Princeton University

Fall Semester Junior Paper

Probe Laser Intensity Profile Within a

Multipass Cell for Optical Magnetometry

Author:
Horace Zhang

Advisor:
Professor Michael Romalis

January 6, 2015

Abstract
Modern magnetometers have diverse applications ranging from mineral detection to
biomedical imaging [5]. We describe the operational principle of a high sensitivity atomic
magnetometer which measures the Faraday rotation angle of a linearly polarized laser beam
after propagation through a multipass optical cell of alkali metal vapor [11]. This rotation
angle is proportional to the atomic spin in the measurement direction so rotation signal
noise from spin uncertainty gives insight about the fundamental magnetometer sensitivity
limit. We then describe the intensity profile of the laser within the optical cell. This profile
is important in calculation of the number of atoms measured N and quantification of atomic
diffusions effect on rotation signal noise [11]. We numerically calculate intensity integrals in
the expression for N and describe a simplified regime ignoring laser beam overlap within the
cell so integration is reduced from three dimensions to a single dimension. In this approximation, we find multipass cell geometries so approximate case calculations agree within 5%
of general case calculations, allowing for less computationally expensive N calculations in
some cell configurations.

Introduction

This paper explains first how magnetic fields are measured by measuring the Faraday rotation angle of probe laser light after propagation through alkali metal atom vapor within a
multipass optical cell. After we review this atomic physics, we characterize the intensity profile
of the laser within the cell. We show that is proportional to the average spin value hF i in
the direction of the probe laser. This proportionality demonstrates that measurement of ,
and thus magnetic field sensitivity, is fundamentally limited by precision in spin measurement
subject to the uncertainty principle.Field sensitivity is the smallest change in field the magnetometer detects and has units of T / Hz. This represents the measurement precision after one
second of interrogation which improves as the square root of measurement time [5]. Current
developments in magnetometry have achieved sensitivity in the sub-femtotesla range [11].
We find the static magnetic field Bz in the z direction by measuring the frequency of Larmor
spin precession L of the atomic spin vector about the field. The Zeeman effect splits the
degenerate alkali atom ground state into two states with an energy difference proportional to
L , proportional to the field strength [5]. To study magnetometer sensitivity, we examine the
noise signal h2 (t)i of the rotation measurement due to spin uncertainty and other sources of
experimental noise. We show that the Fourier transform of this noise signal has a Lorenztian
line shape peaked at the Larmor frequency L [4] [11]. Thus, examination of the power spectrum
of h2 (t)i gives both a quantification for the quantum noise present and the value of L from
which Bz is determined.
The experimental apparatus is described in section two and the rotation angle of the probe
laser is measured by two photodetectors. This method of measurement introduces an additional
source of noise, photon shot noise (PSN), into measurement due to quantization of the photons arriving at the photodetectors [3]. To resolve PSN from noise from uncertainty in spin
measurement (spin projection noise), we examine the power spectra of the two noise signals.
The ratio of the power spectra of spin projection noise to photon shot noise is proportional to
the laser path length within the vapor cell [1] [2]. Thus, an advantage of using multipass cells
is increased probe path length, leading to dominance of the spin projection noise signal which
imposes a fundamental limit on measurement certainty.
The latter part of this paper characterizes the beam intensity profile within the cell and
explores numerical computation of integrals involving this profile. This intensity profile is
important in calculating the number of atoms participating in measurement and the effect of
diffusion of atoms in and out of the probe beam on the rotation noise signal [11] [4]. We derive an
expression for the effective number of atoms participating in measurement based upon spatial
intensity profile integrals and then quantitatively model the laser intensity distribution. We

also determine the position of the beam in the cell using the ABCD ray matrix approach
to find the beam pattern at each cell cross section. Finally, we numerically calculate the
intensity profile integrals to find the effective beam area in the expression for the number
of atoms participating in measurement. These intensity profile integrals can be simplified in
the approximation of ignoring beam overlap. Within this simplified regime, we show that
integration is reduced from three dimensions to a single dimension and area calculations using
the simplified calculation agree within 5% of the general method calculation. Thus, we provide
a regime where a computationally expensive 3D integration is avoided, allowing for quick area
calculations.

1.1

Fundamental Uncertainty Limit

We first show that any spin measurement has a fundamental limit to its precision imposed by
the uncertainty principle. Consider an atom in the spin state hFz i = F . Using the spin angular
momentum commutation relationship [Fx , Fy ] = iFz , (in this notation the ~ is dropped) and
the generalized uncertainty principle
A B |

1
h[A, B]i|
2i

where is the standard deviation, the uncertainty in Fx is given by:

r
F
(Fx ) =
.
2

(1)

(2)

We assume that (Fx ) = (Fy ). Using Na atoms each with uncertainty given by (2) reduces
the uncertainty to the standard quantum limit (SQL)
r
F
(Fx ) =
.
(3)
2Na
This uncertainty is known as spin projection noise and causes noise in the rotation signal.

Experimental Apparatus

Figure 1: Schematic of experimental design to measure rotation angle of linearly polarized

probe light. Figure is adapted from the experimental apparatus given in figure 1 of [4].
Figure (1) shows a basic schematic of the experimental design. A glass cell contains alkali
metal vapor and is heated to 100 C. The cell is surrounded by multilayer magnetic shields
to prevent interference from external magnetic fields. The cell is also filled with N2 buffer gas
to prevent diffusion of atoms to the walls of the cell. The magnetic field Bz in the T range is
applied perpendicular to the probe propagation direction, x. The probe beam passes through
a linear polarizer and enters the multipass cell where it makes N passes through the cell and
exits through the same hole. Then the beam hits a polarimeter oriented at 45 to the initial
2

probe polarization angle. The rotation signal is measured by the signal difference between the
two photodiodes PD1 and PD2 [2] [4]. The design of the multipass cell is described in detail in
the Gaussian beam optics section of this paper.

The Energy Levels of Alkali Metal Atoms

5P1/2: l =1
m = -1/2

m = +1/2

5P

E = 0

+
5S1/2: l = 0

E =L
n_ state: m = -1/2

5S
n+ state m = +1/2

n_

m = -1/2

n+ m = +1/2

Figure 3: Interaction of circularly polarized light with the n 5S ground state.

Conservation of angular momentum requires
that + light interacts with n atoms and
vice versa.

Figure 2: The D1 optical transition within

one hyperfine state of alkali metal atoms.
The degenerate ground state is lifted by the
Zeeman effect with E = ~L , where L is
the Larmor precession frequency.

Alkali metal atoms have a single electron in the outer energy shell and energy calculations
are well approximated by consideration of the contribution from this single electron and the
nucleus [5]. Measurement of the rotation noise signal involves excitation of this single electron
from the 5S (angular momentum l = 0 state) to the 5P (l = 1) state by the probe laser. In this
section, we explain the energy structure of the alkali metal atom ground and excited states.
Defining J = L+S, the P state has 2 sub states with j = 1/2 and j = 3/2, as l+s = 1+1/2 =
1/2 or 3/2. The 5S to 5P1/2 transition is known as the D1 transition and the 5S to 5P3/2 is
known as the D2 transition. These excitations are the optical transitions and characterized
by an energy difference E = ~0 , where 0 is the optical resonance frequency. Figure (2)
illustrates the D1 optical transition.
Due to the nonzero nuclear spin of alkali metal atoms, the ground state of these atoms is
split into two hyperfine components with angular momentum F = I 1/2 by the interaction
Hamilitonian H = AI S, where A is some constant. Here F is the total atomic spin F =
L + S + I, where I is the nuclear spin and S is the electronic spin. Within each hyperfine state,
the degeneracy of the ground state is lifted by the Zeeman effect due to the Bz field. The Bz
e
field is small enough ( 1T ) so that the Zeeman Hamiltonian HZ = 2m
(L + 2S) Bz can
be treated as a perturbation to the unperturbed wavefunction [4]. According to first order
perturbation theory, the correction to the energy is:
EZ1 = B gJ Bz mj

(4)

where B is the Bohr magneton, gJ is the Lande g-factor, and mj is the spin quantum number [6].
For example, within one hyperfine component, the ground state of the valence electron in the
5S state has l = 0, j = s = 1/2, and thus mj = 1/2. By (4), the previously degenerate ground
state has shifted into two energy levels. The magnitude of this energy splitting is quantified by
~L , where L is the Larmor precession frequency (see section 5.1) [5]. Figure (2) shows an
3

illustration of Zeeman split sub levels and the D1 optical transition within one hyperfine state
of the alkali metal atom. Quantum fluctuations transfer atoms between the n+ and n states
and the next section explains that this fluctuation leads to the rotation signal.

Paramagnetic Faraday Rotation

In this section, we explain how rotation of the plane of polarization of linearly polarized
probe light occurs and show that is proportional to hF i, the atomic spin in the direction of
probe propagation. The linearly polarized probe light can be decomposed into two oppositely
rotating circularly polarized waves . Conservation of angular momentum requires that +
light only interact with m = 1/2 atoms and vice versa (figure 3). Due to this interaction,
we show that each distinct polarization direction has a different frequency, and thus a different
index of refraction. This phenomena is known as dispersion, as the phase velocity of each
polarization direction is frequency dependent. When the probe beam is rewritten as a linearly
polarized wave, this frequency difference leads to a rotation of the plane of polarization by .
The phase velocity v of a wave is defined as
v=

c
=
k
n

(5)

where k is the wavenumber, is the frequency, c is speed of light, and n is the index of refraction,
given by
r

n=
.
(6)
0 0
In this model, the relative permeability /0 is taken to unity [9]. Equations (5) and (6)
suggest that examination of the the difference in () between the two polarizations provides
the frequency difference.
To derive an expression for electric permittivity  as a function of frequency , consider
the equation of motion for a single electron subject to a damping force measured by and a
harmonic force
+ ~x + 2 ~x) = eE(~
~ x, t)
m(~x
(7)
0
where x denotes the temporal derivative. We try as a solution x = eit . Plugging in and
rearranging gives
e 2
~
~x = eit =
( 2 i)1 E.
(8)
m 0
The dipole moment is then
p = e~x =

e2 2
~ = 0 e E
~
( 2 i)1 E
m 0

(9)

where the last equality is the definition of the polarization density, with e as the electric
susceptibility. We identify the susceptibility as:
e =

e2
( 2 2 i)1 .
0 m 0

(10)

From the definition ()/0 = 1 + e with e << 1 and assuming N molecules per unit volume,
fj electrons per molecule with oscillator frequencies j and damping constants j we write [9]:
()
N e2 X
=1+
fj (j2 2 ij )1 .
0
0 m

(11)

In the case of alkali metal atoms, we examine the term in this sum corresponding to the 5S
to 5P1/2 optical transition (D1 transition) with oscillator strength fosc and resonant frequency
4

0 [2]. The expression 0eme can be rewritten as 4re c2 , where re is the electron radius. Thus,
for the D1 transition in alkali metal atoms, we have
()
= 1 + N fosc 4re c2 (02 2 i)1 .
0

(12)

Although the frequency of the probe laser is detuned from the resonant frequency 0 [4], both
and 0 >> so 0 >> . Thus, when compared to , we assume that 0 . Using
this approximation, the above equation is written
()
2N fosc re c2 0 + i/2
=1+
.
0
0
(0 )2 + (/2)2

(13)

We now decompose the linearly polarized probe light into two counter rotating circularly
polarized light waves, . Let n denote the atomic density of atoms in the spin 12 and spin
21 states respectively. Optical transitions from the 5S to 5P require that atoms in each state
absorb a photon from the probe beam. photons carry angular momentum ~ (m = 1),
respectively [5]. Atoms with m = 1/2 in the n state may absorb a photon with m = +1 to
transition into the m = +1/2 level of the 5P1/2 state. On the other hand, atoms in the ground
state with m = +1/2 may absorb a photon with m = 1 to transition into the m = 1/2 level
of the 5P1/2 state. These interactions between light and the n states are shown in Figure
(3). However, an atom in the n+ state cannot interact with + light as there is no excited
state with an additional +1 angular momentum. From (13), fluctuations of the atom number
between the two states cause a difference in () for the two polarization directions, leading to
Faraday rotation.
The linearly polarized light wave is written as two circularly polarized light waves in the xy
plane as
+ : Ex1 = cos(k+ x t) and Ey1 = sin(k+ x t)
(14)
: Ex2 = cos(k x t) and Ey2 = sin(k x t).

(15)

The difference in indices of refraction for is contained in the difference in the wavenumber
k . If we write the wavenumber k as
k = + i/2,

(16)

(5) relates k to the frequency dependency of the permittivity so

2 2 /4 =

2
Re[()/0 ].
c2

(17)

We can ignore the as it is an exponential decay when the wave is written as eikx (ex ) and
affects both equally.

Using the Taylor expansion 1 + x 1 + x/2, from (13) and (17) we write the wavenumber
for the two polarization directions
s

2fosc re c2

k+ =
1 + 2n
D() + n fosc re cD()
(18)
c
0
c

k =
c

s
1 + 2n+

2fosc re c2

D() + n+ fosc re cD().

0
c

(19)

In (18) and (19), N from (13) is replaced by either 2n+ or 2n . Derivation of () assumes
unpolarized light, but we assume spherical symmetry so () for light coming uniformly in
all directions is equivalent to () for all the light coming from one direction. So choosing a
5

polarization direction such as , the total atomic density N is given by either 2n+ or 2n . For
example, as far as + light is concerned, all atoms are in the m = 1/2 state, and assuming
equal distribution of atoms between the states, ntotal = 2n . D() is identified as the dispersion
profile written in terms of frequency . Using = 2, it is given by
0
D() =
.
(20)
(0 )2 + (/2)2
From (14) and (15), the probe field in the x direction is given by
Ex1 + Ex2 = cos (x/c t + n fosc re cD()x) + cos (x/c t + n+ fosc re cD()x) .
If we let A x/c t and define the polarization P as
n+ n
P =
with n n+ + n
n+ + n

(21)

(22)

then (21) is written

Ex1 + Ex2 = cos (A + n fosc re cD()x) + cos (A + n fosc re cD()x + nP fosc re cD()x) .

(23)

Using cos(X) + cos(X + Y ) = 2 cos(Y /2) cos(X + Y /2) (23) is:

2 cos(nP fosc re cD()x/2) cos(A + n fosc re cD()x + nP fosc re cD()x/2).

(24)

Using the same procedure for Ey1 + Ey2 with sin(X) sin(X + Y ) = 2 sin(Y /2) cos(X + Y /2)
gives
Ey1 + Ey2 = 2 sin(nP fosc re cD()x/2) cos(A + n fosc re cD()x + nP fosc re cD()x/2).

(25)

The tangent of the rotation angle of the plane of polarization is given by the ratio of the field
in the y direction to x direction


Ey1 + Ey2
fosc re c
tan() = 1
= tan nP
D()x .
(26)
Ex + Ex2
2
Thus, identifying x as the path length l of the probe laser, and using tan(A) = tan(A) we
have for
1
(27)
= nlP fosc re cD( 0 )
2
where the dispersion profile from (20) is rewritten
0
D( 0 ) =
.
(28)
( 0 )2 + (/2)2
The rotation angle in (27) is proportional to atomic spin as the definition of polarization in (22) is proportional to the x component of the atomic spin polarization vector P~
(hFx i, hFy i, hFz i)t [10] [1]. If nuclear spin is ignored, for a spin 1/2 particle, hFx i = P/2. Accounting for nuclear spin adds a factor of 2I + 1 in the denominator of P/2, but proportionality
is unchanged [4]. Thus, (27) shows that the measurement of the rotation angle, and thus the
magnetic field, is fundamentally limited by uncertainty in spin measurement (see (3)).

Analysis of the Rotation Signal

In this section we derive the Larmor precession frequency L of the spin vector about the
static Bz field and show that this frequency is proportional to the magnetic field strength. We
then examine the contribution of spin spin relaxation to the sinusoidal rotation signal oscillating
with frequency L . After accounting for this contribution, we examine the power spectrum of the
noise h2 i of the rotation signal and show it has a Lorenztian shape with total noise given by the
area under its peak centered at L . Finally, we derive an expression relating the rotation angle
to the voltage across the photodetectors PD1 and PD2. This expression will be important to
derive the expression for effective number of atoms probed.
6

5.1

Larmor Precession

In addition to causing an energy shift of the alkali metal atoms, Bz causes Larmor spin
precession of the atomic ensemble about Bz . To derive the frequency of this precession, consider
a spin 1/2 particle in the ground state subject to a field of magnitude B0 in the z direction.
Ignoring nuclear spin, the Hamiltonian is H = B0 Fz , where is the gyromagnetic ratio [6].
The eigenstates are the eigenvectors of this Hamiltonian
 
1
+ =
with eigenenergy E+ = B0 ~/2
(29)
0
 
0
=
with eigenenergy E = B0 ~/2.
1

(30)

Because the Hamiltonian is time independent, the solution to the Schrodinger equation
i~

= H
t

can be written in terms of the stationary states as

 iB t/2 
ae 0
(t) =
beiB0 t/2

(31)

(32)

where a and b are determined by initial conditions at (0). If we let a = cos(/2) and b =
sin(/2) and take expectation values of the Fx and Fy operators we find
hFx i = (t) Fx (t) = ~/2 sin cos(B0 t)

(33)

hFy i = (t) Fy (t) = ~/2 sin sin(B0 t).

(34)

and
Equations (33) and (34) show the spin vector hFi is titled at an angle about the z axis
and precesses at the Larmor frequency given by
L = B0 .

(35)

Equation (35) shows that the magnitude of the static field is proportional to the Larmor frequency. Equations (27), (33), and (34) show that without the effect of spin exchange relaxation
discussed next, the rotation signal would be sinusoidal in time with frequency L .

5.2

Spin Exchange Relaxation

An additional factor affecting the rotation signal (t) is collisions between alkali metal atoms.
In these spin exchange collisions, the combined spin of the atoms is conserved, but the spins of
the atoms involved may rotate. An example for atoms A and B is given by:
A() + B() A() + B().

(36)

Because the alkali metal ground state is split into two hyperfine states with angular momentum F = I 1/2, spin exchange collisions transfer atoms between the two hyperfine states.
These random processes cause the atomic angular momenta vectors to acquire random angles
with respect to each other, and thus the spin vector hFi decays from angle to its equilibrium
position with no transverse (x,y) spin components [3] [7]. This decay of the transverse component of the spin vector is analogous to the evolution of the magnetization vector in nuclear
magnetic resonance (NMR), and is characterized by a spin spin relaxation time T2 . The decay
of the transverse spin component is thus given by the Bloch Equations, which describe the
7

time evolution of the magnetization vector with given relaxation times [8]. A solution to this
equation for spin exchange relaxation is given by
hF ixy (t) = hF ixy (0)et/T2 .

(37)

Thus, the effect of spin spin relaxation adds an exponential decay to the sinusoidal noise signal
(t) = 0 sin(L t)et/T2

(38)

where 0 is the maximum Faraday rotation angle given by (27) in the regime where 0 >> .
From (28), D( 0 ) 1/( 0 ) and 0 is [2]
1
0 = nlre cP fosc /( 0 ).
2

5.3

(39)

The Power Spectrum of the Rotation Noise Signal

Figure 4: Plot of Faraday rotation signal

given by (38). This exponentially decaying
sinusoid oscillating at L also describes the
time evolution of the magnetization vector
in response to a transverse rf pulse.

Figure 5: The power spectrum of the rotation

noise signal h2 i given by the Fourier transform
of the response in Figure (4). It has a Lorentzian
shape peaked at L and the total noise present
is the area under this plot.

Our investigation is focused on the power spectrum of h2 i, the noise (fluctuations) of

this rotation signal. To determine the behavior of this power spectrum, we use the fluctuation
dissipation theorem, which states that the power spectrum of fluctuations is proportional to the
frequency response of the system to an external perturbation [1] [12]. Although originally formulated for systems in thermal equilibrium, it applies equally well to quantum spin fluctuation
systems like ours [13]. This theorem links the fluctuations of the system about its equilibrium
state to its response to a small driving force. Thus, to obtain the power spectrum for fluctuations
of the rotation angle , we examine its frequency response to a small perturbation.
As explained in section 5.2, the atomic spin vector in our system is analogous to the magnetization vector in NMR. Thus, to examine the frequency response of hFi, we examine
the response of this magnetization vector to a small perturbation. In NMR, the static Bz field
causes the magnetization vector to align in the z direction. A small perturbation by an rf (radio
frequency) pulse directed in the transverse plane tilts this vector away from the z axis and
causes precession of the vector about the z axis at Larmor frequency L [7]. This precession
was derived quantum mechanically in section 5.1. We also explained in 5.2 that the magnetization vector decays to its original orientation with a decay time characterized by T2 . Thus, the
time evolution of the magnetization vector in response to the small rf pulse is an exponentially
decaying sinusoid oscillating at L like the structure of the rotation signal in (38).

To convert the temporal evolution of the magnetization vector to its frequency response,
we take the Fourier transform of the exponentially decaying sinusoidal evolution. The Fourier
transform of a decaying sinusoid has a Lorentzian line shape peaked at L . Thus, by the fluctuation dissipation theorem, the power spectrum of fluctuations h2 i is also a Lorentzian peaked
at L . Figure (4) shows the temporal response of the magnetization vector to a transverse rf
pulse. Figure (5) shows the Fourier transform of the response given in figure (4), which is equivalent to the power spectrum of the rotation noise signal h2 i. Figure (5) has units of rad2 /Hz
to account for the effect of measurement time on rotation sensitivity. It has a Lorentzian line
shape peaked at L , and this frequency is proportional to magnetic field strength. The values of
the power spectrum within a small frequency range give the noise for that range so integration
of the power spectrum over all frequencies gives the total noise present [4] [18].

5.4

The Output Voltage Signal

As shown in figure (1), after the probe beam exits the multipass cell, it is split by a polarizing
beam splitter (PBS) oriented at 45 to the initial direction of probe beam polarization [2]. The
two photodetectors PD1 and PD2 receive an intensity signal proportional to |E|2 of the probe
beam. Without the Faraday rotation angle , the signal received by the two detectors would
be equal. To examine the signal difference, we write for the two detectors,
I1 = I0 cos2 (

) and I2 = I0 sin2 ( )
4
4

(40)

where I1 + I2 = I0 . The voltage output from the polarimeters is proportional to the intensity,
and to measure the rotation angle, we take the voltage difference of the two detectors (see figure
1)
Vout = V1 V2 = V0 sin(2).
(41)
For small rotation angles sin and as V0 = V1 + V2 , we have
=

V1 V2
.
2(V1 + V2 )

(42)

Effective Number of Atoms Probed

In this section we develop a formula for number of atoms measured and show it is related
to an effective measurement area and depends on spatial probe laser intensity profile integrals.
If we assume that the probe beam is of uniform intensity, the number of atoms participating
in measurement would be N = nlA, where A is the photodetector area, n is atomic density,
and l is probe path length . However, laser beams are Gaussian with intensity not uniformly
distributed across each detector so we find an expression for the effective detector area.
To find an expression for this area, consider (42), which relates the rotation angle to the
voltage across each detector. We know that is proportional to the atomic
q spin hFi,and for
unpolarized atoms the root mean square (rms) spin fluctuations scale as hFx i2 1/ N (see
equation (3)) [4]. So h2 i scales as 1/N and by examining the variance of the noise signal, we
can find an expression for N and Aef f ective .
We divide each photodetector into a grid so the total voltage is the sum of the voltage in
each grid block i, and assume that for each detector, photons incident on adjacent grids are
independent. From (42) we write
+
P
 P
 * P
2
2
( i V1,i i V2,i )2
i (V1,i + V2,i )
2
P
P
P
h i =
=
.
(43)
4( i V1,i + i V2,i )2
4( i (V1,i + V2,i ))2

The cross terms from squaring the numerator vanish after taking the average as voltage across
adjacent blocks is independent. Using the orientation shown
in figure (1), the photodetectors
are in the yz plane and we identify the numerator of (43) as I(y, z)2 dydz and the denominator
as [ I(y, z)dydz]2 as the total voltage across each detector is given by the area integral of the
intensity. Using N 1/2 , the reciprocal of (43) gives N as

[ I(y, z)dydz]2

N = nlAef f ective = nl
.
(44)
I(y, z)2 dydz
This expression assumes that in the probe direction, the square of the intensity profile is uniform
in the yz plane. Relaxing this assumption, we integrate the denominator over the entire volume
of the multipass cell so N is

2
2 [ I(x, y, z)dydz]
N = nl
(45)
I(x, y, z)2 dV
where
Aef f

[ I(x, y, z)dydz]2
.
=l
I(x, y, z)2 dV

(46)

It is these two intensity profile integrals we wish to calculate.

Optics of Gaussian Beams

To calculate these integrals, we must develop a general formula for the intensity of the laser
beam within the cell. We first explain the geometry of the multipass cell and then develop the
theory for the intensity distibution. The laser beam is initially circular when it enters the cell.
But due to the geometry of the mirrors, the beam becomes generally astigmatic with elliptical
light spots at each cross section as it passes through the cell [14]. We first review the theory of
propagation of a stigmatic (circular) Gaussian laser beam and then generalize to the astigmatic
case. Then using the ABCD ray matrix approach, we trace the position of the center of the
beam as it passes through the mirrors. Given the position of the beam centers and the general
beam intensity description, we calculate the beam pattern at each cell cross section and the
intensity distribution.

7.1

Geometry of the Multipass Cell

Figure 6: The multipass cell consists of two

cylindrical mirrors M1 and M2 separated by
distance d oriented at an angle relative to
each other. Figure is taken from figure (1)
of [2]

Figure 7: The entrance of the probe beam

into the multipass cell. It may have an angle
from the z axis of with a twist angle about
the z axis .

Figure (6) shows the multipass cell which consists of two identical cylindrical mirrors M1
and M2 with equal focal lengths of 50mm separated by a distance d and oriented at a twist
10

angle relative to each other. For the rest of this paper, let z be the axis of propagation of the
probe beam instead of x so the integrals in the numerators of (45) and (46) are in the xy plane.
The probe laser enters through a hole in M1 at an angle relative to the z axis and may also
be twisted about the z axis by an angle (figure (7)). Using the ABCD ray matrix approach,
we trace the path of the laser within the cell and find suitable separation distances and twist
angles so the beam makes N passes and exits through the same hole. Taking a cross section
of figure (6) shows that there are N beam spots at each cross section except at the planes of
M1 and M2, which have N/2 beam spots due to complete overlap. We choose the origin of the
coordinate system where the beam ray enters the cell. The initial configuration of the beam ray
in figure (7) is specified by the vector (x0 , y0 , x00 , y00 )t , where (x0 , y0 ) are initial positions and
(x00 , y00 ) are the projections of the ray direction unit vector onto the x and y axes [14]. For small
input angles sin so the beam configuration vector is written
(0, 0, cos , sin )t .

7.2

(47)

Intensity Distribution of Stigmatic Gaussian Beam

We consider the case where the electricpfield E of the beam has a propagation direction (z)
and varies in the transverse direction r = x2 + y 2 . Beam like solutions of the wave equation
are given in the form E(x, y, x) = (x, y, z)eikz where is localized about the z axis and
has spherical surfaces of constant phase over a small region [15]. We show the beam intensity
I = |E|2 exhibits a Gaussian radial dependence, confirming localization. We find that the
beam is characterized by a complex parameter q(z), which can be written in terms of two
real parameters, the beam waist w(z), and the radius of curvature of the phase front R(z).
Physically, the beam waist is where I is 1/e2 of its maximal value. We seek to describe the
intensity profile of the beam everywhere using the known parameters, , the laser wavelength,
and w0 , the initial waist size.
For any component E of an electromagnetic wave, the time independent propagation is given
by the Helmholtz wave equation
2 E + k(~r)2 E = 0.
(48)
p

From equations (5) and (6) and c = 1/ 0 0 , we identify k = ()() = 2/ as the

wavenumber. We try the beam like solution E(x, y, x) = (x, y, z)eikz and assume that the
beam remains paraxial (see 7.4.1), so varies slowly with z. This allows us to ignore the 2 /z 2
term so
2 2

+
2ik
= 0.
(49)
2
2
x
y
z
For we try the fundamental Gaussian beam solution
 
(x, y, z) = exp i P (z) +

k 2
r
2q(z)


.

(50)

In the above equation P (z) is a phase shift, and q(z) is the complex beam parameter. Both P
and q must be specified as explicit functions of z for complete beam description. Substituting
(50) into (49) yields:

  2

dP
i
k
k 2 dq
2k
+

r2 = 0.
(51)
dz
q(z)
q 2 (z) q 2 (z) dz
Because his equation must hold for all values of r, each term is zero and we obtain two differential
equations for q(z) and P (z):
dq
= 1 = q(z) = q0 + z
(52)
dz

11

dP
i
=
dz
q(z)

(53)

where q0 is the integration constant, the value of q at an origin to be specified. For a physical
interpretation of q, we write it in terms of the two real parameters w(z) and R(z)
1
i
1
=
.
q
R w2

(54)

With this definition (50) is rewritten

 


kr2 1
i
= exp i P (z) +
.

2
R w2

(55)

We choose the origin z = 0 where there is no radial phase variation in the field . From (55),
this choice requires R at z = 0. Equation (54) at the origin gives
1

= i 2
q0
w0

(56)

where w(0) = w0 is the beamwaist. Plugging the value of q0 from (56) into (52) gives q as a
function of z
iw02
q(z) =
+ z.
(57)

From (57) and using the general definition of q in (54), we have expressions for R(z) and w(z)
in terms of only the known parameters w0 and
"
2 #

z
w2 (z) = w02 1 +
(58)
w02
"

R(z) = z 1 +

w02
z

2 #
.

(59)

Equation (58) emphasizes that w0 is the minimum beam waist which expands along z and (59)
gives the radius of curvature for the spherical phase front at z [15].
Equations (54) (58) and (59) provide a complete description for q(z) and it remains to
determine P (z). Using (57) we can solve the differential equation (53) for P (z)




w(z)
z
P (z) = i ln
tan1
.
(60)
w0
w02
Inserting this expression for P (z) into (55) and taking the beam intensity, I = ||2 we find


1
2r2
exp
I(x, y, z) 2
(61)
w (z)
w(z)2
This shows that the beam waist is where I is 1/e2 of its maximal value and confirms the Gaussian
beam intensity distribution. Proportionality is sufficient because from (45), the constant of
proportionality cancels when evaluating the effective atom number N .

7.3

The Astigmatic Case

The thin lenses of the multipass cell are cylindrical mirrors which are astigmatic due to
different focal lengths in the x and y directions (fx 6= fy ). Upon reflection by M2, the incoming
initially circular beam is transformed into a simple astigmatic beam with elliptical light spots.
The different directional focal lengths cause the previously circular beam with equal waists
12

Figure 8: The simple astigmatic Gaussian

beam with elliptical cross sections (green and
blue) and unchanging orientation angle along
propagation. Figure adapted from figure (3)
of [16]

Figure 9: The generally astigmatic Gaussian beam. The cross sections are still elliptical but change orientation along propagation.
Figure adapted from figure (3) of [16]

(wx = wy ) to have elliptical cross sections (wx 6= wy ). This simple astigmatic beam does not
change orientation angle as it propagates. When this simple astigmatic beam hits M1 after M2
reflection, it becomes generally astigmatic with w1 (z) 6= w2 (z) and changes orientation along
propagation [17] [16]. The xy subscripts are dropped as beam rotation means the waists are
no longer measured relative to the xy axes. Figures (8) and (9) show the simple and general
astigmatic beam.
For the simple astigmatic beam the electric field can be written



k x2 y 2
= (q1 q2 )1/2 exp i
+
(62)
2 q12
q22
which satisfies the wave equation (49). Rotation of this beam by a complex angle around the
z axis describes the beam with general astigmatism [17] [16] and is given by


k
1/2
2
2
= (q1 q2 )
exp i [Q1 x + Q2 y + tan(2)(Q2 Q1 )xy]
(63)
2
where
Q1 =

cos2 sin2
sin2 cos2
+
and Q2 =
+
q1
q2
q1
q2

(64)

and the real part of represents the physical beam rotation.

From (61) we write the intensity distribution of the general astigmatic Gaussian beam


2x2 2y 2
1
I
exp
+
.
(65)
w1 w2
w12
w22
This expression contains the rotational information if the x and y axes are defined by the major
and minor axes of the elliptical beamspot.
Equations (54), (58), and (59) describing the radii of curvature, the waists, and the q
parameters as functions of z still hold, but the two components must be considered separately
[17] [16]. For example we can write
q1 = q01 + z and q2 = q02 + z.

(66)

Once q01 and q02 are known, we can solve for the waists as functions of z for each beam using
(54) (58) and (59).

13

7.4

Beam Transformation by Lenses

To fully characterize the laser beam within the cell, we must also track the position of its
center as it propagates between the mirrors. The center position of each elliptical beam spot
along the z direction is given using the ABCD ray matrix approach. Then we consider how
the q parameters and complex angle change upon reflection by an astigmatic lens. With
information about beam spot locations, their waists, and rotation angles, the beam pattern
at each cell cross section is plotted. Sample beam patterns at M1, the cell center, and M2
are shown in figure (10) for separation distance d = 18.52mm, 50 passes, = 16.77rad, and
= 0.05. For all laser calculations in this paper, the beam is initially circular with a waist of
0.4mm, wavelength = 795 106 mm, and no rotation angle . The minor and major axes of
the elliptical spots are the beam waists and there are only 25 spots at M1 and M2 because of
complete beam overlap.

(a) Beam pattern at M1

(b) Beam pattern at center

(c) Beam pattern at M2

Figure 10: Sample beam patterns at M1, the center of the cell, and M2, for d = 18.52mm, 50
passes, = 16.77 rad, and = 0.05. The major and minor axes of the beam ellipses are the
beam waists where intensity falls to 1/e2 of the maximal value. x and y axes are in mm.

7.4.1

The ABCD Matrix and the Paraxial Approximation

We describe the laser beam as a ray propagating along the z direction. At any point, the
ray is described by distance from the z axis, r, and the angle it makes with it, r0 . The paraxial
ray approximation assumes small angles so sin(r0 ) tan(r0 ) r0 . This approximation is valid
given that the beam enters the cell at a small angle of inclination (see figure (7)). To derive
the ABCD matrix approach for the beam center, consider the value of r and r0 at two planes
along the z axis, plane 1 with (r1 , r10 ) and plane 2 with (r2 , r20 ). The approximation assumes the
linear relation [15]
r2 = Ar1 + Br10
r20 = Cr1 + Dr10
or in matrix form

  
 
r2
A B
r1
=
.
0
r2
C D
r10

(67)

(68)

The elements of the ABCD matrix are determined by the media the ray propagates through.
As a simple example, consider the case where the ray travels through a uniform optical medium
(the space between the multipass cell) of length d. The relations between the rays at the two
planes separated by d are
r2 = r1 + d tan r10 r1 + dr10
r20 = r10 .

14

(69)

The ABCD matrix M is



1 d
M=
.
0 1

(70)

To generalize this approach to the position of the beam spot in the cell, we identify r as (x, y)t ,
the coordinates of the laser spot in the (x,y) plane, and r0 as (x0 , y 0 )t , the projections of a
unit vector along the x and y axes. Given an initial set of coordinates (x, y) and an initial set
of projections (x0 , y 0 ), (69) describes the center position of the beam spot at any distance if
d is replaced by an arbitrary distance z. The general astigmatic Gaussian beam propagation
through the cell may be described using this approach by writing [14]


x2

 x1
y2

= A B y1 .
(71)
x02
C D x01
y20
y10
where A, B, C, and D, are 2x2 matrices specific to the optical configuration. Let the subscripts
(1,2) now denote the planes of (M1, M2) respectively.
Within the paraxial approximation, the ABCD matrix to describe propagation through
an optical configuration is given by the product of the matrices for each component of the
system [14]. The matrix for one round trip between the mirrors is thus
M = M 1(f1 ) D(d) T () M 2(f2 ) T () D(d).

(72)

Reading right to left, the beam goes through the hole in M1 and travels distance d, then the
coordinate system is rotated by to account for the rotation of the mirrors. Then the beam
is transformed by M2 and the coordinate system is rotated by back to original coordinates.
The beam travels distance d towards M1, and is finally transformed by it (the last term in (72)).
All matrices in (72) are 4x4, dependent only on the parameter specified in their argument, and
given in [14]. For N round trips between the mirrors, the ABCD matrix is simply given by
M N . For example, given initial positions and projections (x0 , y0 , x00 , y00 )t at M1 given in (47),
the parameters (x2 , y2 , x02 , y20 )t after N round trips on the back mirror are given by


x2
x0

y2

= D(d) M N 1 y0 .
(73)
x00
x02
y20
y00
In the above equation, the beam passes N 1 times between the cells, ends up at M1, then
travels distance d to the back mirror M2. With (72) and initial values at M1 given in (47), the
positions of the beam center at the front and back mirrors after an arbitrary number of passes
can be calculated.
With the beam center position at each mirror determined, we describe the center position
of the beam everywhere within the cell by rewriting the paraxial propagation equation (69) as
   
 0
x2
x1
x1
=
+z
(74)
y2
y1
y10
where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to any two planes orthogonal to the z axis. With the beam
position after N passes determined, we find a mirror separation distance and twist angle such
that after N passes, the beam exits the cell through the hole in M1.

15

7.4.2

Transformation of q Parameters and Complex Angle

The ABCD matrix approach can also be used to determine how the complex beam parameters are transformed by lenses [15] [17]. However, we use an alternate method given in [17]
based upon the phase shift a thin astigmatic lens introduces into the laser field. Our cylindrical
mirror with focal lengths f1 and f2 twisted by with respect to the other mirror introduces the
phase shift
k
[F1 x2 + F2 y 2 + tan(2)(F2 F1 )xy]
(75)
2
where
cos2 sin2
sin2 cos2
F1 =
+
and F2 =
+
.
(76)
f1
f2
f1
f2
Denoting with a prime the Q and parameters of the transformed beam, we write the phase
of the beam after transformation
k 0 2
[Q x + Q02 y 2 + tan(20 )(Q02 Q01 )xy].
2 1

(77)

Inserting the phase shift given in (75) into the field equation for the beam before transformation
(63), we identify
Q01 = Q1 F1 and Q02 = Q2 F2
(78)
and
tan 20 =

tan(2)(Q2 Q1 ) tan(2)(F2 F1 )
.
(Q2 Q1 ) (F2 F1 )

(79)

To convert back to the q parameters, (64) solved for q1,2 is

q1,2 =

2
.
Q1 + Q2 [(Q1 Q2 )/ cos(2)]

(80)

Together, the above three equations describe how the complex beam parameter q and the angle
are transformed by lenses. Thus, for every reflection off the mirror, we may generate new
q and values for the beam. From the analysis given in 7.3 and these initial q and values,
we find the the value of the beam waists and rotation angles and thus the intensity for each z
position of each beam pass.

Intensity Profile Integrals

Using the techniques developed in section 7, for every xy cross section at some specified z, we
have N beam spots with known waists, rotation angles, and center positions (figure (10)). The
intensity distribution at each cross section is defined as the sum of the intensity distributions
of each beam spot
X
I(r) =
Ii (r)
(81)
i

where r = (x, y, z). Although the beam spot changes shape and orientation as it propagates,
no power is dissipated, so the intensity integral in the numerator should be constant for each z
slice. Indeed, integration of (65) in the xy plane gives 2 .
To calculate the integral in the denominator of (46) numerically, for each z position, we
divide the xy plane into a grid, find the total intensity contribution from all beams at each
point using (65) for each beam, square it, and integrate over the xy plane. Then we integrate
the result over the z direction.
The 3D numerical integration can be simplified if we ignore the intensity contribution
P from
beam overlap. The overlap information is contained in the cross terms of the expression ( i Ii )2 .
16

Ignoring these cross terms, the integrand in the denominator can be writen as
effective area is
P
P
(
Ii dxdy)2
( i /2)2
(N /2)2
i
A=l P 2
= lP 2
= lP 2
i Ii dV
i Ii dV
i Ii dV

2
i Ii

so the
(82)

where N is the number of passes in the cell. The integral in the denominator can be analytically
done in the x and y directions without regard to rotation angle as the integration covers the
entire beamspot

4x2 4y 2

1
2
exp(
2 )dxdy = (w1i w2i )1 .
(83)
Ii dxdy =
2
2
4
w1i
w2i
(w1i w2i )
With this simplification, calculation of the effective area is reduced from a 3 dimensional integral
into a one dimensional one as integration over each xy cross section to account for beam overlap
is avoided. A is now given by
A = lP

i 4

(N /2)2
.
(w1i (z)w2i (z))1 dz

(84)

We do this z integral in the denominator for each beam pass separately, then sum over all beam
passes.

8.1

The High Regime of Minimal Beam Overlap

To compare the no beam overlap area calculation to the general case, we seek a multipass cell
geometry to minimize overlap. This minimization is achieved by increasing the input beam
angle so the beam passes are further apart. Figure (11) shows the effect of increasing on
beam overlap at the center of the cell with 50 passes, d = 9.94mm, = 22.97 rad, and increasing
values. Notice that with increasing , the area which encloses all beam spots increases to
account for increased beam spot separation. Physically, we are limited in how high can be
by mirror size. We also make the small angle (paraxial) approximation so must remain small
enough such that sin .

(a) = 0.05

(b) = 0.1

(c) = 0.2

Figure 11: Beam patterns at the cell center for 50 passes, d = 9.94, = 22.97 rad, and
increasing values. As increases, so does beam separation, decreasing overlap. x and y axes
are in mm.
We compare the ratio of the area determined using general numerical calculation of (46) to
the approximate one in (84) as a function of increasing . The results are shown in figure (12)
for two different cell geometries. The approximate area calculation represents a maximum value
of the area in the case of no beam overlap. This can be seen from (84) as we have ignored the
positive cross terms contribution, making the denominator smaller than the general case. As
increases, the values of the approximate calculation and general one converge, in both cases
exhibiting only a 5% difference when is 0.4. Note that perfect agreement is impossible, as on
17

Figure 12: Ratio of area calculation in the general case considering beam overlap to the
simplified regime ignoring it for two mirror geometries. Red data: d=18.52mm, =16.77rad.
Blue data: d=9.94mm, =22.97rad. The number of passes and laser specifications are identical
for the two cases. As increases, overlap decreases, and this area ratio approaches unity.
For both cases, at = 0.4, the simplified calculation agrees with the general one within 5%.
Complete agreement is impossible due to complete beam overlap at M1 and M2.
the planes of M1 and M2, the beamspots always overlap. Nevertheless, the approximate area
method provides a simple and quick method for approximating the area in increased cases,
avoiding a computationally expensive 3D integration.

Conclusion

This paper explains the operational principle behind atomic magnetometers and then characterizes the intensity profile of the probe laser beam used in field measurement. Atomic
magnetometers have demonstrated the highest magnetic field sensitivity to date so studying
them explores the limits of magnetic sensitivity [3]. These magnetometers measure the Faraday
rotation angle of the plane of polarization of probe laser light as it propogates through alkali
metal vapor. We show that this angle is proportional to the atomic spin in the direction of
measurement, so spin uncertainty presents a fundamental sensitivity limit. Because Faraday
rotation involves excitation of the ground state electron of alkali metal atoms by the laser, we
review the energy levels of alkali metal atoms. We then explain the principle behind Faraday
rotation and show that the rotation signal (t) has a decaying sinusoidal structure in time
and oscillates at the frequency L of Larmor precession of the atomic spin vector about the
magnetic field. To examine magnetometer sensitivity, we quantify the effect of noise from spin
uncertainty and other experimental sources on the rotation signal by examining h2 (t)i. The
Fourier transform of the rotation noise signal is a Lorentzian peaked at L which is proportional
to magnetic field strength. The area under this Lorenztian gives the total rotation noise present
in the signal.
The latter part of this paper characterizes the intensity profile of the Gaussian laser beam as
it propagates through the multipass cell. This profile is essential in calculation of the effective
number of atoms measured and in quantifying the effect of diffusion on the noise signal [11]. To
characterize this profile, we use the ABCD ray matrix approach to trace the center of the laser
beam through the cell. We also find the expression for spatial intensity of the general astigmatic
Gaussian beam. With the intensity and center position of the beam propagation determined,
we plot the beam pattern after a specified number of passes within the cell. Finally, we conclude
by numerically computing integrals involving this intensity profile to find an expression for the
effective area of the photodetector used to measure the rotation signal. The number of atoms
18

measured depends on this area and we demonstrate that the approximation of ignoring beam
overlap within the cell reduces a three dimensional integral to one dimension. We find laser and
optical cell configurations so this approximation holds and show that the simpler integration
gives area values within 5% of the general calculation.
Further research should explore more efficient integration methods for calculation of atoms
measured, as the three dimensional integral is currently done as a Riemann sum and other
methods like Monte Carlo may be less computationally expensive. To expand the frontier of
magnetometer sensitivity, it is important to quantify or eliminate the effects of noise other than
spin noise on the rotation signal. These noise sources include photon shot noise, spin relaxation,
and diffusion of atoms in and out of the beam during measurement [18]. In particular, the effect
of diffusion is quantified in [11] and involves spatial intensity profile integrals. As more sources of
experimental noise are either quantified or eliminated, we approach the fundamental quantum
measurement sensitivity limit of atomic magnetometers in the attotesla regime [5]. Indeed,
current research in magnetometry is approaching attotesla sensitivity [5].

10

Acknowledgements

I thank Professor Romalis for his guidance throughout this project and Dr. Dong Sheng for
developing the multipass cell beamspot code and general integration method.
This paper represents my own work in accordance with University regulations.

19

References
[1] Romalis, Michael V.Quantum Noise in Atomic Magnetometers. Optical Magnetometry.
By Dmitry Budker and Derek F. Kimball. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013. 25-37. Print
[2] S. Li, P. Vachaspati, D. Sheng, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. A 84, 061403
(2011)
[3] D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nature Phys. 3, 227-229 (2007)
[4] V. Shah, G. Vasilakis, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 013601 (2010)
[5] Seltzer, S.J. Developments in Alkali-metal Atomic Magnetometry. Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton
University, Princeton, NJ, USA, 2008.
[6] Griffiths, David J. Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. Print.
[7] Keeler, James. Understanding NMR Spectroscopy. Cambridge University, 2004. Web.
[8] S. J. Smullin, I. M. Savukov, G. Vasilakis, R. K. Ghosh, and M. V. Romalis,
arXiv:physics/0611085v1.
[9] Jackson, John David. Classical Electrodynamics. 3rd ed. New York: Wiley, 1999. Print.
[10] Meier F, Dil J H and Osterwalder J, New J. Phys. 11, 125008 (2009)
[11] D. Sheng, S. Li, N. Dural, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 160802 (2013)
[12] R Kubo. Rep. Prog. Phys. 29 255 (1966)
[13] Crooker, S. A. et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 036601 (2010)
[14] V. Kasyutich, Appl. Phys. B 96, 141 (2009)
[15] Davis, Christopher C. Lasers and Electro-optics: Fundamentals and Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 316-71. Print.
[16] Kochkina, E., Wanner, G., Schmelzer, D., Trbs, M., Heinze, G., AO 52(24), 6030-6040
(2013)
[17] J. A. Arnaud and H. Kogelnik, Appl. Opt. 8, 1687 (1969)
[18] G. Vasilakis, V. Shah, and M. V. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 143601 (2011).

20