Is This a Standard Formulation of a Gaussian Beam?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differences between two mathematical representations of Gaussian beams found in various texts. The first expression includes a term for the beam waist ratio, while the second uses a normalized variable R without this term, raising questions about their equivalence and the physical implications of these forms. Participants note that both expressions seem to describe the same phenomenon, with W and W0 appearing consistent across both forms. There is also a consideration of energy conservation in the context of beam intensity and waist, leading to a reformulation of the intensity in Cartesian coordinates. Overall, the thread seeks clarification on the physical meanings behind the different representations and their implications for beam behavior.
KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
In the book "Fundamentals of Photonics", the form of the Gaussian beam is written as
I(\rho,z) = I_0 \left(\frac{W_0}{W(z)}\right)^2\exp\left[-\frac{2\rho^2}{W^2(z)}\right]
where \rho = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}

However, in some books (I forgot which one), the author use the following form
I(R) = I_0 \exp\left[-\frac{R^2W_0^2}{W^2}\right]
where
R = \rho/W_0, \qquad \rho=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}

In the second expression, I don't know why there is no \left(W_0/W(z)\right)^2 in the amplitude and why he want to define R instead of using \rho directly? And what about W_0 and W in the second expression? Are they have some meaning as in the first one?

I forgot which book using such form, if you know any information, could you please tell me the title and author of the book? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Off hand (I'll admit I know nothing about the physics involved) it looks like the two expressions are equivalent, except for the 2 in the numerator of the first expression. W and W0 look like they are the same in both. The coeficient of both is I0. In one case the argument seems to be expressed, while the other may be implicit - again I don't know what any of this is supposed to be physically.
 
mathman said:
Off hand (I'll admit I know nothing about the physics involved) it looks like the two expressions are equivalent, except for the 2 in the numerator of the first expression. W and W0 look like they are the same in both. The coeficient of both is I0. In one case the argument seems to be expressed, while the other may be implicit - again I don't know what any of this is supposed to be physically.

Thanks. I am thinking one aspect on physics. Since the energy is conserved (the total energy of the input beam should be conserved after transported to some distance), so if the intensity is not inverse proportional to the waist, how to make the energy conserved? Please show me if I am wrong :)
 
I would first write the cross section of the beam traveling in the z direction in cartesian coordinates:

I(z) = I0 exp[-x2/2σx(z)2] exp[-y2/2σy(z)2]

where σx(z) and σy(z) are the rms widths of the Gaussian beam in the x and y directions at z.

This may be rewritten as

I(z) = I0 exp[-x2/2σx(z)2-y2/2σy(z)2]

and finally as

I(z) = I0 exp[-ρ2/2σ(z)2]

if σx(z) = σy(z), where ρ2 = x2 + y2.

Bob S
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top