Skip to main content
Solved

Incoherent beam propagation with POP


Dror Shayovitz

Hi

I am trying to propagate a matrix of independent Gaussian beams incoherently, but for some reason it seems that the beams are still interfering with each other (i.e. it seems that the POP is propagating the beams coherently).

I have defined the beams as incoherent in a Multimode file:

 

 

Which looks like this:

 

In the far field the intensity looks like this:

 

It looks like there is interference (side lobes). Its possible to see it more clearly with a cross-section:

If the propagation was incoherent, then the intensity should not dip where I have indicated with the red arrows, right? In addition, I am getting a nonsensical beam parameter product which is too low and implies coherent propagation. 

Maybe this is a problem with sampling or window size? Or syntax in the Multimode file?

Can anyone help? :)

Best answer by Kevin Scales

The issue here is that while you can define the multimode beam using the INCOHERENT or COHERENT commands to control the initial phase, the subsequent propagation is always coherent. POP does not perform incoherent propagation. 

A better approach in this case might be to perform four separate propagations and then use ZPL to write a macro that can perform an incoherent sum using ZBFSUM and the value of zero for the first parameter.

View original
Did this topic help you find an answer to your question?

2 replies

Kevin Scales
En-Lightened
Forum|alt.badge.img+1
  • En-Lightened
  • 185 replies
  • Answer
  • December 28, 2023

The issue here is that while you can define the multimode beam using the INCOHERENT or COHERENT commands to control the initial phase, the subsequent propagation is always coherent. POP does not perform incoherent propagation. 

A better approach in this case might be to perform four separate propagations and then use ZPL to write a macro that can perform an incoherent sum using ZBFSUM and the value of zero for the first parameter.


Dror Shayovitz
  • Author
  • Single Emitter
  • 1 reply
  • December 31, 2023

Thanks for the explanation Kevin!


Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings