Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 75 references

Experimental probe of a complete 3D photonic band gap

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a model-free parametric plot of s-polarized versus p-polarized stopband widths identifies a complete 3D photonic band gap in real crystals, without idealized models.

desk verdict Careful experiment and a genuinely new s-vs-p diagnostic, but the 'purely experimental' claim outruns the data: the one model-free plot is compared to a normal-incidence curve, not the angle-averaged stop gap the NA=0.85 objective actually probes. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01899 v2 pith:HBGUCSMJ submitted 2019-09-04 physics.optics

Manashee Adhikary , Ravitej Uppu , Cornelis A.M. Harteveld , Diana A. Grishina , Willem L. Vos This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords photonicbandgapinversewoodpilereflectivityspectroscopystopbandwidthpolarization-resolvedmeasurementsiliconnanophotonicsmodel-freeprobeeffectiverefractiveindex
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to settle whether a real three-dimensional photonic crystal actually has a complete photonic band gap — a frequency range in which light cannot propagate in any direction — without relying on idealized theoretical models of the crystal structure. Such models are the usual way gaps are assigned, and they can produce both false positives and false negatives. The authors instead measure polarization-resolved reflectivity on silicon inverse woodpile crystals under a large numerical aperture, then track how the measured stopband width changes as the pore radius is varied. They report that the stopband widths track the calculated 3D band gap much better than a directional stop gap, and that a parametric plot of p-polarized versus s-polarized stopband width is a straight line, as a true gap requires. This offers a practical, nondestructive probe of band gap functionality for nanofabrication.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the parametric plot of the p-polarized relative stopband width versus the s-polarized relative stopband width, both extracted from the full-width at half-maximum of reflectivity peaks measured at the same spot on the crystal. A complete 3D band gap forbids all modes in a common frequency range for every direction and polarization, so the two widths must grow together and the plot must follow a straight line; a directional stop gap yields a polarization-split, nonlinear curve. To make the comparison, the paper exploits the fact that the lower edge of the measured stopband nearly coincides with the lower edge of the 3D band gap over a wide range of pore radii, allowing each spectrum to be assigned a local reduced pore radius $r/a$. The large collection aperture is the enabling experimental mechanism: it effectively samples enough wavevectors and symmetry equivalents that the measured stopband represents the omnidirectional gap rather than a single-direction stop gap.

What would settle it

Measure a series of crystals with pore radii spanning and straddling the predicted gap range (roughly $r/a = 0.14$ to $0.29$ for silicon inverse woodpile) and plot the same-position s-p stopband widths: a model-free true-gap probe must fall on a straight line only inside that range and bend away outside it, and must remain on the line regardless of how the lower edges are calibrated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a complete 3D photonic band gap in a real crystal can be identified by purely experimental reflectivity data: the relative width (gap-to-midgap ratio) of the p-polarized stopband plotted against the s-polarized stopband, measured at the same position, rises together along a straight line for the range of pore radii studied. This one-to-one growth is exactly what a forbidden gap for all directions and both polarizations must produce, whereas a directional stop gap would give a curved, polarization-dependent relation. The paper further finds that this 'diagonal' behavior appears only because the measurement collects light over a large numerical aperture (NA = 0.85, an effective solid angle of $3.8\pi$ sr); with smaller apertures the measured stopband reflects a directional stop gap instead. The authors therefore conclude that the parametric s-p plot is a model-free probe: it requires no assumption of perfect cylindrical pores, infinite crystals, or a particular disorder model, and it distinguishes a true band gap from a directional stop gap.

Load-bearing premise

The radius axis in the width-versus-radius plots is obtained by matching each measured lower stopband edge to a calculated gap map for an ideal infinite crystal with perfect cylindrical pores, so a real pore shape, tapering, or surface layer that shifts the true lower band edge would shift every inferred radius and the comparisons built on it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the probe is correct, a new fabrication run can be checked for band-gap functionality by a quick reflectivity measurement on a handful of crystals, without waiting for full structural characterization.
  • The same criterion should transfer to other 3D photonic band gap materials — inverse opals, direct woodpiles, hyperuniform structures — by replacing pore radius with filling fraction or effective refractive index as the tuning knob.
  • Using a large enough numerical aperture is essential; the paper's finite-crystal simulations show that smaller apertures make the measured stopband representative of a directional stop gap, not the band gap.
  • The linear s-p relation gives a safe rejection rule: data that fall off the diagonal falsify the assignment of a complete 3D band gap.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the s-p plot itself never uses the theoretical gap map once the radii are known, a natural next test is to apply it to structures designed to lie just outside the predicted gap range ($r/a < 0.14$ or $> 0.29$ in this material); the plot should depart from the diagonal there, demonstrating both sensitivity and specificity.
  • The same logic could be turned into a quality-control metric for disorder: samples with increasing random pore-size fluctuations should show the s-p curve bending away from the diagonal before the gap actually closes, giving an early warning that fabrication is drifting.
  • A harder extension is to reinterpret the linearity quantitatively: the slope of the s-p line may encode the anisotropy of the crystal's band structure, so measuring many crystal families could turn the probe into a measurement of the gap's angular robustness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a purely experimental probe for identifying a complete 3D photonic band gap in real inverse woodpile silicon crystals, without relying on idealized structural models. The authors measure position- and polarization-resolved reflectivity spectra with a NA=0.85 objective, extract stopband widths for s- and p-polarized light, infer a local reduced pore radius by matching each measured lower stopband edge to the calculated gap map for an ideal infinite crystal, and compare the stopband width versus pore radius with theoretical predictions for the 3D band gap and for the directional ΓZ stop gap. They then construct a parametric plot of p-polarized versus s-polarized stopband widths measured at the same positions, arguing that the observed near-diagonal trend is a model-free signature of a complete 3D band gap, since only a 3D gap forbids modes for both polarizations simultaneously. The manuscript concludes that this practical probe is robust against false positives and false negatives and can provide fast feedback for nanofabrication of 3D photonic band gap materials.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the proposed diagnostic would be a valuable and practical tool: it would allow experimentalists to assess whether a fabricated 3D photonic crystal possesses a complete band gap without constructing an idealized model of the crystal, and it is generalizable to other photonic band gap materials via the filling fraction or effective refractive index. The paper reports strong experimental evidence that the measured reflectivities are of high quality: peak reflectivities of 96% and 94%, and a bulk-silicon calibration of 30.6±1.3% consistent with the Fresnel value of 31%. The use of paired s- and p-polarized measurements at the same position is a sensible way to avoid systematic position-dependent errors, and the finite-crystal simulations from Ref. [24] provide useful context. However, the load-bearing 'model-free' claim is not yet established because the comparison curve used to reject the directional stop-gap hypothesis is the normal-incidence ΓZ curve rather than the angle-averaged stop gap corresponding to the large numerical aperture actually used; the specificity of the s-p diagnostic therefore remains unproven.

major comments (3)
  1. [III C, Fig. 10] The key specificity claim rests on comparing the measured p-vs-s stopband widths with the red dashed ΓZ stop-gap curve, but this curve is for normal incidence, whereas the NA=0.85 objective collects a cone corresponding to an effective solid angle of 3.8π sr. The finite-crystal simulations in Ref. [24] shown in the same figure demonstrate that angle-averaging substantially reduces the s-polarized stopband width and moves it toward the band-gap value; therefore the appropriate null hypothesis is the angle-averaged directional stop gap over the full collection cone, evaluated across the r/a range covered by the data. Without that curve, and without error bars on the data points, the observed near-diagonal trend does not by itself exclude a large-NA directional stop gap, so the statement in III C that the ΓZ stop-gap hypothesis can be 'safely reject[ed]' is not supported.
  2. [III B, Figs. 8 and 9] The r/a axis of the width-versus-radius comparison is not model-free: it is obtained by matching each measured lower stopband edge to the calculated gap map for an ideal infinite inverse woodpile crystal (Fig. 1(b)). The lower-edge agreement in Fig. 8 is therefore built in, as the text itself acknowledges, and any systematic shift of the true lower band edge due to pore tapering, disorder, or the sample interface would displace all inferred r/a values and hence the curves in Fig. 9. The paper should either provide an independent structural calibration of local r/a, for example from the X-ray tomography work cited as Ref. [51], or demonstrate quantitatively that the conclusions are insensitive to plausible shifts of the lower-edge assignment.
  3. [Figs. 9 and 10] The quantitative comparison figures lack error bars even though the measurement noise and stopband-edge uncertainties are estimated in Fig. 5. In particular, Fig. 10 contains roughly six points with no uncertainty estimates, and Fig. 9(a) contains a beam-B outlier at r/a = 0.24 that is never addressed. Without propagated uncertainties and an explicit discussion of the scatter and outliers, the claimed agreement with the 3D band gap cannot be distinguished from alternative curves such as an angle-averaged stop gap.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II B] The text states that NA=0.85 corresponds to a collection solid angle of 0.95π sr and that crystal symmetry gives an effective solid angle of 3.8π sr; this factor-of-four argument should be explained or referenced, because the physical collection cone is still 0.95π sr and only the number of equivalent wavevectors is enlarged.
  2. [III C and Fig. 9] The finite-crystal simulation markers are quoted for a numerical aperture of NA=0.65, while the experiment uses NA=0.85; the text should state explicitly why the NA=0.65 results are used and whether simulations at NA=0.85 are available.
  3. [III B] There is a typo in 'the small differen-ses are attributed' that should read 'differences', and the procedure for assigning errors to the derived r/a values is not described.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption's statement that the experimental data agree well with the 3D photonic band gap edge should be qualified by the fact that the lower edges were used to assign r/a, to avoid the appearance of circularity.
  5. [II A and Fig. 9] Beam B data were taken with an older setup with lower maximum reflectivities and a larger spot size; the text says the peak positions and bandwidths agree, but the comparison in Fig. 9(a) should state the NA and spot size of that setup and should indicate whether the outlier is attributed to those differences.
  6. [II B] The explanation that the crystals appear dark in the IR image because the LED illumination is outside the band gap should be phrased more carefully, since the relevant feature is the reflectivity minimum associated with the stopband rather than the 3D band gap alone.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the r/a axis is calibrated from the measured lower stopband edge, so the lower-edge agreement in Fig. 8 is built in; the s-versus-p probe is independent but its specificity against the angle-averaged stop-gap null is not demonstrated.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III B ('Track pore radii from position-dependent stopband') and Figure 8 caption]
    "By comparing the lower edge of the measured stopband with the calculated stop gap (cf. Figure 1(b)), we obtain an estimate of the local average pore radius r at the position r of the optical focus: r(r). ... The data match well with the theory, which is obvious since we used the lower edge to estimate r/a from the measured spectra."

    The r/a coordinate used in Figs. 8 and 9 is not an independent structural measurement. Each spectrum's r/a is defined by matching its measured lower stopband edge to the theoretical lower edge of Fig. 1(b). Thus the lower-edge 'agreement' in Fig. 8 is true by construction, and the horizontal placement of every width point in Fig. 9 is set by the same theoretical map that supplies the band-gap and stop-gap curves being compared. The widths themselves (upper edge minus lower edge) remain independent measurements, so the comparison is not wholly forced; but the lower-edge agreement and the location of the width-versus-radius trace are partially predetermined by the calibration input.

full rationale

The only explicitly circular step is the lower-edge calibration: r/a is inferred by matching the measured lower stopband edge to the theoretical gap map, making the lower-edge agreement in Fig. 8 built in, as the paper itself acknowledges. This is a genuine but partial circularity, because the upper edge is an independent measurement and the widths in Fig. 9 are not fitted to the theoretical width curves. The s-versus-p parametric plot in Fig. 10 avoids the calibrated r/a axis entirely, since it pairs s and p widths measured at the same position, so the near-diagonal trend is an independent observation. However, the paper's claim that this trend 'safely reject[s]' the directional stop-gap hypothesis is weakened by a missing comparison: the red dashed curve in Fig. 10 is the normal-incidence ΓZ stop gap, while the NA=0.85 experiment samples an angle-averaged stop gap over 3.8π sr. The paper's own angle-averaged simulation point from Ref. [24] lies closer to the measured cluster than the normal-incidence curve, so the specificity of the probe against the experimentally relevant angle-averaged stop-gap null is not established. That issue is a correctness or completeness concern, not a circularity. The self-citations to Refs. [24] and [44] are used for numerical and methodological support, but the central s-p probe does not reduce to those citations. Overall, partial circularity from the r/a calibration remains, with independent content in the width and s-p measurements, supporting a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce a new physical entity. It relies on several domain assumptions: the lower-edge calibration, the idealized pore model, the equivalence between NA=0.85 stopband width and band-gap width, and the absence of uncoupled-mode artifacts. The local pore radius r/a is listed as a free parameter because it is estimated by matching measured frequencies to a theoretical band-structure map, which is a fit-like calibration step rather than an independent measurement.

free parameters (1)
  • local reduced pore radius r/a = 0.176 to 0.245 (position-dependent)
    Inferred from each measured lower stopband edge by comparison with the calculated gap map in Fig. 1b (Sec. III B). Used as the x-axis in Figs. 8-9, so those agreement plots are not fully model-free.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The lower edge of the ΓZ stop gap and the lower edge of the 3D photonic band gap nearly coincide for all reduced pore radii, so lower-edge frequencies can be mapped to r/a without ambiguity.
    Invoked in Sec. III B to convert measured lower stopband edges into local pore radii using the theoretical map of Fig. 1b.
  • domain assumption The ideal infinite-crystal model with perfect cylindrical pores and relative permittivity 11.68 accurately represents real tapered, disordered pores for band-edge frequencies and widths.
    Used throughout Secs. II A and III B-C for the gap maps and for the theoretical curves that the measured widths are compared against.
  • domain assumption A stopband measured with NA=0.85 and effective solid angle 3.8π sr represents the omnidirectional band gap rather than a directional stop gap.
    Central interpretation in Sec. III C; supported mainly by finite-size simulations in Ref. 24 rather than by a direct angle-resolved measurement.
  • domain assumption Uncoupled modes and surface termination do not create reflectivity features that mimic or hide a band-gap stopband.
    The paper cites artifacts related to uncoupled modes (Refs. 47-48) but does not experimentally rule them out for this crystal geometry.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental probe of a complete 3D photonic band gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBGUCSMJ

@misc{pith2026190901899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental probe of a complete 3D photonic band gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBGUCSMJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01899}
}
abstract

The identification of a complete three-dimensional (3D) photonic band gap in real crystals always employs theoretical or numerical models that invoke idealized crystal structures. Thus, this approach is prone to false positives (gap wrongly assigned) or false negatives (gap missed). Therefore, we propose a purely experimental probe of the 3D photonic band gap that pertains to many different classes of photonic materials. We study position and polarization-resolved reflectivity spectra of 3D inverse woodpile structures that consist of two perpendicular nanopore arrays etched in silicon. We observe intense reflectivity peaks $(R > 90\%)$ typical of high-quality crystals with broad stopbands. We track the stopband width versus pore radius, which agrees much better with the predicted 3D photonic band gap than with a directional stop gap on account of the large numerical aperture used. A parametric plot of s-polarized versus p-polarized stopband width agrees very well with the 3D band gap and is model-free. This practical probe provides fast feedback on the advanced nanofabrication needed for 3D photonic crystals and stimulates practical applications of band gaps in 3D silicon nanophotonics and photonic integrated circuits, photovoltaics, cavity QED, and quantum information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01899 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Band structure of an inverse woodpile photonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Setup to measure position-resolved microscopic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Image of the XY -surface of one of the 3D inverse woodpile crystals on beam A as seen with the IR camera in the setup. The bright spot is the focus of the incident light from the supercontinuum source filtered by the monochro￾mator. The surface of the Si beam with the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reflectivity spectra of three different 3D pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measured reflectivity spectrum of a 3D crystal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reflectivity measured as a function of Y-position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the stopband edges versus pore ra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Relative stopband width for p-polarization ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Effective refractive index of inverse woodpile pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [24]

    Devashish, S

    D. Devashish, S. B. Hasan, J. J. van der Vegt, and W. L. Vos, Physical Review B95, 155141 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [51]

    D. A. Grishina, C. A. M. Harteveld, A. Pacureanu, D. Devashish, A. Lagendijk, P. Cloetens, and W. L. Vos, arXiv:1808.01392 (2018), arXiv:1808.01392

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  3. [1]

    Novotny and B

    L. Novotny and B. Hecht,Principles of Nano-Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [2]

    J. D. Joannopoulos, S. Johnson, J. N. Winn, and R. D. Meade, Photonic crystals: molding the flow of light (Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [3]

    Lourtioz, H

    J.-M. Lourtioz, H. Benisty, V. Berger, J.-M. Gérard, D. Maystre, and A. Tchelnokov, Photonic Crystals (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin, 2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [4]

    M. A. Noginov, G. Dewar, M. W. McCall, and N. I. Zheludev, eds., Tutorials in Complex Photonic Media (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [5]

    Ghulinyan and L

    M. Ghulinyan and L. Pavesi, eds.,Light Localisation and lasing: Random and quasi-random photonic struc- tures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [6]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin,Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York NY, 1976)

    work page 1976

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    E. N. Economou, The Physics of Solids (Springer- Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  2. [8]

    H. M. van Driel and W. L. Vos, Phys. Rev. B62, 9872 (2000)

    2000

  3. [9]

    W. L. Vos and H. M. van Driel, Phys. Lett. A272, 101 (2000)

    2000

  4. [10]

    S. G. Romanov, T. Maka, C. M. Sotomayor Torres, M. Müller, R. Zentel, D. Cassagne, J. Manzanares- Martinez, and C. Jouanin, Phys. Rev. E 63, 056603 (2001)

    2001

  5. [11]

    V. P. Bykov, Sov. Phys. JETP35, 269 (1972)

    1972

  6. [12]

    Yablonovitch, Physical Review Letters 58, 2059 (1987)

    E. Yablonovitch, Physical Review Letters 58, 2059 (1987)

    1987

  7. [13]

    John and J

    S. John and J. Wang, Physical Review Letters64, 2418 (1990)

    1990

  8. [14]

    W. L. Vos and L. A. Woldering, in Light Localisa- tion and Lasing, edited by M. Ghulinyan and L. Pavesi (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015) p. 180

    2015

  9. [15]

    G. S. Smith, M. P. Kesler, and J. G. Maloney, Mi- crowave and Optical Technology Letters21, 191 (1998)

    1998

  10. [16]

    Bermel, C

    P. Bermel, C. Luo, L. Zeng, L. C. Kimerling, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Optics Express15, 16986 (2007)

    2007

  11. [17]

    R. B. Wehrspohn and J. Üpping, Journal of Optics14, 024003 (2012)

    2012

  12. [18]

    F.Koenderink, A.Alú, and A.Polman,Science 348, 516 (2015)

    A. F.Koenderink, A.Alú, and A.Polman,Science 348, 516 (2015)

    2015

  13. [19]

    David, H

    A. David, H. Benisty, and C. Weisbuch, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 126501 (2012)

    2012

  14. [20]

    Li and K.-M

    Z.-Y. Li and K.-M. Ho, Journal of Optical Society of America B20, 801 (2003)

    2003

  15. [21]

    Tajiri, S

    T. Tajiri, S. Takahashi, Y. Ota, K. Watanabe, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Optica6, 296 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Iwamoto, and Y

    A.Tandaechanurat, S.Ishida, D.Guimard, M.Nomura, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Nature Photonics5, 91 (2011)

    2011

  17. [23]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Mar- quardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  18. [25]

    Lòpez, Advanced Materials15, 1679 (2003)

    C. Lòpez, Advanced Materials15, 1679 (2003)

    2003

  19. [26]

    Benisty and C

    H. Benisty and C. Weisbuch, inProgress in Optics 49, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006) pp. 177– 313

    2006

  20. [27]

    J. F. Galisteo Lòpez, M. Ibisate, R. Sapienza, L. S. Froufe-Pérez, À. Blanco, and C. Lòpez, Adv. Mater. 23, 30 (2011)

    2011

  21. [28]

    Ogawa, M

    S. Ogawa, M. Imada, S. Yoshimoto, M. Okano, and S. Noda, Science305, 227 (2004)

    2004

  22. [29]

    Lodahl, A

    P. Lodahl, A. F. Van Driel, I. S. Nikolaev, A. Irman, K. Overgaag, D. Vanmaekelbergh, and W. L. Vos, Na- ture 430, 654 (2004)

    2004

  23. [30]

    K. Aoki, D. Guimard, M. Nishioka, M. Nomura, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Nature Photonics2, 688 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    M. D. Leistikow, A. P. Mosk, E. Yeganegi, A. Huisman, S R Lagendijk, and W. L. Vos, Physical Review Letters 107, 193903 (2011)

    2011

  25. [32]

    A. F. Koenderink, L. Bechger, H. Schriemer, A. La- gendijk, and W. L. Vos, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 143903 (2002)

    2002

  26. [33]

    A. F. Koenderink, L. Bechger, A. Lagendijk, and W. L. Vos, Phys. Stat. Sol. (a)197, 648 (2003)

    2003

  27. [34]

    S. B. Hasan, A. P. Mosk, W. L. Vos, and A. Lagendijk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 237402 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    S. Y. Lin, J. G. Fleming, D. L. Hetherington, B. K. Smith, R. Biswas, K. M. Ho, M. M. Sigalas, W. Zubrzy- cki, S. R. Kurtz, and J. Bur, Nature394, 251 (1998)

    1998

  29. [36]

    M. S. Thijssen, R. Sprik, J. E. G. J. Wijnhoven, M. Megens, T. Narayanan, A. Lagendijk, and W. L. Vos, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 2730 (1999). 11

    1999

  30. [37]

    S. Noda, K. Tomoda, N. Yamamoto, and A. Chutinan, Science 289, 604 (2000)

    2000

  31. [38]

    Blanco, E

    A. Blanco, E. Chomski, S. Grabtchak, M. Ibisate, S. John, S. W. Leonard, C. Lòpez, F. Meseguer, H. Miguez, J. P. Mondla, G. A. Ozin, O. Toader, and H. M. van Driel, Nature405, 437 (2000)

    2000

  32. [39]

    Y. A. Vlasov, X.-Z. Bo, J. C. Sturm, and D. J. Norris, Nature 414, 289 (2001)

    2001

  33. [40]

    Schilling, J

    J. Schilling, J. White, A. Scherer, G. Stupian, R. Hille- brand, and U. Gösele, Applied Physics Letters 86, 011101 (2005)

    2005

  34. [41]

    García-Santamaría, M

    F. García-Santamaría, M. Xu, V. Lousse, S. Fan, P. V. Braun, and J. A. Lewis, Advanced Materials19, 1567 (2007)

    2007

  35. [42]

    Takahashi, K

    S. Takahashi, K. Suzuki, M. Okano, M. Imada, T. Nakamori, Y. Ota, K. Ishizaki, and S. Noda, Nature Materials 8, 721 (2009)

    2009

  36. [43]

    Staude, M

    I. Staude, M. Thiel, S. Essig, C. Wolff, K. Busch, G. von Freymann, and M. Wegener, Opt. Lett. 35, 1094 (2010)

    2010

  37. [44]

    S. R. Huisman, R. V. Nair, L. A. Woldering, M. D. Leistikow, A. P. Mosk, and W. L. Vos, Physical Review B 83, 205313 (2011)

    2011

  38. [45]

    Frölich, J

    A. Frölich, J. Fischer, T. Zebrowski, K. Busch, and M. Wegener, Advanced Materials25, 3588 (2013)

    2013

  39. [46]

    C.Marichy, N.Muller, L.S.Froufe-Pérez, andF.Schef- fold, Scientific Reports6, 1 (2016)

    2016

  40. [47]

    W. M. Robertson, G. Arjavalingam, R. D. Meade, K. D. Brommer, A. M. Rappe, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2023 (1992)

    1992

  41. [48]

    Sakoda, Optical properties of photonic crystals (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin, 2005)

    K. Sakoda, Optical properties of photonic crystals (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg-Berlin, 2005)

    2005

  42. [49]

    Li and Zhang, Phys

    Z.-Y. Li and Zhang, Phys. Rev. B62, 1516 (2002)

    2002

  43. [50]

    Z. L. Wang, C. T. Chan, W. Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, N. B. Ming, and P. Sheng, Phys. Rev. E67, 016612 (2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    K. M. Ho, C. T. Chan, C. M. Soukoulis, R. Biswas, and M. Sigalas, Solid State Communications89, 413 (1994)

    1994

  45. [53]

    Animation: 3D Photonic Crystal with a Di- amond Structure,

    nanocops, “Animation: 3D Photonic Crystal with a Di- amond Structure,” (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    Maldovan and E

    M. Maldovan and E. L. Thomas, Nature Materials3, 593 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Hillebrand, S

    R. Hillebrand, S. Senz, W. Hergert, and U. Gösele, Journal of Applied Physics94, 2758 (2003)

    2003

  48. [56]

    L. A. Woldering, A. P. Mosk, R. W. Tjerkstra, and W. L. Vos, Journal of Applied Physics 105, 093108 (2009)

    2009

  49. [57]

    W. L. Vos, R. Sprik, A. van Blaaderen, A. Imhof, A. La- gendijk, and G. H. Wegdam, Phys. Rev. B53, 16231 (1996)

    1996

  50. [58]

    Datta, C

    S. Datta, C. T. Chan, K. M. Ho, and C. M. Soukoulis, Physical Review B48, 14936 (1993)

    1993

  51. [59]

    J. M. van den Broek, L. A. Woldering, R. W. Tjerkstra, F. B. Segerink, I. D. Setija, and W. L. Vos, Advanced Functional Materials22, 25 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    D.A.Grishina, 3D Silicon Nanophotonics,Ph.D.thesis, University of Twente (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    R. W. Tjerkstra, L. A. Woldering, J. M. van den Broek, F. Roozeboom, I. D. Setija, and W. L. Vos, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B29, 061604 (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    D. A. Grishina, C. A. M. Harteveld, L. A. Woldering, and W. L. Vos, Nanotechnology26, 505302 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    I. M. Vellekoop and A. P. Mosk, Optics letters32, 2309 (2007)

    2007

  56. [64]

    A. P. Mosk, A. Lagendijk, G. Lerosey, and M. Fink, Nature Photonics6, 283 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Ctistis, A

    G. Ctistis, A. Hartsuiker, E. van der Pol, J. Claudon, W. L. Vos, and J. M. Gérard, Physical Review B82, 195330 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    W. L. Vos, H. M. van Driel, M. Megens, A. F. Koen- derink, and A. Imhof, inPhotonic Crystals and Light Localization in the 21st century, edited by C. M. Souk- oulis (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2001) pp. 181–198

    2001

  59. [67]

    Semiconductors,

    Ioffe Institute (Petersburg), “Semiconductors,”http:// www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/

  60. [68]

    T. G. Euser, A. J. Molenaar, J. G. Fleming, B. Gralak, A. Polman, and W. L. Vos, Physical Review B 77, 115214 (2008)

    2008

  61. [69]

    Palacios-Lidón, A

    E. Palacios-Lidón, A. Blanco, M. Ibisate, F. Meseguer, C. Lòpez, and J. J. Sánchez-Dehesa, Applied Physics Letters 81, 4925 (2002)

    2002

  62. [70]

    Muller, J

    N. Muller, J. Haberko, C. Marichy, and F. Scheffold, Optica 4, 361 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    J. E. G. J. Wijnhoven, L. Bechger, and W. L. Vos, Chem. Mater.13, 4486 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    J. E. G. J. Wijnhoven and W. L. Vos, Science281, 802 (1998)

    1998

  65. [73]

    K. P. Furlan, E. Larsson, A. Diaz, M. Holler, T. Krekeler, M. Ritter, A. Y. Petrov, M. Eich, R. Blick, G. A. Schneider, I. Greving, R. Zierold, and R. Janßen, Applied Materials Today13, 359 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Ishizaki, M

    K. Ishizaki, M. Koumura, K. Suzuki, K. Gondaira, and S. Noda, Nature Photonics7, 133 (2013)

    2013

  67. [75]

    Devashish, O

    D. Devashish, O. S. Ojambati, S. B. Hasan, J. J. W. van der Vegt, and W. L. Vos, Phys. Rev. B99, 075112 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.