Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nieto Vesperinas1987
Nieto Vesperinas1987
Nieto Vesperinas1987
The scattering of light and other electromagnetic surfaces are generated by following a procedure used
waves from rough surfaces has long been a subject of in Ref. 18, that is, a sequence of random numbers, with
interest. Recently much attention has been focused normal statistics, zero mean, and variance unity is
on this subject in connection with the discovery of the constructed from another series of random numbers
weak localization of photons in random media. This uniformly distributed in (0, 1) directly generated by
is manifested by an enhancement of intensity in the the computer. Then the former sequence is rescaled
backscattering direction when multiple scattering to the desired variance, and the result, say, lykl, is
takes place.1 -4 This phenomenon has been observed correlated with a Gaussian, (2/4rT)1 exp[-2 (k/t) 2],
12
recently in extremely rough random surfaces with to get the appropriate surface profile tzsl with a Gauss-
large conductivity. 5' 6 However, none of the current ian correlation function.
reported theories has predicted this effect sofar. This For a given incident linearly polarized plane wave
may be because multiple-scattering models are pertur- a exp[iko (x sin 00 - z cos 00)] (ko = 27r/X, a is a unit
bative, based either on the Rayleigh hypothesis7' 8 or vector specifying the polarization, and 00 is the inci-
on the extinction theorem9 - 1 3 as formulated in Ref. 14. dence angle) upon a certain surface sample, the corre-
(A good review may be found in Ref. 15.) Therefore sponding electric current J(x) is determined from the
all calculations so far have been restricted to small extinction theorem boundary condition, namely, Eqs.
roughness, a <<X. A perturbative analysis established (15) and (17) of Ref. 14 for the electric field for s waves
in Ref. 16 accounts for the existence of backscattering and Eqs. (18) and (20) of Ref. 14 for the magnetic field
peaks for small roughness when there is interaction for p waves. (Note that only the electric current term
with surface polaritons but does not apply to the ob- will contribute for perfect conductors. Also, since the
servations of Refs. 5 and 6. surface is 1-D, no depolarization occurs.) Then the
The purpose of this Letter is to show that the formu- electric current is introduced into the far-zone expres-
lation based on the extinction theorem (which in prin- sion for the scattered field, and the angular distribu-
ciple constitutes an exact approach to the problem) tion of scattered intensity for that sample is obtained.
can account for the enhanced backscattering phenom- This intensity is normalized to its total area, so that
enon if one uses it without perturbative series approxi- the result is independent of the total incident energy,
mations. As a matter of fact, that method permits illuminated sample length, and other constants ap-
numerical calculations that may be performed for al- pearing in the asymptotic far-zone expressions. For
most any roughness a and correlation length T of the each incident wave, the intensities for 200 samples
surface profile within the limitations of today's com- were calculated, and then their average was taken; 220
puters (which require that the surface model be one points were taken in each surface sample to perform
dimensional). This is important in our opinion, since the x integrals. Calculations were done on a CDC
it permits the prediction of interesting results in quite Cyber 180/855 computer. Small dispersion in the ar-
different situations, including those of large a or large eas of the calculated nonnormalized intensities was
incidence angles, not yet considered in multiple-scat- considered a criterion of numerical consistency of the
tering theories. Further, it can yield an exhaustive results. The statistical bias of the mean intensities
collection of scattering data with the possibility of produced asymmetric curves for 00 = 00, which were
establishing more-accurate criteria of validity of the artificially symmetrized by averaging every two values
well-known Kirchhoff approximation (KA).17 at scattering angles 0 and -0.
We present Monte Carlo computer simulations for For brevity we present only a few representative
the scattered intensities from samples of one dimen- results. Figs. 1-3 show the angular distribution of
sional (1-D) perfectly conductive random surfaces, z = mean scattered intensities for s waves (solid lines) and
D(x), with rms a, normal statistics, and a Gaussian p waves (dotted lines) for T = 0.2X, X,and 1.8X, respec-
correlation function exp(-r 2/T 2 ), r = x - x'. The tively, and for different values of a-,(also in units of X).
Ob ..... II..
were made. This is clearly confirmed in our results.
0.2
( a)
cr=
To= .2 (b)
cr=
T = 0.2
0.5
Figure 4 (a) shows the scattered intensity for T = X,a =
1.5X, and 00 = 40' for one surface sample (p waves
Fig. 1. Mean scattered intensity for (a) T = 0.2,N,a = 0.2,N, above, s waves below). Large speckle fluctuations are
(b) T = 0.2X, a = 0.5X, and several angles of incidence. Solid exhibited that swamp the backscattering and specular
curves, s waves; dotted curves, p waves.
'\
7 -
Eg ....
......... . - ...........
-- a. o - .6 -17 .. .1 .. 1i 1. ...
.. - .. - .. -11 I. .1 .. . 1. .. ..
Ob ... 0I).-.1i.. -'I.
SI . . . . - . . . . . .I . I
4. i -"".i ", .. , ." .. , .'. .. ,, .. .'. ..
Ob..... II.. .. gI. b ...- ... ... 1, ... I: 11.1r. - 1. INIEC NLE . o0 DECREES
Z
I
INCIENE .. CLE 1. DECREE5 INCIEXCE: 11CLE. 1o DEGIEES
i
2
INCDENI
.. XC.L . O DECGlES .."'IDE11E G1r 0 DEr.11
I
4-
-. ,I 1.
;. ........... .. .1 Ob ..... ..
O.2
-67-;'. 'I' I% .II. ( 1) ) T,
Cr- 0.2
( a ) T = 1.0
.S' . . I
- ..
11
Iv - I
"". "
- - I
appears at low T; see Fig. 1(a). There a is comparable Fig. 4. (a) Scattered intensity from one sample with T = X,
with T, and thus small a still gives rise to a large a = 1.5Xfor s waves (lower curve) and p waves (upper curve).
specular peak for the s component. However, the p (b) Mean scattered intensity from ten samples with T = X,a
component has a drastically different behavior: it is = 1.5X for s waves (lower curve) and p waves (upper curve).
December 1987 / Vol. 12, No. 12 / OPTICS LETTERS 981