OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Michael Duncan
  • Vol. 14, Iss. 7 — Apr. 3, 2006
  • pp: 3045–3055
« Show journal navigation

Field enhancement in a chain of optically bound dipoles

M. Guillon  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 14, Issue 7, pp. 3045-3055 (2006)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.14.003045


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (211 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

A one-dimensional array of dipoles, optically trapped and bound in a fringe, is considered. The coupling with the incident field is studied as a function of the number of interacting dipoles. This coupling exhibits an enhancement which collapses when the chain is too long. Two possibilities are explored to keep enhancement: shrinking the coherence and spatially phase modulating the trapping light.

© 2006 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

The study of photonic crystals is of increasing interest for its likeness with solid state physics and for coupling with non-linear optics. Improvement of nanocontrol engineering gives photonic band gaps, similar to electronics ones [1

1. V.A. Markel, “Divergence of dipole sums and the nature of non-Lorentzian exponentially narrow resonances in one-dimensional periodic arrays of nanospheres,” Let. Ed., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 38, 7, L115–L121 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. Former works on collective optical trapping and optical crystallization [2

2. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J.A. Golovchenko, “Optical matter: crystallization and binding in intense optical fields,” Science 249, 749–754 (Aug. 1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 3

3. S.A. Tatarkova, A.E. Carruthers, and K. Dholakia, “One-dimensional optically bound arrays of microscopic particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283901, 1–4 (2002). [CrossRef]

, 4

4. V. Garcés-Chávez, K. Dholakia, and G.C. Spalding, “Extended-area optically induced organization of microparticles on a surface,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 86, 031106 (2005). [CrossRef]

, 5

5. V. Garcés-Chávez, R. Quidant, P.J. Reece, G. Badenes, L. Torner, and K. Dholakia, “Extended organization of colloidal microparticles by surface plasmon polariton excitation,” Phys. Rev. B 73, 085417 (2006). [CrossRef]

] opened up a new possibility to create optically induced holograms. These optically maintained crystals could be a new type of third order non-linear material in colloidal suspensions [6

6. D. Rogovin, R. McGraw, and P. Yeh, “Harmonic phase conjugation in liquid suspensions of microparticles via higher-order gratings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2864–2867 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 7

7. P.W. Smith, A. Ashkin, J.E. Bjorkholm, and D.J. Eilenberger, “Studies of self-focusing bistable devices using liquid suspensions of dielectric particles,” Opt. Lett. 10, 131–133 (1984). [CrossRef]

]. When some scattering particles are in an intense optical field, they optically induce mechanical forces on each others. Optical interaction forces, now called “binding forces” can lead to two dimensional crystals or chains [8

8. C.D. Mellor and C.D. Bain, “Array formation in evanescent wave,” ChemPhysChem 7, 329–332 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] depending on the trap geometry and the particle size. The 1/r long range interaction dependency of the field scattered by a particle in the Rayleigh range [9

9. M. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J. A. Golovchenko, “Optical binding,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 12, 1233–1296 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] suggests possibly strong field enhancement in long self-organized chains. Some experimental work was done on longitudinal, one-dimensional interaction configuration [10

10. W. Singer, M. Frick, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch-Marte, “Self-organized array of regularly spaced microbeads in a fiber-optical trap,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20, 7, 1568–1574 (2003). [CrossRef]

, 11

11. M. Guillon, “Optical trapping in rarefied media: towards laser-trapped space telescopes,” in Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation II, K. Dholakia and G.C. Spalding, eds., Proc. SPIE , 59301T, 1–7 (2005).

] and exhibited strong optical binding interactions. We discuss here the case of a transverse interaction for which it has been proven and experimentally observed [9

9. M. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J. A. Golovchenko, “Optical binding,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 12, 1233–1296 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 12

12. F. Depasse and J.-M. Vigoureux, “Optical binding force between two Rayleigh particles,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 27, 914–919 (1994). [CrossRef]

, 13

13. P. C. Chaumet and M. Nieto-Vesperinas, “Optical binding of particles with or without the presence of a flat dielectric surface,” Phys. Rev. B 64, 035422, 1–7 (2001). [CrossRef]

] that dipolar interaction leads, for two spheres, to potential minima at distances roughly multiple of the wavelength. As the scattered field for a dipole is maximum along directions orthogonal to polarization, energy wells are deeper in those directions. For the simplicity of experimental setup and calculations, we study here the case of small spheres, trapped in a coherent, monophase fringe. In this configuration, dipoles tend to self-organize in the fringe, so as to give a chain perpendicular to the incident polarization. Calculations and results would be very similar for particles separations along the beam propagation axis. Here we consider a linear chain of dielectric or metallic spheres in a Rayleigh regime, trapped in an optical sinusoidal fringe lying in a plane, as shown on Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Configuration of the trapped chain made of induced scattering dipoles.

For small dielectric spheres, that is to say when ka < 1 (k being the wave vector and a the radius of the sphere), one can neglect radiation pressure, proportional to the squared volume of the sphere while gradient force is proportional to its volume. In this approximation, it can be checked numerically that potential minima are distributed every lambda with a good approximation even when the chain is finite (Fig. 2). This calculation has been performed neglecting scattering force and looking for the energy minimum of each dipole, starting from a λ periodicity. Then, we apply infinitesimal variations in a multi-iterative process.

Fig. 2. Deviation of position from lambda periodicity for a finite chain. The longer the chain, the weaker the edge effects.

In the central part of the chain, the separation distance between particles is roughly constant and slightly larger than λ: dipoles in the middle of chain see an infinite-like chain. On the edges, the separation distance increases: edge effects are similar to periodicity defects in solid state physics, for layers close to the surface (the bulk appears after five or six layers). This result also looks like periodicity defects experimentally observed for an optically levitated chain of microspheres in the Mie regime[14

14. V. Garcés-Chávez, D. Roskey, M.D. Summers, H. Melville, D. McGloin, E.M. Wright, and K. Dholakia, “Optical levitation in a Bessel light beam,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 4001–4003 (2004). [CrossRef]

].

2. Finite number of interacting induced coherent dipoles

The field Es,j scattered by a dipole j in the transverse direction is [15

15. J.D. Jackson, “Classical electrodynamics,” second edition, New York, John Wiley & Son, Chpt 9.

]:

Es,j=k3αjEjeikr(1kr1(kr)3+i(kr)2)

where Ej is the field seen by the jth dipole, r the distance to this dipole, and α=m21m2+2a3 (while ka < 1), m being the refractive index of the dielectric sphere and a its radius. Assuming these spheres self-organize into a “d-periodic” linear chain, the self-consistent equations to solve are then scalar:

n ∈〚1,N〛,

En=E0,n+jn;j=1Nk3αjEjeikdnj(1kdnj1(kdnj)3+i(kdnj)2)
(1)

where the summation is performed over all the N dipoles of the chain except the nth for which we calculate the field. Working with identical spheres, and the incident fields E 0,n being the same for every dipole we assume, when the chain is big, that the field seen by every dipole is the same (translation invariance). In this case, the system is easily solved and gives:

n1,N,En=E01k3αj0;j=N/2j=N/2eikdj(1kdj1(kdj)3+i(kdj)2)
(2)

When the light wavelength is tuned on the chain step (i.e. kd = 2π), the real part of the summation at the denominator covers the range from zero to infinity when increasing the number N of interacting dipoles. The field En is then maximized when the real part of the denominator is zero. This enhancement also depends on the polarizability k 3 α as already numerically observed [16

16. Mufei Xiao and Sergey I. Bozhevolnyi, “Resonant field enhancement by a finite-size periodic array of surface scatterers,” J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, 3001–3010 (2001). [CrossRef]

] for the two-dimensional case. For a given polarizability, the maximum binding field is then:

En,resE0=i3π2(2π)2k03α=i12k03α

As kd = 2π and the summation p=1N1p2 quickly converges to the well known result π26. When performed numerically, the maximum enhancement condition is not exactly the one calculated with this simple model. The comparison between this model and the numerical calculation is shown on Figs. 3 and 4. The difference between the former approximate result and the numerical calculation is due to edge effects. We have supposed a translation invariance which is obviously false for a finite chain. In the real case, an n × n matrix must be inversed. As we are interested in translation-invarianced long structures, we set particles every lambda. A more realistic model should take into account periodicity defects, especially close to boundaries. However, looking for potential minima of each dipole requires much longer computational processes. Moreover, there may be not a single stable solution.

The field on Fig. 3 reach a maximum for a given number of dipoles in the chain. The stronger the polarizability, the smaller this optimum number of dipoles. Two regimes can be distinguished here, the case of “short” chains and the case of “long” chains. For a small number of dipoles, that is to say, when the dipoles weakly scatter the light and when the real part of the summation at the denominator remains small compared to 1, the nth dipole feels mostly the incident field, slightly enhanced by other dipoles. In this regime, the field increases as the logarithm of the number of interacting dipoles. As the scattered field of a dipole has a 1/r dependency, for a given number of dipoles, the scattered field becomes stronger than the incident field. When the number of dipoles is too big, the impedance of the resonator is too high to be efficiently coupled with the incident field. The field En is then phase-opposed to the incident field E 0,n. For a finite chain, all the dipoles might not be in the same regime. Indeed, spheres at the edges interact with roughly half less dipoles than the ones in the middle. The impedance of the chain can be defined as:Z(ω)=E0En. Moreover, we can notice that the smaller the spheres, the higher the maximum. It means in particular that for an optimum number of optically trapped spheres in the Rayleigh regime, the trapping energy (proportional to α |En,res |2) increases when the polarizability decreases. Finally, in this case, the rate between excitation and response is purely imaginary.

Fig. 3. Numerical calculation of field enhancement (blue curve) for the dipole in the middle of the chain, is compared to the presented simple approximation (red curve) of uniform field. The maximum enhancement does not happen exactly for the same number of dipoles. The difference between these two curves is due to edge effects. For small Ndip , the field increases logarithmically. Curves plotted for k 3 α = 0.86.
Fig. 4. Field seen by dipoles as a function of their position in the chain (starting from the middle). The red line represents the numerical value obtained by the infinite chain model.

3. Coherence length of the trapping light

In optical trapping experiments, potential minima are maxima of the squared modulus of the field. With an infinite number of dipoles and a perfectly coherent trapping laser, the trapping energy will always collapse for a given number of spheres. Tuning the coherence length of the incident light, we can reduce interactions to a finite number of dipoles. Indeed, in that case, for each dipole, correlations between incident field and scattered field by other incoherent induced dipoles, are zero when averaged over the characteristic response time of the mechanical dynamic of the system. It means that incoherent dipoles do not contribute, or contribute weakly, to binding effects. When trapping in water, Brownian motion acousto-modulates scattered fields. Relevant parameters are then mean free path and correlation time of speed.

3.1. Two dipoles case

In the simple case of two interacting identical dipoles, the equations to be solved are:

E˜1(ω)=E˜10(ω)+eikdf(kd)E˜2(ω)
(3)
E˜2(ω)=E˜20(ω)+eikdf(kd)E˜1(ω)
(4)

where d is the distance between the two dipoles and f(kd)=k3α(1kd1(kd)3+i(kd)2). Which gives for 1 and 2:

E˜1(ω)=E˜10(ω)+eikdf(kd)E˜20(ω)1e2ikdf2(kd)
(5)
E˜2(ω)=E˜20(ω)+eikdf(kd)E˜10(ω)1e2ikdf2(kd)
(6)

The potential energy of a dipole is <W>t= -4παε<|E(t)|2>t. According to the Wiener-Khinchin theorem, <W>t can be expressed in reciprocal domain, as:

<W1>t=4παεE˜1(ω)2dω
(7)

Using the expression of 1, we get:

<W1>t=4παε(E˜10(ω)2+f(kd)E˜20(ω)21e2ikdf2(kd)2dω+2R(E˜10(ω)eikdf(kd)E˜20*(ω))1e2ikdf2(kd)2dω)
(8)

Here we can distinguish between two extreme regimes. When d is very small compared to the coherence length of the incident light, the pair of dipole sees a perfectly monochromatic incident light. In the former calculation, the characteristic widths of 10 and 20 are much smaller than variations of the impedance and than eikdf(kd). These terms can then be set as constants in the integral, which gives the results for the monochromatic case.

On the contrary, when the distance between dipoles is much bigger than the coherence length of the source, impedance oscillates quickly in the envelope (Fig. 5) of 0j, centered on ω 0. For large distances, f(kd) can be approximated by 1k0d at first order. We will suppose moreover that 10 = 20 = 0. That is to say that the two dipoles are coherently excited. In this approximation, the calculation of the three parts of <W>t gives:

E˜10(ω)21e2ikdf2(kd)2dω=<E˜0(ω)2>ω
+1(2k0d)2E˜10(ω)2cos(2kd)dω+o(1(k0d)2)
(9)
Fig. 5. Inverse of squared impedance (11e2ikdf2(kd)2) of a pair of interacting dipoles for different values of distance: d=λ 0 (blue), 2λ 0 (green), 3λ 0 (red), 4λ 0 (yellow), 5λ 0 (cyan). Curves plotted as a function of λ 0/λ.
f(kd)E˜20(ω)21e2ikdf2(kd)2dω=<E˜02>ω(k0d)2+o(1(k0d)2)
(10)
2R(E˜10(ω)eikdf(kd)E˜20*(ω))1e2ikdf2(kd)2dω=2k0dE˜0(ω)2cos(kd)dω+o(1(k0d)2)
(11)

All these terms have a simple physical meaning. The first one in Eq. (9): <| 0|2>ω, is a constant, and is the energy well where dipole 1 sits, due to the single incident field. The second one of the same equation is the auto-coherence of the twice scattered field 01. It is the product between the incident field and the field scattered by dipole 1, which has traveled the distance d twice, after a reflection on the second dipole. This double scattering explains the 1(2k0d)2 dependency. The integral will be zero for a large incident spectrum. In Eq. (10), we performed the calculation of the energy well due to scattering by the second dipole only. In Eq. (11), we have a mutual coherence term between incident fields on dipoles 1 and 2. The exponential term in the integral being the retardation (Fig. 6). Here we have the 1kd dependency of the interaction potential energy. When the retardation is so big that the scattered field 2 and the incident field 1 are incoherent, the average over time is zero, as well as the second term of Eq. (9).

As a conclusion, for two dipoles, the interaction energy has a 1kd dependency while d is smaller than the coherence length of the source. The relevant parameter is then the first harmonic of the autocorrelation function of the incident field. When d is bigger than the coherence length of the binding light, the interaction between the two dipoles is weaker and more precisely, averaged interaction over time has a 1(kd)2 dependency. The line width can be interpreted as the inverse of the duration of a pulsed beam. If the incident light is a quasi-monochromatic impulse, the distance between dipoles is bigger than the coherence length if excitation and first scattering do not overlap. Each sphere will feel a succession of impulses due to multiple reflections on both dipoles. The first scattering is the biggest one and will not interact with the incident impulse. The interaction energy will then be merely proportional to the squared scattered field, that is to say to 1(kd)2.

Fig. 6. Interaction between two dipoles.

This phenomenon can be studied in the infinite number of dipoles case. In the first paragraph, we obtained that the field enhancement happened for a precise number of dipole in the chain. Then, we expect similar effect tuning the coherence length of the incident light on the critical chain length. This way, the number of coherently interacting dipoles will be reduced.

3.2. Infinite chain of dipoles

Relating to the first paragraph, when the number of particles in the chain becomes too large, the field collapses. This phenomenon appears because the summation at the denominator diverges. The critical number of dipole is approximately given by ln(N)1k3α. Then, it seems impossible to keep a strong field enhancement for chains with more than this typical number of dipoles. In the case of an infinite chain, as the incident field is the same for all the dipoles, it can be supposed that the felt field is the same for all of them. With this hypothesis of translation invariance, the infinite-chain case can be solved exactly:

E˜n(ω)=E˜0(ω)12j>0eijkdf(jkd)

In this extreme regime, the resonance appears for a chain step different from λ (see Fig. 7). For a self-organized chain of dipoles, the step will self-tune so as to keep field enhancement. There are here two possibilities, two stable crystalline states, similar to allotropic phases in solid state physics. The difference between these two phases will be a slightly different step. On the curve presented on Fig. 7, the relative step difference is typically 0.2%. According to the first paragraph, the binding energy is maximum for a finite number of interacting dipoles. A solution is to widen the spectrum of the source in order to reduce the number of coherently interacting dipoles. Multiplying the presented curve (Fig. 7) by a Gaussian spectrum, the spectrum of the propagating field in the chain has two peaks. In time domain, the field beats. In this configuration as in the one presented in the first part, the enhancement of the field increases when k 3 α decreases. Meanwhile, the infinite chain approximation is correct for a larger number of dipoles when k 3 α is small.

In the case of a self-organized chain of dipoles, the collapsing of the field for the central frequency and the two local maxima might lead to mechanical instabilities. We reach here a limit of our numerical model. A more realistic model should take into account the building process of the chain. For an adiabatically built chain, built particle by particle, mainly driven by edge effects, we should obtain a single step. However, for a given initial linear density of particles equal to 1/λ over an infinite distance, the chain should be a melting of the two possible allotropic crystalline states.

Fig. 7. (EnE0)2 for an infinite chain of dipoles as a function of λ 0/λ. Curve plotted for k03 α= 0.4.

Finally, we can notice that the effect of coherence observed for two dipoles cannot be exactly extrapolated to an infinite chain because of collective effects.

4. Space modulation of the phase of the trapping light

A second possibility to keep an enhancement effect when the chain is big is to spatially modulate the phase of the incident field. Here, we consider a slightly different experimental configuration where the chain of dipoles is still trapped in a plane fringe with a sinusoidal energy distribution, but the phase of the incident field is modulated. Such an experimental configuration can be obtained by giving a small relative angle between the two (nearly) counter-propagating trapping beams. This way, in a bright fringe, the phase varies linearly. Then, we replace E 0 in the former equations by E 0 e 2iπn/N. Now, the “N” is the phase modulation period of the incident field and not the number of dipoles (like in the first paragraph) as the chain we consider is infinite. We assume the same periodic dependency for the amplitude of the field seen by the dipoles. In Eq. (1), En is then replaced by Ene 2iπn/N. With this hypothesis, the field seen by the nth dipole is:

En=E012j>0cos(2iπj/N)eijkdf(jkd)

Space modulation of the phase of the incident light offers a free parameter. Changing N, it is possible to keep a field enhancement for a given grating step kd. In this summation, only a few terms have a simple mathematical expression [17

17. I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, “Table of integrals series and products,” (sixth edition, Alan Jeffrey, Academic Press, 2000).

]. However, some numerical results are presented on Figs. 8 and 9.

Fig. 8. Color coded intensity as a function of the grating step kd2π and the phase modulation period N. Curve plotted for k 3 α = 0.86. One of the tails is enlarged in the upper right corner. Field enhancement is the strongest in this part of the curve.

5. Conclusion

Fig. 9. Cross section of the curve on Fig. 8 for N=100 (blue curve), N=150 (green curve) and N=200 (red curve).

Our calculations were performed in the Rayleigh range. For particles in the Mie range, multiple-scattering calculations should take into account multimodal coupling of spherical harmonics[18

18. O. Moine and B. Stout, “Optical force calculations in arbitrary beams using the vector addition theorem,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22, 1620–1631 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. However, when microspheres are far away from each other (compared to their radius), the far field scattered by each sphere is dominated by the eikdkd law like in the dipolar case. Similar results concerning infinite periodic chains are then expected.

Acknowledgments

I would like to particularly thank Professor J.-M. Fournier and Professor R. Kaiser for fruitful discussions and support.

References and links

1.

V.A. Markel, “Divergence of dipole sums and the nature of non-Lorentzian exponentially narrow resonances in one-dimensional periodic arrays of nanospheres,” Let. Ed., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 38, 7, L115–L121 (2005). [CrossRef]

2.

M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J.A. Golovchenko, “Optical matter: crystallization and binding in intense optical fields,” Science 249, 749–754 (Aug. 1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

S.A. Tatarkova, A.E. Carruthers, and K. Dholakia, “One-dimensional optically bound arrays of microscopic particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283901, 1–4 (2002). [CrossRef]

4.

V. Garcés-Chávez, K. Dholakia, and G.C. Spalding, “Extended-area optically induced organization of microparticles on a surface,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 86, 031106 (2005). [CrossRef]

5.

V. Garcés-Chávez, R. Quidant, P.J. Reece, G. Badenes, L. Torner, and K. Dholakia, “Extended organization of colloidal microparticles by surface plasmon polariton excitation,” Phys. Rev. B 73, 085417 (2006). [CrossRef]

6.

D. Rogovin, R. McGraw, and P. Yeh, “Harmonic phase conjugation in liquid suspensions of microparticles via higher-order gratings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2864–2867 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

7.

P.W. Smith, A. Ashkin, J.E. Bjorkholm, and D.J. Eilenberger, “Studies of self-focusing bistable devices using liquid suspensions of dielectric particles,” Opt. Lett. 10, 131–133 (1984). [CrossRef]

8.

C.D. Mellor and C.D. Bain, “Array formation in evanescent wave,” ChemPhysChem 7, 329–332 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

M. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J. A. Golovchenko, “Optical binding,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 12, 1233–1296 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

W. Singer, M. Frick, S. Bernet, and M. Ritsch-Marte, “Self-organized array of regularly spaced microbeads in a fiber-optical trap,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20, 7, 1568–1574 (2003). [CrossRef]

11.

M. Guillon, “Optical trapping in rarefied media: towards laser-trapped space telescopes,” in Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation II, K. Dholakia and G.C. Spalding, eds., Proc. SPIE , 59301T, 1–7 (2005).

12.

F. Depasse and J.-M. Vigoureux, “Optical binding force between two Rayleigh particles,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 27, 914–919 (1994). [CrossRef]

13.

P. C. Chaumet and M. Nieto-Vesperinas, “Optical binding of particles with or without the presence of a flat dielectric surface,” Phys. Rev. B 64, 035422, 1–7 (2001). [CrossRef]

14.

V. Garcés-Chávez, D. Roskey, M.D. Summers, H. Melville, D. McGloin, E.M. Wright, and K. Dholakia, “Optical levitation in a Bessel light beam,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 4001–4003 (2004). [CrossRef]

15.

J.D. Jackson, “Classical electrodynamics,” second edition, New York, John Wiley & Son, Chpt 9.

16.

Mufei Xiao and Sergey I. Bozhevolnyi, “Resonant field enhancement by a finite-size periodic array of surface scatterers,” J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 13, 3001–3010 (2001). [CrossRef]

17.

I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, “Table of integrals series and products,” (sixth edition, Alan Jeffrey, Academic Press, 2000).

18.

O. Moine and B. Stout, “Optical force calculations in arbitrary beams using the vector addition theorem,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22, 1620–1631 (2005). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(020.7010) Atomic and molecular physics : Laser trapping
(120.5060) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Phase modulation
(170.4520) Medical optics and biotechnology : Optical confinement and manipulation
(290.5870) Scattering : Scattering, Rayleigh

ToC Category:
Trapping

History
Original Manuscript: February 21, 2006
Revised Manuscript: March 23, 2006
Manuscript Accepted: March 23, 2006
Published: April 3, 2006

Citation
M. Guillon, "Field enhancement in a chain of optically bound dipoles," Opt. Express 14, 3045-3055 (2006)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-14-7-3045


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. V.A. Markel, "Divergence of dipole sums and the nature of non-Lorentzian exponentially narrow resonances in one-dimensional periodic arrays of nanospheres," Let. Ed., J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 38,7, L115-L121 (2005). [CrossRef]
  2. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, J.A. Golovchenko, "Optical matter: crystallization and binding in intense optical fields," Science 249,749-754 (Aug. 1990). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. S.A. Tatarkova, A.E. Carruthers, K. Dholakia, "One-dimensional optically bound arrays of microscopic particles," Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,283901, 1-4 (2002). [CrossRef]
  4. V. Garcés-Chávez, K. Dholakia, G.C. Spalding, "Extended-area optically induced organization of microparticles on a surface," Appl. Phys. Lett. 86,031106 (2005). [CrossRef]
  5. V. Garcés-Chávez, R. Quidant, P.J. Reece, G. Badenes, L. Torner, K. Dholakia, "Extended organization of colloidal microparticles by surface plasmon polariton excitation," Phys. Rev. B 73,085417 (2006). [CrossRef]
  6. D. Rogovin, R. McGraw, P. Yeh, "Harmonic phase conjugation in liquid suspensions of microparticles via higherorder gratings," Phys. Rev. Lett. 55,2864-2867 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. P.W. Smith, A. Ashkin, J.E. Bjorkholm, D.J. Eilenberger, "Studies of self-focusing bistable devices using liquid suspensions of dielectric particles," Opt. Lett. 10,131-133 (1984). [CrossRef]
  8. C.D. Mellor, C.D. Bain, "Array formation in evanescent wave," ChemPhysChem 7,329-332 (2005). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. M. M. Burns, J.-M. Fournier, and J. A. Golovchenko, "Optical binding," Phys. Rev. Lett. 63,12, 1233-1236 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. W. Singer, M. Frick, S. Bernet, M Ritsch-Marte, "Self-organized array of regularly spaced microbeads in a fiberoptical trap," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 20,7, 1568-1574 (2003). [CrossRef]
  11. M. Guillon, "Optical trapping in rarefied media: towards laser-trapped space telescopes," in Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation II, K. Dholakia and G.C. Spalding, eds., Proc. SPIE, 59301T, 1-7 (2005).
  12. F. Depasse, J.-M. Vigoureux, "Optical binding force between two Rayleigh particles," J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 27,914-919 (1994). [CrossRef]
  13. P. C. Chaumet,M. Nieto-Vesperinas, "Optical binding of particles with or without the presence of a flat dielectric surface," Phys. Rev. B 64,035422, 1-7 (2001). [CrossRef]
  14. V. Garcés-Chávez, D. Roskey, M.D. Summers, H. Melville, D. McGloin, E.M. Wright, K. Dholakia, "Optical levitation in a Bessel light beam," Appl. Phys. Lett. 85,4001-4003 (2004). [CrossRef]
  15. J.D. Jackson, "Classical electrodynamics," second edition, New York, John Wiley & Son, Chpt 9.
  16. Mufei Xiao and Sergey I. Bozhevolnyi, "Resonant field enhancement by a finite-size periodic array of surface scatterers," J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 13,3001-3010 (2001). [CrossRef]
  17. I.S. Gradshteyn, I.M. Ryzhik, "Table of integrals series and products," (sixth edition, Alan Jeffrey, Academic Press, 2000).
  18. O. Moine, B. Stout, "Optical force calculations in arbitrary beams using the vector addition theorem," J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22,1620-1631 (2005). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.


« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited