PPLN Λ = 18.99 µm · 1550 → 775 nm · 2 px/µm

2.5 Third-order effects

L1 Phenomenon

n2, Kerr combs, cascaded χ(2)

The index also rises with intensity, the optical Kerr effect:

n=n0+n2I

For LN, n2 = 9.33×10−20 m2/W at 1064 nm (Z-scan, 30 ps pulses, e-polarized) P-db, transcribed in refractiveindex.info. The widely tabulated 1.8×10−19 m2/W S is 1.9 times that derived and has no traced primary.

In a high-Q ring, four-wave mixing builds a Kerr frequency comb, and in the right detuning range a dissipative soliton. TFLN rings have produced self-starting solitons (He et al. 2019), combs spanning 4/5 of an octave at 335 GHz spacing with stimulated Raman scattering suppressed reported, full-octave solitons with near-unity device yield reported, and a photorefraction-stabilized soliton running for more than 13 h without feedback reported. One chip has generated a Kerr comb, selected a line with an electro-optic filter and modulated it reported.

A phase-mismatched χ(2) process imitates a Kerr effect whose size and sign the designer chooses: cascaded χ(2). Drag the mismatch Δk through zero: the cascaded phase grows as 1/Δk, flips sign and decays, while the Kerr phase stays fixed.

Kerr vs cascaded χ(2), 1550 nmeq. (2.16), RK4
+6.28e+04 /m
 100.0 mW
10.00 mm
  2600 %/W/cm²
 1.00 µm²
n2 source
0102−102104−104106−106010−4−10−410−2−10−21−1Δk (rad/m), symlogΔφNL (rad), symlog11× KerrKerr γPL
ΔφKerr = γKerrPL+3.78e−04 radderived
Δφcasc, eq. (2.16)−4.14e−03 radderived
Δφcasc, RK4 = −arg Aω−4.14e−03 radderived
Δφcasc / ΔφKerr  −10.9derived
net ΔφKerr + Δφcasc−3.76e−03 radderived
γKerr 0.378 /(W m)derived
γcasc = −ηnorm/Δk−4.14e+00 /(W m)derived
SH fraction, z-average1.32e−05derived
SH fraction, peak2.63e−05derived
cascaded signdefocusingderived
net signdefocusingderived
|Δk|L  628.3
2π/|Δk|  100.0 µm
eq. (2.16)Kerr γPL○ RK4, coupled equations■ RK4 at the cursordashed vertical: cursor
ηnorm 2600 %/W/cm2 reported P, L, Δk defaults template Aeff 1 µm2 template n2 9.33×10−20 m2/W P-db 1.8×10−19 m2/W S
LN waveguide, top view (schematic)input: 1550 nm775 nm second harmonic along z, peak 2.6e−05 of Pz = L = 10.0 mmz = 0−10−410−4−10−210−2−110Kerrcascaded11× Kerrnonlinear phase (rad), symlog; diamond: net
+6.28e+04 /m
 100.0 mW
10.00 mm
n2 source
Kerr phase γPL
+3.78e−04 rad
Cascaded phase
−4.14e−03 rad
Net phase
−3.76e−03 rad
Cascaded / Kerr
  −10.9
Net nonlinearity
defocusing
Harmonic fraction, z-average
1.32e−05

Positive phase raises the index and narrows the beam; Δk > 0 pushes the fundamental down. drawing

ηnorm 2600 %/W/cm2 reported P, L, Δk defaults template Aeff 1 µm2 template n2 P-db S 1550 nm: false color, dashed; 775 nm: spectral color

L2 Quantitative model

γ, eq. (2.16), Lugiato-Lefever

Kerr

γ=2πn2λAeff,ΔφKerr=γPL

The nonlinear parameter at 1550 nm with Aeff = 1 µm2 template is γKerr = 0.378 /(W m) derived, using n2 = 9.33×10−20 m2/W measured at 1064 nm; the dispersion of n2 to 1550 nm is not sourced.

Cascaded χ(2)

For |Δk|L >> 1 the coupled equations of 2.3 L3 give a fundamental-wave phase

ΔφNL=−ηnormPLΔk,γcasc=−ηnormΔk,Δk=k2ω−2kω−2πΛ(2.16)

ΔφNL carries the sign of a Kerr phase γPL (positive = index increase); in the field convention of 2.3 L3, arg Aω = −ΔφNL. The fundamental couples to a second harmonic detuned above it (Δk > 0) and is pushed down: a negative, self-defocusing nonlinearity. Δk < 0 gives self-focusing (principle: DeSalvo et al. 1992; sign from the level-repulsion picture derived). Along z the undepleted harmonic carries

|A2ω|2P=4ηnormPsin2(Δkz/2)Δk2
Worked exampleValueNoteStatus
ηnorm2.6×105 /(W m2)2600 %/W/cm2, TFLN PPLNreported
P, L, Δk0.1 W, 1 cm, 2π/(100 µm)design pointtemplate
ΔφNL, eq. (2.16)−4.1380×10−3 radself-defocusingderived
arg Aω, RK4+4.1378×10−3 radΔφNL = −arg Aωderived
|γcasc|4.1 /(W m)11 × γKerr = 0.378 /(W m)derived
harmonic fraction1.3×10−5z-average; peak 2.6×10−5derived

The cascaded nonlinearity is 11 times the Kerr one while on average only 1.3×10−5 of the power sits in the harmonic. In nanophotonic PPLN, strong phase mismatch broadens both harmonics with 2 pJ pulses reported.

Lugiato-Lefever equation

Normalized (Lugiato & Lefever 1987; Chembo & Menyuk 2013; Coen et al. 2013):

∂ψ∂t=−(1+iζ)ψ+i|ψ|2ψ+id22∂2ψ∂θ2+f(2.17)

ζ = 2(ω0 − ωp)/κ is the detuning, f the normalized pump, d2 the normalized second-order dispersion (anomalous: d2 > 0 here), θ the angle around the ring. Solitons exist on the red-detuned side above the bistability threshold; scanning the laser from blue to red crosses chaotic modulation instability into discrete soliton steps (Herr et al. 2014; review Kippenberg et al. 2018). Press Run: the scan starts on noise at ζ = −2, passes through chaos, and drops onto plateaus whose height counts the solitons; the default ends on one soliton with a sech2 spectrum.

Kerr soliton comb, eq. (2.17), N = 512, split-step Fouriertemplate
3.00
0.300
+10.00
Scan rate dζ/dt
Noise seed
ζ from −2 to ζ1, hold 15
−202468100246810detuning ζ⟨|ψ|²⟩√3 −128−64064128−120−100−80−60−40−200mode μ|ψμ|² (dB)−40 dB −π−π/20π/2π0510152025θ (rad)|ψ(θ)|²
solitons 1derived
ζ, laser detuning+10.00template
span (−40 dB)  53 linesderived
⟨|ψ|2⟩ 0.862
t (units of 2/κ)   3.0
sech2 fit, w / wHerr0.979derived
energy residual, one step9.6e−06derived
stateansatz
existence limit π2f2/8 11.10derived
Template ring → normalized parameters
λ, ng, FSR1550 nm, 2.30, 200 GHztemplate
QL, ηc = κex/κ2.0e+06, 0.50template
γ0.378 /(W m)derived
κ/2π, time unit 2/κ96.7 MHz, 3.29 nsderived
Pin = f2 × 9.36 mW  84.3 mWderived
D2/2π = d2κ/4π 14.51 MHzderived
(ω0 − ωp)/2π = ζκ/4π +483.5 MHzderived
soliton FWHM  172 fsderived
back: ζ, f, d2+10.00 3.00 0.300derived
simulatedtrace: homogeneous states (dotted: unstable); spectrum: Herr sech2 envelopenumbers on the trace: solitons per plateau
Default view: soliton ansatz at ζ1, relaxed for 3 time units. Run: homogeneous state plus noise at ζ = −2, linear scan, 15 time units at ζ1. Markers: ζ = √3 (bistability threshold), ζ = π2f2/8 (soliton existence limit).
pump, 1550 nmring
−202468100246810detuning ζ⟨|ψ|²⟩√3
0−20−40−60−8014001500160017001800wavelength (nm), template FSR 200 GHzdB
3.00
0.300
+10.00
Scan rate per 2/κ
Noise seed
Solitons
 1
Detuning ζ
+10.00
Span, −40 dB
  53 lines
Mean power ⟨|ψ|2⟩
 0.862
Time, units of 2/κ
   3.0
sech2 width / Herr
0.979
Energy residual, one step
9.6e−06
State
ansatz
Existence limit π2f2/8
 11.10

Faster scans and other seeds end on more solitons. template drawing

Template ring and normalized parameters template derived

λ, ng, FSR
1550 nm, 2.30, 200 GHz
Loaded Q, ηc = κex/κ
2.0e+06, 0.50
γ
0.378 /(W m)
κ/2π, time unit 2/κ
96.7 MHz, 3.29 ns
Pump Pin = f2 × 9.36 mW
  84.3 mW
D2/2π = d2κ/4π
 14.51 MHz
Laser detuning (ω0 − ωp)/2π
 +483.5 MHz
Soliton FWHM
  172 fs
Back to ζ, f, d2
+10.00 3.00 0.300

Default view: soliton ansatz at ζ1, relaxed for 3 time units. Run: homogeneous state plus noise at ζ = −2, linear scan, 15 time units at ζ1. Markers on the scan: ζ = √3 (bistability threshold) and, when inside the scan range, ζ = π2f2/8 (soliton existence limit).

All LLE parameters template Unit conversion template Comb and pump: 1550 nm band, false color, dashed

L3 Conventions and error sources

n2 data, normalization, numerics
  • Z-scan n2 depends on pulse duration (slow thermal and electrostrictive contributions grow with it), wavelength (two-photon absorption raises n2 toward the band edge) and polarization. No 1550 nm LN n2 measurement is held.
  • Cascaded contamination. An n2 measured in a non-centrosymmetric crystal can include a cascaded χ(2) contribution from residual phase mismatch; whether the tabulated LN values were corrected for it is not stated in the sources held.
  • Raman. LN is strongly Raman-active: soliton combs must place no cavity mode under the Raman gain peak or control the dissipation spectrum there reported reported. Raman gain coefficients for TFLN are not sourced here; the soliton simulation has no Raman term.
  • LN-specific dynamics. Photorefraction produces a blue shift that counteracts the thermal red shift and extends the soliton existence range, giving spontaneous, deterministic single solitons reported; self-starting LN solitons were first reported by He et al. 2019. The soliton simulation has no photorefractive or thermal term.

n2 of LN

λn2 (m2/W)ConditionsStatus
1064 nm9.33×10−20Z-scan, 30 ps, e-polarizedP-db
532 nm8.25×10−19same study; two-photon absorption regimeP-db
not stated1.8×10−19review table, no traced primaryS
1550 nm–no measurement held

LLE normalization

Time in units of 2/κ; field, pump and dispersion as in Chembo & Menyuk 2013, with κ = ω0/QL, ψ = √(2g0/κ) a (|a|2 = intracavity photons) and the Kerr frequency shift per photon g0 from the waveguide γ:

ζ=2(ω0−ωp)κ,d2=2D2κ,f2=8g0κexPinκ3ℏω0,g0=ℏω0γvgFSR

D2 from ωμ = ω0 + D1μ + D2μ2/2. Both views of the soliton simulation print this conversion for a template ring template.

Single-soliton approximation

ψ≈ψcw+2ζeiφ0sech(θ/w),w=d22ζ,cosφ0=8ζπf,|ψμ|2≈d24sech2πμw2

Herr et al. 2014 (Methods); ψcw is the lower homogeneous state. The soliton branch requires √(8ζ) ≤ πf, so it ends at ζ = π2f2/8; the mode powers follow from the Fourier series of the sech derived. The dashed soliton-comb spectra follow this envelope; for the default single soliton (ζ = 10, f = 3, d2 = 0.3) the fitted width is 0.979 of w.

Numerics of the soliton simulation

Strang split-step Fourier on N = 512 points in θ: Kerr rotation exp(i|ψ|2dt/2), then loss, detuning, dispersion and pump integrated exactly per mode, then the second Kerr half step; dt = 10−3. The scan advances ζ after every block of 20 steps, so a run is deterministic for a given seed; the first step of each block is the energy-balance check d⟨|ψ|2⟩/dt = −2⟨|ψ|2⟩ + 2f Re⟨ψ⟩ (dispersion and Kerr conserve energy).

References

16 sources cited in this section
Chembo & Menyuk 2013Spatiotemporal Lugiato-Lefever formalism for Kerr-comb generation in whispering-gallery-mode resonators. Physical Review A 87 053852 (2013).doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.87.053852
Coen et al. 2013Modeling of octave-spanning Kerr frequency combs using a generalized mean-field Lugiato–Lefever model. Optics Letters 38 37 (2013).doi:10.1364/OL.38.000037
DeSalvo et al. 1992Self-focusing and self-defocusing by cascaded second-order effects in KTP. Optics Letters 17 28 (1992).doi:10.1364/OL.17.000028
DeSalvo et al. 1996Infrared to ultraviolet measurements of two-photon absorption and n2 in wide bandgap solids. IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 32 1324-1333 (1996).doi:10.1109/3.511545
Gong et al. 2020Near-octave lithium niobate soliton microcomb. Optica 7 1275 (2020).doi:10.1364/OPTICA.400994
He et al. 2019Self-starting bi-chromatic LiNbO3 soliton microcomb. Optica 6 1138 (2019).doi:10.1364/OPTICA.6.001138
Herr et al. 2014Temporal solitons in optical microresonators. Nature Photonics 8 145-152 (2014).doi:10.1038/nphoton.2013.343
Jankowski et al. 2020Ultrabroadband nonlinear optics in nanophotonic periodically poled lithium niobate waveguides. Optica 7 40 (2020).doi:10.1364/OPTICA.7.000040
Kippenberg et al. 2018Dissipative Kerr solitons in optical microresonators. Science 361 eaan8083 (2018).doi:10.1126/science.aan8083
Lugiato & Lefever 1987Spatial Dissipative Structures in Passive Optical Systems. Physical Review Letters 58 2209-2211 (1987).doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.2209
Polyanskiy 2024Refractiveindex.info database of optical constants. Scientific Data 11 94 (2024).doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02898-2
Song et al. 2024Octave-spanning Kerr soliton frequency combs in dispersion- and dissipation-engineered lithium niobate microresonators. Light: Science & Applications 13 225 (2024).doi:10.1038/s41377-024-01546-7
Wan et al. 2024Photorefraction‐Assisted Self‐Emergence of Dissipative Kerr Solitons. Laser & Photonics Reviews 18 2300627 (2024).doi:10.1002/lpor.202300627
Wang et al. 2018Ultrahigh-efficiency wavelength conversion in nanophotonic periodically poled lithium niobate waveguides. Optica 5 1438 (2018).doi:10.1364/OPTICA.5.001438
Wang et al. 2019Monolithic lithium niobate photonic circuits for Kerr frequency comb generation and modulation. Nature Communications 10 978 (2019).doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08969-6
Zhu et al. 2021Integrated photonics on thin-film lithium niobate. Advances in Optics and Photonics 13 242 (2021).doi:10.1364/AOP.411024