Yellampalle Balakishore, Kim Ki-Yong, Glownia James H, Taylor Antoinette J
Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545, USA.
Opt Lett. 2007 May 15;32(10):1341-2; discussion 1343-4. doi: 10.1364/ol.32.001341.
We comment on the recent Letter by S. P. Jamison et al. [Opt. Lett.31, 1753 (2006)] where the analysis of a chirped probe pulse that is electro-optically modulated by a terahertz pulse reportedly results in a new expression for the electric field. While in principle the derived expressions for the total field after the crystal are correct, in their treatment the authors implicitly assumed that the derived total field is identical to the measured field, without regard to the residual birefringence of a typical electro-optic crystal or a crossed analyzer. Based on this analysis neglecting birefringence, they report that earlier expressions of the temporal field are incorrect. Here we show, on the contrary, that for chirped single-shot terahertz measurement schemes that include residual birefringence, the temporally resolved electro-optic effect is described correctly by the commonly used expression in the literature. We verify this result with our experimental data.
我们对S. P. 贾米森等人近期发表在《光学快报》[Opt. Lett. 31, 1753 (2006)]上的信件进行评论。在该信件中，据报道对由太赫兹脉冲进行电光调制的啁啾探测脉冲的分析得出了电场的新表达式。虽然原则上晶体之后总场的推导表达式是正确的，但在他们的处理中，作者隐含地假设推导得到的总场与测量场相同，而没有考虑典型电光晶体或交叉检偏器的残余双折射。基于这种忽略双折射的分析，他们报告说早期的时间场表达式是不正确的。相反，我们在此表明，对于包含残余双折射的啁啾单次太赫兹测量方案，文献中常用的表达式能够正确描述时间分辨电光效应。我们用实验数据验证了这一结果。
