Intrinsic dichroism in amorphous and crystalline solids with helical light
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amorphous solids do not exhibit long-range order due to the disordered arrangement of atoms. As a result, they lack translational and rotational symmetry on a macroscopic scale and are isotropic, meaning their physical properties remain the same in all directions. Because of their lack of symmetry, differential absorption of polarized light, called dichroism, is not known to exist in amorphous solids. However, they possess short- to medium-range order that can cause them to exhibit some features similar to crystalline solids. Using helical light beams that carry orbital angular momentum as a probe, we demonstrate that dichroism is intrinsic to both amorphous and crystalline solids. We show that in the nonlinear regime, angle-dependent absorption of helical light can map the crystal symmetry - a macroscopic feature, whereas helical dichroism is responsive to the short- to medium- range order whose existence is explained in terms of interband multiphoton-assisted tunneling. We also demonstrate that the helical dichroism signal is sensitive to chirality and its strength can be controlled and tuned using a superposition of OAM and Gaussian beams. Our research challenges the conventional knowledge that dichroism does not exist in amorphous solids and enables to manipulate the optical properties of solids, opening new opportunities for development of chiroptical spectroscopy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".