Observation of transition radiation carrying orbital angular momentum

E. Magome; H. Takeda; K. Sumitani; O. V. Bogdanov; P. O. Kazinski; P. S. Korolev; T. A. Tukhfatullin; Y. Takabayashi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Observation of transition radiation carrying orbital angular momentum

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first observation of twisted photons—light carrying orbital angular momentum—in transition radiation from relativistic electrons striking a solid target.

desk verdict First claim of OAM in transition radiation, but the polarization-selection setup as drawn can't work and the paraxial parameter looks off by an order of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02899 v1 pith:XN3ASHWC submitted 2025-02-05 physics.acc-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Y. Takabayashi , H. Takeda , E. Magome , K. Sumitani , P. O. Kazinski , P. S. Korolev , O. V. Bogdanov , T. A. Tukhfatullin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.acc-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics

keywords transitionradiationorbitalangularmomentumtwistedphotonsparaxialapproximationTHzdiffractionpatternrelativisticelectronstotal

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

Twisted photons, whose phase fronts spiral around the propagation axis, are usually generated by electrons moving in circular or spiral paths. This paper reports the first observation of twisted photons produced by transition radiation, which occurs when a charged particle crosses the boundary between two materials. In the experiment, 220 MeV electrons struck an Au-coated silicon wafer tilted at 45 degrees, and the backward transition radiation at 0.3 THz was passed through a triangular aperture and a double slit. The recorded diffraction patterns show that right-circularly polarized radiation carries orbital angular momentum l=-1 and left-circularly polarized radiation l=+1, so the total angular momentum m=l+s is zero. This matches the m=0 prediction of the twisted-transition-radiation theory for a narrow Gaussian electron beam, and it establishes that rectilinear electron motion against a solid target can produce twisted light.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the angular-momentum identity m = l + s, specialised to a Gaussian electron beam, where the paraxial condition k⊥σ⊥ ≪ 1 makes the total angular momentum projection well defined and selects m=0. Transition radiation is the coherent emission produced when a 220 MeV electron bunch crosses the vacuum-gold-silicon interface; the radiation is filtered to 0.3 THz and its circular polarisation is selected with a quarter-wave plate and linear polariser. The OAM content is read off from Fresnel-approximation diffraction patterns: a triangular aperture yields a three-spot pattern whose orientation and handedness carry the sign and magnitude of l, and a double slit yields tilted fringes whose slant direction marks the sign of l. These calculated templates, rather than a direct phase measurement, carry the identification.

What would settle it

Enlarge the horizontal or vertical beam spot on the target so that k⊥σ⊥ approaches 1 and repeat the triangular-aperture and double-slit measurements: the m=0 prediction says the three-spot and tilted-fringe signatures should weaken or change, while the alternative of no OAM would keep them unchanged. A more direct check is a phase measurement of the 0.3 THz beam, for example with an interferometer or wavefront sensor, to see whether the wavefront actually winds by 2π per photon around the axis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that backward transition radiation from a narrow Gaussian electron beam is twisted: for circular polarization s=±1 the radiation carries orbital angular momentum l=∓1, giving total angular momentum projection m = l + s = 0 along the photon direction. The paper supports this with diffraction patterns through a triangular aperture, which show the characteristic three-spot pattern expected for |l|=1, and through a double slit, whose interference fringes tilt in opposite directions for s=±1. Fresnel-approximation calculations for l=∓1 reproduce both sets of observed patterns. On this basis the paper concludes that an earlier theoretical prediction [33,34] is confirmed, and that twisted photons can be generated by electrons moving in a straight line and striking a solid target, not only by spiralling electrons.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that the electron-beam footprint on the target is small compared with the radiation wavelength, so that the paraxial twisted-photon description with m=l+s applies; if that condition is not genuinely met, the predicted l=-s pairing and the theoretical diffraction templates need not describe the measured light.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A solid metal foil struck by a relativistic electron beam becomes a source of twisted photons without any undulator, spiral trajectory, or laser shaping.
The m=0 rule (l=-s) ties the orbital handedness to the chosen circular polarisation, so polarisation optics alone can switch the OAM sign.
The same mechanism should operate for any charged particle crossing a refractive-index boundary, so cosmic-ray muons and radioactive decays striking matter produce twisted components in their transition radiation.
The theory extends the programme to Cherenkov and edge radiation, which are predicted to carry OAM; the present result motivates searching for those.
Helically microbunched beams or spiral-structured targets are proposed as routes to twisted transition radiation with |m|≥1, which the paper says would be valuable for applications.

Reading between the lines

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

If the identification holds, a simple tilted foil plus a circular polariser could serve as a cheap, tuneable twisted-THz source, replacing more elaborate pre-bunched or undulator schemes.
The diffraction-signature method used here—three-spot triangular aperture and tilted double-slit fringes—could be applied at other wavelengths to certify OAM in beams where wavefront sensors are unavailable.
The m=0 selection rule suggests a conservation-style test: preparing the electron beam with a larger or non-Gaussian footprint should break the exact l=-s pairing, which would give a quantitative handle on how orbital angular momentum is transferred from the moving charge.
Because the radiation is coherent and in the sub-THz band, a direct interferometric phase measurement of the 0.3 THz wavefront would provide an independent check without the paraxial templates.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First experimental claim of OAM in transition radiation, built on a specific 2019 theory. The diffraction patterns are consistent with the l=∓1 templates, and the opposite tilt for opposite helicity is the right signature. If the results hold, this is a simple, new source of twisted THz photons from rectilinear electrons. The authors tested a real prediction with a modest setup, and the Fresnel calculations reproduce the data qualitatively.

The soft spots are serious. The schematic in Fig. 1 puts the linear polarizer before the quarter-wave plate. With that order, the waveplate changes the polarization state but not the power, and a pyroelectric detector is polarization-insensitive, so the s=±1 selection would have no effect. The text doesn't state the order. Either the figure is misdrawn or the handedness selection is unsupported. This is the load-bearing part of the claimed l=−s relation and must be fixed. A referee should ask for the actual order and, if possible, a check with a known circular polarization source.

The paraxial condition is also under-supported. With σh≈1.1 mm and λ≈1 mm, k0≈6.3 mm−1, so the diffraction-limited transverse momentum spread from the source is k⊥σh of order unity, not 0.03 as quoted. The quoted k⊥ looks like k0/γ, which is not the transverse momentum that matters for the aperture diffraction or the mode expansion. The condition may still hold, but the numbers in the paper are not the right ones.

The evidence is qualitative: no error bars, no explicit l extraction, and no analysis of how sensitive the patterns are to l. For a first observation, that's thin, though the two-aperture agreement is suggestive. The circularity concern is minor here: the tested theory is the authors' own, but the diffraction templates are standard Fresnel optics and the l values are not fitted.

Bottom line: the physics is plausible and the paper deserves serious referee time, but as written the polarization-selection issue is a potential showstopper and the paraxial parameter needs correction. I would not accept it in the current form. I'd ask for a revised version with a corrected setup description and a quantitative OAM analysis. Bring it to reading group only if the authors post a corrected version; I wouldn't cite it yet.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment in which 220 MeV electrons from the SAGA Light Source linac strike an Au-coated Si wafer tilted at 45°, and the backward transition radiation emitted at 90° is analyzed at λ ≈ 1 mm. Diffraction patterns through a triangular aperture and through a double slit are recorded, either without polarization selection or after a nominally circular-polarization selection stage. The measured patterns are compared visually with Fresnel-diffraction calculations for l = −1, l = +1, and unselected OAM. The authors conclude that the transition radiation for spin s = ±1 carries orbital angular momentum l = ∓1, so that the total angular momentum m = l + s = 0, confirming the earlier prediction of Bogdanov et al. This is claimed as the first observation of twisted photons from rectilinear electron motion against a solid target.

Significance. If the result holds, it is a genuinely new demonstration that orbital angular momentum can be generated in transition radiation from rectilinear electron motion, extending the known sources of twisted photons beyond undulators, Compton scattering, and channeling. The experimental design is simple and the comparison with two different apertures is a reasonable proof-of-principle strategy. The theory being tested is an independent earlier prediction by the same groups (refs. 33 and 34), and the l values are not fitted parameters, which is a strength. However, the central inference rests on the correct identification of circular polarization and on a qualitative visual match of diffraction patterns, and both of these points need to be substantially strengthened before the claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 1 and the paragraph describing the polarization selection] Figure 1 shows the optical chain as Target → bandpass filter → linear polarizer → quarter-wave plate → detector. As drawn, the linear polarizer is upstream of the quarter-wave plate. With this order, a wire-grid polarizer fixes the incoming radiation to a single linear polarization; the quarter-wave plate then converts it to elliptical polarization, but the pyroelectric detector is polarization-insensitive and will record the same total intensity for any orientation of the quarter-wave plate. The s = +1 and s = −1 patterns in Figs. 2(b,c) and 3(b,c) would therefore not demonstrate the selection of circular polarization. If the actual order was quarter-wave plate followed by linear polarizer, which is the standard configuration for circular-polarization analysis, the figure and the text must be corrected to state this explicitly. If the order is truly as drawn, the claimed correlation l = −s is unsupported because the s labels are not established.
[Figs. 2 and 3, including the diffraction-pattern comparisons] The conclusion that the measured patterns have l = ∓1 rests entirely on visual comparison with calculated Fresnel patterns. No quantitative estimator of l, no correlation metric, no lineouts, and no error bars are provided, even though the distinguishing features (the rotation direction of the triangular-aperture three-spot pattern and the tilt direction of the double-slit fringes) are qualitative. The paper should provide a reproducible definition of the simulated l = ±1 fields (mode profile, assumed beam parameters, aperture geometry, distances, and wavelength, including the effect of the Δf/f ≈ 1/3 filter bandwidth) and a quantitative comparison, for example a normalized cross-correlation or a fitted l value with uncertainties.
[Discussion of the condition k⊥σ⊥ ≪ 1 (Eq. (2))] The paper states that k⊥σh ≈ 0.03 and k⊥σv ≈ 0.01, satisfying Eq. (2), but it never defines k⊥. If k⊥ were taken as the photon wavenumber k0 = 2π/λ ≈ 6.3 mm⁻¹, then k0σh ≈ 7, which would violate Eq. (2). The estimate only makes sense if k⊥ is the transverse momentum spread of the backward transition radiation, approximately k0/γ ≈ 0.015 mm⁻¹ for γ ≈ 430. Because the entire inference uses the paraxial relation m = l + s = 0, the definition of k⊥ and the way the numerical values were obtained must be stated explicitly. As written, a reader cannot verify that the experimental condition for the theoretical prediction is met.

minor comments (5)

[Figs. 2 and 3] The diffraction patterns are displayed without coordinate axes or scale bars, which makes it impossible to judge the degree of agreement quantitatively or to compare spot positions and fringe spacings with the stated distances and aperture sizes.
[Experimental parameters in the text] The paper uses σh and σv for the beam sizes on the target but does not state whether these are rms or FWHM values, nor how they were measured. This information is needed to evaluate the estimates of k⊥σ⊥.
[Polarization-selection details] The orientations of the quarter-wave plate and the linear polarizer for obtaining s = +1 versus s = −1 are not given. Without these settings, the assignment of the labels s = ±1 cannot be checked.
[Bandwidth of the bandpass filter] The bandpass filter has Δf/f ≈ 1/3, i.e., a broad bandwidth, but the Fresnel calculations appear to assume a single wavelength of 1 mm. The effect of spectral averaging on the diffraction patterns should be discussed or included in the calculations.
[Fig. 1 caption and the unselected data] The caption of Fig. 1 shows the quarter-wave plate and polarizer in the beam path, while the text says the unselected data in Figs. 2(a) and 3(a) were taken without these elements. This discrepancy should be clarified in the figure or its caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper tests an earlier, independent theoretical prediction by the same group; the OAM extraction relies on standard Fresnel diffraction templates, not on fitted or self-defined quantities.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental test of the m = l + s = 0 prediction for Gaussian-beam transition radiation, derived in Refs. [33,34]. Although those references share authors with the present paper, they are earlier published theoretical results with stated assumptions, not results re-derived here or assumed as the conclusion. The measured diffraction patterns are compared to Fresnel-approximation calculations for apertured OAM beams; these calculations are standard scalar diffraction integrals for modes with specified l, and the l = +-1 assignment is read from the characteristic three-spot triangular-aperture pattern and oppositely tilted double-slit fringes. No parameter is fitted to force agreement, and the observed s = +-1 versus l = -+1 correlation is not imposed by construction. The questionable k_perp * sigma values (0.03 and 0.01 with sigma_h ~ 1.1 mm and lambda ~ 1 mm) are a potential quantitative inconsistency affecting whether the paraxial condition is satisfied, but that is an experimental-validity concern, not a circularity. The paper is self-contained against external diffraction benchmarks, so the circularity score is 0.

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

No free parameters were fitted; the central numbers are measured (beam size, wavelength, geometry). The analysis leans on the authors' earlier theory and on Fresnel diffraction; the weakest quantitative input is the claimed satisfaction of the paraxial condition.

assumptions (4)

standard math Fresnel diffraction approximation is valid for the aperture-detector distances used
Used to compute the reference patterns in Figs. 2(d)-(f) and 3(d)-(f); the paper validates it by matching the no-selection pattern, but provides no quantitative error estimate.
domain assumption Bogdanov et al. theory [33,34] correctly predicts m=l+s=0 for a Gaussian electron beam when k⊥σ⊥ << 1
This is the theoretical prediction being tested; the interpretation of the measured patterns in terms of l=∓1 depends on it.
domain assumption The paraxial condition k⊥σ⊥ << 1 is satisfied with the stated beam sizes
The paper claims k⊥σh≈0.03 and k⊥σv≈0.01, but the stated λ≈1 mm and σ≈1.1 mm suggest k0σ≈7; the quantitative basis for this condition is not established.
domain assumption Quarter-wave plate and linear polarizer isolate s=±1 without altering the OAM content
The SAM selection optics are assumed to transmit the OAM structure unchanged; no calibration or cross-check is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of transition radiation carrying orbital angular momentum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XN3ASHWC

@misc{pith2026250202899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of transition radiation carrying orbital angular momentum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XN3ASHWC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02899}
}

read the original abstract

Twisted photons carrying orbital angular momentum, which have potential applications spanning diverse fields, have been extensively studied since the theoretical work of Allen \textit{et al}. in 1992. Various methods for direct producing twisted photons have been explored, leveraging the rotational (spiral) motion of relativistic electrons in phenomena such as undulator radiation. In the present study, transition radiation carrying orbital angular momentum is observed for the first time. This radiation was generated by 220 MeV electrons incident on an Au-coated Si wafer. The orbital angular momentum was measured by analyzing the diffraction patterns produced as the radiation passed through a triangular aperture and a double slit. These results demonstrate that twisted photons can also be generated through the interaction of rectilinearly moving electrons with a solid target.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02899 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Observed diffraction patterns for transition radiat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

[1]

Allen, M

L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A 45, 8185 (1992)

1992
[2]

Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A

H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A. Forbes, M. V. Berry, M. R. Dennis, D. L. Andrews, M. Mansuripur, C. Denz, C. Alpmann, P. Banzer, T. Bauer, E. Karimi, L. Mar- rucci, M. Padgett, M. Ritsch-Marte, N. M. Litchinitser, N. P. Bigelow, C. Rosales-Guzm´ an, A. Belmonte, J. P. Torres, T. W. Neely, M. Baker, R. Gordon, A. B. Stilgoe, J. Romero, A. G. White, R. Fickler, A...

work page 2016
[3]

M. J. Padgett, Opt. Express 25, 11265 (2017)

work page 2017
[4]

H. He, M. E. J. Friese, N. R. Heck- enberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 826 (1995)

work page 1995
[5]

D. G. Grier, Nature 424, 810 (2003)

2003
[6]

Willim, J

C. Willim, J. Vieira, V. Malka, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 023083 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

Jirka and S

M. Jirka and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 125001 (2024)

work page 2024
[8]

S. W. Hell and J. Wichmann, Opt. Lett. 19, 780 (1994) . 5

work page 1994

Show all 43 references

[9]

T¨ or¨ ok and P

P. T¨ or¨ ok and P. Munro,Opt. Express 12, 3605 (2004)

2004
[10]

Toyoda, F

K. Toyoda, F. Takahashi, S. Takizawa, Y. Tok- izane, K. Miyamoto, R. Morita, and T. Omatsu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 143603 (2013)

2013
[11]

P. O. Kazinski, M. V. Mokrinskiy, and V. A. Ryakin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.08152 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[12]

Afanasev, C

A. Afanasev, C. E. Carlson, and A. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 88, 033841 (2013)

2013
[13]

Z.-W. Lu, L. Guo, Z.-Z. Li, M. Ababekri, F.-Q. Chen, C. Fu, C. Lv, R. Xu, X. Kong, Y.-F. Niu, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 202502 (2023)

2023
[14]

P. O. Kazinski and A. A. Sokolov, Phys. At. Nucl. 87, 561 (2024)

2024
[15]

Kirschbaum, T

T. Kirschbaum, T. Schumm, and A. P´ alﬀy, Phys. Rev. C 110, 064326 (2024)

2024
[16]

Gibson, J

G. Gibson, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, M. Vas- netsov, V. Pas’ko, S. M. Barnett, and S. Franke-Arnold, Opt. Express 12, 5448 (2004)

2004
[17]

Wang, J.-Y

J. Wang, J.-Y. Yang, I. M. Fazal, N. Ahmed, Y. Yan, H. Huang, Y. Ren, Y. Yue, S. Dolinar, M. Tur, and A. E. Willner, Nat. Photonics 6, 488 (2012)

2012
[18]

Z. H. Jiang and D. H. Werner, Electromagnetic vortices: wave phenomena and engineering applications (John Wi- ley & Sons, 2021)

2021
[19]

S. K. Noor, M. N. M. Yasin, A. M. Ismail, M. N. Osman, P. J. Soh, N. Ramli, and A. H. Rambe, IEEE Access 10, 89465 (2022)

2022
[20]

P. O. Kazinski, P. S. Korolev, G. Yu. Lazarenko, and V. A. Ryakin, Ann. Phys. 462, 169610 (2024)

2024
[21]

Sasaki and I

S. Sasaki and I. McNulty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 124801 (2008)

2008
[22]

Bahrdt, K

J. Bahrdt, K. Holldack, P. Kuske, R. M¨ uller, M. Scheer, and P. Schmid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 034801 (2013)

2013
[23]

Katoh, M

M. Katoh, M. Fujimoto, N. S. Mirian, T. Konomi, Y. Taira, T. Kaneyasu, M. Hosaka, N. Yamamoto, A. Mochihashi, Y. Takashima, K. Kuroda, A. Miyamoto, K. Miyamoto, and S. Sasaki, Sci. Rep. 7, 6130 (2017)

2017
[24]

U. D. Jentschura and V. G. Serbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 013001 (2011)

2011
[25]

Taira, T

Y. Taira, T. Hayakawa, and M. Katoh, Sci. Rep. 7, 5018 (2017)

2017
[26]

Sakai, I

Y. Sakai, I. Pogorelsky, O. Williams, F. O’Shea, S. Bar- ber, I. Gadjev, J. Duris, P. Musumeci, M. Fedurin, A. Korostyshevsky, B. Malone, C. Swinson, G. Stenby, K. Kusche, M. Babzien, M. Montemagno, P. Jacob, Z. Zhong, M. Polyanskiy, V. Yakimenko, and J. Rosen- zweig, Phys. Re...

2015
[27]

O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, and G. Yu. Lazarenko, Phys. Rev. D 99, 116016 (2019)

2019
[28]

S. V. Abdrashitov, O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, and T. A. Tukhfatullin, Phys. Lett. A 382, 3141 (2018)

2018
[29]

V. Epp, J. Janz, and M. Zotova, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B 436, 78 (2018)

2018
[30]

Hemsing, A

E. Hemsing, A. Knyazik, F. O’Shea, A. Marinelli, P. Musumeci, O. Williams, S. Tochitsky, and J. B. Rosen- zweig, App. Phys. Lett. 100, 091110 (2012)

2012
[31]

Hemsing, A

E. Hemsing, A. Knyazik, M. Dunning, D. Xi- ang, A. Marinelli, C. Hast, and J. B. Rosenzweig, Nat. Phys. 9, 549 (2013)

2013
[32]

Katoh, M

M. Katoh, M. Fujimoto, H. Kawaguchi, K. Tsuchiya, K. Ohmi, T. Kaneyasu, Y. Taira, M. Hosaka, A. Mochihashi, and Y. Takashima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 094801 (2017)

2017
[33]

O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, and G. Yu. Lazarenko, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043836 (2019)

2019
[34]

O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, and G. Yu. Lazarenko, JINST 15, C04052 (2020)

2020
[35]

V. L. Ginzburg, Phys. Usp. 39, 973 (1996)

1996
[36]

V. L. Ginzburg and V. N. Tsytovich, Transition Radia- tion and Transition Scattering (Hilger, Boston, 1990)

1990
[37]

Seraﬁni and M

L. Seraﬁni and M. Ferrario, AIP Conf. Proc. 581, 87 (2001)

2001
[38]

J. M. Hickmann, E. J. S. Fonseca, W. C. Soares, and S. Ch´ avez-Cerda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 053904 (2010)

2010
[39]

Y. Goto, T. I. Tsujimura, and S. Kubo, J. Infrared Milli Terahz Waves 40, 943 (2019)

2019
[40]

O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, P. S. Korolev, and G. Yu. Lazarenko, Phys. Rev. E 104, 024701 (2021)

2021
[41]

O. V. Bogdanov, P. O. Kazinski, and G. Yu. Lazarenko, Ann. Phys. 406, 114 (2019)

2019
[42]

Kaminer, M

I. Kaminer, M. Mutzaﬁ, A. Levy, G. Harari, H. Herzig Sheinfux, S. Skirlo, J. Nemirovsky, J. D. Joannopoulos, M. Segev, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Phys. Rev. X 6, 011006 (2016)

2016
[43]

I. P. Ivanov, V. G. Serbo, and V. A. Zaytsev, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053825 (2016)

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Allen, M

L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, Phys. Rev. A 45, 8185 (1992)

1992

[2] [2]

Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A

H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A. Forbes, M. V. Berry, M. R. Dennis, D. L. Andrews, M. Mansuripur, C. Denz, C. Alpmann, P. Banzer, T. Bauer, E. Karimi, L. Mar- rucci, M. Padgett, M. Ritsch-Marte, N. M. Litchinitser, N. P. Bigelow, C. Rosales-Guzm´ an, A. Belmonte, J. P. Torres, T. W. Neely, M. Baker, R. Gordon, A. B. Stilgoe, J. Romero, A. G. White, R. Fickler, A...

work page 2016

[3] [3]

M. J. Padgett, Opt. Express 25, 11265 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [4]

H. He, M. E. J. Friese, N. R. Heck- enberg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 826 (1995)

work page 1995

[5] [5]

D. G. Grier, Nature 424, 810 (2003)

2003

[6] [6]

Willim, J

C. Willim, J. Vieira, V. Malka, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. Research 5, 023083 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Jirka and S

M. Jirka and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 125001 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [8]

S. W. Hell and J. Wichmann, Opt. Lett. 19, 780 (1994) . 5

work page 1994