\rm \mu m$ in blue and $10 \:\rm \mu m$ in yellow; the horizontal axis is $\omega$ in $\rm rad/fs$).

As you can see, the Full Width at 1% Max is identical for both, at about $0.5\:\rm rad/fs$. However, if you then fold this over into frequency using $$ \lambda = \frac{2\pi c}{\omega} $$ then an equal frequency width will indeed produce a shorter span at shorter wavelengths, simply because of the way the frequency axis maps to the wavelength representation.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I see, so the angular frequency spectral bandwidths are identical, but the bandwidth in terms of wavelength is not the same by this logic. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 19:19
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\omega$ and $\lambda$ are not linearly related, this is the case. I believe that for 4 and 10 $\mu$m, given all else equal, the energy in each pulse is the same since that is a function of peak field (intensity $I$ ~ $E_0^2$). Maybe at longer wavelengths, since photons each have less energy individually, we need a broader (wavelength) bandwidth to fulfill energy conservation. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 19:26
  • $\begingroup$ @SeanDaley See edited answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 22:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Emilio, I wonder what this implies physically then. For example, supercontinuum generation is often reported in 'octaves' spanned in the wavelength spectrum [for instance, Opt. Lett. 28, 643 (2003)]. But in our discussion we see that longer central wavelengths already have broader (wavelength) spectra. Seems like reporting should be done in terms of frequency bandwidth, if we want to credit broadening solely to supercontinuum generation. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 22:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not really :-). "Octave-spanning" is invariant under the $x\mapsto 1/x$ transformation between the frequency and wavelength domains. It just says "the upper limit is more than twice the lower limit", and that holds equally well if you invert everything. Which is (partly) why we use the term. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 21, 2018 at 22:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.