- #1
apchar
- 11
- 0
The intensity (W/m^2) of an electromagnetic wave from an ordinary antenna decreases with the square of the distance from the emitter (in the far field.) Is the same true for a laser beam?
cepheid said:No, the inverse square law only applies for an isotropic emitter, not for beamed emission. That having been said, intensity does decrease with distance, since a laser beam is always somewhat divergent.
Born2bwire said:This can be thought of in the same way as we treat the problem with antennas. Antennas follow the inverse square law when we are in the far field. At such distances the antenna looks like a directed point source. The far field region is thus dependent upon the physical size of the antenna and the wavelength of the radiation which indicates at which point the radiator electrically looks like a point source (typically the distance is something like 2D^2/\lambda where D is the largest dimension of the radiator). If we apply the same idea to a laser pointer we see that the far field only occurs at astronomical (figuratively) distances. A handheld laser pointer is what, a 1-2 cm in diameter and emits red light? So that means that the far field is on the order of 1 km away.
apchar said:But the dimensions of an antenna have to be comparable to the wavelength to be effective (D ~ lambda), making the point at which the far field begins a wavelength or two away. Is the same not true for lasers?
What about scattered laser light?
apchar said:The intensity (W/m^2) of an electromagnetic wave from an ordinary antenna decreases with the square of the distance from the emitter (in the far field.) Is the same true for a laser beam?
Phrak said:Ideally, a collimated Bessel light beam is non-diffractive, and therefore not divergent over distance in vacuum. This is also true of a phased array of antenna. The aperture is also of infinite diameter (the complete Bessel function), so it is only approximated. An antenna array is of discrete sources, even with smoothing techniques, is already an approximation to a Bessel function, and at a disadvantage already.
Born2bwire said:Not just isotropic sources, but any finite source will follow the inverse square law, including lasers. The intensity of the beam is inversely proportional to the square of the beam width. The beam width is proportional to the distance along the beam's axis. So it still works out to be inverse square. However, the beam width also has a constant term and it scales the distance along the axis by another reference value. So it takes an appreciable distance until the beam width behaves asymptotically as proportional to the distance.
Claude Bile said:This is not true for an elliptical beam.
Elliptical beams possesses two rates of divergence, one rate in the orientation of the major axis, and the other in the orientation of the minor axis. The area does not scale as r^2, but as a.b, where a and b are the major and minor axes of the ellipse, meaning the irradiance of an elliptical beam can scale anywhere from r to r^2, depending on the ellipticity of the beam.
Claude.
Born2bwire said:Are there any examples of laser beams that propagate as elliptical beams? I have only ever seen the beams be approximated as Gaussian.
If you think this then, perhaps, you could tell us how a particular part of the beam 'knows' which part it is and can know 'how to diverge'. What you say implies that putting an elliptical mask at some point to restrict an isotropic beam will suddenly affect parts of the beam that don't actually touch the sides.Claude Bile said:This is not true for an elliptical beam.
Elliptical beams possesses two rates of divergence, one rate in the orientation of the major axis, and the other in the orientation of the minor axis. The area does not scale as r^2, but as a.b, where a and b are the major and minor axes of the ellipse, meaning the irradiance of an elliptical beam can scale anywhere from r to r^2, depending on the ellipticity of the beam.
Claude.
sophiecentaur said:If you think this then, perhaps, you could tell us how a particular part of the beam 'knows' which part it is and can know 'how to diverge'.
Andy Resnick said:That's easy- pass it through a shaped aperture.
sophiecentaur said:How is it that the distrubited mass of astronomical bodies doesn't promote the same 'inverse square failure of the gravitational field' worries? It is precisely the same geometrical situation. If people insist that lasers are, somehow, different then so are filament lightbulbs and stars. Get far enough away an we see the inverse square. Take the Solar System. Does that exhibit the inverse square law whilst you're using slingshot orbits? Likewise, one wouldn't expect the close behaviour of a laser to follow it.
sophiecentaur said:If you introduce an aperture then that becomes a secondary source (it diffraction pattern modifies the original wave. If it's a large aperture (any shape you like) you won't see any difference. If it's a tiny aperture then its diffraction pattern will dominate and you then, effectively, have another radiating source and the ISL will start to apply from there onwards.
.
Andy Resnick said:That's easy- pass it through a shaped aperture.
Andy Resnick said:I'm not sure what you are getting at- you asked how light 'knows' how much to diffract, given the existence of an elliptical beam. Non-axisymmetric apertures produce non-axisymmetric beams, even in the far field: Fraunhofer diffraction pattern.
sophiecentaur said:I don't see how the asymmetry of a beam, formed as a result of some diffraction process (i.e. any optics you care to mention) can affect the spread at great distances. If each infinitesimal / omnidirectional contribution follows the ISL then the far field resultant will also follow the ISL (the patterns are multiplicative, aren't they?) Things could only depart from this if the light were to bend on its journey through free space.
I understand that lasers behave quantitatively differently from other radiators because of their relatively large extent (in wavelengths) but there's nothing, in principle, between a laser and an array of dipole radiators, fed from the same source. The spreading loss of such an array is always calculated on the grounds that the ISL applies. This is in no way affected by the actual radiation pattern of the array. The two factors just multiply to find the final signal level.
Or are you talking about something entirely different?
R^2 propagation loss refers to the decrease in intensity or power of a laser beam as it travels through a medium due to the inverse square law. This means that as the distance from the source increases, the intensity of the laser beam decreases by a factor of the square of the distance.
R^2 propagation loss in lasers is caused by the scattering and absorption of photons as they travel through a medium. This is due to interactions with molecules and particles in the medium, which cause the laser beam to spread out and decrease in intensity over distance.
R^2 propagation loss is typically measured by comparing the intensity of the laser beam at different distances from the source. A detector or sensor is used to measure the intensity of the beam, and the results are plotted on a graph to show the decrease in intensity over distance.
R^2 propagation loss cannot be completely prevented, but it can be minimized by using high-quality materials and optics, as well as carefully controlling the environment in which the laser is used. Additionally, using shorter wavelengths and higher power lasers can help reduce the effects of R^2 propagation loss.
The main practical implication of R^2 propagation loss is that it limits the distance and precision at which lasers can be used. This must be taken into consideration when designing laser systems for various applications, such as communication, manufacturing, and medical procedures.