2.1 Birefringence and the index ellipsoid
L1 Phenomenon
LiNbO3 is optically uniaxial and negative: light polarized along the c axis sees the extraordinary index ne, light polarized perpendicular to it sees the ordinary index no, and ne < no. At 1550 nm, no = 2.2111 and ne = 2.1376, a birefringence of −0.07355 P-db derived.
Between crossed polarizers in a cone of convergent light (conoscopy), a z-cut plate shows a dark cross (isogyres) and concentric dark rings (isochromes). For a 1.00 mm plate at 632.8 nm the first three dark rings sit at 11.1, 15.7 and 19.4° from the axis, in air derived. A field across the plate, along x or y, makes the crystal biaxial through r22: the single optic axis splits in two and the cross opens into two hyperbolic brushes around the melatopes.
| Δn induced along z, at λ | 0.000e+00 |
| retardance along z | 0.000 rad |
| optic-axis tilt in air, exact | 0.00° |
| first order, r22 only | 0.00° |
| state | uniaxial |
| in-plane slow axis from x | –° |
| ring 1 at E = 0, at λ | 11.09° |
Lamp
LN plate
Electrodes
- Δn induced, at λ
- 0.000e+00
- Optic axes, tilt in air
- 0.00°
- First order, r22 only
- 0.00°
- In-plane slow axis from x
- –°
- Retardance along z
- 0.000 rad
- State
- uniaxial
- First dark ring, E = 0, at λ
- 11.09°
- Retardation at the NA edge
L2 Quantitative model
Index ellipsoid
With no field, in the crystal frame (IEEE Std 176-1987, z = c) P, the index ellipsoid is
A wave whose wave vector makes the angle θ with c has one ordinary index no and one extraordinary index
The extraordinary Poynting vector walks off the wave vector by ρ, tan ρ = (ne(θ)2/2)(1/ne2 − 1/no2) sin 2θ. Largest walk-off: 2.150° at θ = 43.92° (632.8 nm), 2.000° at 44.00° (1064 nm), 1.938° at 44.03° (1550 nm) derived.
c
|
|
| k
| ***
| **
| **
--·····;;;;;;;;:::::,,** ++ S
=|·=====·····;;;;:::::***,,. ++++
===|========;;····;:::***,,,,.++++
=====||======;;;;;;···***:,,++++...y
--=======\\====;;;;;;;:***·++++,,.......
========\\==;;;;;;;:*++++··,,.........
;=========\\\;;;;;::++::,,,···..........
;;;;;;;;;;;\\·::::::,,,,,...··........
:;;;;;-;;;:::\\·:,,,,,.......··...------
,----::::::,,,\\·,...........··..... x
,,,,,,,,,,,...\\\·..........·...
...............\\\··.....··.
...............-------
|
|
|
|
|
|
| no (ordinary wave) | 2.21111 |
| ne(θ) (extraordinary wave) | 2.17981 |
| ne(θ) − no | −0.03130 |
| walk-off ρ | 1.919° |
| largest ρ at this λ | 1.938° at 44.03° |
- Ordinary index
- 2.21111
- Extraordinary index ne(θ)
- 2.17981
- ne(θ) − no
- −0.03130
- Walk-off of S from k
- 1.919°
- Largest walk-off
- 1.938° at 44.03°
Drawn: semi-axes 1 + 10 (ni/n̄ − 1); S is the normal of the drawn surface. k in the color of the chosen wavelength (infrared: false color, dashed). derived
Dispersion
Zelmon et al. fitted congruent LN (CLN) at 21 °C over 0.4 to 5.0 µm with a three-term Sellmeier equation P-db:
| Axis | B1 | C1 | B2 | C2 | B3 | C3 | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| o | 2.6734 | 0.01764 | 1.2290 | 0.05914 | 12.614 | 474.60 | P-db |
| e | 2.9804 | 0.02047 | 0.5981 | 0.0666 | 8.9543 | 416.08 | P-db |
Coefficients transcribed from the paper by refractiveindex.info (CC0) P-db; the paper itself is not held.
Computed indices, 21 °C derived
| λ (µm) | no | ne | ne − no | ng,o | ng,e |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.400 | 2.43927 | 2.33212 | −0.10715 | 3.0623 | 2.8619 |
| 0.532 | 2.32319 | 2.23357 | −0.08962 | 2.5847 | 2.4562 |
| 0.6328 | 2.28646 | 2.20222 | −0.08424 | 2.4568 | 2.3480 |
| 0.775 | 2.25866 | 2.17837 | −0.08029 | 2.3686 | 2.2728 |
| 1.064 | 2.23211 | 2.15554 | −0.07657 | 2.2969 | 2.2113 |
| 1.310 | 2.21997 | 2.14512 | −0.07485 | 2.2738 | 2.1912 |
| 1.550 | 2.21111 | 2.13756 | −0.07355 | 2.2637 | 2.1823 |
| 2.000 | 2.19670 | 2.12533 | −0.07136 | 2.2599 | 2.1787 |
| 3.390 | 2.14473 | 2.08158 | −0.06315 | 2.2992 | 2.2115 |
| 5.000 | 2.05080 | 2.00253 | −0.04827 | 2.4142 | 2.3087 |
The birefringence shrinks by a factor 2.2 from 0.4 to 5 µm. The group index has its minimum where material group-velocity dispersion (GVD) changes sign: 1.913 µm (e) and 1.899 µm (o) derived.
Check against measurement: Nelson and Mikulyak measured no = 2.2866, ne = 2.2028 at 632.8 nm and 24.5 °C, and 2.2323, 2.1561 at 1060 nm P-comp. Zelmon gives 2.2865, 2.2022 at 632.8 nm: no differs by −0.0001, ne by −0.0006.
| Zelmon 1997 | o | P-db | 2.21111 | |
| Zelmon 1997 | e | P-db | 2.13756 | |
| Jundt 1997 | e | S | 2.13773 | |
| largest spread between models of one axis at the cursor | 1.7e−04 |
- Zelmon 1997, o
- 2.21111
- Zelmon 1997, e
- 2.13756
- Jundt 1997, e
- 2.13773
- Model spread, one axis
- 1.7e−04
nₑ < nₒ: negative uniaxial
Bars above the plot: validity window of each model (hatched outside). Filled and open dots: Nelson and Mikulyak, 24.5 °C, no and ne P-comp. Zelmon is defined at 21 °C only.
Models and errata
| Model | Material | Axes | T range | Status | Erratum or caveat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zelmon 1997 | CLN | o, e | 21 °C only | P-db | none for CLN |
| Zelmon 1997 | 5 mol% MgO:CLN | o, e | 21 °C only | P-db | Table 2 o/e headings switched; erratum published 2026-10-22 reported; the swap was stated in print in 2008 P. Coefficients copied from the 1997 table give ne > no, impossible for negative uniaxial LN |
| Jundt 1997 | CLN | e only | 20 to 250 °C | S | primary not held; f = (T − 24.5)(T + 570.82) as transcribed |
| Gayer 2008 | 5 mol% MgO:CLN, 1% MgO:SLN | e (both); o (MgO5) | ne 20 to 200 °C; no to 1620 nm, about 20 to 100 °C | P | erratum replaces Fig. 3 only, Table 1 unchanged P; dn/dT from its b coefficients is anomalous (below) |
| Schlarb, generalized | CLN to SLN, Mg, Zn, In | o, e | 400 to 1200 nm | S | accuracy about 2×10−3; 1993-1996 primaries not held |
| Edwards and Lawrence 1984 | CLN | o, e | T-dependent | [Edwards 1984] | coefficients not entered |
At 1550 nm: Jundt ne = 2.13786 at 24.5 °C vs Zelmon 2.13756 at 21 °C derived. Gayer 5 mol% MgO: ne = 2.13057, no = 2.20881 at 24.5 °C derived. Composition moves ne far more than no: near-stoichiometric LN (SLN) has no = 2.288, ne = 2.190 at 633 nm P-comp, so ne drops by 0.012 relative to CLN while no changes by +1.5×10−3; the generalized Sellmeier gives 2.2859 and 2.1867 at 50.0 mol% Li2O S.
Thermo-optic coefficients
| Quantity | Value (1/K) | Condition | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| dne/dT | 4.89×10−5 / 4.01×10−5 / 3.75×10−5 | CLN, 632.8 / 1064 / 1550 nm, 25 °C, Jundt | S derived |
| dne/dT | 4.12×10−5 | CLN, 632 nm, 300 K, fit (−2.6 + 22.4×10−3 T)×10−5 | S derived |
| dno/dT | 3.70×10−6 | CLN, 632 nm, 300 K, fit (−1.7 + 6.9×10−3 T)×10−5 | S derived |
| dne/dT | 3.34×10−5 | CLN, 1523 nm, 300 K | S |
| dn/dT from Gayer b coefficients | 2.65×10−4 (MgO5 e), 1.11×10−4 (MgO5 o), −7.08×10−5 (1% MgO:SLN e) | 1550 nm, 24.5 °C; not physical, not for absolute dn/dT | derived |
ne is about ten times more temperature-sensitive than no, so heating a plate changes its birefringence almost entirely through ne. Moretti's measured range is 320 to 515 K in the abstract and 300 to 515 K in the title reported.
L3 Computation and measurement
Conoscope
Each pixel is one propagation direction (u, v) = sin θair (cos φ, sin φ). Each eigenwave is refracted with its own index (the extraordinary angle by fixed-point iteration of eq. 2.2), so the retardation Γ = (2πd/λ)(nslow cos θslow − nfast cos θfast) is exact for plane waves. Between crossed polarizers I = sin2(2ψ) sin2(Γ/2), ψ the azimuth of the eigen-polarization relative to the polarizer: dark rings at Γ = 2πm, isogyres where ψ = 0 or 90°. Fresnel transmission differences between the eigenwaves are neglected. White light: I(λ) summed over eleven Gaussian-weighted samples from 420 to 680 nm [Born & Wolf]. The ring angles in L1 come from the exact phase, not the small-angle formula.
Field-induced biaxiality
For E along x or y on a z-cut plate, the in-plane impermeability splits by r22E, so the birefringence for propagation along z is no3r22E. At 632.8 nm, E = 1 kV/mm and r22 = 3.4 pm/V (clamped; Turner 1966 and Kaminow et al. 1980 agree P-comp), this is 4.064×10−5, a retardation of 0.404 rad for d = 1 mm derived. To first order the optic axes tilt from c by θ with (no − ne) sin2θ = no3r22E: 1.26° inside, 2.88° in air. The exact eigen-decomposition with the full tensor gives 1.27° / 2.91° for E along x and 1.22° / 2.80° for E along y (Kaminow set, r51 = 18.2 pm/V); the Turner set (r51 = 28 pm/V) gives 1.30° / 2.98° for E along x derived. The difference between x and y comes from r51, which the first-order formula omits; it reaches about 3%. A static field on an unclamped plate sees the free coefficients (Zook et al.: r22 = 6.81 pm/V P-comp), which roughly double the effect.
Evaluating Sellmeier models
Inputs are vacuum wavelength in µm and temperature in °C; every model refuses input outside its stated window. Tests: ne < no over the whole window (catches the 5 mol% MgO swap); Zelmon CLN at 1.55 µm: no = 2.21111, ne = 2.13756. Group index and GVD from analytic derivatives of n2(λ).
Error budget at 1550 nm derived
Zelmon (21 °C) and Jundt (24.5 °C) differ by 3.0×10−4 in ne; 3.5 K × dne/dT gives 1.3×10−4 of that, the remaining 1.7×10−4 is model-to-model spread. This spread moves the first-order SHG QPM period at 1550 nm by 13 nm (18.989 vs 18.976 µm). Composition and doping dominate every other uncertainty for ne (0.012 between CLN and SLN at 633 nm); indices here are for CLN unless another variant (SLN, 5 mol% MgO:CLN, 1% MgO:SLN) is named.
Primary-data caveats
Weis & Gaylord Table 2 misprints no at 472.7 nm as 3.3597; the neighbouring rows give 2.3597 P. Machine ingestion of that table needs the fix. The Zelmon and Jundt papers are not held: their coefficients are database (P-db) and secondary (S) transcriptions.
References
| Born & Wolf 2019 | Principles of Optics. (2019). | doi:10.1017/9781108769914 |
| Edwards & Lawrence 1984 | A temperature-dependent dispersion equation for congruently grown lithium niobate. Optical and Quantum Electronics 16 373-375 (1984). | doi:10.1007/bf00620081 |
| Gayer et al. 2008 | Temperature and wavelength dependent refractive index equations for MgO-doped congruent and stoichiometric LiNbO3. Applied Physics B 91 343-348 (2008). | doi:10.1007/s00340-008-2998-2 |
| Gayer et al. 2008 | Temperature and wavelength dependent refractive index equations for MgO-doped congruent and stoichiometric LiNbO3. Applied Physics B 94 367-367 (2008). | doi:10.1007/s00340-008-3316-8 |
| IEEE 1988 | IEEE Standard on Piezoelectricity (IEEE Std 176-1987). (1988). | doi:10.1109/IEEESTD.1988.79638 |
| J. R. M.-L. Schwesyg 2011 | Interaction of light with impurities in lithium niobate crystals. Dr. rer. nat. dissertation, Universitat Bonn (2011). | no DOI |
| Jundt 1997 | Temperature-dependent Sellmeier equation for the index of refraction, n_e, in congruent lithium niobate. Optics Letters 22 1553 (1997). | doi:10.1364/OL.22.001553 |
| Moretti et al. 2005 | Temperature dependence of the thermo-optic coefficient of lithium niobate, from 300 to 515 K in the visible and infrared regions. Journal of Applied Physics 98 036101 (2005). | doi:10.1063/1.1988987 |
| Nelson & Mikulyak 1974 | Refractive indices of congruently melting lithium niobate. Journal of Applied Physics 45 3688-3689 (1974). | doi:10.1063/1.1663839 |
| Polyanskiy 2024 | Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants. Scientific Data 11 94 (2024). | doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02898-2 |
| Volk & Wöhlecke 2009 | Lithium Niobate. Springer Series in Materials Science (2009). | doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70766-0 |
| Weis & Gaylord 1985 | Lithium niobate: Summary of physical properties and crystal structure. Applied Physics A Solids and Surfaces 37 191-203 (1985). | doi:10.1007/BF00614817 |
| Zelmon et al. 1997 | Infrared corrected Sellmeier coefficients for congruently grown lithium niobate and 5 mol% magnesium oxide –doped lithium niobate. Journal of the Optical Society of America B 14 3319 (1997). | doi:10.1364/JOSAB.14.003319 |
| Zelmon et al. 2026 | Infrared corrected Sellmeier coefficients for congruently grown lithium niobate and 5 mol. % magnesium oxide–doped lithium niobate: erratum. Journal of the Optical Society of America B 43 2788 (2026). | doi:10.1364/JOSAB.616304 |
| Zhu et al. 2021 | Integrated photonics on thin-film lithium niobate. Advances in Optics and Photonics 13 242 (2021). | doi:10.1364/AOP.411024 |