2020/11/30 by Carlo Gigli, Qitong Li, Pierre Chavel +4
Engineering · Materials Science · Physics and Astronomy · #Beam (structure) #Dielectric #Holography #Metamaterial #Metamaterials and Metasurfaces Applications #Nanoscopic scale #Orbital Angular Momentum in Optics #Phase (matter) #Phase conjugation #Plasmonic and Surface Plasmon Research #Symmetry (geometry) #Wavefront #physics.optics
paper · pdf · doi:10.1002/lpor.202000448
published as Laser & Photonics Reviews 2021, 2000448 · 6 figures
openalex created_date 2020/11/09 · arxiv created 2021/04/03 · openalex publication_date 2021/06/12 · arxiv updated 2021/06/17 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Abstract Optical dielectric metasurfaces composed of arrayed nanostructures are expected to enable arbitrary spatial control of incident wavefronts with subwavelength spatial resolution. For phase modulation, one often resorts to two physical effects to implement a 2π‐phase excursion. The first effect relies on guidance by tall nanoscale pillars and the second one exploits resonant confinement by nanoresonators with two degenerate Mie resonances. The first approach requires high aspect ratios, while the second one, known as Huygens’ metasurfaces, is much flatter, and thus easier to manufacture. The two approaches are compared, more focusing on conceptual rather than technological issues, and fundamental limitations with the latter are identified. The origin of the limitations based on general arguments are explained, such as reciprocity, multimode/monomode operation, and symmetry breaking.