2
$\begingroup$

I have a Gaussian beam somewhere away from the beam waist (also referred to as focus point). Then, according to text books (or wikipedia), the beam size $w$ is given by

$$ w(z) = w_0 \sqrt{ 1+\left(\frac{z}{z_R}\right)^2 }, $$

with $z$ the axial distance from the beam waist, $w_0$ the waist size and the Rayleigh length $z_R$ which is defined as

$$ z_R=\frac{\pi w_0^2}{\lambda_0}. $$

The radius of curvature of the phase fronts are given by

$$ R(z) = z \left( 1 + \left(\frac{z_R}{z}\right)^2 \right). $$

I have: $R$, $w$, and $\lambda_0$.

I am looking for: $w_0$, $z$, and $z_R$.

My idea was to solve the third equation for $z$,

$$ z_{1,2} = \frac{R}{2} \pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{R}{2} \right)^2 - z_R^2}, $$

and then inserting into the first equation

$$ w = w_0 \sqrt{ 1 + \left( \frac{ \frac{R}{2} \pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{R}{2} \right)^2 - z_R^2} }{z_R} \right)^2 }. $$

Inserting $z_R$ yields

$$ w = w_0 \sqrt{ 1 + \left( \frac{ \frac{R}{2} \pm \sqrt{\left( \frac{R}{2} \right)^2 - \left(\frac{\pi w_0^2}{\lambda_0}\right)^2} }{\frac{\pi w_0^2}{\lambda_0}} \right)^2 } $$

which is an equation for $w_0$. Since I am currently stuck solving it, my question is in principle twofold: what software/tool do you guys recommend me for solving such an equation for $w_0$ and if there is a different way determining the beam parameters (maybe I missed something) ?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Wolfram Mathematica, maybe? There is a Mathematica SE... $\endgroup$
    – auden
    Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 20:47
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I don't know, but I do know that I would square the first equation, and I would not carry around square roots. $\endgroup$
    – garyp
    Commented Jul 27, 2016 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ @heather I was not aware that you can such ''complicated'' (not in the mathematical sense...) things with the free version... thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Alf
    Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 5:46

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

When attacking a system of equations with square roots it is often helpful to get rid of the square roots until the very end (if possible). Good idea garyp.

Let's start with...

$$w^2 = w_0^2 \left( 1 + \frac{z^2}{z_R^2} \right)$$ $$z_R = \frac{\pi w_0^2}{\lambda_0}$$ $$R = z \left( 1 + \frac{z_R^2}{z^2}\right)$$

When I look at this system of equations I notice that $z_R = \pi w_0^2 / \lambda_0$ is only relating $z_R$ and $w_0$, two unknowns, with $\lambda_0$, a known. This means I can easily use $z_R = \pi w_0^2 / \lambda_0$ to replace either the $w_0$ or the $z_R$ in all of the equations and I would be down to two equations with two unknowns. I recommend getting rid of the $w_0^2$ first as it only shows up in one place.*

$$w^2 = \frac{\lambda_0 z_R}{\pi}\left( 1 + \frac{z^2}{z_R^2} \right)$$ $$R = z \left( 1 + \frac{z_R^2}{z^2}\right)$$

Now move the $\lambda_0/\pi$ to the left hand side and expand the right hand sides to see that there is symmetry in the two remaining equations.

$$ \frac{\pi w^2}{\lambda_0 } =z_R + \frac{z^2}{z_R}$$ $$R = z + \frac{z_R^2}{z}$$

Notice that if I make both right hand sides the same we can set them equal to each other.

$$ \frac{\pi w^2}{\lambda_0 }z_R =z_R^2 + z^2 $$ $$R z = z^2 + z_R^2$$

Now it is easy to use $ z = (\pi w^2/(\lambda_0 R))z_R$ to plug into the earlier forms .

$$ \frac{\pi w^2}{\lambda_0 } =z_R + \frac{z^2}{z_R} = z_R \left( 1 + \frac{\pi^2 w^4}{\lambda_0^2 R^2} \right) $$ $$R = z + \frac{z_R^2}{z} = z \left( 1 + \frac{ \lambda_0^2 R^2}{\pi^2w^4} \right) $$

The final results are

$$ z_R = \frac{ \pi \lambda_0 R^2 w^2 } {\lambda_0^2 R^2 + \pi^2 w^4} $$ $$ z =\frac{\pi^2 R w^4}{ \lambda_0^2 R^2 + \pi^2 w^4} $$

and we can use the relation for $z_R$ and $w_0$ to get

$$ w_0 = \frac{ \lambda_0 \left|R \right| w } {\sqrt{\lambda_0^2 R^2 + \pi^2 w^4}} $$

Now $w_0$ must be greater than $0$ and so must $w$ but $R$ could be positive or negative. Therefore we need an absolute value on the $R$ in the above equation.

heather was right in that Mathematica would be very helpful.

Solve[{w^2 == w0^2 (1 + z^2/zr^2), zr == \[Pi] w0^2/lambda0, R == z (1 + zr^2/z^2)}, {w0, z, zr}] // FullSimplify

*I would like to mention that this step wasn't obvious to me from the start. I figured it out by realizing that $\pi/\lambda_0$ was not that important so I set $\lambda=\pi$. This way I could see the key features of the equations without the mess of coefficients.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The easiest way to do this is via the complex beam parameter $q$, which is given by $$ \frac1q = \frac{1}{z+iz_R} = \frac{1}{R(z)}-i\frac{\lambda_0}{\pi w(z)^2}. $$ In your case you know all three parameters on the right hand side, so you know $q$, and therefore you can determine $z$ and $z_R$ as its real and imaginary parts. Doing this explicitly, \begin{align} q & = \frac{1}{\frac{1}{R(z)}-i\frac{\lambda_0}{\pi w(z)^2}} \\ & = \frac{ R(z)\pi w(z)^2}{\pi w(z)^2-i\lambda_0R(z)} \\ & = \frac{ R(z)\pi w(z)^2}{\pi w(z)^2-i\lambda_0R(z)} \frac{\pi w(z)^2+i\lambda_0R(z)}{\pi w(z)^2+i\lambda_0R(z)} \\ & = \frac{ R(z)\pi w(z)^2}{\pi^2 w(z)^4+\lambda_0^2R(z)^2}\left(\pi w(z)^2+i\lambda_0R(z)\right), \end{align} and from there you can read off $$ z= \frac{R(z)\pi^2 w(z)^4}{\pi^2 w(z)^4+\lambda_0^2R(z)^2} $$ and $$ z_R= \frac{\lambda_0R(z)^2\pi w(z)^2}{\pi^2 w(z)^4+\lambda_0^2R(z)^2}. $$ Finally, the beam waist is determined by the Rayleigh range: $$ w_0^2 =\frac{\lambda_0}{\pi}z_R = \frac{\lambda_0^2 R(z)^2 w(z)^2}{\pi^2 w(z)^4+\lambda_0^2R(z)^2}, $$ so $$ w_0 = \frac{\lambda_0 R(z) w(z)}{\sqrt{\pi^2 w(z)^4+\lambda_0^2R(z)^2}}. $$ These agree with LasersMatter's results, but the $q$ route is a lot easier.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ wow, nice, I was not aware of the complex beam parameter! That is more elegant, I agree (sorry, I cannot accept 2 answers...). I definitely have to read up on Gaussian beams... $\endgroup$
    – Alf
    Commented Jul 28, 2016 at 6:03

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.