Abstract
The stabilization of lasers on ultra-stable optical cavities by the Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) technique is a widely used method. The PDH method relies on the phase-modulation of the laser, which is usually performed by an electro-optic modulator (EOM). When approaching the 10−16 fractional frequency stability level, this technology requires an active control of the residual amplitude modulation (RAM) generated by the EOM in order to bring the frequency stability of the laser down to the thermal noise limit of the ultra-stable cavity. In this article, we report on the development of an active system of RAM reduction based on a free space EOM, which is used to perform PDH-stabilization of a laser on a cryogenic silicon cavity. A minimum RAM instability of 1.4 × 10−7 is obtained by employing a digital servo that stabilizes the EOM DC electric field, the crystal temperature and the laser power. Considering an ultra-stable cavity with a finesse of 2.5 × 105, this RAM level would contribute to the fractional frequency instability at the level of about 5 × 10−19, well below the state of the art thermal noise limit of a few 10−17.
© 2022 Optica Publishing Group under the terms of the Optica Open Access Publishing Agreement
1. Introduction
Lasers stabilized to ultra-stable optical cavities are widely spread devices for precise fundamental experiments like gravitational waves detectors [1,2], spectroscopy [3], frequency standards [4–11] and tests of Lorentz invariance violation [12–15]. The Pound-Drever-Hall (PDH) technique [16] enables the frequency stabilization of lasers at a great level of precision, and state of the art fractional frequency stabilities are better than $\sigma _{y}= 10^{-16}$ [8,17].
The continuous improvement of the stability of optical cavities faces several technical challenges e.g. mechanical vibrations, fluctuations in laser power, or thermal noise. Among them, some stray effects grouped under the term of residual amplitude modulation (RAM) are responsible for an uncontrolled offset on the servo error signal that deteriorates the laser frequency stability. The PDH stabilization method requires phase modulation of the laser. While recently demonstrated with an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) [18], the phase modulation is generally applied by an electro-optic modulator crystal (EOM) which generates sidebands on the optical carrier. RAM arises from several origins [19] including a polarization mismatch between the extraordinary axis of the EOM crystal and the polarization plane of the light [20], parasitic interferences in the EOM giving birth to etalon effects [21,22], etalon effects in optics downstream of the EOM [23,24] or some spatial inhomogeneities of the laser beam [25].
Passive suppression of RAM in EOMs has been demonstrated using wedged crystal ends [26–29], and RAM can also be actively suppressed by acting on the EOM DC bias [20,30,31], the EOM temperature [32], or both [33]. Using digital electronics, we combine the stabilization of the laser power and EOM temperature to an active RAM suppression servo acting on the EOM DC input. We achieve a minimum RAM level of $1.4 \times 10^{-7}$, compatible with a fractional frequency stability of $5 \times 10^{-19}$ for a cavity finesse of $2.5\times 10^5$.
2. Analysis
The RAM in EOMs has been described theoretically in previous articles including [20,21], and several approaches and definitions can be found in the literature. We provide here the theoretical framework and definitions for the measurements presented in section 3.
The polarization of the laser beam before and after the EOM is defined with the help of two polarizers $P_1$ and $P_2$. The axis of $P_1$ and $P_2$ and the $z$-axis of the crystal are forming respectively the angles $\theta$ and $\gamma$ (Fig. 1). The expression of the optical field with amplitude $E_0$ projected onto the $z$-axis after the EOM output polarizer $P_2$ [20] is:
With the assumption that the polarizers are imperfectly aligned with the $z$-axis, $a \ll b \simeq 1$ and:
Equation (2) describes an amplitude and phase modulated optical field, in which the amplitude modulation term $m=m_0e^{j\alpha }$ is complex and introduces a phase shift of the amplitude modulated signal. By measuring the field $E(t)$ described by Eq. (2) with a photodiode of responsivity $\mathcal {R}$, we detect the RAM photo-current $i_{\textrm {RAM}}(t)$ at the modulation frequency $\Omega /2 \pi$:
The impact of the RAM of the EOM when used in an ultra-stable laser based on a Fabry-Perot cavity can be estimated theoretically by looking at the contribution of $M$ to the error signal of the PDH lock. We used the method proposed in [34] with an expression of the optical field corresponding to Eqs. (2) and (3) to calculate the photo-current at frequency $\Omega /2\pi$ provided by the photodiode that collects the reflection of the cavity (we consider the case of a phase modulation frequency larger than the cavity linewidth and ${m_0}^2$ terms are neglected):
3. Experimental setup
Figure 2 depicts the experimental setup. We use a 1542 nm fiber laser. A free-space AOM placed at the output can be used to implement a power lock, as we know that fluctuating power has an incidence on the RAM since it can induce temperature effects in the EOM crystal and influence the stray etalon effect [23]. Power fluctuations are detected through the DC port of PD2 and corrected with the AOM RF power. This power lock achieves a fractional power stability of $\Delta P/P = 10^{-4}$ with a locking bandwitdh close to $10$ kHz, which is sufficient for our RAM compensation setup.
After the output collimator $C$, a telescope resizes the beam and a power of $5$ mW is coupled to the free-space EOM. The polarization is finely tuned with a half-wave plate and a polarizer at the EOM input. The phase modulation is provided by a non-wedged LiNbO$_3$ EOM crystal on which we apply a RF power at $22.9$ MHz. The EOM is thermally controlled within $\pm 20$ mK with a Peltier device fastened below. A 50/50 beam splitter sends half the light on PD1 for an active control of the RAM while the rest is sent on PD2 for an out-of-loop measurement. The beams are focused on the photodiodes with a waist estimated to be well below $1$ mm. The two photodiodes, with an active area diameter of 1 mm, are mounted on identical electronic cards. In order to test several configurations of the servo loop, a polarizer precedes each photodiode, instead of a unique polarizer placed at the output of the EOM. This configuration allows to test the response of the servo loop when the RAM signal is increased with the in-loop photodiode polarizer $P_2$ rotated by 45$^\circ$.
All along the optical path, optics are slightly tilted to an angle of $\sim 5 ^\circ$ to minimize parasistic etalon effects. The protective window of the in-loop photodiode has also been removed to eliminate a retro-reflection on the active area. Finally, in order to isolate the optical setup from air conditioning fluxes and dust, the cavity table is enclosed by an isolation box.
The out-of-loop RAM is directly measured and recorded with a spectrum analyzer independently of the electronics used for the stabilization. In the in-loop branch, a $40 \textrm {~dB}$ amplifier and a directional $10 \textrm {~dB}$ coupler transmits the RF power $\mathcal {P}_m$ from photodiode PD1 to another spectrum analyzer for monitoring. Taking into account the load resistance of the photodiode $R_L$ and the input impedance $R_0$ of the RF amplifier, $M$ can be expressed as:
The signal at $22.9 \textrm {~MHz}$ is sampled by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC, 14 bits, 125 MS/s) and transferred in a field programmable gate array (FPGA). The digital error signal $V_{\textrm {I}}$ of the control loop is obtained by finely adjusting the phase of the demodulation. Synchronization between digital electronics boards is maintained by sharing the same clock signal at $125 \textrm {~MHz}$. The signal is then filtered and the data rate is reduced to $15.625 \textrm {~MS/s}$ before the proportional integrator function that produces the correction signal. The 14 bits digital to analog converter provides a $\pm 1 \textrm {~V}$ signal that is amplified by 46 dB and applied to the DC port of the EOM. With this large control voltage and a precise temperature regulation, the range of corrections is compatible with long time operation of the RAM control. We evaluate that the bandwidth of our RAM servo loop is close to $8$ kHz.The RAM lock and characterization has been integrated to our cryogenic cavity stabilized laser setup. With our $145$ mm long cavity, we expect that the thermal noise will limit the frequency stability at $3 \times 10^{-17}$ in fractional value [36]. This limit sets the goal to achieve for the RAM-induced fractional frequency instability.
4. Results
The RAM signal $M$ and the digital error signal $V_{\textrm {I}}$ are plotted on Fig. 3. Figure 3(a)), $M$ exhibits some cancellation points for particular temperatures of the crystal, at which the in-phase error signal undergoes a sign toggle. Thus, in our RAM compensation setup, we choose to tune the EOM temperature lock setpoint to one of these zero-crossings, before engaging the DC lock. Figure 3(b)) shows the RAM and digital error signal behaviors when the EOM DC input is modulated with a square function of $0.1$ Hz frequency and $\pm 196$ V amplitude, while the temperature regulation is active. The input voltage dynamic range provided by the EOM DC port is able to compensate RAM fluctuations of over 30%. We estimate that the bandwidth of the EOM temperature control is limited to a few tenths of hertz by the thermal response of the EOM crystal.
The plot of $M$ as a function of the EOM temperature shown Fig. 3 exhibits RAM cancellations and error signal sign inversions every $\sim 0.4\ ^\circ$C. This value is consistent with theoretical calculations of the phase shift:
Fig. 4-a) shows the evolution of $M$ in time when all locks are off (brown curve), with temperature stabilization at $T=25.18^\circ \textrm {C}$ (green curve), with laser power stabilization (pink curve), and with all locks including RAM engaged (orange curve). With the power lock on, fast variations of free running RAM are erased. However, a fluctuation of a period of $2500$ s is still clearly visible on the free running data, and is due to temperature fluctuations of $\pm 1^\circ \textrm {C}$ in the laboratory. These RAM fluctuations are not fully compensated by the temperature servo of the EOM crystal and the power lock. We assume that these fluctuations emanate from the etalon effect in other optics than the EOM, because they are not temperature controlled unlike the EOM crystal.
Fig. 4-b) shows the Allan deviation of the out-of-loop RAM index $M$. The free-running RAM (brown curve) is above $10^{-5}$ at all integration times. The green curve is obtained when the EOM temperature lock is enabled. While the gain is marginal at short-term, the long-term drift is strongly reduced. The pink curve is obtained when the laser power stabilization is enabled. There is a much higher gain at short term, but a strong drift after 10 s. With both temperature and laser power locked (blue curve), there is a factor of 5 to 10 reduction of RAM at all integration times. Fluctuations of $M$ are below $10^{-5}$ for $\tau$ between 1 s and 400 s, with a minimum at $3 \times 10^{-6}$. This is below the level set by the thermal noise limit of our cavity (red dashed line).
The orange and blue curves are obtained with the RAM control enabled for two different output polarizers angles (0$^\circ$ and 45$^\circ$). There is a gain of over 100 compared to the free-running situation, and the RAM stability is well below the level set by the cavity thermal noise for integration times up to $10^4$ s. At long term ($\tau \geq 1000$ s), the RAM stability is still in the $5 \times 10^{-7}$ domain. By comparison with the free-running case, the long term drift of the RAM is strongly mitigated and it should not be a cause for a long-term drift of the cavity.
5. Discussion
We have estimated the expected RAM contribution to the fractional frequency stability of a cryogenic silicon cavity (145 mm, $\mathcal {F}=2.5\times 10^5$) stabilized laser using Eq. (12). The RAM contribution has to be lower than the expected cavity thermal noise, which is $\sigma _{y}^{\textrm {thermal}}= 3 \times 10^{-17}$. This sets a limit $\sigma _{M}<8.8\times 10^{-6}$.
When the in-loop RAM level is minimized with $P_2$ turned at $0 ^\circ$, we reach a minimum RAM instability of $1.4 \times 10^{-7}$ for $\tau$ around 60 s, corresponding to a RAM-induced fractional frequency instability of $5 \times 10^{-19}$. We also tried to turn the polarizer of the in-loop photodiode $P_2$ at $45^\circ$, in order to increase the in-loop RAM signal and the control loop sensitivity. In this case, we achieved a slightly better result with $\sigma ^{\textrm {RAM}}_y= 3.4 \times 10^{-19}$ for short integration time.
The RAM stability shown Fig. 4-b) indicates that very low levels of RAM can be obtained by combining careful alignment of the input and output polarizers, laser power stabilization and EOM temperature stabilization. The level obtained in this configuration is competitive with both active RAM stabilization [32,33] and wedged EOMs RAM levels [26,27] for $\tau < 10$ s. When adding the active RAM correction through the EOM DC port, our results surpass both the best active [30,33] and passive [28] configurations, with a RAM below $4\times 10^{-7}$ from 1 to 1000 s. While the reduction of the fluctuations of the RAM is close to a factor $\sim 5$ in [33], there is a gain over 100 compared to the free-running situation in our setup, and the RAM stability is well below the level set by the cavity thermal noise for integration times up to $10^4$ s. This confirms that RAM in EOMs can be pushed down to very low levels by acting passively and/or actively on critical aspects including the EOM temperature, the optics alignment and back reflections, the input and output polarization alignments, the EOM DC bias and the laser power stability. This RAM-induced fractional frequency instability meets the requirements of our current project and is well below any current ultra-stable laser performance.
6. Conclusion
We have achieved a reduction of a free-space EOM RAM below $4 \times 10^{-7}$ for integration times between 1 s and 1000 s. This was made possible by the combination of laser power stabilization, EOM crystal temperature stabilization and active RAM compensation through the EOM DC port. In addition, digital signal processing yields great flexibility and repeatability, in comparison with analog control circuits, prevents any hysteresis effects and allows to preserve performances day after day. There is room for improvement by fine-tuning the laser power control, but also by better isolating the whole optical bench from the temperature fluctuations of the laboratory.
The RAM-induced fractional frequency instability is well below the thermal noise floor of $3 \times 10^{-17}$ computed for our single-crystal silicon cryogenic cavity. For integration times greater than $10^4$ s, the drift induced by RAM is expected to be lower than the drift of the ultra-stable cavity. These performances are then even suitable for next-generation ultra-stable cavities with enhanced stabilities.
Funding
Labex First-TF (ANR-10-LABX-0048-01); EIPHI Graduate School (ANR-17-EURE-0002); EquipeX OSCILLATOR-IMP (ANR-11-EQPX-0033); Région Bourgogne Franche-Comté.
Acknowledgments
The authors also thank Philippe Abbé and Benoît Dubois for electronical and mechanical support.
Disclosures
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability
Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.
References
1. K. Kokeyama, K. Izumi, W. Z. Korth, N. Smith-Lefebvre, K. Arai, and R. X. Adhikari, “Residual Amplitude Modulation in Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors,” arXiv:1309.4522 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc] (2013).
2. The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration et al., “Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA,” Living Rev Relativ 23(1), 3 (2020). [CrossRef]
3. J. Ye, L.-S. Ma, and J. L. Hall, “Ultrasensitive detections in atomic and molecular physics: Demonstration in molecular overtone spectroscopy,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 15(1), 6 (1998). [CrossRef]
4. B. C. Young, F. C. Cruz, W. M. Itano, and J. C. Bergquist, “Visible Lasers with Subhertz Linewidths,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(19), 3799–3802 (1999). [CrossRef]
5. H. Stoehr, F. Mensing, J. Helmcke, and U. Sterr, “Diode laser with 1 Hz linewidth,” Opt. Lett. 31(6), 736–738 (2006). [CrossRef]
6. A. D. Ludlow, X. Huang, M. Notcutt, T. Zanon-Willette, S. M. Foreman, M. M. Boyd, S. Blatt, and J. Ye, “Compact, thermal-noise-limited optical cavity for diode laser stabilization at 1×10-15,” Opt. Express 32(6), 641–643 (2007). [CrossRef]
7. J. Alnis, A. Matveev, N. Kolachevsky, T. Udem, and T. W. Hänsch, “Subhertz linewidth diode lasers by stabilization to vibrationally and thermally compensated ultralow-expansion glass Fabry-Pérot cavities,” Phys. Rev. A 77(5), 053809 (2008). [CrossRef]
8. T. Kessler, C. Hagemann, C. Grebing, T. Legero, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, M. J. Martin, L. Chen, and J. Ye, “A sub-40-mHz-linewidth laser based on a silicon single-crystal optical cavity,” Nat. Photonics 6(10), 687–692 (2012). [CrossRef]
9. T. L. Nicholson, M. J. Martin, J. R. Williams, B. J. Bloom, M. Bishof, M. D. Swallows, S. L. Campbell, and J. Ye, “Comparison of Two Independent Sr Optical Clocks with 1 × 10−17 stability at 103 s,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109(23), 230801 (2012). [CrossRef]
10. W. Zhang, J. M. Robinson, L. Sonderhouse, E. Oelker, C. Benko, J. L. Hall, T. Legero, D. G. Matei, F. Riehle, U. Sterr, and J. Ye, “Ultrastable Silicon Cavity in a Continuously Operating Closed-Cycle Cryostat at 4 K,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(24), 243601 (2017). [CrossRef]
11. L. Wu, Y. Jiang, C. Ma, W. Qi, H. Yu, Z. Bi, and L. Ma, “0.26-Hz-linewidth ultrastable lasers at 1557 nm,” Sci. Rep. 6(1), 24969 (2016). [CrossRef]
12. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, A. Saenz, A. Peters, and C. Lämmerzahl, “Optical cavity tests of Lorentz invariance for the electron,” Phys. Rev. D 68(11), 116006 (2003). [CrossRef]
13. H. Müller, S. Herrmann, C. Braxmaier, S. Schiller, and A. Peters, “Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(2), 020401 (2003). [CrossRef]
14. S. Herrmann, A. Senger, K. Möhle, M. Nagel, E. V. Kovalchuk, and A. Peters, “Rotating optical cavity experiment testing Lorentz invariance at the 10-17 level,” Phys. Rev. D 80(10), 105011 (2009). [CrossRef]
15. T. Zhang, J. Bi, Y. Zhi, J. Peng, L. Li, and L. Chen, “Test of Lorentz invariance using rotating ultra-stable optical cavities,” Phys. Lett. A 416, 127666 (2021). [CrossRef]
16. R. W. P. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. M. Ford, A. J. Munley, and H. Ward, “Laser phase and frequency stabilization using an optical resonator,” Appl. Phys. B 31(2), 97–105 (1983). [CrossRef]
17. G. D. Cole, W. Zhang, M. J. Martin, J. Ye, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Tenfold reduction of Brownian noise in high-reflectivity optical coatings,” Nat. Photonics 7(8), 644–650 (2013). [CrossRef]
18. Y. Zeng, Z. Fu, Y.-Y. Liu, X.-D. He, M. Liu, P. Xu, X.-H. Sun, and J. Wang, “Stabilizing a laser frequency by the Pound–Drever–Hall technique with an acousto-optic modulator,” Appl. Opt. 60(5), 1159 (2021). [CrossRef]
19. Y. Yu, Y. Wang, and J. R. Pratt, “Active cancellation of residual amplitude modulation in a frequency-modulation based Fabry-Perot interferometer,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87(3), 033101 (2016). [CrossRef]
20. N. C. Wong and J. L. Hall, “Servo control of amplitude modulation in frequency-modulation spectroscopy: Demonstration of shot-noise-limited detection,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2(9), 1527–1533 (1985). [CrossRef]
21. E. A. Whittaker, M. Gehrtz, and G. C. Bjorklund, “Residual amplitude modulation in laser electro-optic phase modulation,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2(8), 1320–1326 (1985). [CrossRef]
22. Q. A. Duong, T. D. Nguyen, T. T. Vu, M. Higuchi, D. Wei, and M. Aketagawa, “Suppression of residual amplitude modulation appeared in commercial electro-optic modulator to improve iodine-frequency-stabilized laser diode using frequency modulation spectroscopy,” J. Eur. Opt. Soc.-Rapid Publ. 14(1), 25 (2018). [CrossRef]
23. H. Shen, L. Li, J. Bi, J. Wang, and L. Chen, “Systematic and quantitative analysis of residual amplitude modulation in Pound-Drever-Hall frequency stabilization,” Phys. Rev. A 92(6), 063809 (2015). [CrossRef]
24. X. Dangpeng, W. Jianjun, L. Mingzhong, L. Honghuan, Z. Rui, D. Ying, D. Qinghua, H. Xiaodong, W. Mingzhe, D. Lei, and T. Jun, “Weak etalon effect in wave plates can introduce significant FM-to-AM modulations in complex laser systems,” Opt. Express 18(7), 6621 (2010). [CrossRef]
25. J. Sathian and E. Jaatinen, “Reducing residual amplitude modulation in electro-optic phase modulators by erasing photorefractive scatter,” Opt. Express 21(10), 12309 (2013). [CrossRef]
26. Z. Li, W. Ma, W. Yang, Y. Wang, and Y. Zheng, “Reduction of zero baseline drift of the Pound–Drever–Hall error signal with a wedged electro-optical crystal for squeezed state generation,” Opt. Lett. 41(14), 3331–3334 (2016). [CrossRef]
27. Z. Tai, L. Yan, Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, W. Guo, S. Zhang, and H. Jiang, “Electro-optic modulator with ultra-low residual amplitude modulation for frequency modulation and laser stabilization,” Opt. Lett. 41(23), 5584 (2016). [CrossRef]
28. J. Bi, Y. Zhi, L. Li, and L. Chen, “Suppressing residual amplitude modulation to the 10−7 level in optical phase modulation,” Appl. Opt. 58(3), 690–694 (2019). [CrossRef]
29. L. Jin, “Suppression of residual amplitude modulation of ADP electro-optical modulator in Pound-Drever-Hall laser frequency stabilization,” Opt. Laser Technol. 136, 106758 (2021). [CrossRef]
30. L. Li, H. Shen, J. Bi, C. Wang, S. Lv, and L. Chen, “Analysis of frequency noise in ultra-stable optical oscillators with active control of residual amplitude modulation,” Appl. Phys. B 117(4), 1025–1033 (2014). [CrossRef]
31. X. Guo, L. Zhang, J. Liu, L. Chen, L. Fan, and T. Liu, “Residual amplitude modulation suppression to 6x10-7 in frequency modulation,” in Twelfth International Conference on Information Optics and Photonics, vol. 12057 (SPIE, 2021), pp. 9–14.
32. L. Li, F. Liu, C. Wang, and L. Chen, “Measurement and control of residual amplitude modulation in optical phase modulation,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83(4), 043111 (2012). [CrossRef]
33. W. Zhang, M. J. Martin, C. Benko, J. L. Hall, J. Ye, C. Hagemann, T. Legero, U. Sterr, F. Riehle, G. D. Cole, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Reduction of residual amplitude modulation to 1 × 10−6 for frequency modulation and laser stabilization,” Opt. Lett. 39(7), 1980–1983 (2014). [CrossRef]
34. E. D. Black, “An introduction to pound–drever–hall laser frequency stabilization,” Am. J. Phys. 69(1), 79–87 (2001). [CrossRef]
35. X. Shi, J. Zhang, X. Zeng, X. Lü, K. Liu, J. Xi, Y. Ye, and Z. Lu, “Suppression of residual amplitude modulation effects in Pound–Drever–Hall locking,” Appl. Phys. B 124(8), 153 (2018). [CrossRef]
36. B. Marechal, J. Millo, A. Didier, P.-Y. Bourgeois, G. Goavec-Merou, C. Lacroute, E. Rubiola, and Y. Kersale, “Toward an ultra-stable laser based on cryogenic silicon cavity,” in 2017 Joint Conference of the European Frequency and Time Forum and IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium (EFTF/IFCS), (IEEE, Besancon, 2017), pp. 773–774.
37. D. H. Jundt, “Temperature-dependent Sellmeier equation for the index of refraction, n_e, in congruent lithium niobate,” Opt. Lett. 22(20), 1553 (1997). [CrossRef]
38. H. Y. Shen, H. Xu, Z. D. Zeng, W. X. Lin, R. F. Wu, and G. F. Xu, “Measurement of refractive indices and thermal refractive-index coefficients of LiNbO_3 crystal doped with 5 mol % MgO,” Appl. Opt. 31(31), 6695 (1992). [CrossRef]