Laser physics question about Milonni book

Click For Summary
In the discussion about Peter Milonni's book "Laser Physics," users seek clarification on the terms p(z) and q(z) in the Gaussian beam equation. It is noted that both p(z) and q(z) are functions of z, not arbitrary constants, and are derived from the paraxial wave equation. The relationship for q(z) is defined in terms of the wavefront radius of curvature R and the spot size w. The term eip(z) represents a complex number that conveys information about the electric field's magnitude and phase variations along the beam's axis. The discussion concludes with a suggestion that the notation could have been simplified.
contempquant
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I have the book by Peter Milonni, Laser Physics. Does anyone who has this know what the p(z) and q(z) represent in the equation on gaussian beam solution to a 'beamlike' wave on page 282, under the chapter 7.5 "Gaussian beams"?

\epsilon(\bar{r})=Ae^{ik(x^{2}+y^{2})/{2q(z)}}e^{ip(z)}

I can't work it out, and can't find any previous info on them in the book, are they just arbitrary constants?
 
Science news on Phys.org
The book Lasers by Milonni & Eberly has the same equation in section 14.5, "Gaussian Beams", along with a derivation of q(z) and p(z).

They are assuming a solution to the paraxial equation of the form you wrote, where q and p are functions of z (not constants) that are to be worked out using the paraxial wave equation appearing on the previous page.

The Milloni & Eberly book proceeds with a derivation of what q and p are -- does your book not do this? At any rate, it turns out that q is defined in terms of the wavefront radius of curvature R and spot size w by

1/q(z) = 1/R(z) + iλ/(πw2(z))​

The factor eip(z) is a complex number, and gives the following information about the beam:
  • The z-dependence of the on-axis (x=y=0) electric field magnitude, and
  • Variations in the on-axis phase; more specifically, departures from the approximate eikz phase dependence.

I'm not really sure why he/they wrote it as eip(z), it seems they could more simply have written it as say f(z), without the exponential.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K