Photonics

Photonics

Difference between analytical results and FDTD results for Kerr medium slab

    • ice20390296
      Subscriber

      I am running Lumerical FDTD to study the nonlinear refractive index change in a very thin Kerr medium for certain intensity values. I have noticed that after reaching an intensity threshold  Δn saturates and the transmission, and reflection (T, R) of the slab no longer changes

      When I compare this with a simple analytical code that solves the problem linearly by simply calculating the nonlinear index change as Δn=In2 and adding the difference to the linear refractive index, naturally the result does not saturate as the refractive index simply changes no matter what source intensity is used.

      Why does the FDTD result saturate?

    • Guilin Sun
      Ansys Employee

      I believe the analytical solution has some limitations and ignore some quantities.  Δn=In2 ~=0.69 will be too large to index perturbation, even for the simulation.

      The simulation takes more terms and for such strong nonlinearity, anything can happen.

      I suggest to check the first principle and make sure the analytical solution does not lose any thing, and does not voilate the original assumption.

       

       

      • ice20390296
        Subscriber

        Thank you very much for the reply. If possible could you please explain why the index perturbation is considered too large? At what point should the simulation no longer be considered trustworthy?

        The analytical solution is very basic so I am pretty certain it is not this accurate. But I am curious as to why the simulation behaves in this way.

    • Guilin Sun
      Ansys Employee

       

      Sorry, I just find your reply. The index perturbation requires delta_n<<1 in order to not excite higher order nonlinearity.

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.