A little more insight can be obtained if one accepts the approximation that if only a narrow wavelength interval needs to be considered, then the significant changes in the drop power and through power originate ``exclusively'' from the cosine terms in Equations (1.4), (1.5) that include the phase information.
To take into account the nonnegligible length
of the cavity segments in the coupler regions, write the phase term as
, where
is the complete cavity length, and
(a
corresponding procedure is also applied to the phase term in the numerator of
Equation (1.5)). Further consider only the wavelength dependence
of the propagation constant
as it appears explicitly in the term
. In this way, one incorporates the wavelength
dependence of the phase change
for the entire cavity,
but disregards the wavelength dependence of the phase change
that is
introduced by the interaction with the port waveguides.
With the above approximation, resonances (i.e. maxima of the dropped power)
are now characterized by singularities in the denominators of
Equations (1.4), (1.5), which occur if
. This leads to the condition
![]() |
(1.6) |
For a resonant configuration, the dropped power is given by
Note that properly computed values of
,
and
already include the losses
along the parts of the cavity inside the couplers. Therefore
in the
Equation (1.7) (and in those places of
Equations (1.4), (1.5) where attenuation is
concerned) must not be replaced by
.
In Chapter 4, we verify the validity of the above outlined approximation. As we shall see in the subsequent paragraphs, it provides quite useful insight into the spectral response of microresonators.