1 / 1

E R(nr) non-resonant reflection

The minimum reflection regime. "ordinary" selective reflection. Conclusion. (model). zoom at. The raw and derivative signals. How to change the interference condition in the window? very easily, by changing the window temperature For 0.5 mm sapphire window and l= 852nm :

fraley
Download Presentation

E R(nr) non-resonant reflection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The minimum reflection regime "ordinary" selective reflection Conclusion (model) zoom at... The raw and derivative signals How tochange the interferenceconditionin the window? very easily, by changing the window temperature For 0.5 mm sapphire window andl=852nm: T  30°C  2 change of the interference (see Jahier et al, Appl Phys B71 (2000), 561 for the use of the "temperature tuning" of the windows for reflection-loss free vapour cells) The raw signal on the Cs D1 line (6S 6P3/2,, F'=2,3,4) amplitude-and-phase diagram amplitude-and-phase diagram F'= 4 F'= 3 raw derivative (non-resonnant) reflection at the interface The model and experiment agree very well(no fitted parameter!) on the size and the temperature dependance of the spectra. By using a "temperature tunable" window, one can detect at will - the real (dispersive) part - or the imaginary (absorptive) part of the atomic response. S/N is better near the reflection minimum. Changing from one regime to the other is obtained very easily, just by changing the window temperature by a few degree C. Possible application: temperature-tunable locking of a laser frequency on the zero of the derivative signal F'= 2 -4p/35 (resonant) atomic response The experiment Im(Eat): absorptive IR = |ER(nr) + Eat|² j  0 Irefl = |ER(nr)1 + ER(nr)2 + Eat|² imaginary part of Eat ... is not detected!! window 1 -3p/35 real part: interferes with non-res. reflected amplitude → detected signal window mixed ER(nr) non-resonant reflection Eat atomic response 2 j = p/4 dilute vapour (model) -2p/35 -The interference pattern is obvious - The atomic signal is small... (dilute vapour) dilute vapour Re(Eat): dispersive Twindow 190-230°C off-resonance background subtraction j = p/2 1 Cs vapour, 3x1014/cm3 852nm laser diode -p/35 Observable = reflected intensity: IR = |ER(nr) + Eat|² |ER(nr)|² . {1+ 2Re(Eat/ER(nr))} How to detect the imaginary part?? Some proposals have been made: ► Brewster incidence (ER(nr)=0) ? (Akul'shin et al, Soviet J. Q. E. 19(1989), 416) the sub-doppler feature of SR spectroscopy is lost; ► multidielectric coating?(theor. work by Vartanyan and Trager, Opt Commun 110(1994), 315)  the coating may be damaged by the atomic vapour ► metallic coating?(Chevrollier et al, Phys Rev E63(046610), 2001)  considerable attenuation of the atomic signal, due to the required metal thickness 2 mixed j =3p/4 sapphire window diaphragm (rejects fluorescence) "ordinary" selective reflection 0 - the atomic signal is more evident - (still a "wavy" offset pattern: the subtracted, off-resonance background has a non negligible dependance on the laser frequency) signal = Irefl , vs Twindow &laser +p/35 Tside-arm=160°C +2p/35 +3p/35 +4p/35 selective reflection with a parallel window (qualitative approach) depending on the relative phase between the two NR reflected beams, two opposite regimes are expected - close to a reflection maximum: No qualitative change: SR signal still displays real part of the atomic response - close to a reflection minimum: then: - Re(Eat) does not interfere with Erefl1 + Erefl2 → not detected - Im(Eat) interferes withErefl1 + Erefl2 → DETECTED! - the Im(Eat)x(Erefl1+Erefl2) signal changes sign around refl. minimum 1 2 Eat 1 2 2 1 SELECTIVE REFLECTION SPECTROSCOPY WITH A HIGHLY PARALLEL WINDOW: PHASE TUNABLE HOMODYNE DETECTION OF THE RADIATED ATOMIC FIELD A. V. Papoyan, G. G. Grigoryan, S. V. Shmavonyan, D. Sarkisyan, Institute for Physical research, NAS of Armenia, Ashtarak-2, 378410, ARMENIA J. Guéna, M. Lintz , M.-A. Bouchiat, LKB, Département de Physique de l'ENS 24 rue Lhomond, 75 231 Paris cedex 05, FRANCE (to be published in Eur. Phys. J. D) the hidden side of the selective reflection signal The model ER(nr) E0 ER(at) n1=1 Continuity equations at the two boundaries between the three media: - air, n1=1 - (sapphire) window, n2=1.76 - vapour, n3=1 Maxwell equations for the propagation of the backward atomic field in the vapour (without using the slowly varying envelope approximation) field envelope atomic polarisation n2 window window n3 = n1 dilute vapour assuming cell length >> absorption length (no backward beam coming from z=) then =ER(nr) (ordinary reflection from a parallel window , with  = n2kxthickness) = ER(at) (the atomic contribution) (where the tij's andrij's are the amplitude transmission and reflection coefficients) and the backward atomic field is generated by the vapour atomic polarisation: Defining the atomic response by and assuming the absence of saturation and non-linearity, we get (G, GD: homogeneous and Doppler widths):

More Related