Startseite Nonreciprocal scattering and unidirectional cloaking in nonlinear nanoantennas
Artikel Open Access

Nonreciprocal scattering and unidirectional cloaking in nonlinear nanoantennas

  • Heedong Goh , Alex Krasnok ORCID logo und Andrea Alù ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. Juli 2024
Veröffentlichen auch Sie bei De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Reciprocal scatterers necessarily extinguish the same amount of incoming power when excited from opposite directions. This property implies that it is not possible to realize scatterers that are transparent when excited from one direction but that scatter and absorb light for the opposite excitation, limiting opportunities in the context of asymmetric imaging and nanophotonic circuits. This reciprocity constraint may be overcome with an external bias that breaks time-reversal symmetry, posing however challenges in terms of practical implementations and integration. Here, we explore the use of tailored nonlinearities combined with geometric asymmetries in suitably tailored resonant nanoantennas. We demonstrate that, under suitable design conditions, a nonlinear scatterer can be cloaked for one excitation direction, yet strongly scatters when excited at the same frequency and intensity from the opposite direction. This nonreciprocal scattering phenomenon opens opportunities for nonlinear nanophotonics, asymmetric imaging and visibility, all-optical signal processing and directional sensing.

1 Introduction

Controlling wave scattering beyond conventional regimes can expand the functionalities of nanophotonic devices. Common examples of anomalous scattering responses are cloaking [1]–[3], superscattering [4]–[6], beam steering [7], asymmetric or power-dependent responses [8], [9], and nonreciprocal scattering [10]. Non-Hermitian and P T -symmetric systems offer other forms of exotic scattering responses, including exceptional points, embedded eigenstates with large radiative Q-factors, and topologically nontrivial states [11]. In this context, direction-selective transparency and cloaking may be exploited for asymmetric imaging and directional sensing and to realize uni-directional data flows in light-based analog photonic computing platforms [12]. Breaking reciprocity in photonic systems is an outstanding research direction, and various strategies have been developed in recent years, e.g., by using an external bias to break time-reversal symmetry in the constitutive tensors [10,13,14] or by breaking time-invariance through suitable forms of time modulation [1520]. A nonlinear material response, such as an intensity-dependent permittivity, can also break reciprocity in a bias-free and passive approach [2131]. As a relevant reference for the following discussion, Ref. [32] discusses the fundamentals of nonlinearity-induced nonreciprocity in the context of two-port systems, and the opportunities and limitations of this approach.

2 Nonreciprocity and asymmetric scattering cross-sections

While a finite scatterer in an unbounded medium is not limited to two ports, rather it can couple to a continuum of radiation modes, reciprocity has important implications also for scattering phenomena. This can be realized by considering the forward scattered fields for waves incident from opposite directions [10], [33]. In the absence of material loss and hence of absorption, the total scattering cross-section (SCS) of a general scatterer is proportional to its forward scattering [34]

(1) σ scat = 4 π k 0 I m f ( 0 ) .

Here, f(0) is the normalized forward scattering amplitude, such that E scat / E 0 e ̂ x = f ( 0 ) e i k 0 r / r , where E 0 is the amplitude of the incident wave, E scat is the scattered electric field, and r is an observation point distance in the far-field. While the SCS generally changes for different incident directions, reciprocity requires the same total SCS is obtained when the direction is reversed, as expected because the forward scattering coefficients for opposite directions are related through reciprocity [10].

This symmetry can be expectedly broken by applying a magnetic field in magneto-optical particles [3540], but magneto-optical phenomena are weak in nanophotonics and often poorly compatible with conventional photonic platforms. Time modulation of the material parameters can also break reciprocity, but it requires a large-intensity optical pump [41]. Using optical nonlinearities combined with geometrical asymmetries may therefore offer unique opportunities for nonreciprocal nanophotonic scattering. Figure 1 shows a schematic of nonreciprocal scattering induced by material nonlinearity. It compares scattering patterns for opposite excitation directions in reciprocal and nonreciprocal scenarios. A geometrically asymmetric object in Figure 1(a) scatters asymmetrically for reversed excitation. However, its total SCS must be the same because of reciprocity [10]. On the other hand, for input intensities sufficiently large to induce optical nonlinearities, an asymmetric frequency shift in the scattering peak can be leveraged to realize nonreciprocal scattering. Figure 1(b) illustrates the extreme scenario of interest here in which cloaking (zero total scattering) is achieved in one direction, while maximum scattering is obtained in the opposite direction. Such a structure therefore consists of a compact scatterer that is transparent upon right-side excitation but, at the same time, it resonantly scatters for left-side excitation at the same frequency and input intensity. This nonreciprocal response may enable novel functionalities in nonlinear photonics, and it may be useful for directional sensors [42] and to enhance the response of nanoscale analog computers [12]. Clouds of such nanoparticles may realize largely asymmetric visibility, blinding an unfriendly observer while enabling visibility from the opposite side.

Figure 1: 
Reciprocal and nonreciprocal scattering. (a) Geometrical asymmetry results in different scattering patterns for different directions of excitations. However, the total scattering cross-section is identical. (b) Nonreciprocal scattering can be achieved by introducing a nonlinear material response in addition to geometric asymmetry.
Figure 1:

Reciprocal and nonreciprocal scattering. (a) Geometrical asymmetry results in different scattering patterns for different directions of excitations. However, the total scattering cross-section is identical. (b) Nonreciprocal scattering can be achieved by introducing a nonlinear material response in addition to geometric asymmetry.

3 Nonreciprocal scattering in a two-particle system

Consider an array of two lossless particles, small enough to be well described by their dipolar polarizabilities α 1 and α 2, which relate the local electric fields to the electric dipole moments p 1 and p 2:

(2) α 1 1 p 1 = E 1 loc  and  α 2 1 p 2 = E 2 loc ,

where the local electric fields at each particle E 1 loc and E 2 loc are defined as

(3) E 1 loc = E inc r 1 + Γ ̂ 12 p 2 and E 2 loc = E inc r 2 + Γ ̂ 21 p 1 .

Here r i are the positions of the particles and Γ ̂ i j = k 0 2 / ε 0 G ( r i , r j ) describe the fields induced by each scatterer on the location of the other scatterer, where G is the dyadic Green’s function, k 0 is the wavenumber in a vacuum and ɛ 0 is the vacuum permittivity. We consider a plane wave excitation E inc r = E 0 e i k 0 r cos θ e ̂ x , where r is the distance from the origin, θ is the polar angle, and E 0 is the amplitude of the incident electric field.

Each particle is designed to exhibit a nonlinear Fano resonance, where we rely on Mie theory to tailor the desired resonant behavior [34]. The polarizabilities of each particle are defined as

(4) α i 1 = i k 0 3 6 π ε 0 1 c i , 1 TM ,

where the Mie coefficient c i , 1 TM depends on the input intensity through the nonlinear permittivity ε i = ε i lin + χ i ( 3 ) E i loc 2 , χ i ( 3 ) is the third-order susceptibility and ε i lin is the linear permittivity. By considering silicon spheres with ε i lin = 3.967 ε 0 and χ i ( 3 ) = 2.8 × 1 0 18  m2/V2 [29], with radii a 1 = 200 nm and a 2 = 230 nm, and a distance between the two particles |r 1r 2| = 975 nm, we find a sufficiently asymmetric Fano resonant scattering from the two particles to demonstrate nonreciprocal cloaking for a plane wave excitation with electric field E 0 = 1.8 GV/m (or 430 GW/cm2). The selected separation distance between the two particles exceeds the radius of each particle, fulfilling the requirements of the dipole approximation [43]. A detailed discussion of our analytical model, together with its solution method and an inverse design approach, are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Figure 2 shows the calculated polarizabilities (a) and total scattering cross-sections (b) of the two-particle system for opposite excitations as we scan the frequency. We observe the largest SCS contrast at f = 178.34 THz, for which we achieve minimum scattering when the incident wave propagates in the positive z-direction (left-to-right case), while we find a resonant peak in scattering when the incident wave propagates in the negative z-direction (right-to-left case). The polarizability of particle 1 shows a small change for opposite excitation directions because its resonant frequency is above the frequency of interest; conversely, particle 2 shows a significant shift in its resonant frequency near the design frequency. Minimum scattering is achieved when the phases of the induced dipoles are opposite, canceling their dipolar radiation in the far-field. This gives rise to a cloaking response [1]. In the reverse excitation scenario, the dipole moments are instead close to in-phase, leading to a scattering peak. By considering more degrees of freedom in the scattering system, e.g., using different shapes or a larger number of particles, the scattering contrast may be further increased [44,45].

Figure 2: 
Polarizabilities and scattering cross-sections. (a) Polarizabilities of particle 1 and particle 2 indicated by red and blue lines, respectively, where the solid lines refer to left-to-right (positive z-direction) excitation, and dashed lines refer to right-to-left (negative z-direction) excitations. (b) Total scattering cross-section (SCS). Large nonreciprocity is observed at the frequency of 178.34 THz: minimum scattering for left-to-right excitation and maximum scattering for right-to-left excitation. The total scattering cross-section is normalized by the geometric cross-section of the largest particle.
Figure 2:

Polarizabilities and scattering cross-sections. (a) Polarizabilities of particle 1 and particle 2 indicated by red and blue lines, respectively, where the solid lines refer to left-to-right (positive z-direction) excitation, and dashed lines refer to right-to-left (negative z-direction) excitations. (b) Total scattering cross-section (SCS). Large nonreciprocity is observed at the frequency of 178.34 THz: minimum scattering for left-to-right excitation and maximum scattering for right-to-left excitation. The total scattering cross-section is normalized by the geometric cross-section of the largest particle.

Figure 3(a) and (c) show differential SCS patterns in polar angle versus frequency for opposite incident directions. Accordingly, Figure 3(b) and (d) show the three-dimensional differential SCSs clipped in the xz plane, at the design frequency. Overall, we observe a dominant dipolar response in the direction of the forward and backward scattering regions. Figure 3(b) demonstrates negligible scattering in the forward and backward regions in contrast to Figure 3(d), and a much smaller overall scattering. On the other hand, differential SCSs in the perpendicular directions are nearly the same for both incidence cases, since they are associated with higher-order harmonics not considered in our design. The corresponding total and scattered electric fields are provided in the Supplementary Materials, demonstrating good unidirectional cloaking performance and dramatic scattering contrast.

Figure 3: 
Differential scattering cross-sections. (a) Differential SCS in polar angle (x–z plane) when the incident planewave propagates from left to right (positive z-direction). Minimum scattering is observed at f = 178.34 THz (highlighted in red). (b) 3D plot of the differential SCS at f = 178.34 THz. The symmetric half is clipped to highlight the scattering pattern in polar angles. (c) Differential SCS in polar angle when the incident wave propagates from right to left (negative z-direction). Maximum scattering is observed at f = 178.34 THz (highlighted in red). (d) 3D plot of the differential SCS at f = 178.34 THz.
Figure 3:

Differential scattering cross-sections. (a) Differential SCS in polar angle (xz plane) when the incident planewave propagates from left to right (positive z-direction). Minimum scattering is observed at f = 178.34 THz (highlighted in red). (b) 3D plot of the differential SCS at f = 178.34 THz. The symmetric half is clipped to highlight the scattering pattern in polar angles. (c) Differential SCS in polar angle when the incident wave propagates from right to left (negative z-direction). Maximum scattering is observed at f = 178.34 THz (highlighted in red). (d) 3D plot of the differential SCS at f = 178.34 THz.

Finally, we performed a parametric study to explore the dependence of the SCS contrast on the electric field strength and frequency [Figure 4(a)] and on the particle distance and frequency [Figure 4(b)]. Figure 4(a) demonstrates that more considerable contrast σ scat l r σ scat r l / σ geo is achieved for a stronger incident field, while the frequency of the largest contrast monotonically shifts as the incident field strength increases. The SCS contrast is sensitive to the distance between the particles [Figure 4(b)]. Once the particle distance is determined, the design frequency and strength can be determined based on Figure 4(a).

Figure 4: 
Scattering cross-section contrast, 






σ


scat


l
r


−


σ


scat


r
l




/


σ


geo




$\left\vert {\sigma }_{\text{scat}}^{lr}-{\sigma }_{\text{scat}}^{rl}\right\vert /{\sigma }_{\text{geo}}$



 versus (a) incident field strength and frequency and (b) particle distance and frequency. The parameter choices for Figures 2 and 3 are marked by red “×”.
Figure 4:

Scattering cross-section contrast, σ scat l r σ scat r l / σ geo versus (a) incident field strength and frequency and (b) particle distance and frequency. The parameter choices for Figures 2 and 3 are marked by red “×”.

4 Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that a geometrically asymmetric subwavelength nonlinear scatterer can support largely nonreciprocal scattering, close to the maximum contrast achievable for a dipolar particle, providing a passive and bias-free approach for nonreciprocal scattering and unidirectional cloaking. Because the approach relies on nonlinearity, the principle of linear superposition cannot be applied, implying that, in the presence of waves from opposite directions, the system may not be able to ‘isolate’ one side. In other words, in the presence of a strong input wave from the ‘uncloaked’ direction, a signal coming from the opposite side may be able to drastically modify the scattering response. The designed response may be of interest for nanophotonic applications, e.g., in the realization of optically controlled transmission switching [32]. A cloud of such particles, properly aligned, may enable efficient asymmetric visibility beyond the limits expected for reciprocal system, e.g., the trade-off between visibility and asymmetry in conventional one-way mirrors. We demonstrated this exotic scattering response using a simple two-particle array of nonlinear Fano dipolar scatterers, and more complex geometries may be optimized using an inverse design approach to achieve more extreme responses, e.g., switchable superscattering and transparency or to enable greater flexibility in the response, of interest to broaden the operator space for wave-based analog computers when combined with the precise control over the scatterer nonlocality [12]. The proposed nonreciprocal scattering features can be used as a building block to design ultrafast switchable nonreciprocal mirrors, metalens, absorbers, metagratings, and photonic topological insulators.


Corresponding author: Andrea Alù, Photonics Initiative, Advanced Science Research Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10031, USA; and Physics Program, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY 10016, USA, E-mail: 

Funding source: Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Funding source: Simons Foundation

Funding source: Department of Defense

  1. Research funding: This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Simons Foundation and the Department of Defense.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.

  3. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflicts of interest.

  4. Data availability: Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

[1] A. Alù and N. Engheta, “Achieving transparency with plasmonic and metamaterial coatings,” Phys. Rev. E, vol. 72, no. 1, 2005, Art. no. 016623. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.72.016623.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[2] P. Alitalo and S. A. Tretyakov, “Broadband electromagnetic cloaking realized with transmission-line and waveguiding structures,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 99, no. 10, pp. 1646–1659, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2010.2093471.Suche in Google Scholar

[3] R. D. Kekatpure, E. S. Barnard, W. Cai, and M. L. Brongersma, “Phase-coupled plasmon-induced transparency,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 104, no. 24, 2010, Art. no. 243902. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.104.243902.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Z. Ruan and S. Fan, “Superscattering of light from subwavelength nanostructures,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 105, no. 1, 2010, Art. no. 013901. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.105.013901.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] L. Verslegers, Z. Yu, Z. Ruan, P. B. Catrysse, and S. Fan, “From electromagnetically induced transparency to superscattering with a single structure: a coupled-mode theory for doubly resonant structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 108, no. 8, 2012, Art. no. 083902. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.108.083902.Suche in Google Scholar

[6] S. Lepeshov, A. Krasnok, and A. Alù, “Nonscattering-to-superscattering switch with phase-change materials,” ACS Photonics, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 2126–2132, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.9b00674.Suche in Google Scholar

[7] D. G. Baranov, S. V. Makarov, A. E. Krasnok, P. A. Belov, and A. Alù, “Tuning of near‐and far‐field properties of all‐dielectric dimer nanoantennas via ultrafast electron‐hole plasma photoexcitation,” Laser Photonics Rev., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1009–1015, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.201600164.Suche in Google Scholar

[8] S. Boroviks, A. Kiselev, K. Achouri, and O. J. Martin, “Demonstration of a plasmonic nonlinear pseudodiode,” Nano Lett., vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 3362–3368, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c00367.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] A. Monti, M. Barbuto, A. Toscano, and F. Bilotti, “Nonlinear mantle cloaking devices for power-dependent antenna arrays,” IEEE Antennas Wirel. Propag. Lett., vol. 16, pp. 1727–1730, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1109/lawp.2017.2670025.Suche in Google Scholar

[10] D. L. Sounas and A. Alù, “Extinction symmetry for reciprocal objects and its implications on cloaking and scattering manipulation,” Opt. Lett., vol. 39, no. 13, pp. 4053–4056, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1364/ol.39.004053.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] A. Krasnok, D. Baranov, H. Li, M. A. Miri, F. Monticone, and A. Alú, “Anomalies in light scattering,” Adv. Opt. Photonics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 892–951, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1364/aop.11.000892.Suche in Google Scholar

[12] H. Goh and A. Alù, “Nonlocal scatterer for compact wave-based analog computing,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 128, no. 7, 2022, Art. no. 073201. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.128.073201.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] L. Bi, et al.., “On-chip optical isolation in monolithically integrated nonreciprocal optical resonators,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 758–762, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2011.270.Suche in Google Scholar

[14] Y. Zhang, et al.., “Monolithic integration of broadband optical isolators for polarization-diverse silicon photonics,” Optica, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 473–478, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1364/optica.6.000473.Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Z. Yu and S. Fan, “Complete optical isolation created by indirect interband photonic transitions,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 91–94, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2008.273.Suche in Google Scholar

[16] H. Lira, Z. Yu, S. Fan, and M. Lipson, “Electrically driven nonreciprocity induced by interband photonic transition on a silicon chip,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 109, no. 3, 2012, Art. no. 033901. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.109.033901.Suche in Google Scholar

[17] D. L. Sounas, C. Caloz, and A. Alu, “Giant nonreciprocity at the subwavelength scale using angular momentum-biased metamaterials,” Nat. Commun., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3407.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] N. A. Estep, D. L. Sounas, J. Soric, and A. Alu, “Magnetic-free nonreciprocity and isolation based on parametrically modulated coupled-resonator loops,” Nat. Phys., vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 923–927, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3134.Suche in Google Scholar

[19] J. Kim, S. Kim, and G. Bahl, “Complete linear optical isolation at the microscale with ultralow loss,” Sci. Rep., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01494-w.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[20] D. L. Sounas and A. Alu, “Nonreciprocal photonics based on time modulation,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 774–783, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-017-0051-x.Suche in Google Scholar

[21] L. Fan, et al.., “An all-silicon passive optical diode,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6067, pp. 447–450, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1214383.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[22] N. Bender, et al.., “Observation of asymmetric transport in structures with active nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 110, no. 23, 2013, Art. no. 234101. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.110.234101.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Y. Yu, Y. Chen, H. Hu, W. Xue, K. Yvind, and J. Mork, “Nonreciprocal transmission in a nonlinear photonic‐crystal Fano structure with broken symmetry,” Laser Photonics Rev., vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 241–247, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/lpor.201400207.Suche in Google Scholar

[24] A. M. Mahmoud, A. R. Davoyan, and N. Engheta, “All-passive nonreciprocal metastructure,” Nat. Commun., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9359.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[25] E. Poutrina and A. Urbas, “Multipolar interference for nonreciprocal nonlinear generation,” Sci. Rep., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep25113.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[26] M. Lawrence, D. R. Barton III, and J. A. Dionne, “Nonreciprocal flat optics with silicon metasurfaces,” Nano Lett., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1104–1109, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b04646.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[27] S. R. K. Rodriguez, V. Goblot, N. C. Zambon, A. Amo, and J. Bloch, “Nonreciprocity and zero reflection in nonlinear cavities with tailored loss,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 99, no. 1, 2019, Art. no. 013851. https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.99.013851.Suche in Google Scholar

[28] K. Y. Yang, et al.., “Inverse-designed nonreciprocal pulse router for chip-based LiDAR,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 369–374, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-020-0606-0.Suche in Google Scholar

[29] A. Mekawy, D. L. Sounas, and A. Alù, “Free-space nonreciprocal transmission based on nonlinear coupled Fano metasurfaces,” Photonics, vol. 8, no. 5, p. 139, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics8050139.Suche in Google Scholar

[30] M. Cotrufo, A. Cordaro, D. L. Sounas, A. Polman, and A. Alù, “Passive bias-free non-reciprocal metasurfaces based on thermally nonlinear quasi-bound states in the continuum,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 81–90, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-023-01333-7.Suche in Google Scholar

[31] L. Cheng, R. Alaee, A. Safari, M. Karimi, L. Zhang, and R. W. Boyd, “Superscattering, superabsorption, and nonreciprocity in nonlinear antennas,” ACS Photonics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 585–591, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.0c01637.Suche in Google Scholar

[32] M. Cotrufo, S. A. Mann, H. Moussa, and A. Alù, “Nonlinearity-induced nonreciprocity--Part I,” IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 3569–3583, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmtt.2021.3079250.Suche in Google Scholar

[33] R. Alaee, M. Albooyeh, A. Rahimzadegan, M. S. Mirmoosa, Y. S. Kivshar, and C. Rockstuhl, “All-dielectric reciprocal bianisotropic nanoparticles,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 92, no. 24, 2015, Art. no. 245130. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.92.245130.Suche in Google Scholar

[34] C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles, Weinheim, John Wiley & Sons, 2008.Suche in Google Scholar

[35] H. Marinchio, J. J. Sáenz, and R. Carminati, “Light scattering by a magneto-optical nanoparticle in front of a flat surface: perturbative approach,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 85, no. 24, 2012, Art. no. 245425. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.85.245425.Suche in Google Scholar

[36] F. Fan, S. Chen, and S. J. Chang, “A review of magneto-optical microstructure devices at terahertz frequencies,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1–11, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/jstqe.2016.2537259.Suche in Google Scholar

[37] M. S. Mirmoosa, Y. Ra’di, V. S. Asadchy, C. R. Simovski, and S. A. Tretyakov, “Polarizabilities of nonreciprocal bianisotropic particles,” Phys. Rev. Appl., vol. 1, no. 3, 2014, Art. no. 034005. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevapplied.1.034005.Suche in Google Scholar

[38] A. Christofi and N. Stefanou, “Metal-coated magnetic nanoparticles in an optically active medium: a nonreciprocal metamaterial,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 97, no. 12, 2018, Art. no. 125129. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.97.125129.Suche in Google Scholar

[39] S. Edelstein, R. M. Abraham-Ekeroth, P. A. Serena, J. J. Sáenz, A. García-Martín, and M. I. Marqués, “Magneto-optical Stern-Gerlach forces and nonreciprocal torques on small particles,” Phys. Rev. Res., vol. 1, no. 1, 2019, Art. no. 013005. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevresearch.1.013005.Suche in Google Scholar

[40] J. Dong, W. Zhang, and L. Liu, “Electromagnetic scattering, absorption and thermal emission by clusters of randomly distributed magneto-optical nanoparticles,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer, vol. 255, 2020, Art. no. 107279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2020.107279.Suche in Google Scholar

[41] A. V. Poshakinskiy and A. N. Poddubny, “Optomechanical kerker effect,” Phys. Rev. X, vol. 9, no. 1, 2019, Art. no. 011008. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevx.9.011008.Suche in Google Scholar

[42] A. Alù and N. Engheta, “Cloaking a sensor,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 102, no. 23, 2009, Art. no. 233901. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.102.233901.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] R. E. Noskov, A. E. Krasnok, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Nonlinear metal–dielectric nanoantennas for light switching and routing,” New J. Phys., vol. 14, no. 9, 2012, Art. no. 093005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/9/093005.Suche in Google Scholar

[44] A. I. Kuznetsov, A. E. Miroshnichenko, M. L. Brongersma, Y. S. Kivshar, and B. Luk’yanchuk, “Optically resonant dielectric nanostructures,” Science, vol. 354, no. 6314, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2472.Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

[45] D. G. Baranov, R. Verre, P. Karpinski, and M. Kall, “Anapole-enhanced intrinsic Raman scattering from silicon nanodisks,” ACS Photonics, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 2730–2736, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00480.Suche in Google Scholar


Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/nanoph-2024-0212).


Received: 2024-04-14
Accepted: 2024-07-08
Published Online: 2024-07-29

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. New frontiers in nonlinear nanophotonics
  4. Reviews
  5. Tailoring of the polarization-resolved second harmonic generation in two-dimensional semiconductors
  6. A review of gallium phosphide nanophotonics towards omnipotent nonlinear devices
  7. Nonlinear photonics on integrated platforms
  8. Nonlinear optical physics at terahertz frequency
  9. Research Articles
  10. Second harmonic generation and broad-band photoluminescence in mesoporous Si/SiO2 nanoparticles
  11. Second harmonic generation in monolithic gallium phosphide metasurfaces
  12. Intrinsic nonlinear geometric phase in SHG from zincblende crystal symmetry media
  13. CMOS-compatible, AlScN-based integrated electro-optic phase shifter
  14. Symmetry-breaking-induced off-resonance second-harmonic generation enhancement in asymmetric plasmonic nanoparticle dimers
  15. Nonreciprocal scattering and unidirectional cloaking in nonlinear nanoantennas
  16. Metallic photoluminescence of plasmonic nanoparticles in both weak and strong excitation regimes
  17. Inverse design of nonlinear metasurfaces for sum frequency generation
  18. Tunable third harmonic generation based on high-Q polarization-controlled hybrid phase-change metasurface
  19. Phase-matched third-harmonic generation in silicon nitride waveguides
  20. Nonlinear mid-infrared meta-membranes
  21. Phase-matched five-wave mixing in zinc oxide microwire
  22. Tunable high-order harmonic generation in GeSbTe nano-films
  23. Si metasurface supporting multiple quasi-BICs for degenerate four-wave mixing
  24. Cryogenic nonlinear microscopy of high-Q metasurfaces coupled with transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers
  25. Giant second-harmonic generation in monolayer MoS2 boosted by dual bound states in the continuum
  26. Quasi-BICs enhanced second harmonic generation from WSe2 monolayer
  27. Intense second-harmonic generation in two-dimensional PtSe2
  28. Efficient generation of octave-separating orbital angular momentum beams via forked grating array in lithium niobite crystal
  29. High-efficiency nonlinear frequency conversion enabled by optimizing the ferroelectric domain structure in x-cut LNOI ridge waveguide
  30. Shape unrestricted topological corner state based on Kekulé modulation and enhanced nonlinear harmonic generation
  31. Vortex solitons in topological disclination lattices
  32. Dirac exciton–polariton condensates in photonic crystal gratings
  33. Enhancing cooperativity of molecular J-aggregates by resonantly coupled dielectric metasurfaces
  34. Symmetry-protected bound states in the continuum on an integrated photonic platform
  35. Ultrashort pulse biphoton source in lithium niobate nanophotonics at 2 μm
  36. Entangled photon-pair generation in nonlinear thin-films
  37. Directionally tunable co- and counterpropagating photon pairs from a nonlinear metasurface
  38. All-optical modulator with photonic topological insulator made of metallic quantum wells
  39. Photo-thermo-optical modulation of Raman scattering from Mie-resonant silicon nanostructures
  40. Plasmonic electro-optic modulators on lead zirconate titanate platform
  41. Miniature spectrometer based on graded bandgap perovskite filter
  42. Far-field mapping and efficient beaming of second harmonic by a plasmonic metagrating
Heruntergeladen am 28.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/nanoph-2024-0212/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen