Electromagnetic origins of negative refraction in coupled plasmonic waveguide metamaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A metamaterial composed of stacked plasmonic waveguides which support backward propagation along the layers has been shown to exhibit a nearly spherical equifrequency contour (EFC) in which the Floquet-Bloch wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{FB}}$ and Poynting vector $\mathbf{S}$ point in opposite directions everywhere on this surface. Experiments performed on this structure have also shown that polarized light beams incident from free space refract to the same side of normal over a wide range of incidence angles. Together, these observations have led researchers to describe this structure as a homogeneous medium with three-dimensionally isotropic negative refractive index; however, a close inspection of the fields throughout the structure as provided in this paper would suggest otherwise. Here, we rigorously analyze the relationship between phase and power flow within the structure by introducing a method to calculate the power flow of all Floquet-Bloch harmonics, information which cannot be obtained from either conventional analysis of EFCs or effective medium theory. Access to power flow of all harmonics enables us to demonstrate the origin of backward power (defined with respect to the direction of ${\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{FB}})$, and in doing so, verify the validity of the claimed three-dimensionally isotropic left-handed response and the validity of describing the medium by a simple negative effective index of refraction $n=\ensuremath{-}1$. Knowledge regarding the distribution of power flow across the harmonics can also be used to design highly efficient methods to couple light into and out of these structures. As an example, we show that tailored wave excitation can achieve coupling efficiencies of up to 96%, over 5 times greater than that achieved by normal-incidence plane-wave excitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".