4.7 Article

Optical Properties of Concentric Nanorings of Quantum Emitters

期刊

NANOMATERIALS
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nano13050851

关键词

nanophotonics; quantum emitters; collective radiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A ring of sub-wavelength spaced dipole-coupled quantum emitters has extraordinary optical properties and can create extremely sub-radiant collective eigenmodes similar to an optical resonator. Stacked multi-ring geometries, particularly double rings, allow for significantly darker and better confined collective excitations. The three-ring geometry found in natural light-harvesting complexes is close to a critical value for efficient and fast coherent inter-ring transport.
A ring of sub-wavelength spaced dipole-coupled quantum emitters features extraordinary optical properties when compared to a one-dimensional chain or a random collection of emitters. One finds the emergence of extremely subradiant collective eigenmodes similar to an optical resonator, which features strong 3D sub-wavelength field confinement near the ring. Motivated by structures commonly appearing in natural light-harvesting complexes (LHCs), we extend these studies to stacked multi-ring geometries. We predict that using double rings allows us to engineer significantly darker and better confined collective excitations over a broader energy band compared to the single-ring case. These enhance weak field absorption and low-loss excitation energy transport. For the specific geometry of the three rings appearing in the natural LH2 light-harvesting antenna, we show that the coupling between the lower double-ring structure and the higher energy blue-shifted single ring is very close to a critical value for the actual size of the molecule. This creates collective excitations with contributions from all three rings, which is a vital ingredient for efficient and fast coherent inter-ring transport. This geometry thus should also prove useful for the design of sub-wavelength weak field antennae.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据