اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدComment on Comment on Spin-Momentum-Locked Edge Mode for Topological Vortex Lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 125, 013903 (2020)
99
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
In our Letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 125, 013903 (2020)), we reported topological vortex lasers based on spin-momentum-locked edge modes. We observed that the near field spin and orbital angular momentum has a one-to-one far-field radiation correspondence of circular polarization and orbital angular momentum respectively. Sun et al. in their Comment (arXiv:2009.04700v1), however, argued that we did not perform numerical simulations on the near field information of our experimentally studied topological edge modes, and our mode assignment was mistaken and spoiled the one-to-one correspondence. However, we will show that their arguments are wrong. Furthermore, we will show that the Eqs. (1) and (2) and the phase windings in their Comment are wrong.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
We present a comment on Spin-Momentum-Locked Edge Mode for Topological Vortex Lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 125, 013903 (2020)(hereafter the Letter).In the Letter, Yang et al. reported on an elegant topological vortex laser and proposed that the near
-field spin and OAM of the topological edge mode lasing have a one-to-one far-field radiation correspondence. The near-field information is based on frequency dispersions of the topological edge modes, without supporting measurements and/or computer simulations. Unfortunately, their frequency dispersions shown in Fig. 1(c) (see also Fig. S6 and Eqs. (5.3) and (5.4) in Supplemental Material) are wrong. As the result, the mode assignment of the main mode |-2,+> investigated in the Letter is mistaken, which should be |2,+>. This spoils the one-to-one correspondence claimed in the Letter.
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
In [J. T. Matta et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 082501 (2015)] a transverse wobbling band was reported in $^{135}$Pr. The critical experimental proof for this assignment is the E2 dominated linking transitions between the wobbling and normal bands, whi
ch are supported by two experiments performed with Gammasphere and INGA. However, the M1 dominated character cannot be excluded based on the reported experimental information, indicating that the wobbling assignment is still questionable.
In [S. Nandi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 132501 (2020)] two transverse wobbling bands were reported in $^{183}$Au. The critical experimental proof for this assignment is the E2 dominated linking transitions between the wobbling and normal bands, wh
ich are supported by fitting the measured DCO ratio and polarization results. However, the uncertainties are significantly underestimated according to an analysis on the statistical error. With reasonable error, the mixing ratios cannot be exclusively decided, and the M1 dominated character cannot be excluded, indicating that the wobbling assignment is still questionable.
Recently, Zhang et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 157404 (2003)) have demonstrated that an amphoteric refraction, i. e. both positive and negative refraction, may prevail at the interface of two uniaxial anisotropic crystals when their optical axes are in
different directions. The authors subsequently made a correspondence between such a refraction with the negative refraction expected for Left Handed Materials (LHMs). Here we comment that the amphoteric refraction can be observed even with one uniaxial crystal, and the refraction is not related to the negative refraction expected for the much debated LHM. Rather, the phenomenon is a natural result of anisotropic media.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
