Divergence of an orbital-angular-momentum-carrying beam upon propagation

Miles Padgett1, Filippo M. Miatto2, Martin Lavery1, Anton Zeilinger3,4, and Robert W. Boyd1,2,5 1School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 2Dept. of Physics, University of Ottawa, 150 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Canada 3Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information (IQOQI), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 4Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5, A-1090 Vienna, Austria and 5The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA (Dated: February 12, 2018) There is recent interest in the use of light beams carrying orbital angular momentum (OAM) for creating multiple channels within free-space optical communication systems. One limiting issue is that, for a given beam size at the transmitter, the beam divergence angle increases with increasing OAM, thus requiring a larger aperture at the receiving optical system if the efficiency of detection is to be maintained. Confusion exists as to whether this divergence scales linarly with, or with the square root of, the beam’s OAM. We clarify how both these scaling laws are valid, depending upon whether it is the radius of the Gaussian beam waist or the rms intensity which is kept constant while varying the OAM.

I. INTRODUCTION intensity of one of these modes, r(Imax), is given as [3] r ` Over the past 20 years there has been a growing in- r(Imax) = | |w(z), (2) terest in the orbital angular momentum (OAM) of light, 2 which is carried by any optical beam possessing helical p 2 2 1 2 where w(z) = w0 1 + z /zR and zR = 2 kw0 is the phase fronts [1]. For phase fronts described by an az- Rayleigh range (here k = 2π/λ). One notes that for imuthally dependent phase factor exp(i`φ), the OAM is high OAM values the size of the LG mode is much larger equivalent to `¯h per photon [2]. This OAM of a light than the beam waist. The restriction of our study to the beam can be derived in a number of ways, but for our paraxial regime also implies that w(z) λ and hence purposes it can be seen to arise from the local direction that β (see Eq. (1)) remains small for all radii at which of the Poynting vector. At all points within the beam the the beam has a non-negligible intensity. Poynting vector is perpendicular to the phase fronts and In terms of their complex amplitudes, LG beams with hence possesses an azimuthal momentum component [3]. different mode indices are orthogonal to each other and As confirmed by measurement [4], helical phase fronts this suggests their use in communication applications lead to the local Poynting vector being skewed with re- where the orthogonality of the modes creates indepen- spect to the beam axis by an angle β, which is a func- dent channels. A simple optical communication system tion of r, the radial distance from the beam axis and based on OAM was demonstrated over 10 years ago [5], k0 = 2π/λ: but recently the idea has been revisited with reports of both high data rates [6] and outdoor demonstrations [7]. ` β = | | , (1) One issue of critical importance is the degree to which k0r the use of OAM-carrying beams require the use of larger aperture optics. Confusion exists as to whether the far- One analytically simple, and widely used, form of field divergence of a beam carrying OAM scales linearly helically-phased beams is the Laguerre-Gaussian (LG) or with the square root of its angular momentum. arXiv:1410.8722v1 [quant-ph] 31 Oct 2014 modes having a field amplitude given as the product of a Gaussian term with beam waist w0, (defined as the radius at which the electric field of the Gaussian term is II. DIVERGENCE OF A BEAM lower by a factor 1/e), a generalised Laguerre polynomial with indices ` and p, and the coordinate r raised to the The skew angle of the Pointing vector calculated with | | power ` (see Eq. (3)). respect to the beam axis might be thought to approx- | | In this work we restrict ourselves to the paraxial regime imate the angular divergence of the beam. However, and small numerical aperture where the size of any spa- an additional contribution to the divergence that has to tial features in the modes or their superpositions is sig- be considered is the normal diffractive spreading arising nificantly larger than the optical wavelength. For p = 0, from the finite beam diameter. Rather than the beam the LG modes are single-ringed annular modes with zero waist w0, or the radius of maximum intensity r(Imax), the on-axis intensity and an azimuthal phase term exp(i`φ), divergence of a light beam is governed by the standard unless also ` is zero, in which case one has the funda- deviation of its spatial distribution, rrms [8, 9]. The cal- mental Gaussian mode. The radius of maximum optical culation of these quantities is straightforward. We start 2 from the definition of a LG mode from which we find 3 that the intensity distribution for the lowest-order radial ) mode (p = 0) is given by 0 2 !2|`| 2 √2r  2r2  I`(r, φ, z) = exp , w(z)2π ` ! w(z) −w(z)2 r rms | | r (I ) (3) 1 max

R (units of w beam size which is normalized such that I`(r, φ, z) rdrdφ = 1. From this, we can calculate the radial position of the maximum of intensity, by solving the equation ∂I`/∂r = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0, obtaining (as anticipated in eq. (2) [3]) | | r FIG. 1: A comparison between the radius in the pupil plane ` of maximum intensity and the rms radius of the spatial dis- r(Imax) = | |w(z), (4) 2 tribution of a p = 0 LG mode. For large `, the two radii get p asymptotically close, as r(Imax) is proportional to |`|, while However, as r(Imax) is zero for ` = 0, clearly one cannot r is proportional to p|`| + 1. generally use this quantity to derive the angular spread rms of the beam as it propagates. As has been reported pre- viously, a better quantity is the standard deviation of the spatial distribution of the beam, rrms, which is a func- field, the divergence angle of a p = 0 LG mode is given tion of z and it is given by the square root of the radial by variance of the intensity distribution [10]: r ` + 1 λ s Z ∞ α` = | | . (11) 2 2 2πw0 rrms(z) = 2π r I`(r, φ, z) rdr (5) 0 Eq. (11) is a convenient form for expressing the ` r ` + 1 dependence of the beam divergence whilst holding w0 = | | w(z), (6) 2 constant, revealing the approximate square root scaling, see figure 2. Alternatively the divergence angle can be In the plane of the beam waist, this simplifies to written in terms of other quantities, for instance, using r Eq. (7), one can instead express the ` dependence of the ` + 1 beam divergence whilst holding r constant, as r (0) = | | w , (7) rms rms 2 0 ` + 1 Fig. 1 shows the ` dependence of r(I ) and r (0) α` = | | , (12) max rms k0rrms(0) in the pupil plane. One notes that Under this condition w0 itself becomes a function of ` and s − / r ` + 1 in fact scales as ( ` + 1) 1 2. In this case, corresponding rms = , (8) | | | | to a fixed rrms, we see that the beam divergence scales r(Imax) ` | | linearly with `, see figure 2. which tends to 1 as ` increases, so these two radii be- come equal for large |`,| see Fig. 1. III. DISCUSSION Given the radius rrms(z) as a function of propagation distance, z, we can calculate the corresponding diver- gence angle of a p = 0 LG mode, α`, to be Typical of a practical system is that the aperture of the launch optics is fixed by design, with a limiting radius   ∂rrms(z) R. Since the size of the LG beam can be much bigger α`(z) = arctan (9) ∂z than w0, if wishing to design a system incorporating a r ! wide range of different OAM modes with a constant beam ` + 1 w2 z 0 waist, then one must choose a waist w0 R. LG beams = arctan | | 2 . (10)  2 zR w(z) of a fixed beam waist are produced by a cylindrical-lens mode converter [15]. Using a mode converter of this type This divergence angle is a function of z, but it asymp- to produce the modes one would observe the square root totically reaches a limiting value (when the beam is suf- scaling of the far-field beam divergence (11). ficiently far from the waist). Within the paraxial regime, A more frequently used and flexible method of produc- for small α`, we can equate the tangent of the angle with ing beams carrying OAM is the illumination of a diffrac- the angle and for limz→∞ z/w(z) = zR/w0, so in the far tive optical element with an expanded Gaussian beam 3

10 9 a scaling approximately proportional to ` . This linear 8 | | 7 scaling of the beam size has previously been noted within 6 ` +1 optical tweezers and microscope systems [12]. ) | | 0 5 We note that the reasoning we have followed is com- ↵ 4 patible with an understanding of the scaling in terms of 3 the spatial resolution of an optical system. For example, if one considers a transmitted beam comprising a super- 2 position of ` modes, then the resulting beam profile is

divergence ( ± const.rrms an annular ring of 2 ` maxima, or “petals”. In the far const.w | | ` +1 0 field the spacing between these petals cannot be smaller | | than the resolving power of the optical system. Since p 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 the number of petals scales with ` this implies that the ` | | | | beam size and hence the beam divergence must scale also with ` . A square root scaling of the beam divergence | | FIG. 2: The divergence of an OAM beam obtained by keeping α` and corresponding decrease in petal separation would the rrms radius in the pupil plane constant is higher than seemingly be in conflict with this simple resolution ar- for an OAM beam obtained by keeping the Gaussian waist gument. However, a square root scaling requires a con- w constant. Moreover, the first scales as |`| + 1 whereas 0 stant beam waist w which implies a beam size r in the second scales as p|`| + 1. This log-log plot is given in 0 rms √ the waist plane and hence a transmission aperture which units of the divergence angle α0 = w0/ 2zR of a fundamental scales with the square root of ` . This increasing aper- Gaussian beam. The lines serve purely as a guide to the eye. ture itself supports a higher spatial| | resolution, meaning that the reduced spacing of the resulting petals remains compatible with the resolution limits. from a conventional laser. If the diffractive element is a spatial light modulator (or similar) then the displayed ki- noform can be updated to change the beam type allowing IV. CONCLUSIONS a switching of the system from channel to channel. Most common of such kinoforms is a forked diffraction grat- In conclusion, we have explained how optical systems ing that produces a helically-phased beam [11]. In the for the propagation of light beams carrying OAM can ex- plane of the element, the resulting beam has a Gaussian hibit a far-field beam divergence that scales either with intensity distribution but with a helical phase structure, the square root of the OAM or linearly with the OAM. corresponding to a superposition of different LG modes The square root scaling applies to systems where the all of the same ` but various values of p. The precise beam waist of the Gaussian term, w0, is held constant p-weighting of this superposition is a complicated func- for all values of `, such as the case where the beams are tion of both ` and the value of beam waist w0 chosen to produced using a cylindrical lens mode converter [15]. perform the| decomposition.| Rather than describing the The linear scaling applies to systems where the rms ra- resulting beam as having a particular beam waist, the dius of the launch beam is held constant, such as the case invariant quantity is simply the size of the illumination where the beam is produced by a simple forked diffrac- beam and hence rrms(0), which cannot exceed the radius tion grating implemented on a spatial light modulator of the launch optics. Such a system then exhibits a far- illuminated with a gaussian source of fixed beam waist field beam divergence better described by eq. (12), i.e. [17].

[1] A. M. Yao and M. J. Padgett. Orbital angular momen- Dec 2006. tum: origins, behavior and applications. Adv. Opt. Pho- [5] Graham Gibson, Johannes Courtial, Miles Padgett, ton., 3(2):161, 2011. Mikhail Vasnetsov, Valeriy Pas’ko, Stephen Barnett, and [2] L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and Sonja Franke-Arnold. Free-space information transfer us- J. P. Woerdman. Orbital angular momentum of light ing light beams carrying orbital angular momentum. Opt. and the transformation of laguerre-gaussian laser modes. Express, 12(22):5448–5456, Nov 2004. Phys. Rev. A, 45:8185–8189, 1992. [6] J. Wang, J.-Y. Yang, I. M. Fazal, A. Nisar, Y. Yan, [3] M.J. Padgett and L. Allen. The poynting vector in H. Huang, Y. Ren, Y. Yue, S. Dolinar, M. Tur, and laguerre-gaussian laser modes. Opt. Comm., 121(1-3):36– A. E. Wilner. Terabit free-space data transmission em- 40, 1995. ploying orbital angular momentum multiplexing. Nat. [4] Jonathan Leach, Stephen Keen, Miles J. Padgett, Phot., 6:488–496, 2012. Christopher Saunter, and Gordon D. Love. Direct mea- [7] M. Krenn, R. Fickler, M. Fink, J. Handsteiner, surement of the skew angle of the poynting vector in a he- T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, and A. Zeilinger. Twisted light lically phased beam. Opt. Express, 14(25):11919–11924, communication through turbulent air across vienna. 4

arXiv:1402.2602, 2014. Padgett. Superoscillation in speckle patterns. J. Mod. [8] E.H.K Stelzer and S Grill. The uncertainty principle ap- Opt., 52(8):1135–1144, 2005. plied to estimate focal spot dimensions. Opt. Comm., [15] M.W. Beijersbergen, L. Allen, H.E.L.O. van der Veen, 173(1–6):51–56, 2000. and J.P. Woerdman. Astigmatic laser mode converters [9] Miles Padgett. On the focussing of light, as limited by the and transfer of orbital angular momentum. Opt. Comm., uncertainty principle. J. Mod. Opt., 55(18):3083–3089, 96:123–132, 1993. 2008. [16] One notes that more sophisticated hologram designs can [10] Ronald L. Phillips and Larry C. Andrews. Spot size produce arbitrary combinations of LG modes with any and divergence for laguerre gaussian beams of any order. values of `, p and w0 (see for instance M. Dennis et al. Appl. Opt., 22(5):643–644, 1983. Nat. Phys. 6, 118 (2010)), albeit at greatly reduced effi- [11] V. Y. Bazhenov, M. V. Vasnetsov, and M. S. Soskin. ciency compared to the simple fork design that is widely Laser-beams with screw dislocations in their wave-fronts. used. Jetp. Lett., 52(8):429–431, 1990. [17] One notes that more sophisticated hologram designs can [12] J. E. Curtis and D. G. Grier. Structure of optical vortices. produce arbitrary combinations of LG modes with any Phys. Rev. Lett., 90(13):133901, 2003. values of `, p and w0 (see for instance M. Dennis et al. [13] M.R. Dennis, A.C. Hamilton, and J. Courtial. Super- Nat. Phys. 6, 118 (2010)), albeit at greatly reduced effi- oscillation in speckle patterns. Opt. Lett., 33(24):2796, ciency compared to the simple fork design that is widely 2008. used [14] R. Zambrini, L.C. Thomson, S.M. Barnett, and M.J.