4π Focusing of TM_01 beams under nonparaxial conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Richards-Wolf theory and the complex point-source method are both used to express the phasor of the electric field of tightly focused beams, but the connection between these two approaches is not straightforward. In this paper, the Richards-Wolf vector field equations are used to find the electromagnetic field of a TM(01) beam in the neighborhood of the focus of a 4π focusing system, such as a parabolic mirror with infinite transverse dimensions. Closed-form solutions are found for the distribution of the fields at any point in the vicinity of the focus; these solutions are identical to the electromagnetic field obtained with the complex source-point method in which sources are accompanied by sinks. This work thus establishes a connection between the Richards-Wolf theory and the complex sink/source model. The vector magnetic potential is introduced to simplify the computation of the six electromagnetic field components. The method is then used to find analytical expressions for the electromagnetic field of strongly focused TM(01) beams affected by primary aberrations such as curvature of field, coma, astigmatism and spherical aberration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".