Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
letter
. 2017 Nov 1;114(46):E9755–E9756. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1712762114

Better choices than optical angular momentum multiplexing for communications

David A B Miller a,1
PMCID: PMC5699074  PMID: 29093167

Using optical angular momentum (OAM) beams, Shi et al. (1) demonstrate multiple acoustic channels between arrays of sources and detection points. Even better channels with fewer resources are, however, possible. OAM is not an additional degree of freedom beyond normal spatial multiplexing; using only the OAM “topological charge,” l particularly limits the possible spatial channels, with no obvious advantage (2).

Spatial multiplexing in optics is well known (see ref. 3 for a history). For continuous source and receiver functions on circular or rectangular surfaces, prolate spheroidal functions are optimal (3, 4). For arbitrary problems (3), the singular-value decomposition (SVD) of the coupling operator G between the source and receiver spaces gives the optimum orthogonal channels or “communications modes,” with a sum rule (and generalized diffraction limit) S=Tr(GG) for the channel coupling strengths. Such truly orthogonal channels exist for any linear wave system (5, 6); they can be established automatically (7) and have fundamental importance in radiation laws (8).

For communications between parallel, concentric surfaces at wavelength λ, the number of available spatial channels within diffraction (and sum rule) limits is, approximately (3, 9), NCASAR/L2λ2, where AS and AR are the source and receiving surface areas, separated by distance L. This number is not increased by the use of OAM beams; such beams are merely another basis for describing spatial channels.

If only l is used to distinguish beams, omitting the additional orthogonal radial functions, then the OAM basis is not complete, and much of the “space-bandwidth product” (as in NC) is not utilized. Even imaging an array of sources onto an array of detectors should be better (2).

We can construct an NR×NS coupling matrix G between NS point sources and NR point receivers at sets of positions rSj and rRi, respectively, using the scalar Helmholtz wave equation Green’s function (3) to give matrix elements Gij=exp(2πi|rSjrRi|/λ)/4π|rSjrRi|. The SVD of G yields orthogonal vectors of source amplitudes that couple to corresponding orthogonal vectors of received amplitudes, with power coupling strengths |sm|2, where sm are the corresponding singular values and S=Tr(GG)m|sm|2.

Calculating for 5×5 planar square arrays of 25 sources and receivers on 3.5λ centers, and with the arrays separated by 100λ, yields nine exactly orthogonal channels, all with similar power couplings (i.e., within ×1.5 or 1.5 dB) and using a total of ∼86.5% of S. Assigning an effective area of (3.5λ)2 to each source and receiver also gives NC9. These numbers show good use of space-bandwidth product and/or S. (Six additional orthogonal channels up to approximately −7.7 dB weaker account for a further ∼12.8% of S.) Compared with Shi et al. (1), this gives more channels (9>8) with fewer sources (25<4×16=64) and receiver points (25<61to64 in figure S5 of ref. 1), with smaller cross-sectional areas of source and receiver arrays, and avoiding the up to −8.5 dB cross talk of ref. 1. [The bounding areas for sources and detection in Fig. 1 of ref. 1 imply NCπ×(12)2×(22.4)2/(100)223>>8, showing relatively poor utilization of space-bandwidth product in ref. 1.]

The study by Shi et al. (1) provides an important demonstration of spatial multiplexing, but we should avoid restricting just to OAM beams; generally, we have both better options and powerful techniques to establish them.

Supplementary Material

Footnotes

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Shi C, Dubois M, Wang Y, Zhang X. High-speed acoustic communication by multiplexing orbital angular momentum. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:7250–7253. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704450114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhao N, Li X, Li G, Kahn JM. Capacity limits of spatially multiplexed free-space communication. Nat Photonics. 2015;9:822–826. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Miller DAB. Communicating with waves between volumes: Evaluating orthogonal spatial channels and limits on coupling strengths. Appl Opt. 2000;39:1681–1699. doi: 10.1364/ao.39.001681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Frieden BR. Evaluation, design, and extrapolation methods for optical signals, based on the use of the prolate functions. In: Wolf E, editor. Progress in Optics IX. North-Holland; Amsterdam: 1971. pp. 311–407. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Miller DAB. All linear optical devices are mode converters. Opt Express. 2012;20:23985–23993. doi: 10.1364/OE.20.023985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Miller DAB. Self-configuring universal linear optical component. Photon Res. 2013;1:1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Miller DAB. Establishing optimal wave communication channels automatically. J Lightwave Technol. 2013;31:3987–3994. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Miller DAB, Zhu L, Fan S. Universal modal radiation laws for all thermal emitters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:4336–4341. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701606114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Miller DAB. Attojoule optoelectronics for low-energy information processing and communications: A tutorial review. IEEE/OSA J Lightwave Technol. 2017;35:343–393. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES