Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2014 / iii / Paper 72 / 1

Choose the time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}$ and measure distances in background-wavenumber units. Thus $L_0=\Delta +1$, the incident field satisfies $L_0{\psi }_i=0$, and the scattering potential convention is $V=n^2-1$, giving $L_0\psi =-V\psi$. To match the minus sign in the paper's integral, take the outgoing Green function to satisfy $L_{0}G=\delta$. This is the negative of the frequently used outgoing Helmholtz equation fundamental solution satisfying $L_{0}G=-\delta$. In physical coordinates one restores $k_0^2$ in the scattering potential, or absorbs it in the integral kernel; the sign convention must remain consistent.

On a region where the incident and total fields are nonzero, introduce the logarithmic wave perturbationChoose a continuous logarithm branch connected to the unperturbed field. Substitution into the Helmholtz equation givesThe quadratic term uses the complex bilinear dot product, not the squared modulus of the gradient. Write $V=\epsilon V_1$ and $\chi =\epsilon {\chi }^{[1]}+\cdots$. The first-order Rytov approximation discards that quadratic term. Since $L_0({\psi }_i\chi )={\psi }_i{\mathcal{L}}_i\chi$, the outgoing first correction isand henceThe validity of the first Rytov approximation concerns the omitted logarithmic correction. Its next contribution satisfies ${\mathcal{L}}_i{\chi }_2=-\nabla {\chi }_1\cdot \nabla {\chi }_1$, so a useful explicit criterion is that the outgoing solution ${\chi }_2$ be small in the region of interest. Weak refractive index contrast and small wave phase gradients on a wavelength scale provide the usual perturbative regime, with weak amplitude fluctuations and no strong focusing or zeros that destroy the logarithm. A sufficient local source comparison is $|\nabla {\chi }_1\cdot \nabla {\chi }_1|\ll |V|$ where the scattering potential is nonzero, together with control of propagation of that error. This is not a universal pointwise test at zeros of $V$.

Small accumulated wave phase is not required in the same way as in a linear field approximation: the exponential retains that wave phase accumulation. Large gradients, strong multiple-scattering amplitude effects or field zeros can still invalidate the Rytov approximation. The integrals also require a finite scattering region or appropriate convergence conditions.

Let $\delta {\psi }_B={\psi }_1^{(B)}-{\psi }_i$ be the first-order scattered correction in the Born approximation for scalar wave scattering, using the paper's Green function convention. Comparing its outgoing integral with the preceding logarithmic correction givesTherefore the exact algebraic relation between the two first-order approximations isIf $V=O(\epsilon )$, then ${\chi }_1=O(\epsilon )$ on a controlled fixed region, andThus Born and Rytov agree to first order in the scattering potential, but differ as finite approximations. The Rytov approximation exponentiates the first logarithmic correction; the Born approximation adds the first field correction. The exponential's higher powers are not a calculation of all higher multiple-scattering terms in the Born series. This distinction explains why a smooth, appreciable wave phase accumulation can be represented more naturally by the Rytov approximation even when the corresponding linear field expansion is inaccurate.

Assume a real refractive index and write the scattering potential as $V=⟨V⟩+W$, so $⟨W⟩=0$ by construction. With the real kernel components in the question, the logarithmic Rytov approximation separates intoInclude the incident wave phase and the mean-potential wave phase in the deterministic reference ${\varphi }_0$: at each observation point it is $\arg {\psi }_i-\int b⟨V⟩$. It need not be spatially constant. The amplitude is $|{\psi }_i|\exp [-\int aV]$. The phase covariance in the first Rytov approximation therefore starts from the fluctuating wave phaseUnder the integrability assumptions needed to interchange the expectation and integral,For a complex absorbing potential, the corresponding phase fluctuation is $-\int [b\mathrm{Re}W+a\mathrm{Im}W]$; the displayed scalar formula is the real-index case. The zero mean comes from centering $V$, not from setting the mean of $V$ equal to zero. In particular the printed $⟨n⟩=0$ does not imply $⟨V⟩=0$. A physical positive refractive index usually has a nonzero background mean; a zero-mean assumption normally refers to its fluctuation. The algebra above remains meaningful for a signed real random field and explicitly retains its mean scattering potential.

Let the stationary scattering potential fluctuation have autocorrelation function of a random fieldBecause $W$ is centered, this is also its covariance function. Multiplying the two real wave phase integrals and taking expectations givesThe two minus signs cancel. This is the wave phase variance, since the wave phase mean is zero. More generally the phase covariance in the first Rytov approximation replaces the first kernel by $b({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime })$ and the second by $b({\mathbf{r}}_2,{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime \prime })$. Finite observation/scattering windows, or suitable weighted-integrability hypotheses, make these double integrals well-defined in a stationary infinite-medium model.

The correlation needed here is that of the scattering potential fluctuation. With the printed $V=n^2-1$, the covariance of a squared random field isIt involves a fourth moment of $n$, so its value is not generally determined by the ordinary two-point correlation $C_n=⟨n({\mathbf{r}}^{\prime })n({\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }+\mathbf{\rho })⟩$ alone. If one additionally assumes a zero-mean Gaussian random field, Isserlis theorem yields $C_W=2C_n^2$. That assumption is not printed and must not be inserted silently. Alternatively, for a physical weak fluctuation $n_{\mathrm{phys}}=1+\eta$, $W\simeq 2\eta$ gives $C_W\simeq 4C_{\eta }$. The general answer uses $C_W$; either reduction to a refractive index two-point correlation requires an extra assumption.