Optical absorption in the membrane sets a fundamental limit on the achievable finesse and a practical limit on the intracavity power achievable in the MIM system. Consequently, considerable effort has
1200 1000 800 600
photodetectorvoltage(mV)
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
picomotor steps (-z direction) Picomotor calibration
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
30 25
20 15
10 5
picomotor steps (-z direction)
Figure 6.4: Measurement of optomechanical coupling. The membrane is translated along the cavity axis using a piezo motor with a step size of ∆zpm ≈21.1 nm (calibrated with HeNe as shown in inset). After each step, the frequency of a tunable probe laser is adjusted by ∆f in order to keep it in resonance with the cavity. ∆f is measured using an optical spectrometer, givinggm/2π≈∆f /∆zpm. The laser frequency then is returned to its original value, the cavity length is adjusted to return the cavity to resonance, and the procedure is repeated. Results are normalized to the bare cavity coupling, g0/2π =F SR/(λ/2) = 0.432 GHz/nm. They are consistent with a numerical model for gm(zm)/g0 (dotted red line) which assumes a 50-nm-thick film with|nm|= 2.0 has been placed at the center of a 742-µm-long cavity. In this case,gmmax= 2|rm|g0= 0.843g0 (dashed black line).
been made to measure this value in our experiment. The task was anticipated to be difficult at the outset, because stoichiometric silicon nitride (Si3N4) is known to possess ultra-low optical absorption at telecom wavelengths. Less is known about the absorptive properties of Si3N4in the near infrared and for micro structures, however, where impurities associated with the fabrication process can play a dominant role and the small volume of material makes loss measurements challenging. In [36], Si3N4 microdisk cavities were shown to have losses consistent with Im[nm]∼10−7 at 850 nm.
Recent measurements in the Harris group [79] have placed a similar bound on Si3N4 membranes
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
cavity length 9.5 cm, membrane 2
finesse/100,000
cavity length 13 cm, membrane 1
finesse/100,000
file number
with membrane no membrane
0 300 600
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
intensity
no membrane, 13 cm cavity
time
-100 0 100 200 300 400
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
intensity
with membrane, 9.5 cm cavity length
time
file number
Figure 6.5: Ringdown measurement. A bound on the membrane absorption was first obtained by inserting the film into an ultra-high finesse Fabry-Perot cavity with a long, unstabilized length.
Vibration of the membrane/mirrors occasionally pulls the cavity into resonance, whereupon the drive field is quickly shuttered off. The diminished cavity ringdown time is consistent with an added round-trip loss of ≈7×10−6. For a 50 nm membrane positioned at the center of the cavity near a node of the intracavity standing wave, this is consistent with an imaginary index of refraction of Im[nm]≈0.8×10−4 at 850 nm. Lines are a qualitative fit to guide the eye.
purchased from Norcada, by placing the membrane near an antinode of a high-finesse Fabry-Perot cavity operating at 1064 nm. At the time we entered the field, it was known that low-stress Si- doped SiN membranes could exhibit absorption at the level of Im[nm] ∼ 10−4 at 1064 nm. We expected an improvement for our high-stress stoichiometric films, but had to wait until the stabilized cavity apparatus was finalized before making our first serious measurement. Below I describe that measurement as well as a preliminary measurement which informed the current cavity design.
6.4.1 Ringdown Measurement in a Long Cavity with High Finesse
A first estimate of the high-stress film losses was obtained by inserting the film into an open-air, unstabilized, high-finesse Fabry-Perot. This would seem a difficult — if not inevitable — first approach, for in order to measure the predicted round-trip loss introduced by the film,δm<10−5, one would have to use a cavity with a finesse of F ∼ 105. In length units, the linewidth of this cavity at optical wavelengths is λ/F ∼ 10 pm, a nontrivial task to align and stabilize even in the absence of a membrane. An attractive feature of ringdown measurements, however, is that they
don’t require a cavity that is locked to a stable reference. One simply waits for the cavity to swing
— via length vibrations — into resonance with the probe laser. The light is then rapidly shuttered off, in our case with an AOM. The subsequent ringdown decay of the intracavity field is insensitive to length fluctuations. This robust feature makes the ringdown technique rather simple to execute.
The rate at which residual circulating power decays through the exit mirror after the input field is turned off is directly related to the cavity finesse (see 2.32b)
Pout(t) =Pout(0)e−γt =Pout(0)e−πct/2LF (6.3) whereγ= 2κis the FWHM intensity linewidth of the cavity in angular units.
The mirrors for this particular experiment were mounted in standard kinematic mounts (Newport Ultima) on a breadboard located in a clean hood without vibration isolation. The cavity length was chosen to permit a spot size of < 100 µm and easily accessible ringdown times (∼ 100 µs) for the predicted loss level. The membrane was fixed to a kinematic mount (Newport Ultima) on an independent 3-axis stage (LineTool). Care was taken to center the window between the mirrors and to roughly align the window normal to the cavity mode by monitoring the retro-reflection of a HeNe laser beam collinear with the an 850 nm probe beam.
For the measurement shown in Figure 6.5, a (fortunate) error in the selection of cavity mirrors resulted in our constructing a cavity with a remarkable finesse of F ≈7×105 at 850 nm, enabling a loss sensitivity of 2π/F ≈ 9 ppm. Ringdown measurements were made with the membrane repeatedly translated into and out of the cavity mode. We observed a marked lack of variation in the reduced ringdown times obtained with the membrane inserted and interpreted these as events for which the membrane was located near a node when the cavity swung through resonance.
Ringdowns were fit with good qualitative agreement to an exponential decay and are consistent with an added round-trip loss of of≈7 ppm. For the case of a 50-nm-thick membrane positioned at the anti-node of the intracavity field, this is consistent with an imaginary index of 0.8×10−4 at 850 nm, a number which compares favorably with the low-stress results obtained by the Harris group at the time, but higher than we anticipated for the stoichiometric chemistry. The loss-limited finesse obtainable for a membrane with Im[nm] = 0.8×10−4 is≈1.4×104 when located at an antinode.
With this inference and the expectation that our preliminary results were limited by alignment- related losses, we decided to go ahead and build a stable cavity with coating curves centered atλ= 850 nm,F ≈2×105. A more careful measurement was eventually made in this cavity, as described in the following section.
Figure 6.6: Variation of the cavity “finesse” as a function of membrane position. Finesse is defined as the free spectral range of the bare cavity (c/2L) divided by the measured linewidth of the MIM cavity, γ= 2κ (FWHM):F =πc/Lγ (here γ is in angular units). Variation occurs on two scales.
The fine scale (insets) corresponds to translating the membrane between successive nodes of the intracavity field. The coarse scale corresponds to displacement by a significant fraction of the cavity length, L (here in increments of∼0.05 L). Modulation at cavity center is attributed to absorption and misalignment-related loss. Away from cavity center, modulation also results from an imbalance in the power residing in the two subcavities, each of different length. The model is generated using the transfer matrix method described in Section 3.3.2. “Droop” of the envelope is consistent with an absorption/alignment loss characterized by Im[nm] = 0.8×10−5.
6.4.2 Linewidth Measurement in a Short Cavity with Moderate Finesse
A less ambiguous measurement of absorption requires the ability to translate the film in increments δzm << λalong the wavefront of the intracavity standing wave while monitoring the linewidth of the MIM cavity, γ. We are capable of doing this with the high-finesse MIM system described in Chapter 5. However, as was detailed in Section 3.3.2, considerable care must be taken in accounting for various parameters in the model of the MIM system which give rise to modulation ofγ. These include the real and imaginary index of the membrane, the membrane thicknessdm, position relative to the intracavity field, and coarse position relative to cavity center. The latter effect has been found to dominate in our system because the cavity is short and because for vibrational stability
we currently operate at a moderate bare cavity finesse, F0 = 104; at this finesse we have found that Tmirror =π/F0 >> δm, the round-trip loss introduced by the membrane. Moreover, at this moderate finesse, the short length of the cavity makes it difficult to measure finesse via the ringdown method (2π/γ ∼100 ns). We instead measure the cavity linewidth (γ/2π∼10 MHz) using a swept probe, as discussed in Section 6.2.
The procedure we have developed is as follows: (1) the membrane is translated in increments of
∆zpm ∼20− −30 nm along the cavity axis using the Picomotor driven translation stage, (2) after each step, the cavity is tuned into resonance with fixed frequency probe laser by translating one of the cavity end-mirrors, (3) the linewidth of the resonance is measured by dithering the cavity length and monitoring the transmission of the cavity, as discussed in Section 6.2, (4) steps 1–3 are repeated until the membrane has been translated through several periods of the intracavity standing wave, (5) steps 1–4 are repeated for several well-separated coarse changes ofzm.
The result of one such set of measurements is shown in Figure 6.6. Here the linewidth has been referred to a finesse value relative to the bare cavity free spectral range: F ≡πc/Lγ (note thatγis in angular units). It is worth noting that shortly before this particular measurement was taken, we had not yet developed the model discussed in 3.3.2, and were rather puzzled by the discovery that for some membrane positions, as shown, the MIM cavity linewidth was smaller than the intrinsic cavity linewidth. The membrane was removed and reinserted multiple times to recheck the bare cavity finesse, and each time we had to carefully realign all five degrees of freedom of the membrane
— particularly tip/tilt — with respect to the cavity (by minimizingγ). In the meantime, Jeff was independently working on the transfer matrix model and was also puzzled by the same “artifact” in his numerical results. We now understand this to be a real effect by which the etalon formed between the membrane and the end-mirror can alter the photon storage time. After accounting for the fact that we tune the cavity length rather than the laser probe to maintain cavity resonance, we have found that model and data agree well quantitatively. The “envelope” is consistent with a model for a symmetric cavity with {Im[nm],Re[nm], dm, L,F0} = {0.8×10−5,2.0,50 nm,742µm,9200}
where nm. The variation in cavity finesse near cavity center, however, is more consistent with Im[nm] = 0.6×10−6. The latter would enable a loss limited cavity finesse of ≈2×105 with the membrane positioned at an antinode. We currently believe this result to represent an upper bound on the actual losses, since it remains sensitive to∼µrad tip/tilt alignment of the membrane. Moreover, the linewidth inferred losses appear to misrepresent the measured variation in cavity transmission versus membrane position, as discussed in the next section.
50 0
+5000 50
0 +4000 50
0 +3000 50
0 +0
50
0 +1000 0 50
+2000 50
0 -1000 50
0 -2000
80 60
40 20
0 10.0
9.5 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.5
Finesse(x103 )
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
transmission
transmission
picomotor steps (�zpm=23.5 +/- 0.5 nm/step)
black: Im[nm] = 0 gray: Im[nm] = 6x10-6 solid: T2/T1 = 1.06 dashed: T2/T1 = 1
Im[nm] = 6x10-6
Im[nm] = 6x10-6
z
m/�
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Figure 6.7: Measurement of cavity “finesse” (pink) and peak transmission (gray) as functions of membrane position. Transmission data is normalized to peak transmission when the membrane is at an antinode. Picomotor step size is inferred from theλ/2 periodicity of the measurement data. Solid pink and gray correspond to the extrema for a model which assumes {Im[nm],Re[nm], dm, L,F0}
= {0.6×10−5,2.0,50 nm,742µm,9200}, where nm is the index of the membrane. In the upper plot, transmission data corresponding to the membrane near cavity center is compared to the model inferred from the finesse data and to the model for a lossless and slightly asymmetric cavity. Black and gray lines correspond to different choices of loss. Dashed and solid black lines correspond to different choice for T2/T1. The data is found to agree best with a lossless (Im[nm] = 0) model for whichT2/T1= 1.06.