Abstract
Photonic devices that exhibit all-optically reconfigurable polarization dependence with a large dynamic range would be highly attractive for active polarization control. Here, we report that strongly polarization-selective nonlinear optomechanical interactions emerge in subwavelength waveguides. By using full-vectorial finite element analysis, we find, at certain core ellipticities (or aspect ratios), that the forward simulated light scattering mediated by a specific acoustic resonance mode is eliminated for one polarization mode. Whereas, that for the other polarization mode is rather enhanced. This intriguing phenomenon can be explained by the interplay between the electrostrictive force and radiation pressure and turns out to be tailorable by the choice of waveguide materials.
© 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement
1. Introduction
Photonic devices that exhibit polarization dependence (e.g., polarization dependent loss/gain and polarization mode dispersion) are considered detrimental in general, as they degrade the performance of photonic systems when employed. On the other hand, if the polarization dependence could be all-optically controlled with a large dynamic range at modest optical power levels, it would be highly attractive for active control and manipulation of the polarization state of light, which can be adopted in new types of photonic components and advanced all-optical signal processing. Nonlinear optical phenomena, e.g., the optical Kerr effect, stimulated Raman scattering and stimulated Brillouin scattering (SBS), have offered compelling nonlinear polarization effects that can be potentially adopted for the realization of all-optical polarization control. Recent examples include lossless polarizers based on the self-polarization effect [1], Kerr-based polarization scramblers [2], and polarization-switchable Brillouin fiber lasers [3]. Although SBS in conventional single-mode fibers has been long considered as one of the most significant nonlinear optical effects, the insufficient polarization dependence of SBS gain [4,5] has hindered its practical use for implementing all-optical polarization manipulation. Strongly polarization-selective SBS amplification of one particular polarization mode could also dramatically improve the performances of various SBS-based systems, e.g., tunable bandpass filters [6], Brillouin-based optical spectrometers [7], and optical vector network analyzers [8].
With the advancement of nano-fabrication techniques, it has been possible to realize micro/nano-scaled photonic systems that allow for strong confinement of light in small volumes to yield highly efficient nonlinear optical effects. In particular, novel kinds of nonlinear optomechanical phenomena can emerge at modest optical powers, when light and acoustic phonons are tightly trapped simultaneously in tiny spaces, as recently demonstrated in micron/submicron-thick fiber tapers [9–11], small-solid-core microstructured optical fibers with high air-filling fractions [12–14], and silicon on-chip suspended waveguides [15,16]. In these systems, tailored dispersions of trapped acoustic phonons yield forward SBS (FSBS) via the phase-matched nonlinear coupling between the co-propagating guided light and transverse acoustic resonances (ARs) [13,14]. In sharp contrast to conventional backward SBS (BSBS), the optically excited AR in the FSBS process can be even automatically phase-matched with the higher-order Stokes and anti-Stokes waves at the same time, which in some cases leads to the generation of equally-spaced optical frequency comb [13].
The ARs and guided light can be further tailored by manipulating the waveguide cross-sections, as they are strongly influenced by the waveguide boundaries. Although this possibility could be investigated for engineering of the properties of the resulting nonlinear photon-phonon interactions via FSBS, the relevant previous works have been limited to changing the cross-sectional waveguide dimension to adjust the Brillouin frequency shift and FSBS gain [9,15,17]. It has been recently reported that the backward Brillouin scattering mediated by the traveling surface acoustic waves (SAWs) can be eliminated [11,18] or even extremely polarization-sensitive [18] in suitably designed subwavelength silica glass waveguides. However, the inherently weak interactions between the SAWs and the guided light still greatly limit the BSBS gains, which seriously obstructs its practical application. In strong contrast, in the FSBS the intrinsically larger optomechanical overlaps between the transverse ARs and the guided light yield much greater FSBS gains. In particular, this makes the polarization-selective light amplification via FSBS remarkably advantageous over the backward counterpart for advanced all-optical signal processing, although such the possibility has not been explored yet.
In this paper, we report for the first time that the FSBS driven by the transverse ARs, not to be confused with the backward SAW Brillouin scattering [11,18], can be completely eliminated and even strongly polarization-selective in subwavelength waveguides with suitably designed core geometry. By carefully selecting both the aspect ratio (or ellipticity) and dimension of the waveguide core, we can make the FSBS mediated by a certain AR mode completely suppressed for only one optical polarization mode, while rather enhancing that for the other polarization mode, which provides a unique practical way of highly efficient all-optical dynamic polarization control. Furthermore, we also show that the qualitative behavior of polarization selectiveness is tailorable by choice of the sign of photoelastic coefficient (PEC) of the waveguide material. We perform full-vectorial simulations of optical and AR modes in the waveguides and investigate their nonlinear interactions to fully understand the polarization selectiveness.
2. Polarization-selective FSBS in silica subwavelength waveguides
We first consider silica-glass elliptical waveguides suspended in the air, as described in Fig. 1(a), which is feasible in the form of highly birefringent microstructured fibers [20] and elliptical microfibers [21]. The FSBS is dependent generally on both the ellipticity and dimension of the core. Here, we define the core ellipticity as e = (a–b)/a (0≤e≤1), where a and b are the semi-major and semi-minor axis, respectively, and use the ‘equivalent radius’ to represent the core dimension [18]. By considering the symmetry of the optical modes, it can be verified that the TR21-like (0°/90°) torsional-radial AR and the R01-like radial AR (Fig. 1(b)) can drive intramodal FSBS significantly [13,14]. We note that rectangular waveguides could be an alternative model of realistic waveguides having the C2 symmetry, while the polarization sensitivity of FSBS has not been investigated in either the previous experiments [15,16] or theoretical analyses [17,19] with on-chip rectangular waveguides. Our analysis on the rectangular waveguides, not to be presented here, shows that their key qualitative features of polarization selectiveness are the same as those of elliptical ones, whereas the polarization selectiveness takes place at different core aspect ratios for the two cases. We emphasize that the polarization selectiveness could be thus practically exploited in the on-chip integrated air-suspended rectangular waveguides [15–17,19] as well.
We calculate the intramodal ‘FSBS coupling’ (G), defined as a figure of merit for SBS [18], at the wavelength of 1550 nm for the two types of ARs, over the entire range of ellipticity and equivalent radius of the core (Fig. 2). The photon-phonon interactions via intramodal FSBS can be highly polarization-selective, in the sense that the FSBS coupling is eliminated for one polarization mode, while it is kept significant for the other. The strong polarization selectiveness is observed over a wide range of core dimension for both ARs. For instance, for the TR21-like AR, the FSBS driven by the x-polarized mode is completely suppressed at certain core ellipticities, which appears as a zero-FSBS-coupling curve in Fig. 2(a). In sharp contrast, around the zero-FSBS-coupling conditions, the FSBS coupling for the y-polarized mode is rather enhanced, having a maximum value of G = 29 W−1km−1 at (Req, e) = (607 nm, 0.42), as can be seen in Fig. 2(b). For the R01-like AR, on the contrary, the FSBS coupling is eliminated only when driven by the y-polarized mode, as shown in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d). We emphasize that this strong polarization selectiveness is markedly different from the conventional common sense of polarization sensitivity. The latter implies that the complete suppression of FSBS by a certain AR mode would take place at different core ellipticities and/or dimensions for the two polarization modes. For instance, this would then create a zero-FSBS-coupling curve in Fig. 2(b) as well in a similar fashion to Fig. 2(a) but along a different trajectory of core parameters compared to that in Fig. 2(a).
To figure out the strong suppression of FSBS, we take into account the contribution of electrostriction and that of radiation pressure separately to the total FSBS coupling. We define G(es) and G(rp) as the FSBS coupling components independently contributed by the electrostrictive force and radiation pressure, respectively, and calculate them at Req = 500 nm over the entire range of core ellipticity. At the core ellipticity for which FSBS is suppressed, the two FSBS coupling components have the same magnitude as each other as shown in Figs. 3(a) and 3(d), which implies that they are canceled out to yield the zero total FSBS coupling.
The strong polarization selectiveness of FSBS can be intuitively understood in terms of the time-averaged optomechanical work density done on the waveguide by the optical forces, as described in Figs. 3(e)–3(n), where f and um are the optical force distribution and the displacement profile of AR, respectively. The optical forces are almost transverse in the FSBS process, and the dominant electrostriction stress tensor components are then σxx and σyy for both polarization modes, which are expressed for the electric field profile E in isotropic media by [22]
where ε0 and n are the vacuum electric permittivity and the refractive index, respectively, and p11 and p12 are the PECs. For fused silica glass (p11 = 0.121 and p12 = 0.270), both PECs are positive and p11 < p12 then makes σyy[σxx] dominant over σxx[σyy] for the x[y]-polarized mode. The electrostrictive bulk force and boundary force [17] are then applied inward, where nj is the normal vector component at the waveguide surface. In addition, the electrostrictive bulk force is mostly perpendicular to the optical polarization. While for the x-polarized mode the electrostrictive bulk and boundary forces exerted together in the y-direction get significantly greater than the counterbalancing radiation pressure (Figs. 3(g) and 3(i)), for the y-polarized mode the radiation pressure is dominant (Figs. 3(h) and 3(j)). As a result, the total optical force distribution created by the y-polarized mode exhibits a ‘squeezing’ pattern over the waveguide cross-section that closely resembles the TR21-like AR, which yields a significant work (Fig. 3(l)). The y-polarized mode is then coupled efficiently to the TR21-like AR, resulting in the enhancement of FSBS coupling. On the contrary, when driven by the x-polarized mode, the total optical force distribution does not match the TR21-like AR (Figs. 3(k) and 3(m)), and the resulting work can then be canceled out, which gives rise to the suppression of FSBS coupling. The opposite behavior of polarization-selective FSBS suppression for the R01-like AR can be explained in a similar way.We also obtain the spectra of FSBS for each polarization mode by calculating the acoustic frequency and FSBS coupling for several ARs (including the TR21-like and the R01-like ones) over the entire range of core ellipticity. Figure 4 shows the result, which we obtain as keeping the core dimension at Req = 500 nm and assuming an arbitrary but realistic value of AR quality factor of 1000 for silica glass [23]. It is noteworthy that a number of anti-crossings emerge at some core ellipticities, which we attribute to the simultaneous resonances of two acoustic modes satisfying the free-boundary conditions for the acoustic displacement at the waveguide interface [24]. For instance, the frequency of the R01-like AR increases with the core ellipticity and intersects that of the higher-order flexural F11 AR at e = 0.63. The amount of frequency splitting at the resulting anti-crossing depends on the coupling strength between the two ARs. As the core ellipticity increases further, the R01-like AR branch forms a series of anti-crossings with other types of ARs. We collect these R01-like ARs and designate them here as a ‘family of R01-like ARs’. We note that for the x-polarized mode the FSBS coupling decreases significantly nearby the acoustic anti-crossings, as can be seen in Fig. 2(c). In addition, for the y-polarized mode, the flexural ARs dominate the FSBS coupling over the R01-like ones at the core ellipticities above the first anti-crossing, which results in negligible FSBS couplings of the R01-like ARs at high core ellipticities (Fig. 2(d)).
3. Polarization-selective FSBS in silicon subwavelength waveguides
It is worth comparing the results so far for silica waveguides with those for silicon counterparts, as the latter has recently attracted rapidly growing attention, being anticipated to exhibit ultrahigh optomechanical interaction efficiencies [17]. Silicon has the PECs of p11 = –0.09 and p12 = 0.017 under the [100] orientation. On the contrary to fused silica, since |p11| > |p12| for silicon, the electrostriction stress tensor component σxx[σyy] is dominant over σyy[σxx] for the x[y]-polarized mode (Eqs. (1) and (2)), and the direction of electrostrictive bulk force is then mostly parallel to the optical polarization (Figs. 5(g) and 5(h)). In addition, the negative value of p11 makes the electrostrictive bulk force point outward (Figs. 5(g) and 5(h)), which combines constructively with the radiation pressure regardless of the optical polarization (Figs. 5(i) and 5(j)), though near the waveguide boundary relatively smaller electrostrictive forces exist that tend to pull inward against the radiation pressure (Figs. 5(i) and 5(j)).
The constructive combination of electrostrictive bulk force and radiation pressure for both polarization modes has eluded the observation of polarization selective FSBS in silicon waveguides. Indeed, the polarization-selective behavior does not exist for the photon-phonon interactions by the TR21-like AR (Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)). For the R01-like AR, however, strong polarization selectiveness is observed at certain core ellipticities (Figs. 5(c) and 5(d)). For the y-polarized mode, the electrostrictive bulk force and radiation pressure cooperate in the y-direction, which in turn excite efficiently the R01-like AR having the dominant strain component Syy (Figs. 5(h) and 5(j)). The time-averaged optomechanical works done on the waveguide bulk and boundary then combine in phase, which gives rise to non-zero FSBS couplings (Figs. 5(l) and 5(n)). On the other hand, when driven by the x-polarized mode, the bulk and boundary work densities are distributed in such a way that the net work done on the waveguide vanishes, yielding the FSBS suppression (Figs. 5(k) and 5(m)). We emphasize that the polarization-selective FSBS in silicon waveguides can be potentially a key phenomenon for implementing polarization devices in on-chip photonic integrated circuits.
4. Conclusion
In conclusion, we have shown that strongly polarization-selective nonlinear optomechanical interactions emerge in subwavelength waveguides with carefully designed core geometry. At certain core aspect ratios (or ellipticities), FSBS mediated by a specific AR mode is eliminated for only one polarization mode, while that for the other polarization mode is enhanced. Thanks to the sufficient FSBS coupling (on the order of 10 W−1km−1 for silica waveguides) compared to particularly the weak backward SBS mediated by traveling SAWs [18], the strongly polarization-selective FSBS offers a unique practical way of highly efficient all-optical reconfigurable polarization control with a huge dynamic range. This remarkable feature could be applied to, e.g., dynamic nonlinear polarizers, polarization switching, and wavelength-polarization-division multiplexing, mode-locked lasers with ultrahigh degrees of polarization, as well as the above-mentioned applications [6–8]. In these applications, the co-propagating pump and Stokes waves can be separated by using a commercially available ultra-narrow-band wavelength filter with the bandwidth far below the AR frequency (a few GHz), such as a phase-shifted fiber Bragg grating [25] and an optical cavity. The intriguing phenomenon of polarization-selective suppression of FSBS can be explained by the counterbalance between electrostriction and radiation pressure and turn out to be strongly affected by the PECs of waveguide materials. Our study provides a new opportunity of engineering boundary-enhanced optical forces and nonlinear photon-phonon interactions.
Funding
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grants funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2013R1A1A1007933, NRF-2016R1A2B4011862).
References
1. J. Fatome, S. Pitois, P. Morin, E. Assémat, D. Sugny, A. Picozzi, H. R. Jauslin, G. Millot, V. V. Kozlov, and S. Wabnitz, “A universal optical all-fiber omnipolarizer,” Sci. Rep. 2(1), 938 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. M. Guasoni, J. Fatome, and S. Wabnitz, “Intensity noise-driven nonlinear fiber polarization scrambler,” Opt. Lett. 39(18), 5309–5312 (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. C. Wang, Y. Zhang, G. Liu, J. Zhao, J. Zhang, L. Chen, and X. Bao, “Orthogonal polarization switchable lasing based on axial polarization pulling of SBS in polarization-maintaining fiber,” Opt. Express 26(22), 28385–28395 (2018). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. T. Horiguchi, N. Shibata, Y. Azuma, and M. Tateda, “Brillouin gain variation due to a polarization-state change of the pump or Stokes fields in standard single-mode fibers,” Opt. Lett. 14(6), 329–331 (1989). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. M. O. van Deventer and A. J. Boot, “Polarization properties of stimulated Brillouin scattering in single-mode fibers,” J. Lightwave Technol. 12(4), 585–590 (1994). [CrossRef]
6. A. Wise, M. Tur, and A. Zadok, “Sharp tunable optical filters based on the polarization attributes of stimulated Brillouin scattering,” Opt. Express 19(22), 21945–21955 (2011). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. S. Preussler, A. Zadok, A. Wiatrek, M. Tur, and T. Schneider, “Enhancement of spectral resolution and optical rejection ratio of Brillouin optical spectral analysis using polarization pulling,” Opt. Express 20(13), 14734–14745 (2012). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. W. Li, J. G. Liu, and N. H. Zhu, “Optical vector network analyzer with improved accuracy based on polarization modulation and polarization pulling,” Opt. Lett. 40(8), 1679–1682 (2015). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. M. S. Kang, A. Brenn, G. S. Wiederhecker, and P. St. J. Russell, “Optical excitation and characterization of gigahertz acoustic resonances in optical fiber tapers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 93(13), 131110 (2008). [CrossRef]
10. J.-C. Beugnot, S. Lebrun, G. Pauliat, H. Maillotte, V. Laude, and T. Sylvestre, “Brillouin light scattering from surface acoustic waves in a subwavelength-diameter optical fibre,” Nat. Commun. 5(1), 5242 (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. O. Florez, P. F. Jarschel, Y. A. V. Espinel, C. M. B. Cordeiro, T. P. Mayer Alegre, G. S. Wiederhecker, and P. Dainese, “Brillouin scattering self-cancellation,” Nat. Commun. 7(1), 11759 (2016). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. P. Dainese, P. St. J. Russell, N. Joly, J. C. Knight, G. S. Wiederhecker, H. L. Fragnito, V. Laude, and A. Khelif, “Stimulated Brillouin scattering from multi-GHz-guided acoustic phonons in nanostructured photonic crystal fibres,” Nat. Phys. 2(6), 388–392 (2006). [CrossRef]
13. M. S. Kang, A. Nazarkin, A. Brenn, and P. St. J. Russell, “Tightly trapped acoustic phonons in photonic crystal fibres as highly nonlinear artificial Raman oscillators,” Nat. Phys. 5(4), 276–280 (2009). [CrossRef]
14. M. S. Kang, A. Brenn, and P. St.J. Russell, “All-optical control of gigahertz acoustic resonances by forward stimulated interpolarization scattering in a photonic crystal fiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(15), 153901 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. H. Shin, W. Qiu, R. Jarecki, J. A. Cox, R. H. Olsson 3rd, A. Starbuck, Z. Wang, and P. T. Rakich, “Tailorable stimulated Brillouin scattering in nanoscale silicon waveguides,” Nat. Commun. 4(1), 1944 (2013). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. R. Van Laer, B. Kuyken, D. Van Thourhout, and R. Baets, “Interaction between light and highly confined hypersound in a silicon photonic nanowire,” Nat. Photonics 9(3), 199–203 (2015). [CrossRef]
17. P. T. Rakich, C. Reinke, R. Camacho, P. Davids, and Z. Wang, “Giant enhancement of stimulated Brillouin scattering in the subwavelength limit,” Phys. Rev. X 2(1), 011008 (2012). [CrossRef]
18. D. S. Han, I.-M. Lee, K. H. Park, and M. S. Kang, “Extremely polarization-sensitive surface acoustic wave Brillouin scattering in subwavelength waveguides,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 113(12), 121108 (2018). [CrossRef]
19. P. T. Rakich, P. Davids, and Z. Wang, “Tailoring optical forces in waveguides through radiation pressure and electrostrictive forces,” Opt. Express 18(14), 14439–14453 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. A. Ortigosa-Blanch, J. C. Knight, W. J. Wadsworth, J. Arriaga, B. J. Mangan, T. A. Birks, and P. St. J. Russell, “Highly birefringent photonic crystal fibers,” Opt. Lett. 25(18), 1325–1327 (2000). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. L.-P. Sun, J. Li, S. Gao, L. Jin, Y. Ran, and B.-O. Guan, “Fabrication of elliptic microfibers with CO2 laser for high-sensitivity refractive index sensing,” Opt. Lett. 39(12), 3531–3534 (2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. A. Yariv and P. Yeh, Optical waves in crystals (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003).
23. R. M. Shelby, M. D. Levenson, and P. W. Bayer, “Guided acoustic-wave Brillouin scattering,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 31(8), 5244–5252 (1985). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. P. Russell, E. Marin, A. Díez, S. Guenneau, and A. Movchan, “Sonic band gaps in PCF preforms: enhancing the interaction of sound and light,” Opt. Express 11(20), 2555–2560 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. G. P. Agrawal and S. Radic, “Phase-shifted fiber Bragg gratings and their application for wavelength demultiplexing,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 6(8), 995–997 (1994). [CrossRef]