Vortex phase elements as detectors of polarization state

Svetlana N. Khonina; Dmitry A. Savelyev; Nikolay L. Kazanskiy

doi:10.1364/OE.23.017845

1. Introduction

The mutual influence between optical phase vortices and polarization singularities–both their transformation into each other and the resulting angular momentum compensation or enhancement—is well studied [1–13]. Using the vortex phase to analyze laser field polarization properties has subsequently been proposed [14–16]. However, the inter-relation between scalar (phase) and vector (polarization) optical vortices can only be visualized using a high numerical aperture mode (e.g., sharp focusing) [15–19].

Besides scalar phase singularities (vortex phase, phase jumps) [3, 9], various polarization singularities of vector fields exist [20–22]. The inter-relations between two types of singularities in the angular moment of photons have been known for a long time [1, 2] and are successfully used in optical manipulations by micro- and nano-particles [7, 11–13, 23]. There are a variety of applications of light beams with phase and polarization singularities, including microscopy, lithography, and nonlinear optics [10, 12, 24–29]. Also, the inter-relation of polarization and phase singularities has been shown in anisotropic materials [30–33] and with sharp focusing [15, 16, 18, 34, 35].

As a rule, generation and analysis of light beams with phase or polarization singularities are carried out by means of the same device. For example, beams with vortex phases are formed by diffractive optics: spiral phase plates, fork-shaped gratings, and more complex multi-order diffractive optical elements [20, 36, 37]. To transform linearly polarized radiation generated by the majority of modern lasers into circularly polarized radiation, half-wave plates are used. For more complex polarization transformations, including the generation of cylindrical vector beams with radial and azimuthal polarization, segmented polarizing plates, subwavelength gratings, interference schemes, light modulators, and other devices are used [38–41].

The analysis of polarization singularities by interferometry requires complex devices and schemes with anisotropic elements [14, 42]. Using the inter-relation of polarization and phase singularities allows for more simple analytical schemes [16, 17, 43], but can only appreciably visually distinguish between homogeneously polarized (linear and circular polarization) and cylindrical (radial and azimuthal polarization) beams. More detailed detection of, for instance, directions of circular polarization and distinction between radial and azimuthal polarizations require sharp focusing [43].

We use vortex phase elements to detect the focused incident beam polarization state. Their complex-valued functions can be written as superpositions of optical vortices. The elements can be implemented using diffractive optics [44] and then added to the focusing system [15–19]. Further, we can insert a singularity into a focusing element structure [45].

A micro-objective [46], a parabolic mirror [47, 48], a diffractive lens [48–50], or an axicon [51–55] can provide sharp focusing. A parabolic mirror or diffractive lens was proposed to achieve [48] sharper focusing than in the case of a micro-objective. This proposal was confirmed experimentally for parabolic mirrors [47] and numerically for diffractive lenses [49, 50]. In addition, aplanatic lens focusing properties were enhanced by insertion of axicon structures [50, 56].

We analyze two cases of sharp focusing. In the first case, sharp focusing is achieved by a micro-objective. In this study, we perform simulations using the Debye approximation [57] and the plane wave expansion method [58]. In the second case, sharp focusing is achieved by a diffractive axicon. Since we use the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, as part of a free-software package, Meep, the calculations here are more accurate [59]. The results obtained by the two methods are very similar.

2. Focusing by a micro-objective

We use the Debye approximation to simulate an aplanatic focusing optical system [57]:

E (ρ, φ, z) = - \frac{i f}{λ} \int_{0}^{α} \int_{0}^{2 π} B (θ, ϕ) T (θ) P (θ, ϕ) \exp [i k (ρ \sin θ \cos (ϕ - φ) + z \cos θ)] \sin θ d θ d ϕ,

Where

(ρ, φ, z)

are the cylindrical coordinates of the focal area,

(θ, ϕ)

are the spherical angular coordinates of the focusing system output pupil,

B (θ, ϕ)

is the transmission function,

T (θ)

is the pupil apodization function (

T (θ) = \sqrt{\cos θ}

for an aplanatic micro-objective),

P (θ, ϕ)

is the polarization vector,

\sin α = N A / n

, n is the medium refractive index,

k = 2 π / λ

is the wavenumber, λ is the wavelength, and f is the focal length.

The polarization vector $P (θ, ϕ)$ of the focusing system can be written in the following form [60]:

P (θ, ϕ) = [\begin{matrix} 1 + \cos^{2} ϕ (\cos θ - 1) & \sin ϕ \cos ϕ (\cos θ - 1) & \cos ϕ \sin θ \\ \sin ϕ \cos ϕ (\cos θ - 1) & 1 + \sin^{2} ϕ (\cos θ - 1) & \sin ϕ \sin θ \\ - \sin θ \cos ϕ & - \sin θ \sin ϕ & \cos θ \end{matrix}] [\begin{matrix} a (ϕ, θ) \\ b (ϕ, θ) \\ c (ϕ, θ) \end{matrix}],

Where

a (θ, ϕ)

, _{$b (θ, ϕ)$} , and _{$c (θ, ϕ)$} are the polarization functions for the x-, y- and z-components of the incident beam, respectively. For types of polarization that are used most frequently, these functions do not depend on θ and can be rewritten in simpler forms.

If the transmission function is given by

B (θ, ϕ) = R (θ) Ω (ϕ),

where

Ω (ϕ) = \sum_{m = M_{1}}^{M_{2}} d_{m} \exp (i m ϕ),

Equation (1) can be simplified for most polarization states [18, 19, 50]:

E (ρ, φ, z) = - i k f \sum_{m = M_{1}}^{M_{2}} d_{m} i^{m} e^{i m φ} \int_{0}^{α} Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) R (θ) T (θ) \sin θ \exp (i k z \cos θ) d θ,

where vector

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ)

depends on the input field polarization (

t = k ρ \sin θ

) as follows:

– for linear x-polarization

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) = [\begin{matrix} J_{m} (t) + \frac{1}{4} [2 J_{m} (t) - e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) - e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (\cos θ - 1) \\ \frac{i}{4} [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) - e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (\cos θ - 1) \\ - \frac{i}{2} [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \sin θ \end{matrix}],

– for linear y-polarization

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) = [\begin{matrix} \frac{i}{4} [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) - e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (\cos θ - 1) \\ J_{m} (t) + \frac{1}{4} [2 J_{m} (t) + e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) + e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (\cos θ - 1) \\ - \frac{1}{2} [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \sin θ \end{matrix}],

– for left (“+”) or right (“−”) circular polarization

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} [\begin{matrix} J_{m} (t) + \frac{1}{2} [J_{m} (t) - e^{\pm i 2 φ} J_{m \pm 2} (t)] (\cos θ - 1) \\ \pm i {J_{m} (t) + \frac{1}{2} (J_{m} (t) + e^{\pm i 2 φ} J_{m \pm 2} (t)) (\cos θ - 1)} \\ \mp i e^{\pm i φ} J_{m \pm 1} (t) \sin θ \end{matrix}],

– for radial polarization

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) = \frac{1}{2} [\begin{matrix} i [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \cos θ \\ [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \cos θ \\ - 2 J_{m} (t) \sin θ \end{matrix}],

– for azimuthal polarization

Q_{m} (ρ, φ, θ) = \frac{1}{2} [\begin{matrix} - [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ i [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ 0 \end{matrix}] .

On-axis (ρ = 0) intensity values vary with different polarization states (Eqs. (6)-(10)) and superposition of optical vortices (Eq. (4)). In practice, special combinations from Eq. (4) may be useful. For instance, we can describe binary phase element behavior as $\exp (i m φ) \pm \exp (- i m φ)$ [50]. $| m | \leq 2$ is the only case for which the on-axis intensity has a non-zero value. Table 1 shows how the on-axis intensity varies with the focused electric field components.

Table 1. Dependence of on-axis intensity components due to superposition in Eq. (4)

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 1 summarizes the dependencies of focal intensity distributions on the polarization and vortex phases and on the focusing system NA. When the NA value is low, we can assume $\sin θ \approx 0$ and $\cos θ \approx 1$ . Table 2 shows the simulation results for low NA = 0.25. Two different types of polarization obviously differ: cylindrical (radial and azimuthal) and homogenous (linear and circular). When the NA value is high, we can assume $\sin θ \approx 1$ and $\cos θ \to ε \approx 0$ . Table 3 shows that simulations using high NA give much more information about the polarization states.

Table 2. Focal intensity distribution for Gaussian beam, NA = 0.25 (red color for x-component, green for y-component, picture size is 8λ × 8λ)

View Table | View all tables in this article

Table 3. Focal intensity distribution for Gaussian beam, NA = 0.95 (red color for x-component, green for y-component, and blue for z-component; picture size is 2λ × 2λ)

View Table | View all tables in this article

Sharp focusing makes azimuthal polarization easily recognizable; it is the only type of polarization for which the intensity value at the central focal point is zero. Linear polarization can be detected by focal spot elongation in the direction of the polarization axis.

An additional first-order vortex phase can distinguish the circular polarization direction. A binary phase containing optical vortices of opposite signs can detect the orthogonal linear polarization.

3. Multi-order diffractive optical element

The previous results indicate that, for unequivocal detection of polarization type, multiple test vortex phases are required, even with sharp focusing [43]. Thus, simultaneously monitoring the effects of several optical vortices and their superposition is desirable. Combinations of optical vortices that can be generated by simple binary phase elements are practically convenient to this end [19, 26].

Multi-order binary optical elements can be used to subject a field of interest to several vortices, simultaneously [37, 61]. Figure 1 shows the binary phase transmission function, which receives the response of an analyzed beam to various combinations of phase vortices simultaneously in several diffractive orders in the focal plane.

Fig. 1 Transmission function of the focusing system. (a) Binary phase of multi-order diffractive optical element. (b) Accordance of diffractive orders to combinations of optical vortices.

Download Full Size | PDF

Figure 2 shows the recognition of orthogonal linear polarization states in the absence or presence of vortex phases in an analyzed beam. The amplitude of the beam is a Gaussian function multiplied by radius. The phase of the beam is constant or a vortex of the first order.

Fig. 2 Detection of orthogonal linear polarization states in the absence and presence of a vortex phase in an analyzed beam. (a) Without vortex. (b) With vortex.

Download Full Size | PDF

The parameters of the calculation were: wavelength of incident radiation λ = 1 μm, focal length f = 101 μm, numerical aperture of micro-objective, NA = 0.99, radius of Gaussian beam is 50 μm, and focal area of interest is 15 μm × 15 μm.

From the modeling results, the presence or absence of a vortex phase of the first order is easily identified by the presence of a correlation peak in the corresponding diffractive order in the focal plane; the absence of an optical vortex corresponds to high intensity in the center of the focal plane.

Less obvious characteristics allow for the recognition of orthogonal linear polarizations. In particular, if the analyzed beam has no vortex phase, then nonzero intensity values of vertical diffractive orders (corresponding to cos(φ)) indicate x-polarization, while the zero intensity values indicate y-polarization (see the graphics of Fig. 2). The presence of a vortex phase in the analyzed beam overwhelms these more subtle responses, and polarization detection becomes uncertain.

Detection of orthogonal circular polarizations is shown in Fig. 3, in the absence and presence of a vortex phase in the analyzed beam. Detection of the vortex phase is similar to the previous case.

Fig. 3 Detection of orthogonal circular polarization states in the absence and presence of a vortex phase in an analyzed beam. (a) Without vortex. (b) With vortex.

Download Full Size | PDF

Detecting orthogonal circular polarizations is much easier than detecting linear polarizations, orthogonal circular polarization singularities are closely connected with phase singularities. We can show this by presenting circular polarization in polar components:

e_{x} \pm i e_{y} = (e_{r} \cos φ - e_{φ} \sin φ) \pm i (e_{r} \sin φ + e_{φ} \cos φ) = \exp (\pm i φ) [e_{r} \pm i e_{φ}]

As follows from (11), circular polarization corresponds to the vortex phase of the first order with the same sign as the direction of polarization.

The inter-relation of the polarization singularity with the vortex phase can be seen by the nonzero intensity corresponding to vortex diffractive orders (Fig. 3), even though there is no vortex phase in the analyzed beams.

When the vortex phase is present in the analyzed beam, it is still easy to distinguish the type of circular polarization: if the directions of circular polarization and phase vortex are identical, the central diffractive order will have zero intensity. If the directions are opposite, then the central diffractive order will have nonzero intensity (see the graphics of Fig. 3).

Figure 4 shows detection of orthogonal cylindrical polarizations in the absence and presence of a vortex phase in an analyzed beam.

Fig. 4 Detection of orthogonal cylindrical polarization states in the absence and presence of a vortex phase in an analyzed beam. (a) Without vortex. (b) With vortex.

Download Full Size | PDF

Orthogonal cylindrical polarizations are visually obvious because this type of polarization is singular and connected with the vortex phase. In particular, for radial and azimuthal polarization, respectively:

e_{r} = e_{x} \cos φ + e_{y} \sin φ = \frac{1}{2} \exp (i φ) [e_{x} - i e_{y}] + \frac{1}{2} \exp (- i φ) [e_{x} + i e_{y}],

e_{φ} = - e_{x} \sin φ + e_{y} \cos φ = \frac{1}{2} \exp (i φ) [e_{y} + i e_{x}] + \frac{1}{2} \exp (- i φ) [e_{y} + i e_{x}] .

From expressions (12) and (13), a cylindrical polarization contains vortex phases of the first order of both signs. Such inter-relation between cylindrical polarizations and vortex phases is evident in the nonzero intensities of corresponding vortex diffractive orders (Fig. 4), even when there is no vortex phase in the analyzed beam.

The vortex phase in cylindrically polarized beam is detected by a correlation peak in the central diffractive order with zero intensity in any vortex (horizontal) diffractive order.

With a vortex phase in the analyzed beam, the type of polarization is still easy to distinguish: for radial polarization, vertical diffractive orders have nonzero value, and for azimuthal polarization, they have zero intensity (see the graphics of Fig. 4).

This research shows that, in conditions of sharp focusing, the multi-order diffractive optical element combined with various superpositions of vortex phases unequivocally distinguishes singular polarization states—circular, radial and azimuthal. The inter-relation of polarization and phase singularities provides unambiguous recognition.

Such inter-relation is absent for linear polarization, so detailed recognition of various types of linear polarizations by means of micro-objective focusing is complicated. Previous work [43] has shown that diffractive axicon focusing allows for better detection of linear polarization states. The NA of a micro-objective can be set to various values depending on radius and reaches its maximal value at the edge of an optical element. Therefore, light refracted at various angles (paraxial and non-paraxial) is combined at the focus. An axicon has identical NA at any radius - both in the center and at the edge; therefore, all focused light contains information corresponding to the same high value numerical aperture.

4. Focusing by the diffractive axicon

Plane wave expansion (PWE) can be used to explain focusing by an axicon [58]:

E (ρ, φ, z) = \frac{1}{λ^{2}} \int_{σ_{1}}^{σ_{2}} \int_{0}^{2 π} M (σ, ϕ) (\begin{matrix} F_{x} (σ, ϕ) \\ F_{y} (σ, ϕ) \end{matrix}) \exp [i k z \sqrt{1 - σ^{2}}] \exp [i k σ ρ \cos (φ - ϕ)] σ d σ d ϕ,

M (σ, ϕ) = [\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} 1 - \cos^{2} ϕ (1 - γ) \\ - \cos ϕ \sin ϕ (1 - γ) \\ - σ \cos ϕ \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} - \cos ϕ \sin ϕ (1 - γ) \\ 1 - \sin^{2} ϕ (1 - γ) \\ - σ \sin ϕ \end{matrix} \end{matrix}], γ = \sqrt{1 - σ^{2}},

(\begin{matrix} F_{x} (σ, ϕ) \\ F_{y} (σ, ϕ) \end{matrix}) = \int_{0}^{r_{0}} \int_{0}^{2 π} (\begin{matrix} E_{0 x} (r, τ) \\ E_{0 y} (r, τ) \end{matrix}) \exp [- i k r σ \cos (τ - ϕ)] r d r d τ .

If the input field components are given in the form of vortex beams, as in Eq. (4):

E_{0} (r, τ) = E_{0} (r) \exp (i m τ),

we can simplify relations (14)-(16) in the following manner (

t = k σ ρ

) [54, 55]:

E (ρ, φ, z) = k^{2} i^{2 m} \exp (i m φ) \int_{σ_{1}}^{σ_{2}} S_{m} (ρ, φ, σ) (\begin{matrix} P_{x} (σ) \\ P_{y} (σ) \end{matrix}) \exp (i k z \sqrt{1 - σ^{2}}) σ d σ,

S_{m} (ρ, φ, σ) = [\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{4} {2 J_{m} (t) (1 + γ) + [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) + e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (1 - γ)} \\ - \frac{i}{4} [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) - e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (1 - γ) \\ - \frac{i}{2} σ [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} - \frac{i}{4} [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) - e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (1 - γ) \\ \frac{1}{4} {2 J_{m} (t) (1 + γ) - [e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) + e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t)] (1 - γ)} \\ - \frac{1}{2} σ [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \end{matrix} \end{matrix}],

(\begin{matrix} P_{x} (σ) \\ P_{y} (σ) \end{matrix}) = \int_{0}^{R} (\begin{matrix} E_{0 x} (r) \\ E_{0 y} (r) \end{matrix}) J_{m} (k r σ) r d r .

We will use the diffractive phase axicon as a focusing element. Its complex-valued transmission function is given by

E_{0} (r) = \exp (i k α_{0} r),

where

α_{0}

is a parameter defining axicon NA.

In this case, integral (20) can be approximated in the following way:

P (σ) \approx δ (σ - α_{0}),

where

δ (\cdot)

is the delta-function.

Then the distribution in the focal domain is estimated as follows:

E (ρ, φ, z) \approx i^{2 m} α_{0} \exp (i m φ) \exp (i k z \sqrt{1 - α_{0}^{2}}) S_{m} (ρ, φ, α_{0}) (\begin{matrix} c_{x} \\ c_{y} \end{matrix}),

where

(c_{x}, c_{y})

is the polarization vector for a homogenously polarized beam.

Thus, the distribution of Eq. (23) depends on the incident beam polarization state, the vortex phase order, and the focusing system NA $(γ_{0} = \sqrt{1 - α_{0}^{2}}, t = k α_{0} ρ)$ as:

E (ρ, φ, z) \approx \frac{α_{0}}{2} (\begin{matrix} c_{x} J_{m} (t) (1 + γ_{0}) + \frac{1}{2} {[e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) (c_{x} - i c_{y}) + e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t) (c_{x} + i c_{y})]} (1 - γ_{0}) \\ c_{y} J_{m} (t) (1 + γ_{0}) - \frac{1}{2} {[e^{i 2 φ} J_{m + 2} (t) (c_{y} - i c_{x}) + e^{- i 2 φ} J_{m - 2} (t) (c_{y} + i c_{x})]} (1 - γ_{0}) \\ - α_{0} [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) (c_{y} + i c_{x}) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t) (c_{y} - i c_{x})] \end{matrix}) .

When NA values are low ( $α_{0} \to ε \approx 0$ and $γ_{0} \to 1$ ),

{| E (ρ, φ, z) |}^{2} \approx ε^{2} ({| c_{x} |}^{2} + {| c_{y} |}^{2}) J_{m}^{2} (k ε ρ),

and there is no difference between linear and circular polarizations.

When NA values are high ( $α_{0} \to 1$ and $γ_{0} \to ε \approx 0$ ), it is possible to recognize the polarization state, even on the optical axis (ρ = 0), for specific values of m:

- for m = 0:

{| E (0, 0, z) |}^{2} \approx \frac{{| c_{x} |}^{2} + {| c_{y} |}^{2}}{4}

- for m = ± 1:

{| E (0, 0, z) |}^{2} \approx \frac{{| c_{y} \mp i c_{x} |}^{2}}{4}

- for m = ± 2:

{| E (0, 0, z) |}^{2} \approx \frac{{| c_{x} \pm i c_{y} |}^{2} + {| c_{y} \pm i c_{x} |}^{2}}{16}

Equation (27) allows us to easily recognize the circular polarization direction: in the case of m = 1, zero value in the central focal point indicates left-circular polarization ( $c_{y} = i c_{x}$ ), and a non-zero value indicates right-circular polarization ( $c_{y} = - i c_{x}$ ); in the case of m = −1, the situation is reversed.

In the case of cylindrical beams, it is more convenient to rewrite the matrix Eq. (19) with cylindrical components $(c_{r}, c_{φ})$ :

S_{m}^{c} (ρ, φ, σ) = \frac{1}{2} [\begin{array}{l} i γ [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] & - [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ γ [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] & i [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ - 2 σ J_{m} (t) & 0 \end{array}] .

Then we have the following instead of (23):

S_{m}^{c} (ρ, φ, α_{0}) = \frac{1}{2} [\begin{array}{l} i γ_{0} [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] & - [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ γ_{0} [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) + e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] & i [e^{i φ} J_{m + 1} (t) - e^{- i φ} J_{m - 1} (t)] \\ - 2 α_{0} J_{m} (t) & 0 \end{array}] .

When NA values are low ( $α_{0} \to ε \approx 0$ and $γ_{0} \to 1$ ), the longitudinal component is very small, and, therefore, the total intensity distributions for radial ( $c_{φ} = 0$ ) and azimuthal ( $c_{r} = 0$ ) polarizations are similar. When NA values are high ( $α_{0} \to 1$ and $γ_{0} \to ε \approx 0$ ), the intensity distributions clearly depended on the polarization state, even along the optical axis (ρ = 0):

- for m = 0:

{| E (0, 0, z) |}^{2} \approx {| c_{r} |}^{2}

- for m = ± 1:

{| E (0, 0, z) |}^{2} \approx {| c_{φ} |}^{2}

Equations (31) and (32) allow us to easily distinguish between radial and azimuthal polarizations: in the case of m = 0, the zero value in the central focal point indicates azimuthal polarization, and a non-zero value indicates radial polarization; in the case of m = ± 1, the situation is reversed.

Homogenous (linear or circular) polarizations give non-zero values for $| m | \leq 2$ , whereas cylindrical (radial or azimuthal) polarizations give non-zero values in the central focal point only for $| m | \leq 1$ .

Table 4 shows the intensity distributions in the focal plane (the plane with the highest possible on-axis intensity) calculated according to Eqs. (18)-(21), for α₀ = 0.95.

Table 4. Intensity distributions of Gaussian beam focused by the axicon in Eq. (21) with α₀ = 0.95 (red color for x-component, green for y-component, and blue for z-component, picture size 4λ × 4λ)

View Table | View all tables in this article

Comparing Tables 3 and 4 reveals that the diffractive axicon provides sharper focusing than an aplanatic lens with the same NA. This axicon characteristic is very useful when more confident detection of an incident beam polarization state is required. For instance, the focal spot elongation for linearly polarized beam in the direction of the polarization axis becomes more obvious. In addition, strengthening the longitudinal component allows us to positively recognize orthogonal cylindrical and circular polarization states. When a second-order optical vortex is used, distinctions between the focal images become essential.

In order to confirm our results, we performed more accurate calculations using the finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) method, provided as part of a free-software package, Meep [59].

Simulation parameters were as follows: wavelength λ = 0.532 μm; the computational domain size is x, y∈[–6.5λ; 6.5λ], z∈[–6λ; 6λ]; the absorbing layer PML thickness is 2λ; the space discretization is λ/30; the time discretization is λ/(60c), where c is the speed of light; and the substrate thickness of the axicon is 8λ. The diffractive axicon numerical aperture is NA = 0.95 and the refractive index is n = 1.46; thus, the microrelief height is 1.087λ.

Table 8 shows the transverse intensity images of the Gaussian beam, the Laguerre-Gaussian mode (0,1) and the Hermite-Gaussian mode (0,1) focused by the axicon (Eq. (21)) with NA = 0.95.

Table 5. Intensity distributions in the transverse planes of the Gaussian beam, Laguerre-Gaussian mode (0,1) and Hermite-Gaussian mode (0,1) focused by the axicon with NA = 0.95 (blue color for z-component, yellow for all-components, picture size 6λ × 6λ)

View Table | View all tables in this article

From the simulation results, we can see that there is a good agreement between both methods. However, there are also quantitative differences that result from real optical characteristics, which have been considered in FDTD-calculations (e.g., the substrate element thickness and the distance between the source and the element [54, 55, 62]).

5. Conclusions

It has been shown, both analytically and numerically, that it is possible to distinguish only types of polarization (linear, circular or cylindrical) using a low-NA mode. In order to perform a more detailed analysis of a polarization state, sharp focusing should be used.

Sharp focusing easily distinguishes azimuthal polarization; it is the only type of polarization for which there is zero intensity value in the central focal point. Linear polarization can be detected by focal spot elongation in the direction of the polarization axis. An additional first-order vortex phase can be used to recognize circular polarization direction. The orthogonal linear polarization can be detected with the use of a binary phase that contains optical vortices of opposite signs.

We have shown that, with sharp focusing, the multi-order diffractive optical element combined with various superpositions of vortex phases can unequivocally distinguish singular polarization states (circular, radial and azimuthal). Unambiguous recognition is provided by the inter-relation of polarization and phase singularities.

We show that the diffractive axicon provides sharper focusing than a micro-objective with the same NA. The greater the focusing, the more confident the detection of an incident beam polarization state. For instance, in the case of a linear polarization, the focal spot elongation in the direction of the polarization axis becomes more obvious. In addition, strengthening the longitudinal component allows us to positively recognize the orthogonal cylindrical and circular polarization states. The second-order optical vortex provides essential distinctions between the focal images.

Numerical simulations are performed for a high-NA diffractive axicon by means of the plane wave expansion method and FDTD. There is good agreement between the methods, with small quantitative differences.

Thus, singular phase elements inserted in a high-NA focusing system can be used to detect different incident beam polarization states.

Acknowledgments

The work was financially supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 13-07-00266, 14-07-31079 mol_a) and by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian Federation.

References and links

1. R. A. Beth, “Mechanical detection and measurement of the angular momentum of light,” Phys. Rev. 50(2), 115–125 (1936). [CrossRef]

2. A. H. S. Holbourn, “Angular momentum of circularly polarized light,” Nature 137(3453), 31 (1936). [CrossRef]

3. J. F. Nye and M. V. Berry, “Dislocations in wave trains,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 336(1605), 165–190 (1974). [CrossRef]

4. M. V. Berry, “The adiabatic phase and Pancharatnam’s phase for polarized light,” J. Mod. Opt. 34(11), 1401–1407 (1987). [CrossRef]

5. L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, “Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes,” Phys. Rev. A 45(11), 8185–8189 (1992). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

6. S. M. Barnett and L. Allen, “Orbital angular momentum and nonparaxial light beams,” Opt. Commun. 110(5-6), 670–678 (1994). [CrossRef]

7. N. B. Simpson, K. Dholakia, L. Allen, and M. J. Padgett, “Mechanical equivalence of spin and orbital angular momentum of light: an optical spanner,” Opt. Lett. 22(1), 52–54 (1997). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8. L. Allen, M. J. Padgett, and M. Babiker, “The orbital angular momentum of light,” Prog. Opt. 39, 291 (1999).

9. M. Soskin and M. V. Vasnetsov, “Singular optics,” Prog. Opt. 42, 219 (2001).

10. A. S. Desyatnikov, L. Torner, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Optical vortices and vortex solitons,” Prog. Opt. 47, 219–319 (2005).

11. G. Molina-Terriza, J. P. Torres, and L. Torner, “Twisted photons,” Nat. Phys. 3(5), 305–310 (2007). [CrossRef]

12. S. Franke-Arnold, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, “Advances in optical angular momentum,” Laser Photon. Rev. 2(4), 299–313 (2008). [CrossRef]

13. M. R. Dennis, K. O’Holleran, and M. J. Padgett, “Singular optics: optical vortices and polarization singularities,” Prog. Opt. 53, 293–363 (2009).

14. J. Leach, J. Courtial, K. Skeldon, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and M. J. Padgett, “Interferometric methods to measure orbital and spin, or the total angular momentum of a single photon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92(1), 013601 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

15. L. E. Helseth, “Optical vortices in focal regions,” Opt. Commun. 229(1-6), 85–91 (2004). [CrossRef]

16. Y. Zhao, J. S. Edgar, G. D. M. Jeffries, D. McGloin, and D. T. Chiu, “Spin-to-orbital angular momentum conversion in a strongly focused optical beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99(7), 073901 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17. I. Moreno, J. A. Davis, I. Ruiz, and D. M. Cottrell, “Decomposition of radially and azimuthally polarized beams using a circular-polarization and vortex-sensing diffraction grating,” Opt. Express 18(7), 7173–7183 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

18. S. N. Khonina, N. L. Kazanskiy, and S. G. Volotovsky, “Vortex phase transmission function as a factor to reduce the focal spot of high-aperture focusing system,” J. Mod. Opt. 58(9), 748–760 (2011). [CrossRef]

19. S. N. Khonina, “Simple phase optical elements for narrowing of a focal spot in high-numerical-aperture conditions,” Opt. Eng. 52(9), 091711 (2013). [CrossRef]

20. J. F. Nye, Natural Focusing and Fine Structure of Light (IOP Publishing, 1999).

21. M. V. Berry and M. R. Dennis, “Polarization singularities in isotropic random vector waves,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 457(2005), 141–155 (2001). [CrossRef]

22. I. Freund, A. I. Mokhun, M. S. Soskin, O. V. Angelsky, and I. I. Mokhun, “Stokes singularity relations,” Opt. Lett. 27(7), 545–547 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

23. V. A. Soifer, V. V. Kotlyar, and S. N. Khonina, “Optical microparticle manipulation: Advances and new possibilities created by diffractive optics,” Phys. Part. Nucl. 35(6), 733–766 (2004).

24. P. Török and P. Munro, “The use of Gauss-Laguerre vector beams in STED microscopy,” Opt. Express 12(15), 3605–3617 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

25. M. D. Levenson, T. Ebihara, G. Dai, Y. Morikawa, N. Hayashi, and S. M. Tan, “Optical vortex masks for via levels,” J. Microlithogr., Microfabr., Microsyst. 3(2), 293–304 (2004).

26. Y. Unno, T. Ebihara, and M. D. Levenson, “Impact of mask errors and lens aberrations on the image formation by a vortex mask,” J. Microlithogr., Microfabr., Microsyst. 4(2), 023006 (2005).

27. D. L. Andrews, Structured Light and its Applications: An Introduction to Phase-Structured Beams and Nanoscale Optical Forces (Elsevier Inc., 2008).

28. A. M. Yao and M. J. Padgett, “Orbital angular momentum: origins, behavior and applications,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 3(2), 161–204 (2011). [CrossRef]

29. S. N. Khonina and I. Golub, “How low can STED go? Comparison of different write-erase beam combinations for stimulated emission depletion microscopy,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 29(10), 2242–2246 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

30. A. Ciattoni, G. Cincotti, and C. Palma, “Circularly polarized beams and vortex generation in uniaxial media,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20(1), 163–171 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

31. L. Marrucci, C. Manzo, and D. Paparo, “Optical spin-to-orbital angular momentum conversion in inhomogeneous anisotropic media,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96(16), 163905 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

32. A. Desyatnikov, T. A. Fadeyeva, V. G. Shvedov, Y. V. Izdebskaya, A. V. Volyar, E. Brasselet, D. N. Neshev, W. Krolikowski, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Spatially engineered polarization states and optical vortices in uniaxial crystals,” Opt. Express 18(10), 10848–10863 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

33. T. A. Fadeyeva and A. V. Volyar, “Extreme spin-orbit coupling in crystal-traveling paraxial beams,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 27(3), 381–389 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

34. L. Rao, J. Pu, Z. Chen, and P. Yei, “Focus shaping of cylindrically polarized vortex beams by a high numerical aperture lens,” Opt. Laser Technol. 41(3), 241–246 (2009). [CrossRef]

35. Z. Chen and D. Zhao, “4Pi focusing of spatially modulated radially polarized vortex beams,” Opt. Lett. 37(8), 1286–1288 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

36. S. N. Khonina, V. V. Kotlyar, M. V. Shinkaryev, V. A. Soifer, and G. V. Uspleniev, “The rotor phase filter,” J. Mod. Opt. 39(5), 1147–1154 (1992). [CrossRef]

37. V. V. Kotlyar, S. N. Khonina, and V. A. Soifer, “Light field decomposition in angular harmonics by means of diffractive optics,” J. Mod. Opt. 45(7), 1495–1506 (1998). [CrossRef]

38. S. C. Tidwell, D. H. Ford, and W. D. Kimura, “Generating radially polarized beams interferometrically,” Appl. Opt. 29(15), 2234–2239 (1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

39. Z. Bomzon, G. Biener, V. Kleiner, and E. Hasman, “Radially and azimuthally polarized beams generated by space-variant dielectric subwavelength gratings,” Opt. Lett. 27(5), 285–287 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

40. Q. Zhan, “Cylindrical vector beams: from mathematical concepts to applications,” Adv. Opt. Photon. 1, 1457 (2009).

41. S. N. Khonina, S. V. Karpeev, and S. V. Alferov, “Polarization converter for higher-order laser beams using a single binary diffractive optical element as beam splitter,” Opt. Lett. 37(12), 2385–2387 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

42. O. V. Angelsky, I. I. Mokhun, A. I. Mokhun, and M. S. Soskin, “Interferometric methods in diagnostics of polarization singularities,” Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 65(33 Pt 2B), 036602 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

43. S. N. Khonina, D. A. Savelyev, N. L. Kazanskiy, and V. A. Soifer, “Singular phase elements as detectors for different polarizations,” Proc. SPIE 9066, 90660A (2013).

44. V. A. Soifer, Methods for Computer Design of Diffractive Optical Elements (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2002).

45. S. N. Khonina, D. V. Nesterenko, A. A. Morozov, R. V. Skidanov, and V. A. Soifer, “Narrowing of a light spot at diffraction of linearly-polarized beam on binary asymmetric axicons,” Opt. Mem. Neur. Netw. 21(1), 17–26 (2012).

46. R. Dorn, S. Quabis, and G. Leuchs, “Sharper focus for a radially polarized light beam,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91(23), 233901 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

47. J. Stadler, C. Stanciu, C. Stupperich, and A. J. Meixner, “Tighter focusing with a parabolic mirror,” Opt. Lett. 33(7), 681–683 (2008). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

48. N. Davidson and N. Bokor, “High-numerical-aperture focusing of radially polarized doughnut beams with a parabolic mirror and a flat diffractive lens,” Opt. Lett. 29(12), 1318–1320 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

49. N. Sergienko, V. Dhayalan, and J. J. Stamnes, “Comparison of focusing properties of conventional and diffractive lens,” Opt. Commun. 194(4-6), 225–234 (2001). [CrossRef]

50. S. N. Khonina and S. G. Volotovsky, “Controlling the contribution of the electric field components to the focus of a high-aperture lens using binary phase structures,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 27(10), 2188–2197 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

51. V. P. Kalosha and I. Golub, “Toward the subdiffraction focusing limit of optical superresolution,” Opt. Lett. 32(24), 3540–3542 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

52. C. J. Zapata-Rodríguez and A. Sánchez-Losa, “Three-dimensional field distribution in the focal region of low-Fresnel-number axicons,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23(12), 3016–3026 (2006). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

53. V. V. Kotlyar, A. A. Kovalev, and S. S. Stafeev, “Sharp focus area of radially-polarized Gaussian beam propagation through an axicon,” Prog. Electromagnetics Res. 535–43 (2008).

54. S. N. Khonina, D. A. Savel’ev, I. A. Pustovoĭ, and P. G. Serafimovich, “Diffraction at binary microaxicons in the near field,” J. Opt. Technol 79(10), 22–29 (2012). [CrossRef]

55. S. N. Khonina, S. V. Karpeev, S. V. Alferov, D. A. Savelyev, J. Laukkanen, and J. Turunen, “Experimental demonstration of the generation of the longitudinal E-field component on the optical axis with high-numerical-aperture binary axicons illuminated by linearly and circularly polarized beams,” J. Opt. 15(8), 085704 (2013). [CrossRef]

56. S. N. Khonina, N. L. Kazanskiĭ, A. V. Ustinov, and S. G. Volotovskiĭ, “The lensacon: nonparaxial effects,” J. Opt. Technol. 78(11), 724–729 (2011). [CrossRef]

57. B. Richards and E. Wolf, “Electromagnetic diffraction in optical systems II. Structure of the image field in an aplanatic system,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 253(1274), 358–379 (1959). [CrossRef]

58. M. B. Vinogradova, O. V. Rudenko, and A. P. Sukhorukov, “Theory of Waves,” Nauka, Moscow, 384 p (1979).

59. A. F. Oskooi, D. Roundy, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. D. Joannopoulos, and S. G. Johnson, “Meep: a flexible free-software package for electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 181(3), 181687 (2010). [CrossRef]

60. S. F. Pereira and A. S. van de Nes, “Super-resolution by means of polarisation, phase and amplitude pupil masks,” Opt. Commun. 234(1-6), 119–124 (2004). [CrossRef]

61. K. Singh, Perspectives in Engineering Optics (Anita Publications, Delhi, 2003).

62. S. N. Khonina and D. A. Savelyev, “High-aperture binary axicons for the formation of the longitudinal electric field component on the optical axis for linear and circular polarizations of the illuminating beam,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 117(4), 623–630 (2013). [CrossRef]

	x-linear	y-linear	“+”-circular	“−”-circular	radial	azimuthal
m = 0	$\frac{{(1 + \cos θ)}^{2}}{4} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{{(1 + \cos θ)}^{2}}{4} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{{(1 + \cos θ)}^{2}}{8} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{{(1 + \cos θ)}^{2}}{8} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\sin^{2} θ (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{0} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$
m = 1	$\frac{\sin^{2} θ}{4} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\frac{\sin^{2} θ}{4} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{\sin^{2} θ}{2} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\frac{\cos^{2} θ}{4} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{1}{4} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{1} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$
m = 1, m = −1	$\sin^{2} θ (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} + d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\sin^{2} θ (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} - d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\frac{\sin^{2} θ}{2} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} + d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\frac{\sin^{2} θ}{2} (\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ {\| d_{1} + d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \end{matrix})$	$\cos^{2} θ (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{1} + d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{1} - d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} {\| d_{1} - d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{1} + d_{- 1} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$
m = 2	$\frac{{(1 - \cos θ)}^{2}}{16} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{{(1 - \cos θ)}^{2}}{16} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$\frac{{(1 - \cos θ)}^{2}}{8} (\begin{matrix} {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ {\| d_{2} \|}^{2} \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$	$(\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix})$

	x-linear	y-linear	“+”-circular	“−”-circular	radial	azimuthal
m = 0
m = 1
m = 1, m = −1

	x-linear	y-linear	“+”-circular	“−”-circular	radial	azimuthal
m = 0
m = 1
m = 1, m = −1
m = 2

	x-linear	y-linear	“+”-circular	“−”-circular	radial	azimuthal
m = 0
m = 1
m = 1,m = −1
m = 2

The input beam	x-linear	xy-linear	y-linear	“+”-circular	“−”-circular

Vortex phase elements as detectors of polarization state

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Focusing by a micro-objective

3. Multi-order diffractive optical element

4. Focusing by the diffractive axicon

5. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

References and links

Cited By

Figures (4)

Tables (5)

Equations (32)

Optics Express