SciPost logo

SciPost Submission Page

Adjustable optical isolator based on the resonant optomechanical interaction

by Dong-Yang Wang; Lei-Lei Yan; Cheng-Hua Bai; Qing He; Hong-Fu Wang; Erjun Liang; Shi-Lei Su

This is not the latest submitted version.

Submission summary

Authors (as registered SciPost users): Dong-Yang Wang
Submission information
Preprint Link: scipost_202206_00023v1  (pdf)
Date submitted: 2022-06-20 16:09
Submitted by: Wang, Dong-Yang
Submitted to: SciPost Physics
Ontological classification
Academic field: Physics
Specialties:
  • Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics - Theory
  • Quantum Physics
Approach: Theoretical

Abstract

Optical isolator plays an indispensable role in optical information processing tasks and is an important nonreciprocal device in chiral networks. Here we propose a proposal to generate an adjustable bidirectional narrow bandwidth optical isolator based on the optomechanically induced transparency in a spinning whispering gallery microresonator. Through analyzing the reason for optical isolation, we find that the nonreciprocity of system comes from the frequency shift induced by the spinning resonator. To maximize the isolation rate for the input probe field, we devise a way to actively modulate the control field to make the desired optomechanical interaction always resonant. So the realized optical isolator is narrow linewidth, which is evaluated via analytically calculation. Moreover, the location of optical isolator is related to the angular velocity of the spinning resonator. Our proposal provides a promising strategy for designing adjustable nonreciprocal devices that are expected to facilitate the study of optical information processing.

Current status:
Has been resubmitted

Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 1 on 2023-2-10 (Invited Report)

Report

The authors propose intriguing phenomena to observe nonreciprocal behaviors in optomechanical resonators by rotating systems. Specifically, the Sagnac effect induced by rotation enables nonreciprocal shifts of optomechanically induced transparency windows, differentiating the response of S12 from that of S21. Although the quality of presented figures is in general descent, the text must be improved language-wise. The authors must formally rewrite the texts and minimize grammatical errors, as I have encountered too many language errors when reading the manuscript. Also, I have some suggestions and comments, so I would like the authors to address them before recommending the manuscript be published in SciPost Physics.
1) Equation (10) is incorrect since it is only valid for the red-detuned case. The authors should correctly define q_s again in Eq. (10).
2) The authors claimed that the optimal angular velocity is around 800 Hz for optical isolation, and this value depends on the parameters. Is there any way to normalize the value by certain parameters?
3) Missing unit for \Omega in Figure 3.
4) The authors mentioned that '… where we consider a whispering gallery microresonator coupled to a nearby optical waveguide via the self-adjustment process [36].' I believe Tal Carmon's Nature [47] paper thoroughly studied how a tapered fiber could be stably coupled to a spherical resonator, not this theory paper [36].
5) The authors can cite another paper experimentally showing optical isolations by Brillouin optomechanics followed by [31]
J. Kim, S. Kim, and G. Bahl, "Complete linear optical isolation at the microscale with ultralow loss," Scientific reports 7 (1), 1647, 2017.
And can cite the interesting paper demonstrating the suppression of backscattering through the nonreciprocal response by the optomechanical interactions.
S. Kim, J.M. Taylor, and G. Bahl, "Dynamic suppression of Rayleigh light scattering in dielectric resonators," Optica 6 (8), 1016-1022, 2019.

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Author:  Dong-Yang Wang  on 2023-02-23  [id 3396]

(in reply to Report 1 on 2023-02-10)

Q1) Equation (10) is incorrect since it is only valid for the red-detuned case. The authors should correctly define q_s again in Eq. (10).
Reply) Many thanks for your reminder. We have corrected Eq. (10) and added the corresponding descriptions in our revised manuscript. It should be noted that most of the results in our manuscript are discussed in the red-detuned case.
Q2) The authors claimed that the optimal angular velocity is around 800 Hz for optical isolation, and this value depends on the parameters. Is there any way to normalize the value by certain parameters?
Reply) Thanks for your suggestion. We have given a relationship between the optimal angular velocity and the system parameters in Eq. (9) of our revised manuscript. To give a simpler relationship, we recalculate the transmission rate when the system works in the near-resonant region of the red sideband, and please see Eq. (8) in the revised manuscript. So the relationship is only valid for the weak control field case.
Q3) Missing unit for \Omega in Figure 3.
Reply) Thanks for your reminder. We have revised it in our manuscript.
Q4) The authors mentioned that '… where we consider a whispering gallery microresonator coupled to a nearby optical waveguide via the self-adjustment process [36].' I believe Tal Carmon's Nature [47] paper thoroughly studied how a tapered fiber could be stably coupled to a spherical resonator, not this theory paper [36].
Reply) Thanks for your reminder. We have revised the reference in our manuscript.
Q5) The authors can cite another paper experimentally showing optical isolations by Brillouin optomechanics followed by [31] J. Kim, S. Kim, and G. Bahl, "Complete linear optical isolation at the microscale with ultralow loss," Scientific reports 7 (1), 1647, 2017. And can cite the interesting paper demonstrating the suppression of backscattering through the nonreciprocal response by the optomechanical interactions. S. Kim, J.M. Taylor, and G. Bahl, "Dynamic suppression of Rayleigh light scattering in dielectric resonators," Optica 6 (8), 1016-1022, 2019.
Reply) Thanks for your suggestion. We have cited the references in the introduction part of our revised manuscript.
We have carefully checked and revised the English language of our manuscript. Thanks again for your valuable suggestions and comments, which are pretty instructive for our manuscript!

Login to report or comment