Optics and all...


Geometric Optics, Physical Optics

Geometric optics or ray optics deals with the light ray (no such thing in reality!). It's just a convenient model that works well in some cases but not all. Other models that extend further are wave optics (scalar waves, electromagnetic waves), quantum optics (photons)

Physical optics, or wave optics, involves study of phenomenon such as interference, diffraction, polarization for which the ray approximation of geometric optics is not valid. It doesn't include effects such as quantum noise in optical communication


Paraxial, First-order, and Gaussian

Paraxial Optics: deal with cases when the distances of rays from the axis approach zero, as do the angles of the rays relative to the axis. The ray-tracing equations in the paraxial limit are linear in angle and in distance from the axis, hence the term first-order optics (height and angle of light rays are computed with terms to the first order only and higher-order terms are ignored), which is often considered equivalent to paraxial. Note that there are no zeorth-order terms since the expansion is taken about the axis. A ray with an initial height and angle of zero is just a ray along the axis. The linearity of the paraxial equations makes them expressible in matrix form

Gaussian Optics: applies to those aspects of paraxial optics discovered by Gauss (Gauss 1840), who recognized that all rotationally symmetric systems of lens elements can be described paraxially by certain system properties. In particular, lenses can be treated as black boxes described by two axial length parameters and the locations of special points, called cardinal points, also called Gauss points. Once a lens is characterized by these cardinal points, knowledge of its actual makeup is unnecessary for many purposes. Eg., given the object location, the image location and magnification are determined from the gaussian parameters. In the limit of small heights and angles, the equations of collineation are identical to those of paraxial optics


Collineation refers to a mathematical transformation that approximates the imaging action of a lens with homogeneous refractive indices in both object and image space. This transformation takes points to points, lines to lines, and planes to planes. With an actual lens, incoming rays become outgoing rays, so lines go exactly to lines. In general, however, rays that interest in object space do not intersect in image space, so points do not go to points, nor planes to planes. The collinear transformation is an approximate description of image geometry with the optical system as a black box. It is not a theory that describes the process of image formation.

The imaging described by collineation is, by definition, stigmatic everywhere, and planes are imaged without curvature. And for rotationally symmetric lenses, planes perpendicular to the axis are imaged without distortion. So the three conditions of Maxwellian perfection are satisfied for all conjugates. Consequently , collineation is often taken as describing ideal imaging of the entire object space. However, it is physically impossible for a lens to image as described by collineation, except for the special case of an afocal lens under the following condition:

$m = m_z = n/n'$ $\leftarrow$ important to ensure this if you are doing remote focusing

$m \rightarrow$ transverse magnification (lateral)

$m_z \rightarrow$ longitudinal magnification (axial)

$n \rightarrow$ refractive indices in object space

$n' \rightarrow$ refractive indices in image space

Since $m_\alpha m_z = m$, then $m_\alpha = 1$ (angular magnification)

In other words, angles in object space are preserved in image space i.e., same angles in both places.

Terminologies...

The Herschel condition is inconsistent with the Abbe-Sine condition unless $ m = \pm n/n'$. So, in general, stigmatic imaging in one plane precludes that in other planes. That is, perfect imaging of a volume is not possible.

For afocal systems, Sine and Herschel conditions are identical.


Fields $\mathcal{\vec E}$, $\mathcal{\vec B}$, $\mathcal{\vec D}$, $\mathcal{\vec H}$

Electric field or electric field strength, $\mathcal{\vec E}$

Magnetic field strength, $\mathcal{\vec H}$

Electric displacement field, $\mathcal{\vec D}$

Magnetic field, $\mathcal{\vec B}$

Relationship between these quantities:

$\mathcal{\vec D} = \epsilon_o \mathcal{\vec E} + \mathcal{\vec P}$

$ \mathcal{\vec H} = {\mu_o}^{-1} {\mathcal{\vec B}} - \mathcal{\vec M}$

In optical materials (in the UV, visible and IR wavelengths), magnetization $\mathcal{\vec M}$ is negligible, and as such $\mathcal{\vec H}$ and $\mathcal{\vec B}$ are related directly by a multiplicative factor (no additive term). Optics textbooks therefore use $\mathcal{\vec H}$ and $\mathcal{\vec B}$ liberally and often call $\mathcal{\vec H}$ the magnetic field


Gaussian Beams

Also discusses higher-order Hermite-Gauss and Laguerre-Gauss modes besides the familiar TEM_00 Gaussian beam


Scalar theory of diffraction

Key approximations and validity of this theory:

  1. Light field is approximated by a scalar wave-function (in reality, it's a vector EM-wave described by Maxwell's equations)
  2. Valid for apertures and objects $>> \lambda$ (most optical systems)
  3. Not valid for very small apertures, fiber optics, planar wave guides; also ignores polarization

Notation:

Light is an electromagnetic wave with coupled electric ($\mathcal{\vec E}$) and magnetic fields ($\mathcal{\vec B}$) traveling through space. In a homogeneous and isotropic medium, such as free space or a lens with constant refractive index, the electric and magnetic field vectors form a right-handed orthogonal triad with the direction of propagation. Disregarding polarization, each componenent of the fields, namely $\mathcal{E_x}$, $\mathcal{E_y}$, $\mathcal{E_z}$, $\mathcal{H_x}$, $\mathcal{H_y}$, $\mathcal{H_z}$, can be described by a real, harmonic, scalar, time-dependent function $\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t)$ called a wave-function:

$\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t) = a(\mathbf{r})cos(\phi \mathbf{r} - \omega t)$

It's called a wave-function as it is a solution to the homogeneous wave-equation (no current source or charge):

$ \left[\nabla ^{2} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \right] \mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t) = 0$

To simply calculations, a complex wave-function $U(\mathbf{r},t)$ is defined from the real wave-function $\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t)$. It is represented as:

$U(\mathbf{r},t) = a(\mathbf{r}) e^{j[\phi(\mathbf{r})-\omega t]} = U(\mathbf{r}) e^{-j \omega t}$

The real wave-function and the complex-wave functions are related as follows:

$\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t) = \operatorname{Re} \left[ U(\mathbf{r},t) \right]$

Note that we've assumed that the spatial and temporal components of a complex-wave function $U(\mathbf{r}, t)$ are separable into a purely spatial term and a purely temporal term. This separation of variables is what gives us the time-independent Helmholtz equation from the full wave-equation. Here, $ \omega$ denotes the angular frequency of light, and the complex amplitude $U(\mathbf{r})$ is purely spatial.

Both the complex wave-function $U(\mathbf{r},t)$ and the scalar wave-function $\mathcal{U}(\mathbf{r},t)$ satisfy the wave-equation:

$ \left[\nabla ^{2} - \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} \right] U(\mathbf{r}, t) = 0$

and, the complex amplitude function $U(\mathbf{r})$ satisfies the Helmholtz equation:

$ \left[\nabla ^{2} + \left( \frac{\omega}{c}\right)^2\right] {U}(\mathbf{r}) = 0$

$ \left[\nabla ^{2} + k^2\right] {U}(\mathbf{r}) = 0$

The Helmholtz equation follows directly from Maxwell equations under the condition of a homogeneous medium and an absence of sources. $\nabla^2$ is the Laplace operator i.e., partial second derivative wrt spatial co-ordinates, $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z^2}$

Further reading:

  1. Principles of Fourier Optics

  2. A treatment of "Scalar theory of diffraction" can be found on this Appendix of Applied Digital Optics (2009)

  3. Rayleigh-Sommerfeld Diffraction vs Fresnel-Kirchhoff, Fourier Propagation, and Poisson’s Spot link

  4. On Scalar Diffraction Theory


Fresnel-Kirchoff formulation

The Fresnel-Kirchoff formulation is a scalar theory of diffraction and enables us to predict diffraction effects under these conditions:

Outside this regime, the predictions of this formula is no longer accurate. Additionally, Fresnel-Kirchhoff’s formula does not correctly explain Poisson spot, a bright spot at the center observed in the near-field when light is blocked by a circular screen


Rayleigh-Sommerfeld formulation

The Rayleigh-Sommerfeld formulation is another scalar theory of diffraction and applies when $a >>\lambda$, typically by a factor of 10x or more. It makes a slightly different assumption about the field and its derivative at the boundaries of the aperture. As such, it overcomes the mathematical inconsistencies encountered by Fresnel-Kirchoff formulation and is able to explain the Poisson's spot as well as reproduce the diffracted field right behind the aperture ($z \gtrsim \lambda$), which Fresnel-Kirchoff fails to do. For this reason, the Rayleigh-Sommerfeld formulation is considered to be a "full" scalar solution.

The Rayleigh–Sommerfeld diffraction integral is believed to be more accurate than the Fresnel-Kirchhoff formulation because of its mathematical consistency, and also because of its ability to reproduce closely the diffracted field right behind the aperture. However, it has been shown experimentally that the Fresnel–Kirchhoff diffraction formulation gives more accurate results than Rayleigh–Sommerfeld theory (assuming that we are many wavelengths away form the diffracting aperture). Moreover, the Rayleigh–Sommerfeld theory is limited to a plane surface, which is a severe limitation, since we usually deal with curved surfaces in optics." From Appendix B: "Scalar Theory of Diffraction," Applied Digital Optics (2009)

Neither Fresnel-Kirchoff nor Rayleigh-Sommerfield take into account the coupled electric and magnetic vector fields, the vector nature of which cannot be ignored when $a \sim \lambda$ or $z < \lambda$


Scalar Wave solution for prapagation between two planes

  1. Full Solution = [Rayleigh-Sommerfield diffraction]. However, there is no general analytical solution for the calculation of an exact RSD. Therefore, numerical methods have to be used

  2. If distance between planes > a “few wavelengths” then Scalar Kirchoff Diffraction. This is Huygen’s Secondary Spherical wavelets plus obliquity factor due to 2-D whole in plane

  3. If distance between planes large and planes are small, then make small angle approximation to get Fresnel Diffraction, which replaces Spherical waves with Parabolic and ignores obliquity factor. Fresnel diffraction= multiplication in Fourier plane by a parabolic phase term. See this link for more


Fresnel and Fraunhofer diffraction


Near and Far field:

Fresnel number, $F =a^2/\lambda z$ coarsely determines the near/far diffraction regimes:

For example: With a 1 inch aperture and a 500nm beam, $a^2/\lambda$= 0.2 miles. So, the observation distance $z$ must be larger than 2 miles (an order of magnitude larger) for the Fraunhofer approximation to be valid!


Validity ranges:

Rayleigh-Sommerfeld: $a >> \lambda$ and $z \gtrsim \lambda$

Fresnel-Kirchoff: $a >> \lambda$ and $z >> \lambda$

Fresnel: $z >> a >> \lambda$

Fraunhofer: $z >> a^2/\lambda$

For Fresnel and Fraunhofer: observation plane close to the optic axis such that for any observation point on the plane, $r \approx z$

Typically a factor or 10x or more when $>>$


Fourier transform relations:

Fresnel diffraction: Field in the image plane is a 2D Fourier transform of the field at the aperture multiplied by a quadratic phase factor

Fraunhofer diffraction: Field in the image plane is a 2D Fourier transform of the field at the aperture


Lens: a Fourier transform operator


Optics in Python

Diffractive optics

Geometric optics (ray-tracing)


Other inactive projects

Scattering, Hologram, FDTD etc


Textbook: Understanding Optics with Python


Free packages (outside Python)


Commercial Packages for Optical Design

  1. Code-V (Synopsis) is >$10k for an annual subscription

  2. OpticStudio Premium (Zemax) is $7800 for an annual subscription

  3. OSLO (Lambda Research) is $3500 for a permanent USB single-license

  4. OpTaliX full version (educational purpose): 800 euros

  5. WinLens3D

Miscellaneous