Report on the experiment of determining experimentally the spatial coherence a He-NE

laser.

By: Francisco Ferreira da Cunha Barros, up201305119 FCUP.

Experimental work by: Francisco Barros, Rui Carvalho and Tiago Leal.

Course of Laboratrios de Engenharia 1,

25th of October 2016

Abstract: Theorical acknowledge:

With this work, we were able to determine
the spatial coherence of a He-Ne laser
= 0,7632 0,001 by can emit radiation in a descontinuous way.
ploting the visibility of it fringes versus the
length of one of the arms of the Michelsons
interferometerby placing one of the
interferometers mirrors in a moveable
carriage. We have also used a divergent lens
to get a more clear view of the interference
pattern (figure1).
Introduction:
The term coherence is used to describe the
correlation between phases of
monocromathic radiation. Beam with
random phase relationships are, in general
incoherente beam where as beam with
constant phase relationships are, in general
coherent. It two light rays have the same
phase and the interfer with each other, one
can observe a maximum of visibility, where
as if one change the optical path of one of
the light rays, one is changing its phase at
the interferece point, and so one is capable
of observing a change in the visibility value
and this is due to the fact that by changing
the optical path of one of the lights rays, we
have changed its phase and so it is possible
to state that the bigger the length
coherence of a light source, the more we
can change its optical path without varying
significatively the visibility value.
When a gas is excited under suitable
conditions trought an eletrical discharge it
If one uses one of those specifics wave
lenghts to illuminate a Michelsons
interferometer, one can observe that the
resulting fringes are distint if the lenghts of
the interferometers arms are diferent.
Nevertheless, as we change the length of
one arm, we can observe that the visibility
of the fringes decreases.
By the above description, it is possible to
define visibility as a way of labebling the
quality of the interference padron.
(1 ) = (1)
+
Where 1 is the length of the variable arm of
the interfeometer.
The decrease in the fringes visibility can be
justified by the following argument: Every
wave train that incides in the
interferemeter is divided into two wave
trains that have the same spatial
coherence1 . As the length of the arm is
changed, we are varying the optical path of
one of the wave trains, so by the time that
one of the wave recheas the detector, the
other was not already reached the detector
and so we can not have interferency in the
detector created by two wave trains that
were created from the same wave. The

1
By spatial coherence is defined as coherence via the propagation length (and thus
the coherence time times the vacuum velocity of propagation time) over which coherence is lost.
light, and thus also characterizes the temporal
interferency at the detector is due to the
interferency of two wave trains that were
genereted by diferent waves.

In this way, we can only have a good

visibility of the fringes if the optical path is
smaller than the spatial coherency of the
emmiter.

= (21 22 ) (2)

Where is the optical path for a Michelsons

interferometer with arms of length 1 and 2 .

By multiplyng the above equation by the

wave number, we obtain a expression for
the fase diference between the two wave
trains.
2 optical solution and optical paper, then we
= (1 2 ) (3)
Since:
1 = 2 + (4)
Where is the extra length of the arm. By
equation (4), one can obtain that a passing
2 Measurements were made with the
fringe correnspondes to a change in of 2
From reference [2], one can deduce that a
decay in the visibility function correspondes
to a distance equal to the spatial coherence
(full width at maximum height).
Figure 1: Michelson's interferometer used.
To minimize the experimental errors, we
cleaned every mirror and lens with a proper
carefully aligned the mirrors with the laser
and with the photodetector.
We have also aimed our rays to the center
of the lens to prevent aberrations and the
photodetector was putted inside a box to
minimize it absorption of ambient light.
.
ambient lights turned off.
1
Smallest variation of 1 that we were able to
make was 0,01 .
Experimental procedure:

Experimental Set-up: To collect data, we proceed to provoke a

To start our mesurements, we have
prepared the following set-up.
slight beating on the table were the
interferometer was to cause an
interference in the interferometer so that
the observed signal on the oscilloscope was
easy to spot. While doing this, we were also
acting on the moveable carriage, so that
every time that a maximum of voltage was
observed on the oscilloscope (captured by
the fotodetector), we would stop, take note
of the maximum voltage, the minimum
voltage and de displacement of the
carriage.

2
Where is the wave length of the incident
wave.
Experimental data: Where 0 , , and 0 and determined in
figure 4 for the first experiment and in
After repeating the experiment several
figure 5 for the second experiment.
times, we collected data to plot the
following graphics:

Figure 4: Fitting parameters for the first experiment.

Figure 2: Visibility versus distance of mirror 1 for the

first experiment

And:
Figure 5: Fitting parameters for the second
experiment.

1
Knowing that a decay of
in the visibility
corresponds to the full width at maximum
height that also corresponds to a
displacement of the moveable carriage
equal to the spatial coherence one can
determine the spatial coherence using the
fitting function by the following expression:

2 log(( 0 ) 2 = 2
0 + 2 (8)
Figura 3: Visibility versus the distance of mirror 1 for
the second experiment. Where in (8) is equal to , and:

Data Analyses: ( 0 )

( 0 )

= |4 log ( ) + 4 | +

The fitting on figure 2 and 3, was performed
( 0 ) 2

|4 log ( ) + 1| 0 + |4 |
on Origin software, fitting the experimental
0
data to a Gaussian function of the form: 2 0 2

+ |4 ( ) | (9)
2

0 2
() = 0 +
(

)
(7) For the first series of experimental data we
get:
2
= 1,2914 0,0196 (10)

And for the second series of experimental

data:
 = 0,2350 0,0001 (11) [3] Aula 9, Curso de tica @ FCUP
2015/2016, unknown author.
Where:
[4] Introduction to Optics F.Pedrotti,
|1 2 |
= (12) L.Pedrotti, 2nd editon Pertince-Hall
2
Internacional.
And:
1 2
% = | | 100
2
= 52,81 % (13)

There was a sistematic error on this

experiencie.This sistematic error was due to
the fact that the length of 1 arm was larger
than 2 arm and caused an offset in our
movable carriage which made impossible to
analyse the principal maximum of visibility
which happens when 1 = 2 .

Even thought this error was noticed prior to

the experiment, it was impossible to solve
since the minimal deslocament of the plate
were mirror 1 would be to large for the
correction.

Conclusions:

With this experience were learned how to

calibrate a Michelsons interferometer and
learned the basic notation of how measarue
the spatial coherence of a laser.

Altought it is possible to verify some of the

theorical predictions with our work,we have
not reached a good value for the spatial
coherence for the second experiment which
lead to a great error in equation (13).
Regardless, it is possible to say that for the
first experimente, the spatial coherence
value that we have determined is aceptable.

We classify the results of our experiment as

kind of satisfactory.

References:

[1] Max Born and Emil Wolf Principles of

Optics, fourth edition , Pergamon Press
LTD.

[2] Coerrncia Diodo LAF, unknown

author.