Abstract

The theory of the degree of paraxiality is correct. Very likely, the Comment [Opt. Lett. 33, 3004 (2008) ] on our original Letter [Opt. Lett. 33, 1360 (2008) ] originated from an imprecision we made in the plot included in the paper. Such imprecision induced the Comment’s author to raise further objections that, as proved in the present Reply, are totally incorrect.

© 2008 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

Corrections

Omar El Gawhary and Sergio Severini, "Reply to comment on “Degree of paraxiality for monochromatic light beams”: erratum," Opt. Lett. 34, 343-343 (2009)
https://www.osapublishing.org/ol/abstract.cfm?uri=ol-34-3-343

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. P. Vaveliuk, Opt. Lett. 33, 3004 (2008).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Recall that m=[1/λ2−η2]1/2 for η2⩽1/λ2 and m=i[η2−1/λ2]1/2 for η2>1/λ2 and η2=p2+q2.
  3. O. El Gawhary and S. Severini, Opt. Lett. 33, 1360 (2008).
    [CrossRef]
  4. P. Vaveliuk, B. Ruiz, and A. Lencina, Opt. Lett. 32, 927 (2007).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. A plot of field spectrum readily reveals its NP nature. The paraxial estimator has no physical meaning in such regime.

2008 (2)

2007 (1)

Opt. Lett. (3)

Other (2)

A plot of field spectrum readily reveals its NP nature. The paraxial estimator has no physical meaning in such regime.

Recall that m=[1/λ2−η2]1/2 for η2⩽1/λ2 and m=i[η2−1/λ2]1/2 for η2>1/λ2 and η2=p2+q2.

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (1)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Degree of paraxiality P for a zero-order BG beam versus the normalized waist w 0 λ , for the following normalized transverse wavenumbers: (a) β λ = 0 (a pure Gaussian beam), (b) β λ = 3 , and (c) β λ = 4 ; in (d) the paraxial estimator [4] for a Gaussian beam as in (a) is reported.

Metrics