Limits...
Oscillatory penetration of near-fields in plasmonic excitation at metal-dielectric interfaces.

Lee SC, Kang JH, Park QH, Krishna S, Brueck SR - Sci Rep (2016)

Bottom Line: This unusual field penetration is explained by the interference between these contributions, and is experimentally confirmed through an aperture which is engineered with four arms stretched out from a simple circle to manipulate a specific plasmonic excitation available in the metal film.A numerical simulation quantitatively supports the experiment.This fundamental characteristic will impact plasmonics with the near-fields designed by aperture engineering for practical applications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for High Technology Materials and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA.

ABSTRACT
The electric field immediately below an illuminated metal-film that is perforated with a hole array on a dielectric consists of direct transmission and scattering of the incident light through the holes and evanescent near-field from plasmonic excitations. Depending on the size and shape of the hole apertures, it exhibits an oscillatory decay in the propagation direction. This unusual field penetration is explained by the interference between these contributions, and is experimentally confirmed through an aperture which is engineered with four arms stretched out from a simple circle to manipulate a specific plasmonic excitation available in the metal film. A numerical simulation quantitatively supports the experiment. This fundamental characteristic will impact plasmonics with the near-fields designed by aperture engineering for practical applications.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of experiment with simulation.(a) A plot of Γex vs wavelength. Inset: A plot of Γex vs wavelength from a similar QDIP with an MPC of a p’ = 3.6 μm circular hole array (hole diameter ~ 1.7 μm ~p′/2) at the same bias polarity reported in ref. 3. (b) A plot of Γs vs wavelength with κA = 0.03. Inset: A plot of Γs at SR1 vs κA from 0 to 1. The dotted line is a guide for the eye. The dashed line corresponds to Γex.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835736&req=5

f5: Comparison of experiment with simulation.(a) A plot of Γex vs wavelength. Inset: A plot of Γex vs wavelength from a similar QDIP with an MPC of a p’ = 3.6 μm circular hole array (hole diameter ~ 1.7 μm ~p′/2) at the same bias polarity reported in ref. 3. (b) A plot of Γs vs wavelength with κA = 0.03. Inset: A plot of Γs at SR1 vs κA from 0 to 1. The dotted line is a guide for the eye. The dashed line corresponds to Γex.

Mentions: Figure 5 presents plots of (a) Γex and (b) Γs at κA = 0.03 versus λ. Here, experimental enhancement, Γex, is obtained from Fig. 3c,d through normalizing the spectrum of the CX device by that of the reference device at −3.4V and Γex ~23 is the highest at 10.3 μm, identical to λSR1. The inset in Fig. 5b shows the dependence of Γs at SR1 on κA from (4). When κA = 0, Γs is 26 at 10.4 μm, slightly offset from .This result, however, merely refers to the integrated field strength across the absorber in (4) as there is no actual absorption for κA = 0. For κA > 0, the field decays more rapidly with z as a result of the increased absorption as seen in Fig. 4b; Γs at SR1 is reduced to 15 for κA = 0.1. Among the results in the inset of Fig. 5b, as mentioned earlier, Γex is in the best agreement with Γs = 22.1 for κA ~ 0.03. A significant difference is the broadening in Γex which is approximately twice that of Γs. This could be due to the difference of the actual hole shape from the simulated one and to fabrication inhomogeneities.


Oscillatory penetration of near-fields in plasmonic excitation at metal-dielectric interfaces.

Lee SC, Kang JH, Park QH, Krishna S, Brueck SR - Sci Rep (2016)

Comparison of experiment with simulation.(a) A plot of Γex vs wavelength. Inset: A plot of Γex vs wavelength from a similar QDIP with an MPC of a p’ = 3.6 μm circular hole array (hole diameter ~ 1.7 μm ~p′/2) at the same bias polarity reported in ref. 3. (b) A plot of Γs vs wavelength with κA = 0.03. Inset: A plot of Γs at SR1 vs κA from 0 to 1. The dotted line is a guide for the eye. The dashed line corresponds to Γex.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4835736&req=5

f5: Comparison of experiment with simulation.(a) A plot of Γex vs wavelength. Inset: A plot of Γex vs wavelength from a similar QDIP with an MPC of a p’ = 3.6 μm circular hole array (hole diameter ~ 1.7 μm ~p′/2) at the same bias polarity reported in ref. 3. (b) A plot of Γs vs wavelength with κA = 0.03. Inset: A plot of Γs at SR1 vs κA from 0 to 1. The dotted line is a guide for the eye. The dashed line corresponds to Γex.
Mentions: Figure 5 presents plots of (a) Γex and (b) Γs at κA = 0.03 versus λ. Here, experimental enhancement, Γex, is obtained from Fig. 3c,d through normalizing the spectrum of the CX device by that of the reference device at −3.4V and Γex ~23 is the highest at 10.3 μm, identical to λSR1. The inset in Fig. 5b shows the dependence of Γs at SR1 on κA from (4). When κA = 0, Γs is 26 at 10.4 μm, slightly offset from .This result, however, merely refers to the integrated field strength across the absorber in (4) as there is no actual absorption for κA = 0. For κA > 0, the field decays more rapidly with z as a result of the increased absorption as seen in Fig. 4b; Γs at SR1 is reduced to 15 for κA = 0.1. Among the results in the inset of Fig. 5b, as mentioned earlier, Γex is in the best agreement with Γs = 22.1 for κA ~ 0.03. A significant difference is the broadening in Γex which is approximately twice that of Γs. This could be due to the difference of the actual hole shape from the simulated one and to fabrication inhomogeneities.

Bottom Line: This unusual field penetration is explained by the interference between these contributions, and is experimentally confirmed through an aperture which is engineered with four arms stretched out from a simple circle to manipulate a specific plasmonic excitation available in the metal film.A numerical simulation quantitatively supports the experiment.This fundamental characteristic will impact plasmonics with the near-fields designed by aperture engineering for practical applications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for High Technology Materials and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA.

ABSTRACT
The electric field immediately below an illuminated metal-film that is perforated with a hole array on a dielectric consists of direct transmission and scattering of the incident light through the holes and evanescent near-field from plasmonic excitations. Depending on the size and shape of the hole apertures, it exhibits an oscillatory decay in the propagation direction. This unusual field penetration is explained by the interference between these contributions, and is experimentally confirmed through an aperture which is engineered with four arms stretched out from a simple circle to manipulate a specific plasmonic excitation available in the metal film. A numerical simulation quantitatively supports the experiment. This fundamental characteristic will impact plasmonics with the near-fields designed by aperture engineering for practical applications.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus