Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2006
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2006

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Recursive issue

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg65404] Recursive issue
  • From: Clifford Martin <camartin at snet.net>
  • Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:30:02 -0500 (EST)
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

    Group,
  
  Recently I've been working on diffraction propagation problems inside passive  laser cavities.  The standard approach was pioneered by Fox and Li (Bell  Systems Journal 1961) which is a numerical Fresnel propagator that the solution  is fed back into the kernel for each pass. Numerically (which is how Fox and Li  did it), the Mathematica solution is:
  
  The solution is for a one dimensional infinite strip mirror in 1 D.  The  inital parameters and the kernel are given by:
       
      l = 0.6328
      w = 2*25*l
      z = 100*l
      Kmat = Table[(l/5)*(Exp[I*(((2*Pi)/l)*z)]/
            Sqrt[I*l*z])*Exp[((-I)*((2*Pi)/l)*(x  - y)^2)/
             (2*z)], {x, -400*(l/5), 400*(l/5), l/5}, 
          {y, -400*(l/5), 400*(l/5), l/5}];
       
      Do[f[n] =. , {n, 0,  20}]  ( * This sets the recursive terms  to zero to start another run *)
       
      f[0] =  Table[If[Abs[x] < 25*l,  1, 0], 
          {x, -400*(l/5), 400*(l/5), l/5}];     (* This defines the initial intensity we set it to 1 *)
       
      f[n_] := f[n] = Kmat  . (f[n - 1]*f[0]); 
       
       (* This is the recursive equation where we  use f[0] to normalize the recurring propagation at each mirror *)
       
      (* The next bit is  various cases from f[1] to f[200] which show that the solution conveges to a  ?normal? mode solution after enough passes *)
       
      ListPlot[Abs[f[0]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True]; 
      ListPlot[Abs[f[1]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True]; 
      ListPlot[Abs[f[2]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True]; 
      ListPlot[Abs[f[5]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True]; 
      ListPlot[Abs[f[10]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True]; 
      ListPlot[Abs[f[20]],  PlotRange -> All, 
         PlotJoined -> True];
      ListPlot[Abs[f[200]],  PlotRange->All, PlotJoined->True];
       
       
      This works well and  as expected. Now for the problem (Sorry for the long set up!)
       
      This is Mathematica,  I thought, so I can write the integral propator explicity without worrying  about numerics .  So using the same  values of lamda, w and z, I write the initial intensity and the iterative kernel  as an integral equation and recursively:
       
      f[0, x_] = 1
      f[n_, x_] :=  (Exp[I*(((2*Pi)/l)*z)]/Sqrt[I*l*z])*
         Integrate[Exp[((-I)*((2*Pi)/l)*(q - x)^2)/(2*z)]*
           f[n - 1, q], {q, -w/2, w/2}]
       
      If you look at the  first pass the solution is correct exactly matching the numerical solution but  subsequent passes give the same solution as in pass 1 multiplied by a constant.  In other words, the recursion is not working to feed the solution back into the  kernel for the next step.  When you look  at the solution explicity (algebraicly ) for the first step it?s a bunch of Erf  functions with some constants. When you look at the second pass it?s the same  set of Erf functions multiplied by a larger constant.  It looks like the recursion is working outside in somehow. Is  there something I?m doing wrong in the explicit integral equation vs. the  numerical one?  Or is there a better way  to do the explicit recursive integral equation?
       
      It?s not that I  can?t solve this other ways. I?ve built a Fourier propagator and of course the  numerical Fox-Li solution. What I?m trying to understand is what is going wrong  with the explicit algebraic recursive solution.
       
      If any more detail  is needed I can write anyone off line and provide more details.
       
      Regards,
       
      Cliff
       
       
       
       
    


  • Prev by Date: Re: Problem with Thread over Plus?
  • Next by Date: again: roots of transcendental function...
  • Previous by thread: Re: solving
  • Next by thread: again: roots of transcendental function...