• 沒有找到結果。

Numerical explorations

3 Longitudinal foci: Meslin’s N-split lens

3.3 Numerical explorations

And hence, the disturbance at origin is

( )

with the Euler’s formula:

⎥⎦⎤

For example, if the focal length f=30000λ, a=3000λ and Δz=300λ, so that the disturbance at origin is

λ

) 150 0

( iA

U = .

3.3 Numerical explorations

In this section, we provide the result of numerical exploration. Without loss of generality, the focal length is taken as f=30,000λ, aperture radius a=3,000λ, and the separation distance along the z axis Δz=300λ or Δz=400λ. The plots of intensity distribution are normalized to 100. If with a He-Ne laser, the wavelength λ=632.8nm, then f=18.984 mm which is a typical lens, and the aperture a=1.90 mm, while Δz=0.18984 or =0.25312 mm are generally available. The observation plane is set at z=0 where the interference pattern can be clearly seen as shown in Fig. 3 where the

intensity distribution and the phase distribution for the case of N=2 (i.e., 2X1) are denoted with Fig. 3-3(1a) and Fig. 3-3(1b) respectively. The result (1a) is well known in literature [3,7]. The corresponding phase Fig. 3-3(1b) shows winding broken strips in distribution where the strip boundary indicates phase jumps as noted by the color changes in the plot. The connection between intensity and phase could be identified by the similarity sharing in the forms of distribution.

Next let us see the intensity distributions of N=6 (i.e., 2X3) and N=10 (i.e., 2X5), which are denoted by Fig. 3-3(3a) and Fig. 3-3(5a), while the corresponding phase distributions are shown in Fig. 3-3(3b) and Fig. 3-3(5b) respectively. Now, the N/2-fold rotational symmetry about the optical axis is clearly observed whereas there

is no rotational symmetry for N=2, though it is still 2/2-fold, i.e., 1-fold. On the other hand, the phase distribution displays the phase changes by π abruptly and as numerically identified that there are only two kinds of value in phase, i.e., ±

π

2. This is because the disturbance in this XY-plane is purely imaginary and this feature was also observed in the focal plane focused by a conventional focusing lens [3]. The origin is mainly the inversion symmetry in imaging for a conventional lens (singlet);

this also leads the same feature to the double-odd case.

Now we change to look on the cases of N=4 (i.e., 2X2), N=8 (i.e., 2X4), and N=12 (i.e., 2X6). The results are dramatically different and they are denoted with Fig.

3-3(2a), (4a), and (6a) for the intensity distribution respectively, while the corresponding phase distributions are labeled with Fig. 3-3(2b), (4b), and (6b) respectively. The phase has N-fold rotational anti-symmetry apart from a factor π about the optical axis in the XY-planes at z=0 as shown in Fig. 3-3 with the labels of Fig. 3-3(2b), (4b), (6b) and the intensity pattern in this plane has N-fold rotational symmetry as denoted by Fig. 3-3(2a), (4a), and (6a). The variations in phase distribution are much wild; the phase values are no more kept with only two values because of the disturbance is not purely imaginary.

In short, one could numerically identify that although the splitting operation is simply with an even number, there are two kinds of distribution and they could be further classified according the number of splitting, i.e., either double-even or double-odd.

Fig. 3-4 plots the intensity and phase distribution in the XY-plane having the same condition with Fig. 3-3 but the separation distance along the z-axis Δz now is 400λ. The embedded symmetry can still be observed but the intensity in the vicinity of the optical axis is faint. This destructive interference is caused by the nearly -180°

Gouy phase shift of between two beams focused by the “shifted” and “un-shifted”

half-lenses.

Fig. 3-5 and Fig. 3-6 show the intensity and phase distribution for N=2 in various XY-planes along the optical axis. From (a) to (i) the observation plane moves in a step

of 50λ from the first focus at F1, to the second focus, at F2. The separation distance along the z-axis Δz now is 400λ. As expected, there is no rotational symmetry property with respect to the optical axis.

The intensity and phase distribution for N=6 are plotted in Fig. 3-7 and Fig. 3-8 having the same condition with Fig. 3-5 and Fig. 3-6, respectively. The symmetry properties around the XY-plane passing through the mid-point of two foci can be readily observed from these figures. The 3-fold symmetry properties with respect to the optical axis are clearly shown in the intensity and phase distribution.

Fig. 3-9 and Fig. 3-10 show the intensity and phase distribution for N=4 and the intensity distribution has 2-fold symmetry and phase has 2-fold anti-symmetry can be readily observed. In the case of N=8, the intensity distribution has 4-fold symmetry and the phase distribution has 4-fold anti-symmetry are shown in Fig. 3-11 and Fig.

3-12, respectively.

Fig. 3-13 shows the on-axis intensity with the separation distance along the z-axis Δz=400λ. The maximum intensity for the two beams are located at F1 and F2 as

shown in Fig. 3-13 but the total maximum intensities are not located at F1 and F2

because of constructive and deconstructive interference. As expected, the intensity in the vicinity of the mid-point of two foci, z=0, are small due to the destructive interference caused by the nearly -180° Gouy phase shift.

Fig. 3-3 Normalized intensity distribution and the corresponding phase one in the XY-plane through the mid-point between two foci where the symbol (a) is for intensity and the symbol (b) is for phase, while (1) for N=2, (2) for N=4, (3) for N=6, (4) for N=8, (5) for N=10, and (6) for N=12. The separation distance along the z-axis Δz=300λ.

Fig. 3-4 Normalized intensity distribution and the corresponding phase one in the XY-plane through the mid-point between two foci where the symbol (a) is for intensity and the symbol (b) is for phase, while (1) for N=2, (2) for N=4, (3) for N=6, (4) for N=8, (5) for N=10, and (6) for N=12. The separation distance along the z-axis Δz=400λ.

Fig. 3-5 Normalized intensity distribution for N=2 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-6 The corresponding phase structure for N=2 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-7 Normalized intensity distribution for N=6 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-8 The corresponding phase structure for N=6 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-9 Normalized intensity distribution for N=4 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-10 The corresponding phase structure for N=4 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-11 Normalized intensity distribution for N=8 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-12 The corresponding phase structure for N=8 at various XY-planes along z-axis.

(a) z=-200λ, (b) z=-150λ, (c) z=-100λ, (d) z=-50λ, (e) z=0λ, (f) z=50λ, (g) z=100λ, (h) z=150λ, (i) z=200λ.

Fig. 3-13 The on-axis intensity and the intensity by two half-lenses are also plotted for comparison. The separation distance along the z-axis Δz=400λ.

Fig. 3-14 shows the intensity on mid-point of two foci varies with respect to the separation distance from Eq. (3-18). There is a region of small and zero intensity when the separation distance is in the vicinity of the multiplication of 2/AF, e.g. it is 400λ, 800λ and 1200λ etc. here. The zero intensity is resulted from the deconstructive interference while the mid-point is located at the minimum intensity contributed from one lens.

Fig. 3-14 Intensity on mid-point of two foci varies with respect to the separation distance Δz.

Fig. 3-15 shows the normalized intensity distribution through two foci for the case of double-odd where (a) for N=2 and (b) for N=6 in the XZ-plane and (c) for N=2 and (d) for N=6 in the YZ-plane. The symmetry properties with respect to the XY-plane at mid-point of two foci are clearly observed. The intensity in the XZ-plane

clearly shows the two foci by the two half-lenses and the dark region resulted from deconstructive interference in the vicinity of the mid-point of two foci

Fig. 3-15 Normalized intensity distribution near focus in the meridional plane. (a) N=2 and ψ=0, (b) N=6 and ψ=0, (c) N=2 and ψ=

π

2, (d) N=6 and ψ=

π

2.

Fig. 3-16 Normalized intensity distribution near focus in the meridional plane. (a) N=4 and ψ=

π

4, (b) N=8 and ψ=

π

8, (c) N=4 and ψ=3

π

4, (d) N=8 and ψ=3

π

8.

Fig. 3-16 shows the normalized intensity distribution through two foci for the case of double-even where (a) for N=4 and ψ=

π

4, (b) N=8 and ψ=

π

8, (c) N=4 and ψ=3

π

4, (d) N=8 and ψ=3

π

8. The symmetry properties with respect to the XY-plane at mid-point of two foci are clearly observed. The intensity in the meridional plane clearly shows the two foci by the two half-lenses.

3.4 Summary

In summary, the disturbances of a generalized N-split lens based on the configuration of the Meslin’s split-lens experiment have been derived analytically. It has been shown that the distributions have to be categorized into two different cases depending on whether the number of sectors N is double of an odd number (double-odd) or double of an even number (double-even). If the splitting is with double-even, the

amplitude and the phase follow 2 ) ( , , )

, ,

(

ψ π

U u v

ψ

v N u

U − + = and

π π ψ

ψ + =−Φ −

Φ 2 ) ( , , )

, ,

( u v

v N

u respectively. On the other hand, for the case of double-odd, the relation changes to hold with U(−u,v,

ψ

) =U(u,v,

ψ

) and

π ψ ψ

=−Φ −

Φ( u,v, ) (u,v, ) . The symmetrical properties are distinct with

conventional lens.

It is worthwhile to note that there is a symmetry transition for the case of double-even: the symmetry enforces the all N sectors of interference to have the same behaviors both in intensity and phase as the observation is right on the z=0 plane.

Essentially, there is one difference of angular rotation for the N/2-fold symmetries embedded in the distributions on the planes before and after z=0. However, there is no such symmetry transition for double-odd. It should be emphasized that the section of such a split-lens generalization is based on a consideration of focal-point distribution.

Based on classical Meslin’s split lens configuration, one could have the focal points to be distributed along the optical axis.

4

Quasi J 0 Bessel beam by Billet’s N-split lens

4.1 Introduction

This chapter studies the utilization of the focal property of a classical Billet’s split lens to create more focal points by splitting the lens and presents the results of a generalized Billet’s split lens, paying special attention to beam propagation. The generalization is implemented by splitting the lens further, i.e., by creating more focal points on the focal plane by distributing them circularly. The phenomena of field distribution and propagation associated with such a generalized split lens are quite complicated. This chapter explores the characteristics of beam propagation and analytically derives the asymptotic characteristics of beam propagation based on the stationary phase approximation and the moment-free Filon-type method. The underlying symmetry properties of these phenomena have previously explored [16].

Note that a Billet’s split lens has already been developed for multiple imaging and multichannel optical processing [15]. This chapter shows that a non-diffracting Bessel

beam [17] can be achieved with by the use of the unique Billet’s N-split lens if the number of splitting N is large enough, e.g.,

N≧

24.

The Bessel beam is novel because of its propagation invariant since Durnin et al.

[17] first reported the non-diffracting Bessel beam generated by an annular aperture [18]. The non-diffracting Bessel beams can also be generated by a phase optical element [19]. In additional to Bessel beam, the non-diffracting Mathiue-Gauss and parabolic Gauss beams are introduced by Gutierrez-Vega et al. [20]. Moreover, the non-diffracting beam with mosaic pattern can be created by an apertured axicon [21]

and the non-diffracting vortex beams have been studied by using an annular ring mask [22] or by focusing an array of laser arranged in a ring [23]. The width of annular aperture has to be small to produce a non-diffracting beam of long range [24-25] and hence, the energy loss is large. Diffractive optical element can generate an array of arbitrary focuses [26-27] and it is utilized as optical tweezers to trap and arrange particles in a particular shape [28-29], but it usually requires a complicated iterative calculation to obtain the phase/amplitude function. The advantage of the split-lens approach is that, unlike the annual aperture, this simple lens approach allows a much more throughput in creating the Bessel beam and hence the Bessel beam has more optical energy.

相關文件