Is This a Standard Formulation of a Gaussian Beam?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formulation of Gaussian beams in optics, comparing different mathematical expressions for intensity. Participants explore the implications of these formulations, their equivalence, and the physical meanings of the parameters involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two forms of the Gaussian beam intensity, questioning the absence of a specific term in one expression and the use of a different variable.
  • Another participant suggests that the two expressions might be equivalent, noting similarities in parameters but expressing uncertainty about their physical implications.
  • A further comment raises a concern about energy conservation in relation to the intensity and beam waist, seeking clarification on how these concepts relate.
  • Another participant provides an alternative formulation of the Gaussian beam in Cartesian coordinates, demonstrating a different approach to expressing the intensity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the equivalence of the two expressions or the implications for energy conservation. Multiple viewpoints and interpretations remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions and roles of parameters such as W, W0, and their implications for energy conservation in the context of Gaussian beams.

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.
 
Science 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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K