Why Is the Paraboloidal Wavefront Approximation Valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yucheng
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wave Wave optics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the validity of the paraboloidal wavefront approximation in the context of varying amplitude and phase. It highlights that for large distances from the source, spherical wavefronts can be approximated as paraboloidal shapes, especially when considering points close to a specific location along the z-axis. The phase condition for points near a given point leads to a mathematical relationship that describes the wavefront's shape. The approximation remains valid under the assumption that the amplitude varies little over small distances. Overall, the conversation seeks to clarify the conditions under which the paraboloidal approximation holds true in wavefront analysis.
yucheng
Messages
232
Reaction score
57
Homework Statement
Try plotting....
Relevant Equations
$$U(\vec{r}) \approx \frac{A_0}{z} exp(-jkz) \exp(-jk\frac{x^2 + y^2}{2z})$$
We can either plot the real part of the complex amplitude, or the wavefront.

However, how is wavefront meaningful for varying amplitude? In order to plot the paraboloid, we must vary ##z##, which varies the amplitude ##\frac{A_0}{z}##. Unless the amplitude is varies little, i.e. ##1/z## approximately constant within ##\Delta z = \lambda##?

In the book Fundamentals of Photonics, Saleh & Teich, the author mentions that the phase of the second exponential function serves to bend the planar wavefronts into paraboloidal surfaces i.e. ##frac{x^2 + y^2}{2z} = \text{const}##, however, shouldn't it be ##z + frac{x^2 + y^2}{2z} = \text{const}## when plotting surfaces of constant phase i.e. wavefronts?

The result should look like this.

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From the link, they are considering spherical waves where $$U(\vec r) = \frac{A_0}{r}e^{-jkr}.$$ The phase is ##kr##. The true wavefronts are all spherical. For large distances from ##r = 0##, small patches of the wavefronts can be approximated by paraboloid-shaped wavefronts. (For very large distances, the wavefronts can be approximated by plane wavefronts.)

Consider moving out along the ##z## axis to some point ##P## with coordinates ##(x, y, z) = (0, 0, z_0)##. The phase of the wave at that point will be ##kz_0##. We look for points in the vicinity of ##P## for which the wave has the same phase. We assume ##z_0## is large enough so that points in the vicinity of ##P## will have coordinates ##(x, y, z)## satisfying ##x \ll z## and ##y \ll z##. For these points, $$r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2} \approx z + \frac{x^2+y^2}{2z} .$$ The condition that the phase ##kr## at these points be the same as at ##P## is $$k\left[ z + \frac{x^2+y^2}{2z}\right ] = k z_0$$ From this show that points near ##P## on the wavefront passing through ##P## have coordinates ##(x, y, z)## which satisfy $$z-z_0 \approx -\frac{x^2+y^2}{2z_0} .$$ Describe the shape of the locus of points ##(x, y, z)## satisfying $$z-z_0 = -\frac{x^2+y^2}{2z_0} .$$
 
TSny said:
$$z-z_0 \approx -\frac{x^2+y^2}{2z_0}$$
I guess this is the key. But why would it be a valid approximation though? Let me try a quantitative argument...
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top