Differences between revisions 7 and 8
⇤ ← Revision 7 as of 2020-08-19 16:11:56 →
Size: 2104
Editor: KeikoKokeyama
Comment:
← Revision 8 as of 2020-08-19 16:13:07 → ⇥
Size: 2107
Editor: KeikoKokeyama
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 11: Line 11:
      * Haoyu rose an interesting question if this BS-birefringence model can really simulate the real S and P fields or not. Sinsce "i" is added when the EM fields transmit the BS, using a BS to split S and P pols, there are sign flips inside the S-P coupled cavity model. See, his [[https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=11792|note]], especially page 4. The P-pol cavity (P-PRM) field going back to the S-pol cavity (S-PRM) gets -1 (two transmissions at BS, therefore i*i), which is the flipped sign compared with the S field inside the S-PRM cavity. Isn't that not true for our ITM birefringence mirror?       * Haoyu rose an interesting question if this BS-birefringence model can really simulate the real S and P fields or not. Sinsce "i" is added when the EM fields transmit the BS, using a BS to split S and P pols, there are sign flips inside the S-P coupled cavity model. See, his [[https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=11792|note]], especially page 4. The P-pol cavity (P-PRM) field going back to the S-pol cavity (S-PRM) gets -1 (two transmissions at BS, therefore i*i), which is the flipped sign compared with the S field inside the S-PRM cavity. Isn't that true for the actual ITM birefringence mirror?

Simulation meeting 2020 Aug 19, 15:00-

Participants

Somiya, Wang, Kokeyama, Koyama, Hirose, Yuzu

Minute

Updates from Projects

  • Birefringence modeling (Haoyou)
    • Model where a BS splitting S and P (Somiya model)

      • Haoyu rose an interesting question if this BS-birefringence model can really simulate the real S and P fields or not. Sinsce "i" is added when the EM fields transmit the BS, using a BS to split S and P pols, there are sign flips inside the S-P coupled cavity model. See, his note, especially page 4. The P-pol cavity (P-PRM) field going back to the S-pol cavity (S-PRM) gets -1 (two transmissions at BS, therefore i*i), which is the flipped sign compared with the S field inside the S-PRM cavity. Isn't that true for the actual ITM birefringence mirror?

      • How the relative phase between S and P are when they transmit and reflect in reality? Are there only phase delay on the mirror surface? Can the energy be conserved in that case? Or do one of S or P actually have to have phase flip compared with the other?
      • We will have to understand the reality to evaluate the simulation.
  • IFO modeling (Keiko)

    • Note on FPMI

      • Done (one disagreement in the matrices)
      • Comparison v.s. analytical calculation

    • Note on PRFPMI

      • Mostly done (a few disagreement in the matrices)
    • DRFPMI model
      • kat and jupyter notebook are on git, to be tested
    • Include the higher order modes (FPMI, PRFPMI, DRFPMI)
      • Haven't started
  • Simulation Interface (Koyama, Hirose, Yuzu)
    • Yuzu-san, Hirose-san, Koyama-san are visiting Kamioka this week until the middle of next week.
    • They made a first GUI box to put a optical parameter to pass to a finesse model.

    • Activity log

KAGRA/Subgroups/MIF/Simulation/SimMeeting20200819 (last edited 2020-08-26 14:45:15 by haoyu.wang)