Athanasios Bogris1,2, Nikolaos A Burger1,2, Konstantinos G Makris1,3, Benoit Loppinet1, George Fytas1,4. 1. FORTH, Institute of Electronic Structure and Laser, 70013 Heraklion, Crete, Greece. 2. Department of Materials Science and Technology, University of Crete, 70013 Heraklion, Crete, Greece. 3. Department of Physics, University of Crete, Heraklion 71003, Greece. 4. Max-Planck Institute for Polymer Research, 55128 Mainz, Germany.
Abstract
Low-power visible light can lead to spectacular nonlinear effects in soft-matter systems. The propagation of visible light through transparent solutions of certain polymers can experience either self-focusing or defocusing nonlinearity, depending on the solvent. We show how the self-focusing and defocusing responses can be captured by a nonlinear propagation model using local spatial and time-integrating responses. We realize a remarkable pattern formation in ternary solutions and model it assuming a linear combination of the self-focusing and defocusing nonlinearities in the constituent solvents. This versatile response of solutions to light irradiation may introduce a new approach for self-written waveguides and patterns.
Low-power visible light can lead to spectacular nonlinear effects in soft-matter systems. The propagation of visible light through transparent solutions of certain polymers can experience either self-focusing or defocusing nonlinearity, depending on the solvent. We show how the self-focusing and defocusing responses can be captured by a nonlinear propagation model using local spatial and time-integrating responses. We realize a remarkable pattern formation in ternary solutions and model it assuming a linear combination of the self-focusing and defocusing nonlinearities in the constituent solvents. This versatile response of solutions to light irradiation may introduce a new approach for self-written waveguides and patterns.
When light impinges
a nonlinear material with refractive index
n, the feedback on its propagation will exert self-focusing (defocusing)
in the case of a local increase (decrease) in refractive index, δn. The specific light–matter interactions define
the mechanism through which photon influx modifies the materials’
refractive index. Different physical mechanisms lead to nonlinearity
including modification of electronic configurations and molecular
orientation in dielectric materials;[1,2] photothermal
effects with local temperature modulation of the refractive index,
dn/dT; mass transport (thermophoresis);
or photochemical processes triggering chemical modifications (cis–trans
conformation transitions, photobleaching, reactions).[3−7] The various mechanisms relate to different spatiotemporal scales
and amplitudes of the refractive index modulation. The standard Kerr
effect results in a relatively low refractive index increase, and
nonlinear light propagation requires a high input power. The core
of nonlinear optical materials is crystalline solids or simple liquids
and requires powerful laser beam actuation. Low-power nonlinear optics
demands higher nonlinear coefficients. More complex materials like
solutions or dispersions have been considered offering additional
channels to trigger nonlinear responses. Liquid crystals[8−12] and thermal media[13−19] are arguably the most studied physical systems presenting a high
nonlinear response. Thermophoresis, dielectrophoresis, and photochemical
response are among the mechanisms investigated (besides molecular
orientation in liquid crystals). The large number of degrees of freedom
present in more complex materials may also lead to multiplicity of
coexisting nonlinearity channels. Carefully crafted systems can therefore
be expected to possess a complex nonlinear response not attainable
with simpler materials.The complexity is likely to lead to
some nonlocality of the response
in space and time, especially through coupling of transport coefficients.
In particular, spatial nonlocality is often present in self-focusing.
The consequences of the nonlocal responses have attracted large attention
during the last decade[8−22] in an effort to associate nonlinear optics and complex photonics.
The spatial nonlocal response allows for long-range effects between
coherent nonlinear structures, formation of vortex ring solitons,
and novel types of modulational instabilities.[13,14,17] Because of the broad range of time scale
of the temporal response, complex nonlinear media may typically possess
a slow response. Moreover, many processes can be time irreversible,
and out-of-equilibrium structures are easily formed. Therefore, nonlocality
in time response must be considered, especially in the case of irreversible
photochemical processes.Although self-focusing has often been
reported, the reverse effect
of defocusing has been less studied, and theoretical and experimental[20−22] studies are mostly in the context of nonlinearity management, pulse
and beam shaping. Defocusing is typically triggered by thermal effects
as in most materials dn/dT is negative.
In mixtures, thermophoresis can also lead to defocusing depending
on the direction of the temperature-gradient-induced transport. A
large local decrease in refractive index has been reported in soft-matter
systems through thermal effects.[23]Polydiene solutions have recently emerged as an unanticipated class
of photoreactive polymers. They present unexpected strong responses
to weak laser irradiation in the visible region.[24−26] The transparent
polymer solutions have shown a remarkable effect of self-focusing
and self-propagating/self-written waveguides. Very strikingly, changing
the solvent, for the same polymer solute, can switch the self-focusing
to a defocusing response, in spite of the higher refractive index
of the polymer.[27] The physicochemical origin
of the observed responses remains to be fully identified. The mechanism
is likely to be the result of a combination of several steps, and
a model could be complex to establish. But the optical response can
be captured and understood at a coarse-grained level in a simple way,
as the present article will further show. In particular, the presence
of both responses in very similar materials provides the base for
the “formulation” of materials with coexisting self-focusing
and defocusing.In this paper, we further investigate this novel
type of highly
nonlinear medium and highlight two distinct physical characteristics
of the responses: nonlocality in time (integrating irreversible refractive
index change) and coexistence of self-focusing and defocusing nonlinearities
in the same medium occurring at different time scales (time-dependent
nonlinear coefficient). The difference in time response allows the
elaboration of a complex self-written pattern and modulation of beams.
The experimental observations are well reproduced by a simple model
considering two independent mechanisms for self-focusing and defocusing.
Results
and Discussion
Defocusing Response
Solutions of
polybutadiene (PB-390)
with molecular weight 390 kDa and 20 wt % in THF were irradiated with
a laser beam at 671 nm and power up to 110 mW. The laser light was
focused at the entrance of the 2 mm cuvette by a 4x lens (focal length f = 35 mm), as schematically shown in Figure a. The transmitted beam, imaged on a far-field
screen, opens up with time and quickly assumes a speckled structure
(Figure b) before
it reaches a steady state after about 600 s. A side view (90°)
of the scattered light shows the initially well-collimated beam to
open into a divergent beam (Figure c) clearly apparent after 300 s. Phase contrast images
reveal the formation of a conical stripe-like pattern with refractive
index lower than the surrounding nonilluminated solution as indicated
by the darker region in the interior of the patterns (Figure d). The solution responds to
the light irradiation by a local decrease of refractive index (δn < 0) and acts as a diverging lens. The patterns do
not fade away when the light illumination is stopped, signaling an
irreversible change in the material.
Figure 1
Patterning transparent polymer solutions.
(a) Schematic illustration
of the experimental setup used for the irradiation of the polymer
samples (S) and observation of the induced changes. L is the laser
source (671 nm), W is the writing lens, I is the microscope’s
illumination, O is the microscope’s objective, C denotes the
CCD imaging camera, and T is the spot of the transmitted incident
beam through the solution. (b) Time evolution of the transmitted beam
spot imaged on a screen. (c) the scattering laser beam at an angle
of 90°, and (d) the pattern formation using a blue filter to
block the scattered laser light for polybutadiene (PB-390k) 20 wt
% solution in tetrahydrofuran (THF). Laser power: 60 mW. Laser propagation
axis: left to right.
Patterning transparent polymer solutions.
(a) Schematic illustration
of the experimental setup used for the irradiation of the polymer
samples (S) and observation of the induced changes. L is the laser
source (671 nm), W is the writing lens, I is the microscope’s
illumination, O is the microscope’s objective, C denotes the
CCD imaging camera, and T is the spot of the transmitted incident
beam through the solution. (b) Time evolution of the transmitted beam
spot imaged on a screen. (c) the scattering laser beam at an angle
of 90°, and (d) the pattern formation using a blue filter to
block the scattered laser light for polybutadiene (PB-390k) 20 wt
% solution in tetrahydrofuran (THF). Laser power: 60 mW. Laser propagation
axis: left to right.The kinetics of the response
is characterized by phase contrast
microscopy [see the Supporting Information (SI) for details]. As a simple measure of the refractive index variation,
we used the normalized image contrast, I*, as a function
of the illumination time at different light powers. The time evolution
of I* and the refractive index depend on the light
power. In fact, a reasonable overlap of the different kinetics is
obtained when I* is considered as a function of the
laser dose energy (Figure a). This superposition implies that the refractive index variation
depends on the total number of photons through the irradiated area,
denoting the time-integrating character of the response. The overall
temporal evolution of I* is well captured (line in Figure b) by first-order
kinetics , where I∞* is the intensity contrast
at saturation infinite time, P is the laser power, E0 is the energy influx, and β is a small
correction factor. Note that I* is defined as the
maximum contrast in the phase contrast images and is negative as it
is darker than the background. The first-order kinetics with rate
being proportional to the laser power is similar to the kinetic model
proposed for photoreactive materials[28−30] with a nonlocality in
time and local in space optical nonlinearity. It is also referred
to as time-integrating nonlinearity, as the local change of refractive
index is proportional to the total number of photons impinging the
region of interest. However, instead of an increase, a local decrease
of the refractive index with irradiation dose is observed (Figure a).
Figure 2
Characterization of the
written patterns. Averaged normalized image
intensity (I*) for a 20 wt % PB (390k) solution in
THF, illuminated by different laser powers at 671 nm plotted as a
function of either laser illumination energy influx (a) or rescaled
time (b), where time for each curve has been multiplied by a power-dependent
factor taken as 1 for the highest power; the shift factor is presented
vs power in Figure S2 in the Supporting
Information. Colored symbols indicate the different laser powers given
in the inset in (a). The solid line in (b) represents the first-order
kinetics expression, . Simulation results of the beam’s
time evolution (c) and phase images (d) based on the theoretical model.
Laser propagation axis: left to right.
Characterization of the
written patterns. Averaged normalized image
intensity (I*) for a 20 wt % PB (390k) solution in
THF, illuminated by different laser powers at 671 nm plotted as a
function of either laser illumination energy influx (a) or rescaled
time (b), where time for each curve has been multiplied by a power-dependent
factor taken as 1 for the highest power; the shift factor is presented
vs power in Figure S2 in the Supporting
Information. Colored symbols indicate the different laser powers given
in the inset in (a). The solid line in (b) represents the first-order
kinetics expression, . Simulation results of the beam’s
time evolution (c) and phase images (d) based on the theoretical model.
Laser propagation axis: left to right.
Modeling
The effect of defocusing nonlinearity on the
beam propagation can be described by a scalar nonlinear wave equation.
For one-dimensional (more precise 1 + 1 dimensional) problem, the
nonlinear wave evolution of a linearly polarized paraxial beam is
governed by the paraxial equation of diffraction (Schrödinger
type of the parabolic wave equation)where Φ is the envelope of the slowly
varying optical beam, x is the transverse coordinate, y is the propagation direction, k0 is the wavenumber, n is the background refractive
index, and δn(x,y,t) is the
refractive index modulation (equivalent to the effective optical potential)
that depends on time t. Equation is the main paraxial equation that describes
the wave’s evolution in a nonabsorbing nonlinear material.
For a simple local nonlinearity, δn depends
on the intensity |Φ|2 with the Kerr nonlinearity
term being |Φ|2Φ. Hence, the specifics of the
material nonlinearity are in the δn term and
its dependence on Φ. If the material exhibits nonlocal nonlinearity,
like in the present case, δn(t) is more complicated and is given by an integral of the optical
intensity I(t) in time, as in eq .[28]For the case of defocusing nonlinearity alone, the evolution
of δn_(x,y,t) was empirically
taken aswhere δns is the saturated index difference, E_ is the irradiation
dose parameter, and I(t) is the
intensity at irradiation time t at a given point. Equation represents a time-integrating
nonlinearity, where the change in refractive index at a given position
is proportional to the total irradiation at this point.[28]Equation was numerically solved at different time steps using a time-dependent
split-step Fourier method,[31,32] providing an intensity I = |Φ|2 that was in turn used to calculate
the new value of δn. The simulation results
provide a time evolution of the intensity and refractive index maps.
Comparison with experimental data was done on phase contrast images
and contrast. Refractive index maps were used to compute a phase contrast image (Figure d) and I*.The simulated evolution
of the optical field intensity and the
phase image are shown in Figure c,d, respectively. The beam opening clearly shows self-defocusing
(Figure c), and the
irradiation leads to the formation of conical patterns of reduced
refractive index. The agreement with the experiments is satisfactory,
as both the phase image and the intensity distribution from simulations
(Figure c,d) are qualitatively
similar to the experimental evolutions (Figure c,d). The beam propagation shows similar
opening in both simulation (Figure c) and experiment (Figure c). The experimentally observed conical pattern
(Figure d), with a
slightly increasing diameter, is also retrieved by the simulations
(Figure d).The phenomenological model and the experiment suggest a local decrease
of the refractive index upon irradiation that could be attributed
to several mechanisms. A decrease of the polymer concentration would
be an option, but it seems unlikely in view of the formation of a
permanent irreversible material pattern (as explained in SI Section 5). The latter, consequence of polymer
cross-linking, would inevitably lead to a polymer concentration increase.[33] Chemical changes of the polymer, albeit detectable
by spectroscopy, are not large enough to lead to a substantial decrease
of the solution refractive index. Instead, the local refractive index
decrease is likely to result from a local decrease of the solution
density caused by the formation of small pockets of gas. Cavitation,
as a consequence of a large local pressure gradient, is known to lead
to a decrease of refractive index in solids.[34] In the present case of low power and only marginal absorption, photochemical
processes leading to the formation of gas could be at the origin of
a density decrease in the concentrated polymer solutions. In such
cases, nanobubbles can be trapped in the viscous solution, thereby
leading to a decrease in its refractive index. In fact, the observation
of gas bubbles in more diluted THF solutions as shown in Figures S3 and S4 can support the decrease of
the refractive index. To substantiate this “bubble hypothesis”
and complement Figure S4, we visualized
eventual small bubbles through their scattering and their evolution
during the irradiation. Figure S5 supports
the plausibility of our explanation and the generality of the response.
Coexisting Defocusing and Self-Focusing Nonlinearities
The
presence of the two independent processes and a crossover between
them was proven in the case of a binary solvent mixture. Figure a illustrates the
realization of the two light–matter interactions in the pure
solvents (THF and n-hexane) and in the binary solvent
mixture of 70% THF and 30% hexane (blue triangles) irradiated at 632
nm and 60 mW. THF and n-hexane are both good solvents
for polydienes and have similar refractive indices. The red curve
in Figure a represents
the phase image contrast I* as a function of time
at the entrance of the beam. For the solvent mixtures, a striking
change of the slope from initially negative, as in pure THF (Figure a, blue curve), to
positive, as in n-hexane (Figure a, black curve), occurred in the solvent
mixture rich in THF (70%). The corresponding scattered light patterns
(Figure b) clearly
revealed an early opening followed by the increase of the central
part that is typical of the self-focusing by self-written patterns.[25,35,36] Consistently, the phase contrast
image of Figure c
resembled the THF-like (negative) pattern at early times and transformed
to the n-hexane-like (positive) pattern growing in
the middle of the negative at later times as the irradiation proceeded.
Figure 3
Tuning
the written patterns. Normalized image intensity (I*) for PB (390k) 20 wt % solutions in THF, hexane, and
THF/hexane mixture as a function of laser illumination time (a) recorded
experimentally and (d) simulated numerically at three different THF/n-hexane compositions (self-focusing: black, self-defocusing:
blue, and transition from self-defocusing to self-focusing: red).
(b) Time evolution of the scattering laser beam at 90° and (c)
patterning formation in PB (390k) 20 wt % solution in THF (70%)/hexane
(30%) binary solvent mixture, irradiated at 671 nm and 60 mW. (d–f)
Intensity image and phase image obtained from the numerical simulation
simulated analogues of (a–c). Laser propagation axis: left
to right.
Tuning
the written patterns. Normalized image intensity (I*) for PB (390k) 20 wt % solutions in THF, hexane, and
THF/hexane mixture as a function of laser illumination time (a) recorded
experimentally and (d) simulated numerically at three different THF/n-hexane compositions (self-focusing: black, self-defocusing:
blue, and transition from self-defocusing to self-focusing: red).
(b) Time evolution of the scattering laser beam at 90° and (c)
patterning formation in PB (390k) 20 wt % solution in THF (70%)/hexane
(30%) binary solvent mixture, irradiated at 671 nm and 60 mW. (d–f)
Intensity image and phase image obtained from the numerical simulation
simulated analogues of (a–c). Laser propagation axis: left
to right.The cosolvency effect on the particular
light–matter interactions
(Figure ) suggests
the applicability of a coexistence model assuming simple addition
of the two, positive and negative, processes. In this ideal mixing
proposition, both mechanisms happen independently and simultaneously.
For the negative case, we used the integrating nonlinearity model
described above. For the positive case, we adopted a model of exponential
growth followed by a saturation as observed in the experiments[36]where E+ is the
dose parameter that controls the early exponential growth rate, δns is the maximum increase of the refractive
index at saturation, and δn0 is
the minimum refractive index change at time t = 0.
It corresponds to the initial value that is amplified by the mechanism
and empirically found . The model reproduces
well typical kinetics
reported in previous works in typical polydiene/hexane solutions with,
in particular, proper power dependence.[36] For such time-dependent refractive index modulation, the nonlocal
nonlinear wave equation reproduces self-focusing and self-written
waveguides.We simply combine the two nonlinearities through
a mixing law:
δn = a+δn+ + a_δn_, with a+ and a_ being
weighting amplitudes. The refractive index at the entrance of the
beam is the sum of the two contributions, and the proper choice of
parameters provides the observed U-shaped curve as shown in Figure e,f. At early times,
the faster defocusing dominates, whereas the self-focusing becomes
dominant at a later time and further away from the entrance. The pattern
shows first the growth of the self-defocused pattern with a self-focused
written waveguide appearing in the middle. Away from the beam entrance,
the self-written waveguide leads to self-propagation at larger distances,
where the self-defocusing has diminished. The pattern and its time
evolution compare reasonably well to the experimental observation
in mixtures where the linear negative pattern emerges first, but a
positive response is soon growing and eventually “collect the
light” through self-focusing. The model of sum of two integrating
nonlinearities, with different signs and different kinetics, provides
a good phenomenological description of the observed patterning in
the solvent mixture, bringing an extra proof of the existence of two
independent time-integrating nonlinearities in these solutions.
Conclusions
We demonstrated the presence of two nonlinearities
of opposite
effects in the same photoreactive polybutadiene solutions. Depending
on the solvent used for dispersion, they present either self-focusing
or defocusing nonlinearity. Both responses are local in space and
nonlocal in time with time-integrating responses, but with different
kinetics. The specific light propagation and formation of unique refractive
index patterns in mixtures are shown in Figure . These are well reproduced by the model
of coexistence of self-focusing and defocusing optical responses.
The good agreement accredits the hypothesis that the two nonlinearities
have different physicochemical origins and can coexist when a mixture
of solvents is used. The presented results further highlight the versatility
of the optical response of polydiene solution materials. We expect
that such a complex response could be engineered in other polymeric
materials with the requirement of two independent mechanisms leading
to an opposite local change of refractive index. Further study and
judicious engineering of such a novel type of highly nonlinear polymer
medium may pave the way to complex patterning and novel lithographic
techniques, as well as zero-epsilon nonlinear metamaterials, nonlinear
optofluidics, and even nanophotonic applications due to its large
attainable values of the refractive index. Notably, this induced δn change is quite high in comparison to other nonlinear
materials such as semiconductor crystals AlGaAs or LiNbO3. Recently, the self-focusing response was utilized to create low-loss
deformable optical fiber interconnects.[37] The elucidation of the light-induced material patterning mechanism
can trigger new types of patterning or devices.
Figure 4
Phase images (left column)
and propagation beam (right column)
obtained from numerical simulations (t0 = 150) for (a) self-defocusing case (negative case), (b) self-focusing
case (positive case), and (c) coexistence of two cases (solvent mixtures).
Corresponding refractive index profiles at y = 0
(left graph). Laser propagation axis: left to right.
Phase images (left column)
and propagation beam (right column)
obtained from numerical simulations (t0 = 150) for (a) self-defocusing case (negative case), (b) self-focusing
case (positive case), and (c) coexistence of two cases (solvent mixtures).
Corresponding refractive index profiles at y = 0
(left graph). Laser propagation axis: left to right.
Materials and Methods
The samples used in this study consisted
of anionically polymerized
polybutadiene (PB). The PB of 390 kg/mol was received from Polimeri
Europa (Eni S.p.A.). Tetrahydrofuran (THF) was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich
and was used as received. The polymer solutions were prepared under
ambient conditions, at a fixed concentration of 20% polymer weight
fraction (20 wt % = 0.2222 g/mL) for PB (390k).The schematic
of the experimental setup used for sample irradiation
is shown in Figure a. Laser irradiation and imaging are happening simultaneously, under
an optical microscope on the axis (z) perpendicular
to the laser beam along the y direction. For this
reason, a CW red laser (λ = 671 nm, various powers) was placed
on a modified stage of a Zeiss Axioskop 2 optical microscope. The
transmitted laser beam exiting the cell was projected on a screen.
A 4× microscope objective lens (numerical aperture NA = 0.12)
was used to focus the laser beam on the entrance wall of the sample
cell. The beam diameter at the focal point was about 20 μm.
The polymer solutions were placed in spectroscopic quartz cuvettes
(Hellma, with 2, 4, and 10 mm path lengths).The imaging of
the pattern formation was achieved using a variant
of the phase contrast microscopy technique. The Köhler illumination
microscope was used to produce a collimated beam impinging on the
polymer sample. The images were acquired by defocusing (∼100
μm above the focal plane) the microscope’s objective
lens (NA = 0.15). Under such conditions, the intensity recorded on
the CCD camera is related to the phase shift of the white light beam
and a quantitative analysis of the refractive index difference between
the light-induced pattern and the surrounding solution is allowed.[38−40]
Authors: M Anyfantakis; A Pamvouxoglou; C Mantzaridis; S Pispas; H-J Butt; G Fytas; B Loppinet Journal: J Phys Chem B Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.991