Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 38 references

Generating optical angular momentum through wavefront curvature

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that wavefront curvature, present in strongly focused beams, is a physical source of optical angular momentum: a simply polarized Gaussian beam acquires longitudinal spin and orbital angular momentum near focus, and…

desk verdict Focusing a linearly polarized Gaussian beam really does generate local spin and orbital angular momentum from wavefront curvature, and this paper's analytical derivation is the cleanest treatment I've seen. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14048 v1 pith:NXXHTTCI submitted 2024-11-21 physics.optics

Kayn A. Forbes , Vittorio Aita , Anatoly V. Zayats This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics PACS 42.25.Bs42.25.Ja
keywords opticalangularmomentumwavefrontcurvaturefocusedGaussianbeamsnonparaxialopticsspinorbitalvectorialdiffractionhelicity
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

Strongly focusing a beam of light makes it nonparaxial, so the field develops a component along the propagation direction and the usual textbook picture of a fixed polarization and zero angular momentum breaks down. The paper shows that for a linearly polarized Gaussian beam, this breakdown produces nonzero longitudinal spin and orbital angular momentum densities near the focal plane, even though the input beam carried neither. For circularly polarized beams, it produces a transverse spin whose sign follows the handedness of the input polarization. The paper traces both effects to the gradient of the wavefront curvature and supports the analytics with vectorial diffraction calculations. If correct, this means an ordinary focused laser beam can transfer angular momentum to small particles without any engineered vortex structure.

What carries the argument

The engine is an iterative Maxwell correction to a paraxial Laguerre-Gaussian field, ordered by the paraxial parameter $1/kw$. The first correction is the longitudinal field $E_z^{L1} \approx (i/k)\nabla_\perp\cdot\mathbf{E}_{T0}$, which converts the transverse divergence of the input field into a $z$-component; the second-order transverse field $\mathbf{E}_{T2}$ is then obtained from the Maxwell-Ampere law. In the spin density $\mathbf{s}_E = (\epsilon_0/2)\operatorname{Im}(\mathbf{E}^*\times\mathbf{E})$ and orbital density $\mathbf{l}_E = (\epsilon_0/2)\operatorname{Im}[\mathbf{r}\times(\mathbf{E}^*\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{E}]$, the curvature term enters through $\operatorname{Im}\gamma = kr/R[z]$, where $R[z] = (z^2+z_R^2)/z$ is the wavefront curvature. That term is what makes a spinless linearly polarized Gaussian beam acquire longitudinal spin and orbital densities, and a circularly polarized beam acquire helicity-dependent transverse spin, in Eqs. (13), (14), and (20).

What would settle it

Measure the local spin torque on a small absorbing probe placed just off the focal plane of a tightly focused linearly polarized Gaussian beam: Eq. (13) predicts a torque density proportional to $\sin 2\phi/(w^2 R[z])|u_{0,0}|^2$, vanishing at $z=0$ and changing sign across the focus. Alternatively, an exact numerical solution that retains all $z$-gradients of the field, rather than truncating as in Eq. (5), should reproduce Eq. (13) in the strong-focusing limit; disagreement would falsify the identification of wavefront curvature as the source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gradient of the wavefront curvature of a strongly focused Gaussian beam is a genuine source of local optical angular momentum. Working to second order in the paraxial parameter $1/kw$, the authors derive the nonparaxial electromagnetic field of a focused Laguerre-Gaussian beam and compute the electric spin and orbital angular momentum densities. For an input beam with linear polarization, the longitudinal spin density is $s_z = -2\epsilon_0 r^2/(k w^2 R[z]) \sin 2\phi |u_{0,0}|^2$, which is nonzero at all $z$ except the focal plane; the longitudinal orbital density is exactly opposite, so the total longitudinal angular momentum density vanishes. For circular polarization, the transverse spin density acquires a term proportional to $\sigma k r/R[z]$ that is helicity-dependent, in contrast to the helicity-independent transverse spin of evanescent waves. These are second-order nonparaxial effects, invisible in a paraxial description, and the authors verify them against vectorial diffraction theory.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation hinges on Eq. (5), which assumes the field varies along $z$ mainly through the factor $e^{ikz}$, so the longitudinal component is obtained from the transverse divergence of the input field; if the variation of the amplitude or Gouy phase along $z$ is significant in the strong-focusing regime, the wavefront-curvature terms identified here would be modified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A simple linearly polarized Gaussian beam focused by a high-aperture lens can exert spin torques on absorbing particles near focus, even though the beam carries zero spin angular momentum in the far field.
  • Focused circularly polarized beams gain a transverse spin whose sign follows the input helicity, offering a way to reverse the direction of transverse spin forces by flipping the handedness of the input light.
  • The longitudinal spin generated from a linearly polarized Gaussian beam carries zero optical helicity, so it can torque achiral absorbers but cannot drive chiral differential absorption or chiral radiation pressure.
  • For the linearly polarized Gaussian case the total longitudinal angular momentum density remains zero, meaning spin and orbital parts appear as a local redistribution rather than a net creation of longitudinal angular momentum.
  • The magnitude and sign of all these angular momentum densities are tunable through the wavefront curvature, i.e. through focusing strength and distance from the focal plane.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The gradient-of-curvature mechanism suggests that any focused beam with a curved wavefront, not only Gaussian or Laguerre-Gaussian modes, should show analogous angular momentum densities wherever $R[z]$ varies; astigmatic or aberrated wavefronts could produce structured spin patterns.
  • The helicity-dependent transverse spin identified here points toward a possible route to helicity-sensitive lateral forces on chiral or magnetic nanoparticles, complementing the zero-helicity longitudinal spin.
  • A position-resolved torque measurement on a small particle near the focus of a linearly polarized Gaussian beam could map the predicted $\sin 2\phi$ spatial pattern and give a direct experimental test that does not require a vortex mask.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a systematic nonparaxial description of focused Laguerre-Gaussian beams by iteratively applying Maxwell's equations, starting from the paraxial field T0 and generating first-order longitudinal (L1) and second-order transverse (T2) corrections. The authors then evaluate electric spin and orbital angular momentum densities to second order in the paraxial parameter. The central claims are (i) a 2D linearly polarized Gaussian beam acquires a longitudinal electric spin density s_z = -2ε0 r^2/(k w^2 R[z]) sin 2φ |u|^2 (Eq. 13) and an equal-and-opposite orbital density l_z (Eq. 20) around the focal plane, so that the total longitudinal angular momentum density vanishes; and (ii) circularly polarized beams acquire a helicity-dependent transverse spin component from the wavefront-curvature term kr/R[z] (Eq. 14), in contrast to the helicity-independent transverse spin of evanescent waves. The analytical results are compared with vectorial diffraction theory, with qualitative agreement shown in Figs. 4, S4, and S5. The paper also discusses optical helicity and dual-symmetric spin, noting that the longitudinal spin for the linearly polarized case is electric-only and carries zero helicity.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant because it identifies wavefront curvature as a physical control knob for local optical angular momentum, shows that focusing a simple linearly polarized Gaussian beam produces local spin and orbital densities, and predicts a helicity-dependent transverse spin in focused circularly polarized beams. The derivation is first-principles, contains no fitted parameters, and is independently validated by vectorial diffraction. The explicit analytical formulas (Eqs. 12-16 and 20) are useful and falsifiable, and the open-source numerical implementation is a further strength. The authors are transparent about the dual-symmetric nature of the spin and about the vanishing optical helicity in the linearly polarized case. The main weaknesses are presentation-level: the numerical validation is visual rather than quantitative, and some terminology around 'gradient of wavefront curvature' is imprecise, but neither undermines the central derivation.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VI, Figs. 4, S4, S5] The validation against vectorial diffraction theory is presented only as color maps; because Eq. (5) is the key approximation that underpins the analytical field, a quantitative comparison (line profiles or normalized errors) for the spin densities, and ideally also for the orbital density of Eq. (20), would make the claimed 'extremely good match' explicit and reproducible.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (7) and Eqs. (12)-(14)] The phrase 'gradient of the wavefront curvature' is imprecise: the derived expressions are proportional to 1/R[z], i.e., to the wavefront curvature itself, not to its derivative along z. Please define the intended meaning, for example 'the transverse gradient of the wavefront phase due to curvature.'
  3. [Section III, text near Eq. (13)] The statement that R[z] 'diverges to +∞ at both the focal plane and infinity' is not accurate for negative z, where R[z] = (z^2 + z_R^2)/z is negative; rephrase as 'diverges at the focal plane and grows in magnitude toward infinity.'
  4. [Eq. (11)] The typeset Eq. (11) contains a stray 'n' and some unbalanced braces in the displayed expression, which makes the formula difficult to parse; please correct the equation formatting.
  5. [Supplementary figures S1 and S3] There are typos in the supplementary figure captions ('propgation', 'Corrsponding', 'distsnce', 'ta') that should be corrected before publication.
  6. [Data availability statement] The statement 'No data were generated or analyzed in the presented research' sits oddly beside the vectorial diffraction calculations used to produce Figs. 4, S4, and S5; please clarify what code or parameters are available for reproducing those simulations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin and orbital angular momentum densities are algebraic consequences of a Maxwell-equation iteration on an input paraxial Gaussian beam, cross-checked by an independent vectorial-diffraction calculation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The zeroth-order field is the input paraxial LG mode (Eq. 1); the first-order longitudinal correction is fixed by Gauss's law with the standard approximation in Eq. (5); the second-order transverse fields are then fixed by Faraday's and Ampère's laws (Eq. 6 and Eq. S1). The spin and orbital densities are evaluated with the standard definitions (Eqs. 8 and 17), and no parameter is fitted to those densities. The wavefront curvature R[z] is an independent parameter of the input beam phase (Eq. 2); it is not defined in terms of the predicted angular momenta, and the appearance of 1/R[z] in Eqs. (13), (14), and (20) follows algebraically from differentiating that phase, not from imposing the result. The vectorial diffraction model (Eq. 22), based on Richards-Wolf angular-spectrum propagation from the same input parameters, provides an independent check of the analytical field, and the visual agreement in Figs. 1 versus 4 and S4-S5 is supporting evidence rather than an input. The self-citations to Refs. [13,14] occur only in Section V for the secondary claim of zero optical helicity, and the cited relation E*T0·BT2 = -E*T2·BT0 is also directly checkable from the paper's own Eqs. (6) and (S1), so the central argument does not rest on those citations. The Discussion explicitly flags the approximation behind Eq. (5) and the paraxial starting point; this is a correctness caveat, not a circular step. No circularity is therefore identified.

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

The central claim rests on four axioms: Maxwell's equations, the paraxial LG beam as zeroth-order solution, the slowly-varying-envelope approximation in Eq. (5), and second-order truncation of the Lax series. No free parameters are fitted; the input beam parameters w0, lambda, and NA are experimental settings. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations in free space as the governing equations.
    The iterative correction scheme (Section II) enforces Gauss's law, Faraday's law, and Maxwell-Ampere law to determine L1, B, and T2.
  • domain assumption Paraxial Laguerre-Gaussian field (Eq. 1) is the zeroth-order transverse field.
    The expansion starts from the paraxial LG beam; errors in this baseline propagate into all higher-order corrections and hence into the derived angular momenta.
  • domain assumption Slowly varying envelope approximation: z-variation of the field is dominated by the e^{ikz} phase, giving Eq. (5).
    This is the key approximation in obtaining E_z^{L1} = (i/k) ∇⊥·E_T0; it neglects amplitude and Gouy phase derivatives along z, and is load-bearing for all subsequent results.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the Lax series at second order in 1/kw.
    The authors state all considered angular momentum quantities are O((1/kw)^2) and therefore higher orders are neglected; the vectorial diffraction comparison provides empirical support but no rigorous error bound.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generating optical angular momentum through wavefront curvature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NXXHTTCI

@misc{pith2026241114048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generating optical angular momentum through wavefront curvature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NXXHTTCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14048}
}
read the original abstract

Recent developments in the understanding of optical angular momentum have resulted in many demonstrations of unusual optical phenomena, such as optical beams with orbital angular momentum and transverse spinning light. Here we detail novel contributions to spin and orbital angular momentum generated by the gradient of wavefront curvature that becomes relevant in strongly focused beams of light. While circularly polarized beams are shown to develop helicity-dependent transverse spin, a linearly polarized Gaussian beam produces longitudinal spin and orbital angular momenta in the focal region, even if lacking both of these before focusing. Analytical treatment of a nonparaxial electromagnetic field, validated with vectorial diffraction modelling, shows that the terms related to higher orders of a paraxial parameter are responsible for the appearance of non-trivial angular momenta. The obtained dependences relate these quantities to the gradient of the wavefront curvature, showing how it can be used as a novel degree of freedom for applications in optical manipulation and light-matter interactions at subwavelength scales, enabling angular momentum transfer even from a simple Gaussian beam with linear polarization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The dependence of longitudinal spin angular momentum density of 2D linearly polarized LG beams on the propagation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Components of the transverse spin momentum (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The dependence of the transverse spin density com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as shown in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Leslie Allen, Stephen M Barnett, and Miles J Padgett, eds., Optical Angular Momentum(IOP Publishing, Bris- tol, 2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    of helicity σ = ±1 the transverse spin density of Eq. (10) can be written as sE σ,⊥ = ϵ0 2k |uℓ,p LG|2 h ˆ rσkr R[z] − ˆϕ |ℓ| r − 2r w2 − 4r w2 L|ℓ|+1 p−1 L|ℓ| p − ℓσ r i , (14) where only the ˆ rcomponent depends on the wavefront curvature. In the case of a circularly polarized Gaus- 6 sian beam, this component of transverse spin is helicity- dependent(F...

    work page

  3. [3]

    David L Andrews and Mohamed Babiker, eds., The An- gular Momentum of Light(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of laguerre-gaussian laser modes,

    Les Allen, Marco W Beijersbergen, RJC Spreeuw, and JP Woerdman, “Orbital angular momentum of light and the transformation of laguerre-gaussian laser modes,” Physical Review A 45, 8185 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Gregory J Gbur, Singular Optics (CRC press, Boca Ra- ton, 2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Optical vortices 30 years on: Oam manipulation from topological charge to multiple singularities,

    Yijie Shen, Xuejiao Wang, Zhenwei Xie, Changjun Min, Xing Fu, Qiang Liu, Mali Gong, and Xiaocong Yuan, “Optical vortices 30 years on: Oam manipulation from topological charge to multiple singularities,” Light: Sci- ence & Applications 8, 90 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Structured light,

    Andrew Forbes, Michael De Oliveira, and Mark R Den- nis, “Structured light,” Nature Photonics 15, 253–262 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    A review of complex vector light fields and their applications,

    Carmelo Rosales-Guzm´ an, Bienvenu Ndagano, and An- drew Forbes, “A review of complex vector light fields and their applications,” Journal of Optics 20, 123001 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    parallel

    and has gone unnoticed in the focused beams explored to date [27, 28]. The spin takes on the opposite sign to the helicity as the beam propagates towards the focal point, where the wavefront is converging, and the same sign as the helicity past the focal point, where the wave-...

  2. [10]

    Towards higher-dimensional structured light,

    Chao He, Yijie Shen, and Andrew Forbes, “Towards higher-dimensional structured light,” Light: Science & Applications 11, 205 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Transverse and longitudinal angular momenta of light,

    Konstantin Y Bliokh and Franco Nori, “Transverse and longitudinal angular momenta of light,” Physics Reports 592, 1–38 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    From transverse angular momentum to photonic wheels,

    Andrea Aiello, Peter Banzer, Martin Neugebauer, and Gerd Leuchs, “From transverse angular momentum to photonic wheels,” Nature Photonics 9, 789–795 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    Advances in light transverse momenta and opti- cal lateral forces,

    Yuzhi Shi, Xiaohao Xu, Manuel Nieto-Vesperinas, Qinghua Song, Ai Qun Liu, Gabriella Cipparrone, Zeng- ping Su, Baoli Yao, Zhanshan Wang, Cheng-Wei Qiu, et al., “Advances in light transverse momenta and opti- cal lateral forces,” Advances in Optics and Photonics 15, 835–906 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Orbit-induced localized spin angular momentum in the tight focusing of linearly polarized vortex beams,

    Panpan Yu, Qian Zhao, Xinyao Hu, Yinmei Li, and Lei Gong, “Orbit-induced localized spin angular momentum in the tight focusing of linearly polarized vortex beams,” Optics Letters 43, 5677–5680 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Measures of helicity and chirality of optical vortex beams,

    Kayn A Forbes and Garth A Jones, “Measures of helicity and chirality of optical vortex beams,” Journal of Optics 23, 115401 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    On the orbit-induced spin density of tightly focused optical vortex beams: ellipticity and he- licity,

    Kayn A Forbes, “On the orbit-induced spin density of tightly focused optical vortex beams: ellipticity and he- licity,” Journal of Optics 26, 08LT01 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Controllable microparticle spinning via light without spin angular momentum,

    Yi-Jing Wu, Pan-Pan Yu, Yi-Fan Liu, Jing-Han Zhuang, Zi-Qiang Wang, Yin-Mei Li, Cheng-Wei Qiu, and Lei Gong, “Controllable microparticle spinning via light without spin angular momentum,” Physical Review Let- ters 132, 253803 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Interaction of light carry- ing orbital angular momentum with a chiral dipolar scat- terer,

    Pawe l Wo´ zniak, Israel De Leon, Katja H¨ oflich, Gerd Leuchs, and Peter Banzer, “Interaction of light carry- ing orbital angular momentum with a chiral dipolar scat- terer,” Optica 6, 961–965 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Optical helicity of unpolarized light,

    Kayn A Forbes, “Optical helicity of unpolarized light,” Physical Review A 105, 023524 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Optical chirality of vortex beams at the nanoscale,

    Dale Green and Kayn A Forbes, “Optical chirality of vortex beams at the nanoscale,” Nanoscale 15, 540–552 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Customized optical chi- rality of vortex structured light through state and degree- of-polarization control,

    Kayn A Forbes and Dale Green, “Customized optical chi- rality of vortex structured light through state and degree- of-polarization control,” Physical Review A 107, 063504 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Lukas Novotny and Bert Hecht, Principles of Nano- Optics (Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Geometric descriptions for the po- larization of nonparaxial light: a tutorial,

    Miguel A Alonso, “Geometric descriptions for the po- larization of nonparaxial light: a tutorial,” Advances in Optics and Photonics 15, 176–235 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    From maxwell to paraxial wave optics,

    Melvin Lax, William H Louisell, and William B McK- night, “From maxwell to paraxial wave optics,” Physical Review A 11, 1365 (1975)

    1975

  17. [25]

    Vector fields in a tight laser focus: com- parison of models,

    Justin Peatross, Manuel Berrondo, Dallas Smith, and Michael Ware, “Vector fields in a tight laser focus: com- parison of models,” Optics Express 25, 13990–14007 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Charles S Adams and Ifan G Hughes, Optics f2f: from Fourier to Fresnel (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Dual electromagnetism: helicity, spin, momentum and angular momentum,

    Konstantin Y Bliokh, Aleksandr Y Bekshaev, and Franco Nori, “Dual electromagnetism: helicity, spin, momentum and angular momentum,” New Journal of Physics 15, 033026 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    The misuse of colour in science communication,

    Fabio Crameri, Grace E Shephard, and Philip J Heron, “The misuse of colour in science communication,” Nature communications 11, 5444 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves,

    Konstantin Y Bliokh, Aleksandr Y Bekshaev, and Franco Nori, “Extraordinary momentum and spin in evanescent waves,” Nature Communications 5, 3300 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Transverse spinning of unpolarized light,

    J S Eismann, L H Nicholls, D J Roth, Miguel A Alonso, Peter Banzer, F J Rodr ´ ıguez-Fortu˜ no, A V Zayats, Franco Nori, and K Y Bliokh, “Transverse spinning of unpolarized light,” Nature Photonics 15, 156–161 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Spin-to-orbital angu- lar momentum conversion in a strongly focused optical beam,

    Yiqiong Zhao, J Scott Edgar, Gavin DM Jeffries, David McGloin, and Daniel T Chiu, “Spin-to-orbital angu- lar momentum conversion in a strongly focused optical beam,” Physical Review Letters 99, 073901 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Conservation of the spin and orbital angular momenta in electromagnetism,

    Konstantin Y Bliokh, Justin Dressel, and Franco Nori, “Conservation of the spin and orbital angular momenta in electromagnetism,” New Journal of Physics16, 093037 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Magnetoelectric effects in local light-matter interac- tions,

    Konstantin Y Bliokh, Yuri S Kivshar, and Franco Nori, “Magnetoelectric effects in local light-matter interac- tions,” Physical Review Letters 113, 033601 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Electromagnetic diffraction in optical systems, II. Structure of the image field in an aplanatic system,

    Bernard Richards and Emil Wolf, “Electromagnetic diffraction in optical systems, II. Structure of the image field in an aplanatic system,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 253, 358–379 (1959)

    1959

  27. [35]

    Focus- ing of high numerical aperture cylindrical-vector beams,

    Kathleen S. Youngworth and Thomas G. Brown, “Focus- ing of high numerical aperture cylindrical-vector beams,” Optics Express 7, 77–87 (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Propa- gation of focused scalar and vector vortex beams in anisotropic media: A semianalytical approach,

    Vittorio Aita, Mykyta Shevchenko, Francisco J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Fortu˜ no, and Anatoly V. Zayats, “Propa- gation of focused scalar and vector vortex beams in anisotropic media: A semianalytical approach,” Phys. Rev. B 109, 125433 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    In- FOCUS - Interaction of FOcused Complex beams with Uniaxial Slabs,

    Vittorio Aita and Francisco J. Rodr ´ ıguez-Fortu˜ no, “In- FOCUS - Interaction of FOcused Complex beams with Uniaxial Slabs,” (2024), 10.18742/25133507.v1. 11

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Direct measurements of the extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force using a nano-cantilever,

    Massimo Antognozzi, C R Bermingham, R L Harniman, Stephen Simpson, Jorden Senior, Rosie Hayward, Hein- rich Hoerber, M R Dennis, A Y Bekshaev, K Y Bliokh, et al., “Direct measurements of the extraordinary optical momentum and transverse spin-dependent force using a nano-cantil...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.