4.6 Article

Observation of optical feedback dynamics in single-mode terahertz quantum cascade lasers: Transient instabilities

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.033504

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council Discovery Project [DP200101948]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC UK) [EP/J002356/1, EP/P021859/1, EP/T034246/1]
  3. Advance Queensland Industry Research Fellowships program
  4. EPSRC [EP/T034246/1, EP/P021859/1, EP/J002356/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Australian Research Council [DP200101948] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents experimental evidence of transient instabilities in a terahertz quantum cascade laser under optical feedback, contradicting the widely accepted view of its ultra-stability. The absence of relaxation oscillations and low linewidth enhancement factor in THz QCLs make them uniquely suitable for exploring external-cavity dynamics in semiconductor lasers. These findings open up possibilities for a THz sensing and imaging modality based on these transient instabilities, offering a simpler alternative to existing approaches using laser feedback interferometry.
We provide an experimental evidence of transient instabilities (TIs) in a terahertz (THz) quantum cascade laser (QCL) under optical feedback, in contrast to the widely accepted claim that THz QCLs are ultrastable against feedback. The TIs appear as periodic oscillations in emitted power or terminal voltage of the laser with an increasing oscillation frequency as feedback increases. The absence of relaxation oscillations and low linewidth enhancement factor in THz QCLs makes them a platform uniquely suitable for exploring external-cavity-related dynamics in semiconductor lasers. This work opens a pathway to a THz sensing and imaging modality based on these TIs, which has much reduced complexity compared to existing approaches using laser feedback interferometry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据