Abstract
This work presents an approach for constructing equations describing the effects of atmospheric turbulence on propagating light based on equations and concepts that will be familiar to those with a background in paraxial wave-optics modeling. The approach is developed and demonstrated by working through three examples of increasing complexity: the variance and power spectral density of the aperture-averaged phase gradient (G tilt) on a point-source beacon, the variance of the Zernike tilt difference between two physically separated point-source beacons, and the irradiance-weighted average phase gradient (centroid tilt) and target-plane jitter variance for a generic beam. The first two results are shown to be consistent with the existing literature; the third is novel, and it is shown to agree with wave optics and to be consistent with the literature in the special case of a Gaussian beam.
© 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
Corrections
Scot E. J. Shaw and Erin M. Tomlinson, "Analytic propagation variances and power spectral densities from a wave-optics perspective: publisher’s note," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 36, 1333-1333 (2019)https://opg.optica.org/josaa/abstract.cfm?uri=josaa-36-8-1333
5 July 2019: Typographical corrections were made to the math.
8 July 2019: Typographical corrections were made to the math.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper lays out a methodology for solving problems of electromagnetic wave propagation in turbulence. Until recently, we (the authors) would have had two choices to find a quantity like jitter variance: apply an existing analytic result from the literature or model the propagation numerically and generate statistics through Monte Carlo simulations. While a number of such equations exist in the literature [1–3], and Sasiela formalized existing approaches into a general-purpose methodology for generating such expressions [4], we have found that a great deal of mathematical sophistication is necessary to apply those methods to anything novel. We have formulated a different approach to deriving these sorts of analytic expressions, built on equations and concepts that will be familiar to any reader with a background in paraxial wave-optics modeling. We lay out that approach in this paper, providing a method to understand and generate analytic expressions for the statistics of atmospheric propagation.
The central concept of our approach is that, just as we build up atmospheric turbulence in wave optics by summing appropriately weighted Fourier components, we can calculate atmospheric effects by first understanding the effect of a single sinusoid and then summing the appropriately weighted results. The development in this paper has many commonalities with that found in Sasiela, and it was in fact a study of that text that led to our current understanding. The advantage of this approach over previous treatments is that it will allow a wider audience that is not comfortable with the methods of random field theory and stochastic calculus to solve problems of practical interest; readers who are comfortable with existing analytic methods may also find that additional insight can be gained from our approach. We will draw on equations, literature, and phenomena likely to be familiar to those who study atmospheric propagation, such as the paraxial propagator and the methods used to generate turbulence phase screens, with each step of the development anchored in physical intuition. The methods described in this paper do involve approximations that become inaccurate for scenarios with Rytov (log-amplitude) variance , which is the same limit faced by analytic techniques derived from the first-order Rytov approximation [5].
The primary purpose of this paper, rather than to derive new results, is to explain our new methodology and to demonstrate its validity via agreement with well-established results. We will work through three examples of increasing complexity, laying the groundwork for important quantities and finding several expressions that can be compared with results in the literature. We will begin with gradient tilt, using light from a point-source beacon as an example case while developing the general methods and master equations for finding variances and power spectral densities (PSDs). We then work with Zernike tilt, using two offset beams as an example while developing the general methods to handle anisoplanatic effects. Finally, we will show how to derive expressions for the centroid motion of a generic beam using centroid tilt, arriving at results that do not currently exist in the literature. Using the equations and methods developed in our examples, readers who were daunted by previous methods will have new tools to derive analytic variances and PSDs for novel problems applicable to their research.
2. GRADIENT TILT VARIANCE AND POWER SPECTRUM
In this section, we take as an example light from a point-source beacon that travels a distance through atmospheric turbulence and passes through a circular aperture. We then wish to find the variance and power spectral density of the gradient tilt (G tilt) of the field in that aperture. In wave optics, we would calculate this by setting up the initial point-source field, propagating it through a series of discrete phase screens, clipping and collimating at the aperture, and then calculating G tilt on the field; this path is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The resulting time series of G tilt would give us a variance and a PSD, and by running many independent realizations of the atmosphere we would build up ensemble-averaged statistics. In this section, we will work through the mathematics to find analytic expressions for those same ensemble-averaged variances and PSDs.
A. Propagation of a Sinusoidal Phase Profile
In wave optics, we are accustomed to thinking of the effects of atmospheric turbulence as being approximated by a series of discrete phase screens as we have drawn in Fig. 1. Let us take this concept one step further by considering the effect of a single sinusoidal phase profile with transverse wave vector , applied to our field at some position along the path as follows:
where is the transverse spatial coordinate and is the phase offset of the sinusoid in the transverse plane. The sinusoid in Eq. (1) can be thought of as turbulence at position with only one Fourier component. As the light propagates from where this phase is applied to the aperture at where we will make our measurements, both geometric expansion and diffractive effects alter the phase profile. This would be a simple propagation to set up in wave-optics code, and we can find the resulting phase analytically by applying the same paraxial propagation equation that is typically found in such code. This calculation is treated in detail in Appendix A, where we apply a small amplitude weighting to the sinusoid, then evaluate paraxial propagation equations and a first-order series expansion of the phase. The result from Eq. (A8) for our normalized sinusoid in Eq. (1) is where is the diameter of the aperture at the end of the path, is the diameter of the cone of light at where we apply the phase, and is the wave number of the propagating field. Even without the detailed development in Appendix A, we can understand these terms intuitively. The in the sine term simply reflects a geometric stretching of the phase profile due to the expanding light cone. The second term, a cosine in multiplying the amplitude of the phase, reflects the diffractive conversion of phase to amplitude during propagation. We will refer to this cosine as the Talbot term because, as shown in Appendix A, it can be related to the Talbot effect for the sinusoidal phase profile. We have omitted the small amplitude multiplier called for by the first-order approximation; since all of our expressions are linear in that amplitude, we will work with normalized phase and apply appropriate weighting when we introduce turbulence statistics. In deriving this expression, we have limited ourselves to weak turbulence with Rytov variance .B. G Tilt from a Sinusoidal Phase Profile
G tilt is proportional to the average wavefront gradient measured over some region . For a generic complex field , the component of G tilt in the direction is given by
Like many quantities of interest in propagation statistics, G tilt is a linear operator that acts on the real-valued phase . This property of linearity is crucial, since it will allow us to use the techniques of Fourier analysis to build our understanding of the effects of atmospheric turbulence from the analysis of single sinusoids. If we take to be a circle of diameter , the G tilt on our propagated sinusoidal phase profile in Eq. (2) is given by Integrals of this form are very common in these types of problems. We first evaluate the directional derivative of the sine term, then expand the dot products and evaluate the two-dimensional spatial integral to obtain Equation (5) gives us the G tilt in our aperture at due to a sinusoidal phase profile placed a distance from the beacon. Typically, we are more interested in ensemble-averaged (or long-time-averaged) quantities such as the mean and variance of . If we assume that all values of the phase offset are equally likely to occur in a statistical ensemble and note that only the term varies with , then the mean value of is zero by inspection, and its variance isC. G-Tilt Variance from a Turbulent Phase Profile
Now that we have an expression for the G-tilt variance measured at distance due to a single sinusoidal phase profile at , the next step is to use these sinusoids to construct a turbulent phase profile. From wave-optics modeling, this process is quite familiar: we model turbulence by adding together Fourier components with random phase offsets and amplitudes scaled by the appropriate power spectrum. Since G tilt is found by a linear operator acting on the phase, the G tilt due to this weighted sum of sinusoids is a sum of the G tilts caused by those sinusoids, as given in Eq. (5), with the same weights. Similarly, the fact that these sinusoids have independent random phases means that the ensemble-averaged G-tilt variance is the sum of the variances contributed by each sinusoid, as calculated with Eq. (6), again with the same spectral weighting as used to build the phase screen from Fourier components.
In Appendix B we show in detail how the methods that are used in wave optics for generating phase screens can be translated into the integral that is needed for this analytic approach. The key result for G-tilt variance, found in Eq. (B7), is
where is the differential G-tilt variance at that is contributed by an infinitesimal turbulent phase profile at location . Other than the exact value of the prefactor, the terms in this equation are rather intuitive. Working from right to left, we start with the -directed G-tilt variance due to a single sinusoid with wave vector at position , , as given in Eq. (6). This variance is weighted by the transverse turbulence power spectrum ; for the modified von Karman spectrum, with inner and outer scales imposed, respectively, by and {[4], Eq. (2.26)}, we have These weighted variance contributions are then integrated over the full spectrum. The scalar multiplier gives us the strength of the turbulence at each location along the path of propagation, with the differential to take an infinitesimal slice of the path.D. Path-Integrated G-Tilt Variance
The final step in our derivation is to integrate contributions to the G-tilt variance at from all turbulent phase profiles along the path of propagation. Mathematically, this step is trivial: integrating Eq. (7) from to and pulling terms as far out of the nested integrals as possible, we obtain
This result also appears in Appendix B as Eq. (B8). To illustrate the utility of this expression, let us substitute Eq. (6) for and Eq. (8), the modified von Karman spectrum, for to get The integral over gives us a factor of in the numerical prefactor, such that At this point the dependence on has dropped out of the expression, but we will retain the notion in order to indicate that this is a one-axis variance. This is as far as we can carry the result analytically without making additional approximations, but it is important to note that Eq. (11) is a perfectly valid expression that is amenable to numeric integration. In order to compare our results to the existing literature, however, let us consider Eq. (11) in the simplified case of Kolmogorov turbulence (taking and in the geometric-optics limit (omitting the Talbot diffraction term). The integral over can then be performed analytically, giving us Equation (12) is agnostic with respect to the propagation geometry. The one-axis G-tilt variance from a point source is obtained by setting , which gives a result that is identical to the expression reported by Tyler {[1], Eq. (77)}.E. G-Tilt Power Spectral Density
Once we have an expression for the variance of a quantity of interest like G tilt, we can obtain an expression for its PSD with very little additional effort: the conversion of a variance expression to a PSD expression can be accomplished with a change of variables. Other related techniques exist, such as finding a covariance expression and Fourier transforming it [1], but the method described here allows us to arrive at the required mathematical transformation directly from our intuition about wave-optics modeling.
The first thing that we need to do is introduce time dependence into our phase profiles. We adopt Taylor’s frozen turbulence hypothesis, which allows us to assume that all temporal variation is attributable to turbulent phase drifting through the path of propagation at apparent wind velocity . Mathematically, as we would do in wave-optics modeling, this means that we add a time-dependent phase shift to the sinusoid in Eq. (1), . This substitution for carries through our propagation calculations, so that the phase profile after propagation from to is
The additional term that we have introduced has no effect on the variance calculations we have done so far, as the time-dependent term gives us a phase shift that disappears when we perform the average over . It does, however, allow us to see that this phase contribution will vary periodically in time with a frequency which we invert to give us the variable transformation from to We also add a variable transformation for the angular component, taking This transformation allows us to easily accommodate the change in domain for the transformed integral, giving us Applying this variable transformation to the path-integrated variance in Eq. (9), we have where we have explicitly broken the argument of on the right-hand side into and to allow for the explicit variable transformation. Noting the general relationship between a variance and a one-sided PSD, we can drop the integral from Eq. (18) and consolidate terms to get the path-integrated PSD equation This expression enables us to write down PSDs using the same building blocks that we used previously for variances. Though the variable transformation from to makes these expressions longer, they are still straightforward to construct and are amenable to numeric evaluation. To make a comparison to the literature, we again make some simplifications: we take a Kolmogorov turbulence spectrum for , using Eq. (8) in the limit of and , and for we take Eq. (6) for the G-tilt variance, omitting the Talbot cosine term to ignore diffraction. With these substitutions, Eq. (20) gives us This result can be shown to be the same as that from Hogge and Butts in the appropriate limit [2]. If we sum the PSDs in orthogonal directions to get a two-axis result and divide by 2 to get a two-sided PSD, variable transformations reproduce the result from Tyler [1].3. MASTER EQUATIONS FOR VARIANCES AND PSDS
In the previous section, we showed how to derive expressions for the variance and PSD of G tilt integrated over an atmospheric channel. Though derived for G tilt, the expressions we found are trivially generalizable into master equations for variances and PSDs of other quantities. Dropping the subscripts from Eq. (9) gives us the variance master equation
Our intuitive understanding of the nested integrals still applies: we have the variance of some quantity due to a single sinusoidal phase profile of wave vector at position , weighted by the turbulence power spectrum , integrated over all , then weighted by the turbulence strength and integrated along the path.Similarly, Eq. (20) becomes the PSD master equation
which is related to the variance equation by the introduction of transverse velocity and a variable transformation into the temporal-frequency domain.To apply these master equations to any new quantity, we simply need to find the variance that we measure at due to a single sinusoidal phase profile at . We have already seen how to do this for G tilt; the following sections will show how to do it for Zernike tilt (Z tilt) or other Zernike modes, anisoplanatic differences between quantities, C tilt, and centroid jitter.
4. ZERNIKE TILT ANISOPLANATISM
In Section 2, we showed how to derive expressions for the variance and PSD of a quantity integrated over an atmospheric channel using G tilt as an example. A similar derivation for Z tilt would use the master equations in Section 3 and follow the G-tilt development so closely that there is not much additional value in going through it here. There are, however, many quantities that we might be interested in calculating that are combinations of simpler measurements; in this section, we will increase complexity, showing the method for finding anisoplanatic effects. As our example, we will find the difference in Z tilt for two beams propagating along paths with a spatial offset as illustrated in Fig. 2.
A. Z Tilt from a Sinusoidal Phase Profile
Since we have not worked with Z tilt yet in this paper, we will begin by finding the basic expressions for the Z tilt and Z-tilt variance of a single beam. Z tilt is the amount of overall linear phase tilt present in a field over a circular aperture; as with G tilt, this is a linear, phase-only measurement. Our first step, as with G tilt, is to determine the Z-tilt contribution from a sinusoidal phase profile and then determine the variance in the tilt from the ensemble of potential phases for that profile. We will again find the tilt in the direction of a unit vector oriented with the angle .
We measure the Z tilt on the beam by making use of the orthogonality of the Zernike modes on the circle, so we can determine the Z tilt present in a phase profile by taking the overlap of the phase with a simple phase ramp
Similar overlap calculations could be used to find the content of any Zernike mode in the phase profile. Using Eq. (2) for the phase at due to a sinusoidal profile applied at , and including a normalization factor so that integration over a circle of diameter picks out the phase tilt angle in radians, our tilt angle is thus found by an integral over the aperture such that In our final step, we have defined to contain all of the terms that do not change with ; this notation will significantly simplify our subsequent discussion of differential tilts, as the terms will be common to the two beams.As we did with G tilt, we can now turn this into an ensemble-averaged variance by calculating the average value of over all possible values of the phase as follows:
We note in passing that the overlap integral used to determine the Z tilt on a phase profile is linear, so that phase profiles made of summed Fourier components will have an overall Z tilt equal to the sum of the Z tilts of those components. As with G tilt, this allows us to decompose arbitrary phase profiles and to sum the variances of statistically independent sinusoidal profiles in an ensemble average. With the result in Eq. (28), we could thus apply the master equations in Section 3 to get the path-integrated Z-tilt variance and PSD on a single beam.B. Differential Z Tilt from a Sinusoidal Phase Profile
To get anisoplanatic effects, we compare beams with offsets either in space or time. In wave-optics modeling, this would mean propagating the two beams through the same set of phase screens, where they would pick up different Z tilts due to the offset. Analytically, any shift of the field in space or in time shows up in the equations as a modification to the phase , again because the beam passes through a different portion of the sinusoidal phase profile. For a spatial offset, we take for the initial phase in Eq. (1). This altered term is unchanged by propagation to and the calculation of Z tilt, so we make the same substitution in Eq. (27) and have
To get the Z-tilt anisoplanatism, we take the difference between the Z tilts for beams with different displacements; since only the relative displacement matters, we take The variance is again found as an ensemble average of over values as follows: The beam diameter , embedded in , is assumed to be the same for both beams. When we expand the square in the expectation value, the squares of the two cosine terms both average to , giving the Z-tilt variances of the two beams separately. The cross terms give us twice the covariance of the beams, which evaluates simply to leave us with the ensemble average Comparing the results in Eqs. (33) and (29), we see that the term in parentheses in Eq. (33) replaces a factor of 1/2 in Eq. (29). This comparison makes intuitive sense. That term in parentheses will go to zero any time the two beams are separated by an integer number of turbulence wavelengths in the direction, which reflects the fact that the two beams in this case will see identical phase profiles and pick up identical Z tilts. When the beams are separated by a half-integer number of turbulence wavelengths in the direction, the term in parentheses goes to 2, making the variance 4 times what it would be for a single beam; in this case, the beams get equal and opposite Z tilts, making the difference twice what a single beam would see and the variance 4 times greater.C. Path-Integrated Z-Tilt Anisoplanatism
In Eq. (33) we have the expression for the differential Z-tilt variance from a sinusoidal profile for two beams with an offset . With this in hand, calculating a path-integrated variance and PSD is a straightforward application of the master equations in Section 3; the fact that this single-sinusoid variance is for an anisoplanatic effect does not matter.
By making appropriate choices for and for the beams, we can derive a number of different anisoplanatic expressions. For example, as shown in Fig. 2, taking and allows us to find the differential jitter between two point sources separated by a distance but measured in the same aperture. At this stage, however, we do not need to specify these forms before we derive the path-integrated expression through turbulence. We take Eq. (22) and substitute Eq. (33) for and Eq. (8) for to have
where we have already pulled terms as far out in the nested integrals as possible. The inner integral can be evaluated analytically, giving us To get something to compare to results in the literature, we need to make some simplifications and specify the geometric terms. We reduce complexity by considering Kolmogorov turbulence, taking and , and by removing the cosine-squared Talbot term. With these simplifications and some regrouping of terms, our expression becomes We have grouped terms in this way to allow comparison to a result from Sasiela {[4], Eq. (6.61)}, which gives an expression for Z-tilt anisoplanatism for two point sources separated by measured in two apertures of the same separation. Our equation above gives a result in that geometry with and , which can be seen to be the same as the cited results with for the “parallel” case and for the “perpendicular” case.5. CENTROID TILT AND SCORING BEAM JITTER VARIANCE
Centroid motion on a target is directly related to centroid tilt (C tilt) and not the G or Z tilts typically considered in the literature. Because jitter of a directed-energy beam in the target plane is a central quantity in the analysis of directed-energy applications, we feel it important to develop the corrected expressions in this section. We do not know whether previous jitter analyses relied on Z tilt ([4], Section 4.7) because of an incorrect assumption that Z tilt is the quantity directly related to centroid motion or because the previous analytical approaches allowed for the treatment of Z tilt but not C tilt.
Unlike G and Z tilts, both of which are phase-only measurements, C tilt includes amplitude information, meaning that some of our initial treatment of it will differ from the previous sections. C tilt can be defined multiple ways; the most intuitive definition is that the centroid of the beam moves in the direction given by the C tilt, and C tilt gives the location of the centroid if that beam is propagated to focus. The most mathematically relevant definition for our development is that it is the irradiance-weighted gradient of the beam in the direction
for an arbitrary field , where is the total power in the beam. These two definitions are mathematically equivalent. Because C tilt is calculated with a gradient operator and an integral, it is linear in the addition of phase profiles, as were G and Z tilts. Unlike those other tilts, however, C tilt is unchanged by vacuum propagation, even as phase is converted to amplitude by diffraction. These properties are derived in detail in Appendix C. It is worth noting that, because C tilt can be found by the irradiance-weighted gradient, it is sometimes referred to as the “intensity-weighted G tilt.” Though technically accurate, we feel that this name obscures the important relationship between C tilt and the centroid as well as the fundamentally different way that C and G tilts behave under propagation.A. C Tilt from a Sinusoidal Phase Profile
For G and Z tilts, we started by finding the phase profile at , where we were measuring the tilt, that resulted from a sinusoidal profile at . That phase profile and its tilt content were changed by propagation from to , and tilt had to be measured with the phase as it appeared in the aperture. Since G and Z tilts are phase-only quantities, this analysis sufficed. C tilt, however, includes both phase and amplitude information, so we would need to ask not only how the sinusoidal phase is changed by propagation but also how that phase converts to amplitude and how itself changes. We are saved from this more complex analysis, however, by the fact that C tilt is unaffected by propagation in the paraxial limit (proven in Appendix C.B). This means that we can do our C-tilt calculation at without having to know how the field changes in propagating to .
Applying Eq. (37) to the sinusoidal phase profile from Eq. (1), we have
Because we have not specified anything about , we cannot evaluate any more integrals analytically. Without loss of generality, however, we can replace the cosine transform in this result with the more familiar Fourier transform by writing where “Re” indicates taking the real part of the quantity in braces. To get an ensemble-averaged C-tilt variance, we again average over values, giving us the varianceB. Centroid Motion
In the previous section, we found expressions for the C tilt imparted to a beam by a sinusoidal phase profile. C tilt indicates the direction that the centroid is moving; the actual measured motion of the centroid after propagation is this tilt times the propagation distance. Thus, the centroid motion measured at in direction due to the sinusoidal phase at a position is
and the ensemble-averaged variance is We have denoted centroid motion at the end of the path with to distinguish it from the C tilt on the beam.C. Centroid Jitter Variance on a Target
We are now in a position to find the quantity that motivated interest in C tilt to begin with, the centroid jitter variance of a beam in the target plane. We take Eq. (22) for our path-integrated variance and substitute Eq. (43) for and the modified von Karman in Eq. (8) to have
This result for the one-axis jitter of an arbitrary beam profile is novel. If we drop the term, we can simplify to a two-axis variance, reducing to a result from Klyatskin [6]. Though no further simplification is necessary, simplification is possible in some special cases. For example, if the beam has circular symmetry and the turbulence is weak enough to approximately preserve that symmetry, we replace the in with . Since the Fourier transform of is itself both real and circularly symmetric, equivalent to the Hankel transform, we can evaluate the integral; doing so and rearranging terms gives us Because we are working with centroid tilt, we are still carrying the term for the transverse irradiance profile in Eqs. (44) and (45). In general, this expression is one that we will need to evaluate numerically. In the weak-turbulence limit, it is reasonable to find path-integrated statistics by pre-calculating or analytically determining the vacuum-propagation values of and using them in the integrals above.D. Gaussian-Beam Centroid Jitter
For the special case of a circular Gaussian beam, the irradiance profile has the simple analytic form
where the form of depends on the geometry of the problem, similar to the terms we carried for G and Z tilts. The Fourier transform of this normalized Gaussian is another Gaussian, . Substituting this transform into Eq. (45) gives us This result can be shown to be very similar to one from Andrews and Phillips {[3], Eq. (6.88)}, with our final term replaced by . They introduce this term as a “large-scale filter function” to separate beam wander from beam spread, but we find that their term does not capture all centroid motion.If we take Eq. (47) in the limit of Kolmogorov turbulence, the inner integral has an analytic solution, leaving us with
This result is similar to an equation from Sasiela {[4], Eq. (4.56)} that was derived for a focused top-hat beam using Z tilt rather than C tilt and neglecting diffraction. In comparing these equations, note that Sasiela incorrectly identifies his result as a one-axis jitter; following his math, we conclude that it is actually a two-axis jitter.To test these new analytic results, we have made comparisons between them and Monte Carlo wave-optics results for beam jitter, shown in Fig. 3. For a top-hat beam, we get good agreement with our analytic results in Eq. (45) up through a spherical-wave Rytov variance of 0.3. Between a Rytov variance of 0.3 and 0.4, the analytic curves begin to differ from the wave-optics results as the weak-turbulence approximations in our analytic treatment break down. Figure 3 also shows results for a focused Gaussian beam, using the known analytic expression for and taking to approximate the far field of the top-hat beam. We again see good agreement between wave optics and the analytic results here, using Eq. (48), with disagreement appearing at the same strong-turbulence regime. The top-hat analytic results are a constant factor of 0.874 times the Gaussian analytic results over the full range of the plot, suggesting that the much simpler result in Eq. (48) can be used as an approximation for the centroid jitter of other beam shapes with modest rescaling.
6. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have worked through the derivations for calculating G, Z, and C tilts, the centroid motion resulting from C tilt, and anisoplanatic effects. In all cases, we started with the effects of simple sinusoidal phase profiles and built up to path-integrated variances or PSDs. We have attempted to base that development on physical intuition or common wave-optics techniques to make it more accessible to readers with backgrounds like our own. The methods here and master equations in Section 3 can be applied for any phenomenon of interest, as long as that quantity is linear in the phase and can be calculated for a generic sinusoidal phase profile.
Though this approach is based on different starting points and intuition, the terms we have found are analogous to those in previous work, and our results are identical when calculated for the same conditions. We have, however, been able to derive expressions for C tilt on a generic beam, which were not present in previous analytic treatments and which allow us to find the correct centroid motion of a beam. There are many more results that could be found with the methods described here, and it is our hope that this approach will allow others to pursue such work in the future, starting with different intuition and backgrounds than assumed by other approaches in the literature.
APPENDIX A: THE PROPAGATION OF SINUSOIDAL PHASE PROFILES
In order to calculate some effects due to sinusoidal phase profiles, we need to know how those profiles change due to propagation from where they are applied to where they are measured. There are three classes of fields of interest: diverging spherical waves, converging spherical waves, and plane waves. We begin at with a field
where the parabolic phase of focal length in the first term can cover all three cases of interest, and the second term has our sinusoidal phase profile with amplitude , wave vector , and phase offset . We have defined the sign of such that a diverging beam, as illustrated in Fig. 4, has .Using the Jacobi–Anger expansion, we express the field in Eq. (A1) as the infinite sum
Because propagation is a linear operation, we can separately consider the propagation of each component in this sum. Applying the paraxial propagation equation {[7], Eq. (4-14)}, we haveAfter propagating a distance , we could expect the field to have a new focal length and to have changed in size by a transverse factor based on the simple ray-optics intuition suggested by Fig. 4. Using these definitions of and , it can be shown algebraically thatUsing this substitution in Eq. (A3), we then haveIn this form, the double integral is now the Fourier transform of the paraxial propagator with some variable changes and rescaling. Performing that Fourier transform ([7], Table 2.1) gives usThis is the exact expression for our propagated field. To make further analytic progress, we need to make a small- approximation to this result. Most operations in this paper are strictly linear in the phase, relying at most on the approximation of paraxial propagation. Our conclusions here about how sinusoidal phase profiles propagate are the exception where we need to make a weak-turbulence approximation to ensure linearity. Because our G- and Z-tilt calculations rely on these results, that makes all of them dependent on that approximation. In this limit we have , and the series to the first order in is equal to the first-order expansion of the more useful formThe first and second complex exponentials in this result are the global piston and focus after propagation, respectively. The third complex exponential gives the new sinusoidal phase profile. If we identify the normalized phase in Eq. (A1), we then havein Eq. (A7), where we have denoted that the phase is applied at but measured after propagation to , and we have substituted in one of the definitions of . We see that our original sinusoidal phase profile has been transversely rescaled and reduced in amplitude by the cosine factor. The final exponential in Eq. (A7) shows that this loss in amplitude of the phase profile is matched by a gain in a log-amplitude profile, such that the sum of phase variance and log-amplitude variance is conserved. The transverse rescaling of our phase profile is easily understood by the ray-optics picture in Fig. 4. The change in amplitude of the phase profile can be related to a known diffraction phenomenon if we rewrite the cosine amplitude factor in Eq. (A8) aswhere is the Talbot length. The well-known Talbot effect [7–10] occurs when a field with periodic structure sees that structure change under propagation but return to an exact copy of the original field after a propagation distance ([7], Section 4.5.3). We have shown that it holds for spherical wave fronts, provided that the Talbot length is modified by a geometric rescaling factor.APPENDIX B: BUILDING ATMOSPHERIC TURBULENCE FROM SINUSOIDS
The development of propagation statistics in this paper starts from the calculation of measurable effects from simple sinusoidal phase profiles. To apply these results to atmospheric turbulence, we need expressions that allow the combination of sinusoidal profiles as Fourier components of atmospheric turbulence with appropriate weighting for the turbulence spectrum.
We begin with the equation for generating a random realization of the phase change picked up by a propagating field due to a slab of atmosphere of thickness at location , given by [11]
where is a realization of delta-correlated, complex, Hermitian, Gaussian white noise with mean-square value , and is the power spectral density of , which we have assumed to be isotropic. If we let and , and we integrate over the half-plane to handle the Hermitian symmetry, we haveOur next steps depend only on measuring a quantity that is linear in the phase; taking G tilt as an example, we find that the G tilt applied by this realization of atmospheric turbulence, if applied at and measured at , is given bywhere we have introduced so that contains all of the terms in that do not vary with [see Eq. (5)].We now need to obtain the ensemble-averaged G-tilt variance Because and are independent at every in the half-plane, the ensemble averages can be brought inside the integrals and evaluated to give us
where is the G-tilt variance for a single sinusoidal profile over an ensemble of phase values as found in Eq. (6). Restoring the integral to be over the full plane gives usWe now introduce the form of for atmospheric turbulence [11],for a slab of atmosphere thick at some point along the propagation path, where is the scaled refractive index power spectral density [given for the modified von Karman spectrum in Eq. (8)]. If we take the limit and substitute Eq. (B6) into Eq. (B5), we get the differential G-tilt contribution for an infinitesimal portion of the path at as follows:In order to integrate both sides of Eq. (B7), we will need to neglect any atmospheric turbulence correlations along the axis. This assumption is justified as long as the propagation path spans many atmospheric correlation lengths ([12], Section 8.6). With this limitation in mind, we obtainwhich is the ensemble-averaged variance of the G tilt for propagation through atmospheric turbulence.APPENDIX C: PROPERTIES OF CENTROID TILT
In the existing literature on atmospheric propagation statistics, gradient and Zernike tilts (G and Z tilts) are the common quantities studied. Because centroid tilt (C tilt) is less familiar, it is worth working through the derivations of a number of fundamental properties that we rely on in this work.
A. Equivalent C-Tilt Definitions
There are two definitions that we will show to be equivalent in this section: C tilt can be defined as the irradiance-weighted average phase gradient or as the tilt angle measured by bringing a beam to focus and measuring the irradiance centroid location.
We start with an arbitrary complex field , with a total power given by
where denotes a Fourier transform. Keeping in mind that, in the paraxial regime, taking the Fourier transform is equivalent to propagating to focus, we can get our centroid measurement at focus by taking Applying the identity and dividing by to convert to an angular quantity for C tilt, we have By writing out the Fourier transform integrals explicitly and carrying out the leading integral, we generate a delta function and reduce this to Substituting for gives us For a differentiable with finite power, which should be true of any irradiance profile, Green’s theorem can be used to show that the first integral above goes to zero. This leaves giving the C tilt as the irradiance-weighted average phase gradient. Because C tilt is linear in the phase, as shown by this result, adding phase to a field merely adds the C tilt associated with the phase to the C tilt already on the field.B. Effect of Propagation on C Tilt
Suppose that we have a field and propagate it in vacuum a distance to . In this section we will show that the C tilts measured in these two planes are identical, without saying anything about how the irradiance profile may have changed. This will show that the paraxial propagator itself does not change C tilt on a beam, unlike G and Z tilts, both of which change under propagation.
Let us begin by considering the propagation between the planes as the convolution of the original with a propagator ([7], Section 4.2). This is most easily analyzed in Fourier space, where the convolution becomes a product
The transfer function , accepting the validity of the Fresnel approximation, is given by {[7], Eq. (4-20)} This means that Thus, the Fourier transforms of the fields before and after propagation have identical absolute squares, regardless of how the field itself may have changed. Since one definition of C tilt is the centroid of the absolute square of the Fourier transform, the fields before and after vacuum propagation have identical C tilts.C. Effect of Propagation on Centroid Measurements
In this section we show that the propagation of an arbitrary field with a given C tilt causes the irradiance centroid to shift by the C tilt times the propagation distance. This is for arbitrary vacuum propagation, not just propagation to focus, and is a key step to allowing integration of C tilts along a path to get the centroid motion on a target.
We start with the paraxial propagator from Goodman {[7], Eq. (4-17)},
where we can equate after the transform. Our irradiance centroid after propagation is now given by Using our variable identity to transform from to in the integrals, we have With our Fourier transform identity , this becomes If we write out the Fourier integrals explicitly and integrate over , we get a delta function and can reduce this to The first integral is a centroid measurement, and from Eq. (C4) we recognize the second integral as a C tilt, giving us Thus, under vacuum propagation, the centroid moves by an amount given by the propagation distance times the C tilt, without our needing to know anything about how the phase or irradiance profiles of the beam actually change.D. Integrating C Tilt and Centroid Motion Along a Path
Consider a beam that starts with no C tilt and a centroid at the origin, propagating from to . If we consider an infinitesimal slice of atmosphere at position , it will impart some small phase to the propagating beam. Given the irradiance profile of the beam as it passes through this portion of the atmosphere, we can apply the C-tilt operator to that new phase and calculate the differential C tilt that it applies to the beam, . Because propagation itself does not change the C tilt and C tilts add linearly, we merely add this new C tilt to the beam and can write
The final result of the previous section, Eq. (C16), can be written as the differential which we integrate along the path to give By the Cauchy formula for repeated integration, this becomes This result shows that the slice of atmosphere at each position along the path moves the centroid at the end of the path by the C tilt applied by that slice times the lever arm over which the tilt acts.Funding
Joint Directed Energy Transition Office (Air Force Contract FA8702-15-D-0001).
Acknowledgment
Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of the United States.
REFERENCES
1. G. A. Tyler, “Bandwidth considerations for tracking through turbulence,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 358–367 (1994). [CrossRef]
2. C. Hogge and R. Butts, “Frequency spectra for the geometric representation of wavefront distortions due to atmospheric turbulence,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 24, 144–154 (1976). [CrossRef]
3. L. C. Andrews and R. L. Phillips, Laser Beam Propagation through Random Media, 2nd ed. (SPIE, 2005).
4. R. J. Sasiela, Electromagnetic Wave Propagation in Turbulence, 2nd ed. (SPIE, 2007).
5. S. M. Rytov, Y. A. Kravtsov, and V. I. Tatarskii, Principles of Statistical Radiophysics (Springer-Verlag, 1989), Vol. 4.
6. V. I. Klyatskin and A. I. Kon, “On the displacement of spatially-bounded light beams in a turbulent medium in the Markovian-random-process approximation,” Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 15, 1056–1061 (1972). [CrossRef]
7. J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, 4th ed. (Roberts & Company, 2017).
8. H. F. Talbot, “Facts relating to optical science, No. IV,” Philos. Mag. 9(56), 401–407 (1836). [CrossRef]
9. L. Rayleigh, “On copying diffraction-gratings, and on some phenomena connected therewith,” Philos. Mag. 11(67), 196–205 (1881). [CrossRef]
10. M. Mansuripur, Classical Optics and its Applications, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University, 2009).
11. B. J. Herman and L. A. Strugala, “Method for inclusion of low-frequency contributions in numerical representations of atmospheric turbulence,” Proc. SPIE 1221, 183–192 (1990). [CrossRef]
12. J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics (Wiley Classics, 2000).