Abstract
Wiersma et al. reply — Scheffold et al. have compared different data sets from our group and suggest that our evidence for localization is not conclusive and that the role of absorption should be characterized further. We believe that their analysis is misleading, and that our conclusions about localization are still valid.
Main
Scheffold et al. compared our data on coherent backscattering from GaAs powders1 with our previously published data2 on coherent backscattering from TiO2. From a comparison of the widths of the cones, they estimate the inverse of the scattering strength, kl *, of our GaAs samples, where k is the wavevector of the light and l * is the mean free path. However, the GaAs data were recorded using linearly polarized light, whereas the TiO2data were recorded with circularly polarized light2. This difference is fundamental, as linearly polarized light inherently gives a smaller enhancement factor (the top of the cone is lower) than circularly polarized light. To overlay our two data sets, Scheffold et al. scaled the y -axis of one of the data sets and shifted the zero of its y -axis. The results are misleading, however, because shifting the zero also changes the full width at half maximum of the cone, and so gives the wrong value of kl *, because the width is inversely proportional to kl *.
To illustrate the inconsistency of this approach, we repeated the procedure used by Scheffold et al., but keeping the TiO2instead of the GaAs data fixed, and scaling and shifting the y -axis of the GaAs data. The result indicated that the backscattering cone from GaAs is three times wider than that from TiO2, which corresponds to a scattering strength of the GaAs samples of kl * = 1.7, instead of 5.0. This shows that manipulating the y -axis leads to strongly varying and thereby inconsistent conclusions about the same experiment.
A strong argument against absorption, for example from surface states, is that the shape of the bandgap does not change upon grinding (see the temperature measurements in Fig.1 in ref. 1). Additional evidence that excludes absorption is the observation that the top of the backscattering cone remains triangular while the surrounding region becomes round. This is exactly the behaviour expected at the localization transition, whereas in the case of absorption, the top of the cone would never be triangular. However, Scheffold et al. have replotted our data in Fig. 1ain such a way that this triangular shape is obscured by the use of larger symbols.
Scheffold et al. use classical diffusion theory with absorption to fit our transmission data (Fig. 1b). An absorption fit yields a χ2 of 0.033, whereas our fit with scaling theory (that is, with the desired L -2 behaviour instead of exponential decay) yields a better value of 0.0053. Our independent, new transmission measurements using GaAs powders (Fig. 2) show L -2 behaviour over two orders of magnitude, confirming again the scaling behaviour at the localization transition and the absence of absorption.
Notes
editorial note: This exchange has been subject to unusual delays during the editorial process: the comment by Scheffold et al. was submitted on 22 April 1998 and the reply from Wiersma et al. on 7 December 1998.
References
Wiersma, D. S., Bartolini, P., Lagendijk, A. & Righini, R. Nature 390, 671–673 (1997).
Wiersma, D. S., van Albada, M. P., van Tiggelen, B. A. & Lagendijk, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4193–4196 (1995).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wiersma, D., Rivas, J., Bartolini, P. et al. Localization or classical diffusion of light?. Nature 398, 207 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/18350
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/18350
This article is cited by
-
Anderson localization of electromagnetic waves in three dimensions
Nature Physics (2023)
-
The physics and applications of random lasers
Nature Physics (2008)
-
Statistical signatures of photon localization
Nature (2000)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.