Polarization, transverse shifts, and angular momentum conservation laws in partial reflection and refraction of an electromagnetic wave packet

K. Yu. Bliokh,Yu. P. Bliokh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.75.066609
2007-04-18
Abstract:We present a solution to the problem of partial reflection and refraction of a polarized paraxial Gaussian beam at the interface between two transparent media. The Fedorov--Imbert transverse shift of the centers of gravity of the reflected and refracted beams are calculated. Our results differ in general case from ones derived previously by other authors. In particular, they obey general conservation law for the beams' total angular momentum but do not obey one-particle conservation laws for individual photons, which have been proposed by Onoda et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 083901 (2004)]. We ascertain that these circumstances relate to the accepted in the literature artificial model for the polarized beam which does not fit to real beams. The present paper resolves the recent controversy and confirms results of our previous paper [Bliokh et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 073903 (2006)]. Besides, a diffraction effect of angular transverse shift of the reflected and refracted beams is predicted.
Optics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is related to the transverse shifts (TS) and the law of conservation of angular momentum when a polarized light beam is partially reflected and refracted at the interface between two transparent media. Specifically, the paper explores the following issues: 1. **Calculation of Fedorov - Imbert Transverse Shift**: The paper calculates the transverse shift of the center of gravity of the reflected and refracted light beams and points out that these results are different from those obtained by other authors previously. 2. **Law of Conservation of Total Angular Momentum**: The paper shows that its results follow the law of conservation of the total angular momentum (TAM) of the light beam, but do not follow the single - photon conservation law proposed by Onoda et al. 3. **Controversy Caused by Model Differences**: The paper resolves the controversy in the literature regarding the final form of the TAM conservation law and the expression of TS. The reason for the controversy lies in the different assumptions about the model of the incident polarized light beam in different studies. ### Detailed Explanation #### Research Background When a polarized plane electromagnetic wave is reflected and refracted at the interface between two homogeneous isotropic media, Snell's law and Fresnel's formulas describe this process. However, the actual finite field - that is, a wave packet or a light beam - consists of an infinite number of plane waves with different wave vectors. The superposition of these waves may exhibit unusual behavior. In particular, depending on the polarization state of the incident light beam, the center of gravity of the reflected or refracted light beam will undergo a transverse shift (TS), that is, the Fedorov - Imbert shift or the lateral shift. Although this shift is very small (on the order of the wavelength), it is theoretically significant because it helps to maintain the total angular momentum (TAM) of the light beam, including the intrinsic spin part. #### Core Problem Despite a large number of existing studies, there is still controversy regarding the final form of the TAM conservation law and the specific expression of TS. The main points of controversy are: - The method proposed by Onoda et al. believes that the TS of the reflected and refracted wave packets follows two TAM conservation laws, and each photon in the incident wave packet can be reflected or refracted, which is respectively controlled by the single - photon conservation law. - Through detailed analysis, the authors of this paper show that their results satisfy the law of conservation of the total TAM of the light beam, but generally do not follow the single - photon conservation law. They believe that the fundamental reason for this difference lies in the interference effect and the lack of "path - selection" information. #### Model Comparison The paper points out that the reason for the controversy lies in the different assumptions about the model of the incident polarized light beam in different studies: - In the studies of [6, 7, 9], a simplified artificial polarization structure model was adopted. Although this model is convenient for calculation, it cannot correspond to a real polarized light beam. For example, a pure linearly polarized light beam cannot be constructed in this model, and the field of the incident light beam depends on the angle of incidence. - The model adopted by the authors of this paper takes into account the polarization characteristics of the light beam in more detail, verifies their previous results, and confirms the validity of their model of the polarized light beam. ### Conclusion By comparing two different models of polarized light beams, this paper resolves the controversy in the literature, confirms the results in their previous papers, and emphasizes the importance of using a more accurate physical model when dealing with polarized light beams.