Any image, imprinted on a wave field and propagating in free space, undergoes a paraxial diffraction spreading. The reduction or manipulation of diffraction is desirable for many applications, such as imaging, wave-guiding, microlithography and optical data processing. As was recently demonstrated, arbitrary images imprinted on light pulses are dramatically slowed1,2 when traversing an atomic medium of electromagnetically induced transparency3,4 and undergo diffusion due to the thermal atomic motion5,6. Here we experimentally demonstrate a new technique to eliminate the paraxial diffraction and the diffusion of slow light, regardless of its position and shape7. Unlike former suggestions for diffraction manipulation8,9,10,11,12, our scheme is linear and operates in the wavevector space, eliminating the diffraction for arbitrary images throughout their propagation. By tuning the interaction, we further demonstrate acceleration of diffraction, biased diffraction and induced deflection, and reverse diffraction, implementing a negative-diffraction lens13. Alongside recent advances in slow-light amplification14 and image entanglement15, diffraction control opens various possibilities for classical and quantum image manipulation.
Electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) is a coherent two-photon interaction between light and atoms16. It involves an atomic medium and two light fields, usually a strong ‘pump’ and a weak ‘probe’, resonantly coupling two of the atomic levels to a common excited level. When the Raman resonance condition is satisfied, namely when the two-photon frequency detuning, Δ, is within the atomic spectral width, Γ, the atoms are driven towards a ‘dark’ state, which substantially reduces the absorption in the medium. A short probe pulse propagates in the medium with a reduced group velocity, owing to the steep dispersion inside the narrow transparency window4,17,18,19,20,21. A travelling atomic-coherence field accompanies the probe, and the combined light–matter excitation is termed a dark-state polariton22. If an image is imprinted on the probe field in the plane normal to the propagation direction, the complex amplitude of the dark-state polariton follows the amplitude and phase of the image. Free-space diffraction, being essentially a geometric effect, occurs for slow images precisely as it would in free space.
In an EIT medium of hot vapour, the thermal motion of the atoms affects the propagation of images. The addition of a buffer gas attenuates the thermal motion, which becomes diffusive and can be characterized by a single diffusion coefficient, D. As a result, on EIT resonance, the atomic part of the dark-state polariton undergoes diffusion while propagating slowly in the medium5. The polariton thus experiences both diffraction and diffusion. Here, we exploit the atomic motion to influence the diffraction, as illustrated in Supplementary Fig. S1. Altering the Raman detuning provides control of the polariton’s coupling with atoms moving in a desired direction. We therefore counterbalance diffraction by ‘Doppler trapping’ the outwards-confronting light components with inwards-moving atoms or, alternatively, force diffraction in a preferable direction.
The free-space diffraction of an optical field envelope E(x,y;z) travelling in the z direction is described in the transverse Fourier plane (Fig. 1a) as , where is the transverse wavenumber, q=2π/λ and λ is the optical wavelength. In a vapour EIT medium, the propagation of a weak probe depends on its angular deviation from the pump due to the Doppler–Dicke effect23,24. For a wide homogenous non-diverging pump, finite-pump effects such as transverse intensity variation25 and Ramsey narrowing26 are made negligible, and the dynamics of the probe becomes5 , where is the linear susceptibility and
Here, 2α is the absorption outside the EIT window, Γp is the power-broadening width, proportional to the pump intensity, and D k2 is the Doppler–Dicke width. The latter has a simple physical interpretation: both the residual Doppler broadening and the Dicke narrowing are linear in k, which corresponds to the angle between the probe and pump, resulting in a combined quadratic effect24. At a given Δ, different k components of a probe image experience different EIT spectra, and consequently the image is altered. When Δ=0 (red lines in Fig. 1b), χEIT is purely imaginary and induces a low-pass absorption filter in k space, with a half-width of . For k≪k0, the filter is quadratic in k and corresponds to standard diffusion, accompanied by the free-space diffraction. To manipulate diffraction, a non-zero Raman detuning should be introduced. The case Δ=±Γ is of special importance: in this case, the leading quadratic term becomes purely real, inducing diffraction without diffusion,
with vg=Γ2/(α Γp) being the slow group velocity. Here, the induced diffraction is continuous, in contrast to the diffraction manipulation explored in periodic systems27,28,29. When Δ=−Γ the induced diffraction negates the free-space diffraction, and if vg=D q they are cancelled altogether. As demonstrated in Fig. 1b (black lines), for k≪k0, the susceptibility curves are flat and both diffraction and diffusion are eliminated. In contrast, when Δ=+Γ, the induced and the free-space diffraction add together, increasing the overall diffraction. Note that for given D and q the amount of induced diffraction is determined exclusively by the group velocity, which is easily controlled by the pump power and the atomic density. A major difficulty of the scheme is the substantial absorption at Δ≠0. Fortunately, this absorption is uniform both in real and k spaces and may be compensated for by any linear gain mechanism7,14.
The experimental set-up is depicted in Fig. 1c. A glass vapour cell of length L=50 mm is air-heated to 72 ∘C and filled with 87Rb and 10 torr of neon buffer-gas. The rubidium diffusion coefficient is D=1,100 mm2 s−1, satisfying the diffraction-elimination condition with . For our optical depth (∼6), we arrive at these conditions with a pump intensity of 660 μW mm−2, yielding an EIT line-width of Γ=70 kHz and transmission at Δ=±Γ of about 1%. In each shot, an image is imprinted on a weak probe pulse (2 μW mm−2) and projected onto the entrance facet of the cell. The transmitted probe at the exit facet is recorded with a CCD camera.
A demonstration of image propagation without diffraction is presented in Fig. 2a with an image of the symbol ‘®’. The 100-μm features in the image are significantly distorted after 50 mm of free-space diffraction. On the EIT resonance (Δ=0), the image covers this distance in 5.75 μs, during which it diffracts and diffuses. However, for Δ=−Γ, both diffraction and diffusion are clearly suppressed. The corresponding calculations verify that the observed minor spreading for Δ=−Γ is due to subdiffractive29 and subdiffusive terms of fourth order in k. Indeed, the k spectrum of the image extends beyond the k≪k0 region (k0=20 mm−1), as seen in Fig. 1a (Experiment I). For Δ=+Γ, and as predicted in equation (2), the image does not diffuse but rather undergoes substantial diffraction, of effectively twice the distance travelled. The presented calculations are done numerically by taking the Fourier transform of the two-dimensional incident field, multiplying by , and taking the inverse Fourier transform. This computation does not require the paraxial k≪k0 approximation and is hereafter denoted as the numerical calculation.
A slow image of a line grating, shown in Fig. 2b, provides a quantitative measurement of the actual diffraction and diffusion. This image has the property that it reappears periodically after propagating a distance of LT=2a2/λ, known as the Talbot self-imaging distance, where a is the grating period. At LT/2, a reciprocal grating is created; the original lines disappear and new lines appear in the originally dark areas. In our experiment, the cell length was ∼LT/4, at which the amplitudes of the original and reciprocal gratings are equal, resulting in a grating with a period of a/2.
The results for Δ=−Γ,0,+Γ are presented in Fig. 2b. Evidently, the image does not change for Δ=−Γ, and it is essential to note that, in contrast to a self-imaging effect, the image is maintained throughout its propagation. In the Δ=0 image, diffusion broadens the lines and erases the grating. For Δ=+Γ, we observe double diffraction, with the reciprocal grating dominating the original, in correspondence to LT/2. To quantify the amount of diffraction, we measure the intensities at the positions of the original and reciprocal gratings, 〈Io〉 and 〈In〉 respectively, and define the contrast C=(〈Io〉−〈In〉)/(〈Io〉+〈In〉), shown in Fig. 2b. C=1 (−1) at integer (half-integer) Talbot distances, and C=0 when the original and reciprocal gratings are comparable. The maximum value of C is obtained at Δ=−Γ and is about 0.85. Notice that C=0 also when the gratings are indistinguishable owing to diffusion, and quantitative indicators that separate the diffusion and diffraction effects are given in the Supplementary Information.
In addition to the magnitude of diffraction, we can use the atomic-motion mechanism to control the diffraction directionality. By setting a small angle θpump between the pump and the z axis, as illustrated in Fig. 3a, we superimpose a transverse phase grating, exp(i x q θpump), on the pump–probe interference5, replacing D k2 in equation (1) with (see Supplementary Equation S8). For Δ=±Γ and θpump≪(k0/q), a term proportional to , which inflicts a directional deflection on the probe, at an angle , is added to the dispersion in equation (2). Similarly to the walk-off phenomenon in birefringence crystals, the beam is deflected whereas the carrier wavevector stays parallel to the z axis (equal-phase surfaces maintain their original orientation). Hence, the beam keeps its original direction on exiting the cell.
We have performed deflection experiments in the conditions for diffraction elimination, vg=D q and Δ=−Γ. Figure 3b presents the measured θprobe versus the applied θpump, showing that θprobe=θpump as long as the paraxial approximation holds (q θpump≪k0). This striking phenomenon, that the probe takes the direction of the pump while in the cell regardless of the incident angle, provides another explanation for the elimination of diffraction. As illustrated in Fig. 3b (inset), all diverging k components of a focused beam are made to propagate in the axial (pump) direction while maintaining their phase relation, thus detaining the diffractive divergence. Supporting measurements and an analytic derivation are given in Supplementary Information.
Diffraction vanishes when the induced diffraction, D/(2vg), is equal in size and opposite in sign to the free-space diffraction, 1/(2q). However, if the induced diffraction is strengthened, for example by lowering the group velocity, the overall diffraction will become negative. Such a medium reverses the diffraction of slow images and can undo diffraction that has already taken place. As far as spatial diffraction is concerned, a medium with negative diffraction behaves similarly to a negative-refraction-index medium, within the limits of the paraxial approximation. The effective index is neff=(1−q D/vg)−1. When vg=q D/2, neff=−1 and the overall diffraction becomes exactly the opposite of free-space diffraction.
A fascinating application of negative-index materials is an unusual lens13, demonstrated in Fig. 4. This slab-shaped lens of length L and neff=−1 focuses the radiation coming from any point source, located at a distance u<L, to a distance v behind the lens, where u+v=L. Parallel light rays, however, are not focused and continue in their original directions. Indeed, the images in the experiment are reconstructed by the lens regardless of the distance u.
As a geometrical effect, paraxial diffraction is manifested through k dependence of the dispersion curve. The optimal approach to eliminate it is to superimpose dispersion with the same form and the opposite sign that is uniform in real space. An EIT vapour medium with a buffer gas and a uniform pump manifests these properties. The pump provides the anisotropy needed to single out the transverse wavevector, and Dicke narrowing accounts for the quadratic k dependence. The strength, frequency and orientation of the pump control the magnitude, sign and direction of the resulting diffraction. The possibilities may be further extended by introducing a non-uniform pump. The phase gradient of the pump then acts as a vector potential for the probe, in an effective Schrödinger dynamics of a charged particle. Currently, inherent loss limits the effectiveness of the scheme, for example in terms of resolution. Resolving this limitation by combining linear gain, probably by using more elaborate Raman processes, would clear the way to a vast variety of applications, in microscopy, lithography, switching and more.
Camacho, R. M., Broadbent, C. J., Ali-Khan, I. & Howell, J. C. All-optical delay of images using slow light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 043902 (2007).
Shuker, M., Firstenberg, O., Pugatch, R., Ron, A. & Davidson, N. Storing images in warm atomic vapour. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 223601 (2008).
Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Today 50, 36–42 (1997).
Hau, L. V., Harris, S. E., Dutton, Z. & Behroozi, C. H. Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. Nature 397, 594–598 (1999).
Firstenberg, O. et al. Theory of thermal motion in electromagnetically induced transparency: Diffusion, Doppler, Dicke and Ramsey. Phys. Rev. A 77, 043830 (2008).
Pugatch, R., Shuker, M., Firstenberg, O., Ron, A. & Davidson, N. Topological stability of stored optical vortices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 203601 (2007).
Firstenberg, O., Shuker, M., Davidson, N. & Ron, A. Elimination of the diffraction of arbitrary images imprinted on slow light. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 043601 (2009).
Moseley, R. R., Shepherd, S., Fulton, D. J., Sinclair, B. D. & Dunn, M. H. Spatial consequences of electromagnetically induced transparency: Observation of electromagnetically induced focusing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 670–673 (1995).
Truscott, A. G., Friese, M. E. J., Heckenberg, N. R. & Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H. Optically written waveguide in an atomic vapour. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1438–1441 (1999).
Rakesh, K. & Agarwal, G. S. Theory of electromagnetically induced waveguides. Phys. Rev. A 61, 053818 (2000).
Vengalattore, M. & Prentiss, M. Radial confinement of light in an ultracold anisotropic medium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 243601 (2005).
Friedler, I., Kurizki, G., Cohen, O. & Segev, M. Spatial Thirring-type solitons via electromagnetically induced transparency. Opt. Lett. 30, 3374–3376 (2005).
Veselago, V. G. The electrodynamics of substances with simultaneously negative values of ɛ and μ. Sov. Phys. Usp. 10, 509–514 (1968).
Boyer, V., McCormick, C. F., Arimondo, E. & Lett, P. D. Ultraslow propagation of matched pulses by four-wave mixing in an atomic vapour. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 143601 (2007).
Marino, A. M., Pooser, R. C., Boyer, V. & Lett, P. D. Tunable delay of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen entanglement. Nature 457, 859–862 (2009).
Lukin, M. D. & Imamoglu, A. Controlling photons using electromagnetically induced transparency. Nature 413, 273–276 (2001).
Xiao, M., Li, Y., Jin, S. & Gea-Banacloche, J. Measurement of dispersive properties of electromagnetically induced transparency in rubidium atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 666–669 (1995).
Kasapi, A., Jain, M., Yin, G. Y. & Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency: Propagation dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2447–2450 (1995).
Schmidt, O., Wynands, R., Hussein, Z. & Meschede, D. Steep dispersion and group velocity below c/3000 in coherent population trapping. Phys. Rev. A 53, R27–R30 (1996).
Kash, M. M. et al. Ultra-slow group velocity and enhanced nonlinear optical effects in a coherently driven hot atomic gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5229–5232 (1999).
Budker, D., Kimball, D. F., Rochester, S. M. & Yashchuk, V. V. Nonlinear magneto-optics and reduced group velocity of light in atomic vapour with slow ground state relaxation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1767–1770 (1999).
Fleischhauer, M. & Lukin, M. D. Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5094–5097 (2000).
Bolkart, C., Rostohar, D. & Weitz, M. Dark resonances with variable Doppler sensitivity. Phys. Rev. A 71, 043816 (2005).
Shuker, M. et al. Angular dependence of Dicke-narrowed electromagnetically induced transparency resonances. Phys. Rev. A 76, 023813 (2007).
Taĭchenachev, A. V. et al. Nonlinear-resonance line shapes: Dependence on the transverse intensity distribution of a light beam. Phys. Rev. A 69, 024501 (2004).
Xiao, Y., Novikova, I., Phillips, D. F. & Walsworth, R. L. Diffusion-induced Ramsey narrowing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 043601 (2006).
Eisenberg, H. S., Silberberg, Y., Morandotti, R. & Aitchison, J. S. Diffraction management. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1863–1866 (2000).
Fleischer, J. et al. Spatial photonics in nonlinear waveguide arrays. Opt. Express 13, 1780–1796 (2005).
Staliunas, K. & Herrero, R. Nondiffractive propagation of light in photonic crystals. Phys. Rev. E 73, 016601 (2006).
Pendry, J. B. Negative refraction makes a perfect lens. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3966–3969 (2000).
We thank D. Yankelev for assistance with the experiments and Yoav Erlich for technical support. We thank R. Pugatch for discussions and suggestions.
About this article
Cite this article
Firstenberg, O., London, P., Shuker, M. et al. Elimination, reversal and directional bias of optical diffraction. Nature Phys 5, 665–668 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1358
AIP Advances (2020)
Optics Express (2019)
Coherent Optical Field Manipulation and Optical Information Processing Based on Electromagnetically-Induced Transparency Effect in Pr3+:Y2SiO5 Crystal
Applied Sciences (2018)
Controllable speckle compression in atomic vapor by frequency modulation and its application in ghost imaging
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2018)