Leaky modes of a left-handed slab
A. Moreau
LASMEA, UMR CNRS 6602, Université Blaise Pascal, 24 avenue des Landais, 63177
Aubière, France.
D. Felbacq
GES UMR CNRS 5650, Université de Montpellier II, Bat. 21, CC074, Place E.
Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 05, France.
Using complex plane analysis we show that left-handed slab may support either leaky
slab waves, which are backward because of negative refraction, or leaky surface waves,
which are backward or forward depending on the propagation direction of the surface
wave itself. Moreover, there is a general connection between the reflection coefficient of
the left-handed slab and the one of the corresponding right-handed slab (with opposite
permittivity and permeability) so that leaky slab modes are excited for the same angle of
incidence of the impinging beam for both structures. Many negative giant lateral shifts
can be explained by the excitation of these leaky modes.
Keywords: Left-handed materials, leaky modes, complex plane analysis
1 Introduction
Left-handed materials [1] have long been considered a theoretical oddity. Since it has been
demonstrated that they could be produced using metamaterials [2], they have attracted
much attention. The basic physics of left-handed materials (LHM) is truly exotic and has
been completely ignored until recently, it renews the physics of lamellar structures to the
extend that a bare slab of LHM exhibits many surprising properties : it can for instance
support unusual guided modes [3,4] or behave as a perfect lens [5]. In this paper, we study
the exotic properties of the different types of leaky waves supported by a left-handed slab.
Given the importance of the left-handed slab for both fundamental and applied works,
there is obviously a need for a clear understanding of these properties.
We particularly show that two types of leaky waves are supported by such a structure
(i) leaky slab waves which are always backward due to negative refraction and (ii) leaky
surface waves which do not exist for a right-handed slab and which can be backward or
forward. The excitation of these modes leads to positive or negative giant lateral shifts,
the latter being rather exotic [6].
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0414v3
2 Leaky modes and giant lateral shifts
A leaky mode [6] is a solution of the wave equation which verifies the relation dispersion of
a structure but with a propagative solution above and (or) under the structure. Whereas
a guided mode has a real propagation constant, the propagation constant of a leaky
mode is complex because the energy of the waves leaks out of the structure and the
waves is attenuated. A leaky wave is thus a complex solution of the dispersion relation
and a complex plane analysis is thus particularly relevant for a thorough analysis of its
properties. Let us underline that a leaky mode may be either forward, which is common, or
backward, leading to a propagation constant which has a positive (respectively negative)
imaginary part.
Let us consider a slab characterized by ε2 and µ2 surrounded by right-handed media with
ε1 and µ1 (resp. ε3 and µ3) above (resp. under) the slab as shown figure 1. The values
we have chosen for ε2 and µ2 are arbitrary but realistic [7] so that this structure could be
realized using split-ring resonators and wires.
ε µ3 3
ε µ1 1
ε µ2 2
Figure 1: The LHM slab of thickness h surrounded by right-handed media.
We may assume that ε1 µ1 ≥ ε3 µ3 with no loss of generality.
The relation dispersion of such a structure can be written
r21 r23 = exp(−2iγ2 h) (1)
where γi =
εi µi k
0 − α2, k0 = ωc =
and rij =
κi−κj
κi+κj
with κi =
in TE polarization
(or κi =
in TM polarization). Since ε1 µ1 ≥ ε3 µ3 and we are concerned with leaky
waves, we will only consider values of α such that α <
ε1 µ1 k0, which means that the
solution will always be propagative at least in medium 1.
Let us now consider the reflection coefficient of a plane wave exp(i(αx+γ z−ω t)) coming
from upwards with an angle of incidence θ so that α = n k0 sin θ. Its reflection coefficient
can be written
r23 exp(2iγ2 h)− r21
1− r21 r23 exp(2iγ2 h)
using the above definitions.
It is obvious that when the relation dispersion is verified, then the reflection coefficient
presents a pole. A leaky mode thus corresponds to a pole of the reflection coefficient.
A zero, located on the other side of the real axis, corresponds to each pole. As we will
see in the following, a zone where the phase of r quickly varies lies between a pole and
its corresponding zero. This zone crosses the real axis, so that the presence of a pole is
responsible for a swift variation of the phase on the real axis.
When considering the reflection of a gaussian beam on a structure whose reflection co-
efficient has a modulus equal to one (so that it can be written r = eiφ), the lateral
displacement of the reflected beam’s barycenter along the interface is given by the well
known formula
δ = −dφ
. (3)
This lateral displacement is the sign that a leaky wave has been excited by the incident
beam. The reflected beam then has two components : the part which is reflected by
the first interface of the structure (whose barycenter is not particularly displaced) and
the leaky wave itself [6]. The reflected beam is heavily distorted by the leaky wave and
presents an exponentially decreasing tail so that its barycenter is largely displaced : this
is the so-called giant lateral shift.
This effect is sometimes called a giant Goos-Hänchen effect, but in this case the shift is
due to the excitation of a leaky mode [6] and not, as in the real Goos-Hänchen effect [8,9],
to the total reflection.
3 The left-handed slab
With left-handed materials, though, negative lateral shifts seem to be much more common
[10–14] than once expected [6]. Here we will consider the case of a left-handed slab (i.e.
if ε2 < 0 and µ2 < 0) and explain why the leaky modes supported by such a structure are
usually backward. Our explanations will be supported by a complex plane analysis of the
leaky modes.
Here the expression (2) of the reflection coefficient remains perfectly valid. We will now
distinguish two cases : the case when the solution is propagative in the left-handed medium
and the case when the solution is evanescent in region 2.
3.1 Leaky slab modes
When the field is propagative in the left-handed slab, large negative lateral shifts have
been reported but not interpreted [13]. These shifts are due to the excitation of leaky slab
modes or Perot-Fabry resonances of the slab at non normal incidence. Such leaky modes
have already been studied for a right-handed slab [15] and they can be considered as
constructive interferences of the multiple beams which are produced by reflections on the
interfaces of the slab. In the case of a left-handed slab, since the first beam undergoes a
negative refraction as shown figure 2 these constructive interferences will logically generate
a backward leaky mode. We may thus conclude that the existence of such a backward
leaky mode is linked to negative refraction.
Figure 2: Modulus of the field for a thick left-handed slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −3,µ2 = −1 and h = 60 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ and
an incidence angle of θ = 45.
This argument is not a proof, though : unexpected lateral shifts have been reported when
the beams interfere destructively [16]. But if the leaky modes are backward, then the
corresponding solutions of the dispersion relation and the poles of the reflection coefficient
should have a negative imaginary part. This is what is shown figure 3.
Figure 3: The phase of the reflection coefficient in a part of the complex plan [0, n1 k0] +
i[−k0
]. Each black point represents a pole and each white point a zero. The cut line is
clearly visible here. The rapid variation of the phase which is due to each pole is obvious.
Two types of leaky slab waves should be distinguished (i) L2 waves which are leaky in
both the upper and the lower media and (ii) L1 waves which are leaky only in the upper
medium and evanescent in the lower one. The latter correspond to the poles located under
the cut line.
Using complex plane analysis we will now try to show that all the solutions of the disper-
sion relation 1 are located in the lower part of the complex plane, meaning that all the
leaky modes are backward.
When the relation dispersion is satisfied, then the following condition holds :
|r23 r21| = e2 γ
h. (4)
As demonstrated in the annex, |rij > 1 whenever one of the media is left-handed. Since
medium 2 is left-handed then the condition
h > 1 (5)
should be satisfied, which is possible for γ′′2 > 0 and therefore for α
′′ < 0 (see the annex
for details). The fact that rij > 1 is thus the main reason why the poles of r are under
the axis and why the leaky slab modes are backward.
We must underline the fact that our demonstration is valid only for the first Riemann
sheet : our proof cannot exclude that there may be some poles on the other Riemann sheet
above the real axis, corresponding to forward L1 leaky slab waves when ε1 µ1 > ε3 µ3. But
we could not find any.
3.2 Leaky surface modes
Let us now consider the situation in which the field is evanescent in the left- handed
medium. Then γ2 is purely imaginary on the real axis. Since e
2 γ′′
h tends towards infinity
when h → +∞ then relation (4) can be verified only if r23 has a pole (r21 cannot have
one since the field is always propagative in the upper medium). This means that the
structure may support a leaky mode only if the interface between medium 2 and 3 can
support a guided mode. It is now well-known that such an interface actually supports a
surface mode [17,18] which can, depending on media 2 and 3, be backward (resp. forward)
corresponding to a pole under the real axis (resp. above the real axis but on the other
Riemann sheet). The leaky wave always has the same propagation direction as the surface
mode, whatever the thickness of the slab, as shown figure 4. In the case of a forward leaky
wave, only the zero belongs to the first Riemann sheet, just under the real axis. The pole
shown figure 4 belongs to the other Riemann sheet.
 0.05
 0.15
 0.25
 0.35
 1.05  1.1  1.15  1.2  1.25  1.3  1.35  1.4  1.45  1.5
−0.45
−0.35
−0.25
−0.15
−0.05
 1.7  1.75  1.8  1.85  1.9  1.95  2  2.05  2.1  2.15  2.2
Figure 4: Location of the poles in the α
complex plane for different values of h with
ε1 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = ε3 = 1 and (a) ε2 = −0.5 and µ2 = −1.5, showing a forward surface
mode and (b) ε2 = −5 and µ2 = −0.5, showing a backward surface mode.
Figure 5 finally shows the excitation of a backward leaky surface wave by a gaussian
beam. The chosen values of µ2 may be obtained with simple split ring resonators [19] for
instance.
Figure 5: Modulus of the field for a left-handed slab with ǫ1 = 9,ǫ3 = µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −0.5,µ2 = −1.5 and h = 0.6 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ
and an incidence angle of θ = 21.496. The pole corresponding to the leaky mode is located
at αp = (1.0993 + 0.001267i) k0.
4 Fundamental property
Let us a consider a structure with left-handed materials. We will call corresponding
right-handed structure the structure obtained by replacing any left-handed medium by a
medium with opposite permittivity and permeability, without changing the geometrical
parameters.
In this section, we will concentrate on the link between the reflection coefficient of a
left-handed slab and the one of its corresponding right-handed structure.
Let us consider the interface between a right-handed medium labelled i and a left-handed
medium j. The reflection coefficient of such an interface is rij . We will now define
r+ij the reflection coefficient of an interface between medium i and right-handed medium
characterized by |εj| and |muj|. It is not difficult to see, from the expression of rij that
. (6)
This allows to understand why the Goos-Hänchen shift of an interface between a right-
and a left-handed medium is the opposite of the corresponding right-handed structure [11]
since the phases of both structures are opposite on the real axis.
The reflection coefficient r can now be written
e2iγ2 h
1− e2iγ2 h
r+23 e
−2iγ2 h − r+21
1− r+21 r+23 e−2iγ2 h
Since
except when z is on the cut line, then γ(z∗) = γ(z)∗ and hence r+ij(z)
∗) so that
r(z)∗ =
∗) e2iγ2(z
∗)h − r+21(z∗)
1− r+21(z∗) r+23(z∗) e2iγ2(z
, (10)
which can simply be written
r(z)∗ = r+(z∗), (11)
where r+ is the coefficient reflection of the corresponding right-handed slab. Note that
this relation does not hold on the cut line, but that it holds for the two Riemann sheets.
This means that the poles of the left-handed slab and the poles of the corresponding
right-handed slab are symmetrical with respect to the real axis. This means that L2
waves can be excited for the same incidence angle for both structures. This is not the
case for L1 modes : the function r on the real axis is continuous with the lower part of
the first Riemann sheet whatever the situation and the poles which are above the cut line
thus have no effect on the real axis.
As an example, we have computed the field in TE polarization inside and around the slab
when it is illuminated with a gaussian beam for the left-handed slab and its corresponding
right-handed structure. The results are shown figures 6 and 7.
Figure 6: Modulus of the field for a symmetrical slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = 1.5, µ2 = 1 and h = 1.3 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ and
an incidence angle of θ = 22.78.
Figure 7: Modulus of the field for a symmetrical slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −1.5, µ2 = −1. and h = 1.3 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ
and an incidence angle of θ = 22.78. The pole corresponding to the leaky mode is located
at αp = (1.16823− 0.01125i) k0
5 The grounded left-handed slab
The grounded left-handed slab is a much more simple structure for (i) there is no need to
distinguish two different types of leaky slab modes and (ii) the structure can not support
any leaky surface mode. All the leaky modes are then slab modes and are found for
α < n2 k0. The reflection coefficient of the grounded slab is given by (2) with r23 = −1 for
the TE polarization and r23 = 1 for the TM polarization so that the relation dispersion
gives
|r12| = e2 γ
h. (12)
Since |r12| > 1 then all the solutions of the dispersion relation are located in the lower
part of the complex plane so that they are all backward.
It is then easy to show that the relation r+(z)∗ = r(z∗) still holds. As a consequence,
the leaky modes of a grounded left-handed slab and of its corresponding right-handed
structure can be excited for the same angle of incidence of the impinging beam.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have thoroughly studied the leaky modes of a left-handed slab for realistic
values of the permittivity and permeability of the left-handed medium [7,19,20] which can
be obtained using structures like split-ring resonators. Our results can be summarized as
follows. Left-handed slab may support two types of leaky modes :
• Leaky slab modes, which are always backward because of the negative refraction
phenomenon. When the transmission is not null, leaky modes of the left-handed
slab and of its corresponding right-handed structure are excited for the same angle
of incidence.
• Leaky surface modes, which may be backward or forward depending on the propa-
gation direction of the surface wave itself.
This work could help to interpret many giant lateral shifts as excitations of exotic leaky
waves [12, 13, 16]. Since the existence of backward slab waves is linked to the property
of negative refraction, and since these leaky waves constitute a signature of a left-handed
slab behavior we think that they could be used to characterize the left-handedness of
metamaterial or photonic crystal structures far better than other methods [21].
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the French National Agency for Research (ANR), project
030/POEM. The authors would like to thank Alexandru Cabuz and Kevin Vynck for their
help.
Annex
In this annex, we will clearly define the choice we have made for the definition of the
complex square root and prove that for z on the first Riemann sheet (but not on the cut
line) we have |rij(z)| > 1 when media i and j are not both right-handed.
Since the square root can be continued on the complex plane, r and rij can be continued
as well. We have chosen to take
2 with z = r eiθ and θ ∈]−π, π], as a definition
of the square root. This means that we have placed the cut line on the negative part of
the real axis and if x is a positive real,
−x = i
x. This defines the square root on the
entire complex plane, to which we refer as the first Riemann sheet. When we write that
z is on the second Riemann sheet, it will mean that we have taken the opposite of
defined above.
With this choice, we have (i) ℜ(
z) ≥ 0 (ii)
for z on both sheets but not on
the cut line (iii) if ℑ(z) < 0, ℑ(
z) < 0 and if ℑ(z) > 0, ℑ(
z) > 0 (iv) the function
γ(z) =
ǫ µ k20 − z2 has a cut line on the real axis (on ] − ∞,−n k0] ∪ [n k0,+∞] more
precisely) and the function γ on the real axis is continuous with the part of the complex
plane which is under the cut line : when z passes through the cut line from the first
Riemann sheet (coming from the lower part of the plane) to the second Riemann sheet,
γ(z) is continuous. When a function which can be written using γ(z) presents a pole,
it must be found either (i) for z on the first Riemann sheet and under the real axis (we
will say that the pole itself is on the first Riemann sheet in this case) or (ii) for z on the
second Riemann sheet but above the real axis.
We have
rij =
κi − κj
κi + κj
. (13)
The modulus of rij reads as
|rij|2 =
(κi − κj) (κ∗i − κ∗j )
(κi + κj) (κ
i + κ
|κi|2 + |κj|2 − 2 (κ′i κ′j + κ′′i κ′′j )
|κi|2 + |κj|2 + 2 (κ′i κ′j + κ′′i κ′′j )
, (15)
where κ = κ′ + i κ′′.
Let us define x and y the real and imaginary part of z = x + i y on the first Riemann
sheet. Let us assume that x > 0. We have
n2 k20 − z2 =
n2 k20 − x2 + y2 − 2 i x y. (17)
If y > 0, then x y > 0 and thus ℑ(n2 k20 − z2) < 0 so that finally ℑ(γ) < 0. If y < 0,
then x y < 0 so that ℑ(γ) > 0. Since γ(−z) = γ(z) the result will hold for x < 0 too and
for x = 0, γ(z) is real and positive so that the result obviously holds. So the imaginary
part of γ(z) is positive (resp. negative) when the imaginary part of z is negative (resp.
positive).
For any right-handed medium, κ has the same property than γ. For a left-handed medium,
since κ = γ
or κ = γ
depending on the polarization, the imaginary part of κ has the sign
of ℑ(z). Since i and j are not both right-handed, then κ′′i and κ′′j have not the same sign
and the product κ′′i κ
j is always negative. Since ℜ(
z) > 0 for all z on the first Riemann
sheet then κ′i κ
j is always negative too.
Finally, since κ′i κ
j + κ
j < 0, we have |rij| > 1 for all z except on the real axis. Please
note that rij is not, in the particular case of a left-handed medium, the reflection coefficient
on the interface [22].
REFERENCES
[1] V. Veselago, “The Electrodynamics of substances with simultaneously negative values
of ǫ and µ”, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 92 517 (1967).
[2] R. Shelby, D. Smith, and S. Shultz, “Experimental Verification of a Negative Index
of Refraction”, Science 292 77 (2001).
[3] I. Shadrivov, A. Sukhorukov, and Y. Kivshar, “Guided modes in negative-refractive-
index waveguides”, Phys. Rev. E 67 057602 (2003).
[4] P. Tichit, A. Moreau, and G. Granet, “Localization of light in a lamellar structure
with left-handed medium : the Light Wheel”, Opt. Expr. 15 14961–14966 (2007).
[5] J. Pendry, D. Schuring, and D. Smith, “Controlling Electromagnetic Fields”, Science
312 1780 (2006).
[6] T. Tamir and H. Bertoni, “Lateral displacement of optical beams at multilayered and
periodic structures”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61 1397 (1971).
[7] D. R. Smith, S. Schultz, P. Makos, and C. M. Soukoulis, “Determination of effec-
tive permittivity and permeability of metamaterials from reflection and transmission
coefficients”, Phys. Rev. B 65 195104 (2002).
[8] F. Goos and H. Haenchen, “Ein neuer und fundamentaler Versuch zur Totalreflexion”,
Ann. Phys. 1 333 (1947).
[9] D. Felbacq, A. Moreau, and R. Smaali, “Goos-Haenchen effect in the gaps of photonic
crystals”, Opt. Lett. 28 1633 (2003).
[10] A. Lakhtakia, “On plane wave remittances and Goos-Haenchen shifts of planar slabs
with negative real permittivity and permeability”, Electromagnetics 23 71 (2003).
[11] P. Berman, “Goos-Haenchen shift in negatively refractive media”, Phys. Rev. E 66
067603 (2002).
[12] I. Shadrivov, A. A. Zharov, and Y. Kivshar, “Giant Goos-Haenchen effect at the
reflection from left-handed materials”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83 2713 (2002).
[13] L. Wang and S. Zhu, “Large negative lateral shifts from the Kretschman-Raether
configuration with left-handed materials”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87 221102 (2005).
[14] A. Moreau and D. Felbacq, “Comment on ’Large negative lateral shifts from the
Kretschman-Raether configuration with left-handed materials”’, Appl. Phys. Lett.
90 066102 (2007).
[15] F. Pillon, H. Gilles, S. Girard, M. Laroche, R. Kaiser, and A. Gazibegovic, “Goos-
Haenchen and Imbert-Fedorov shifts for leaky guided modes”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B
22 1290 (2005).
[16] X. Chen and C. Li, “Lateral shift of the transmitted light beam through a left-handed
slab”, Phys. Rev. E 69 066617 (2004).
[17] R. Ruppin, “Surface polaritons of a left-handed medium”, Phys. Lett. A 277 61
(2000).
[18] I. Shadrivov, A. Sukhorukov, Y. Kishvar, A. Zharov, A. Boardman, and P. Egan,
“Non-linear surface waves in left-handed materials”, Phys. Rev. E 69 016617 (2004).
[19] C. Soukoulis, T. Koschny, J. Zhou, M. Kafesak, and E. Economou, “Magnetic re-
sponse of split ring resonators at terahertz frequencies”, Phys. Stat. Sol. B 244
1181–1187 (2007).
[20] S. O’Brien and J. B. Pendry, “Photonic band-gap effect and magnetic activity in
dielectric composites”, J. Phys. : Condens. Matter 14 4035–4044 (2002).
[21] J. Kong, B. Wu, and Y. Zhang, “Lateral displacement of a Gaussian beam reflected
from a grounded slab with negative permittivity and permeability”, Appl. Phys. Lett.
80 2084 (2002).
[22] D. Felbacq and A. Moreau, “Direct evidence of negative refraction at media with
negative ε and µ”, J. Opt. A : Pure and Appl. Opt. 5 L9 (2003).
	Introduction
	Leaky modes and giant lateral shifts
	The left-handed slab
	Leaky slab modes
	Leaky surface modes
	Fundamental property
	The grounded left-handed slab
	Conclusion

  Using complex plane analysis we show that left-handed slab may support either
leaky slab waves, which are backward because of negative refraction, or leaky
surface waves, which are backward or forward depending on the propagation
direction of the surface wave itself. Moreover, there is a general connection
between the reflection coefficient of the left-handed slab and the one of the
corresponding right-handed slab (with opposite permittivity and permeability)
so that leaky slab modes are excited for the same angle of incidence of the
impinging beam for both structures. Many negative giant lateral shifts can be
explained by the excitation of these leaky modes.

Introduction
Left-handed materials [1] have long been considered a theoretical oddity. Since it has been
demonstrated that they could be produced using metamaterials [2], they have attracted
much attention. The basic physics of left-handed materials (LHM) is truly exotic and has
been completely ignored until recently, it renews the physics of lamellar structures to the
extend that a bare slab of LHM exhibits many surprising properties : it can for instance
support unusual guided modes [3,4] or behave as a perfect lens [5]. In this paper, we study
the exotic properties of the different types of leaky waves supported by a left-handed slab.
Given the importance of the left-handed slab for both fundamental and applied works,
there is obviously a need for a clear understanding of these properties.
We particularly show that two types of leaky waves are supported by such a structure
(i) leaky slab waves which are always backward due to negative refraction and (ii) leaky
surface waves which do not exist for a right-handed slab and which can be backward or
forward. The excitation of these modes leads to positive or negative giant lateral shifts,
the latter being rather exotic [6].
http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0414v3
2 Leaky modes and giant lateral shifts
A leaky mode [6] is a solution of the wave equation which verifies the relation dispersion of
a structure but with a propagative solution above and (or) under the structure. Whereas
a guided mode has a real propagation constant, the propagation constant of a leaky
mode is complex because the energy of the waves leaks out of the structure and the
waves is attenuated. A leaky wave is thus a complex solution of the dispersion relation
and a complex plane analysis is thus particularly relevant for a thorough analysis of its
properties. Let us underline that a leaky mode may be either forward, which is common, or
backward, leading to a propagation constant which has a positive (respectively negative)
imaginary part.
Let us consider a slab characterized by ε2 and µ2 surrounded by right-handed media with
ε1 and µ1 (resp. ε3 and µ3) above (resp. under) the slab as shown figure 1. The values
we have chosen for ε2 and µ2 are arbitrary but realistic [7] so that this structure could be
realized using split-ring resonators and wires.
ε µ3 3
ε µ1 1
ε µ2 2
Figure 1: The LHM slab of thickness h surrounded by right-handed media.
We may assume that ε1 µ1 ≥ ε3 µ3 with no loss of generality.
The relation dispersion of such a structure can be written
r21 r23 = exp(−2iγ2 h) (1)
where γi =
εi µi k
0 − α2, k0 = ωc =
and rij =
κi−κj
κi+κj
with κi =
in TE polarization
(or κi =
in TM polarization). Since ε1 µ1 ≥ ε3 µ3 and we are concerned with leaky
waves, we will only consider values of α such that α <
ε1 µ1 k0, which means that the
solution will always be propagative at least in medium 1.
Let us now consider the reflection coefficient of a plane wave exp(i(αx+γ z−ω t)) coming
from upwards with an angle of incidence θ so that α = n k0 sin θ. Its reflection coefficient
can be written
r23 exp(2iγ2 h)− r21
1− r21 r23 exp(2iγ2 h)
using the above definitions.
It is obvious that when the relation dispersion is verified, then the reflection coefficient
presents a pole. A leaky mode thus corresponds to a pole of the reflection coefficient.
A zero, located on the other side of the real axis, corresponds to each pole. As we will
see in the following, a zone where the phase of r quickly varies lies between a pole and
its corresponding zero. This zone crosses the real axis, so that the presence of a pole is
responsible for a swift variation of the phase on the real axis.
When considering the reflection of a gaussian beam on a structure whose reflection co-
efficient has a modulus equal to one (so that it can be written r = eiφ), the lateral
displacement of the reflected beam’s barycenter along the interface is given by the well
known formula
δ = −dφ
. (3)
This lateral displacement is the sign that a leaky wave has been excited by the incident
beam. The reflected beam then has two components : the part which is reflected by
the first interface of the structure (whose barycenter is not particularly displaced) and
the leaky wave itself [6]. The reflected beam is heavily distorted by the leaky wave and
presents an exponentially decreasing tail so that its barycenter is largely displaced : this
is the so-called giant lateral shift.
This effect is sometimes called a giant Goos-Hänchen effect, but in this case the shift is
due to the excitation of a leaky mode [6] and not, as in the real Goos-Hänchen effect [8,9],
to the total reflection.
3 The left-handed slab
With left-handed materials, though, negative lateral shifts seem to be much more common
[10–14] than once expected [6]. Here we will consider the case of a left-handed slab (i.e.
if ε2 < 0 and µ2 < 0) and explain why the leaky modes supported by such a structure are
usually backward. Our explanations will be supported by a complex plane analysis of the
leaky modes.
Here the expression (2) of the reflection coefficient remains perfectly valid. We will now
distinguish two cases : the case when the solution is propagative in the left-handed medium
and the case when the solution is evanescent in region 2.
3.1 Leaky slab modes
When the field is propagative in the left-handed slab, large negative lateral shifts have
been reported but not interpreted [13]. These shifts are due to the excitation of leaky slab
modes or Perot-Fabry resonances of the slab at non normal incidence. Such leaky modes
have already been studied for a right-handed slab [15] and they can be considered as
constructive interferences of the multiple beams which are produced by reflections on the
interfaces of the slab. In the case of a left-handed slab, since the first beam undergoes a
negative refraction as shown figure 2 these constructive interferences will logically generate
a backward leaky mode. We may thus conclude that the existence of such a backward
leaky mode is linked to negative refraction.
Figure 2: Modulus of the field for a thick left-handed slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −3,µ2 = −1 and h = 60 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ and
an incidence angle of θ = 45.
This argument is not a proof, though : unexpected lateral shifts have been reported when
the beams interfere destructively [16]. But if the leaky modes are backward, then the
corresponding solutions of the dispersion relation and the poles of the reflection coefficient
should have a negative imaginary part. This is what is shown figure 3.
Figure 3: The phase of the reflection coefficient in a part of the complex plan [0, n1 k0] +
i[−k0
]. Each black point represents a pole and each white point a zero. The cut line is
clearly visible here. The rapid variation of the phase which is due to each pole is obvious.
Two types of leaky slab waves should be distinguished (i) L2 waves which are leaky in
both the upper and the lower media and (ii) L1 waves which are leaky only in the upper
medium and evanescent in the lower one. The latter correspond to the poles located under
the cut line.
Using complex plane analysis we will now try to show that all the solutions of the disper-
sion relation 1 are located in the lower part of the complex plane, meaning that all the
leaky modes are backward.
When the relation dispersion is satisfied, then the following condition holds :
|r23 r21| = e2 γ
h. (4)
As demonstrated in the annex, |rij > 1 whenever one of the media is left-handed. Since
medium 2 is left-handed then the condition
h > 1 (5)
should be satisfied, which is possible for γ′′2 > 0 and therefore for α
′′ < 0 (see the annex
for details). The fact that rij > 1 is thus the main reason why the poles of r are under
the axis and why the leaky slab modes are backward.
We must underline the fact that our demonstration is valid only for the first Riemann
sheet : our proof cannot exclude that there may be some poles on the other Riemann sheet
above the real axis, corresponding to forward L1 leaky slab waves when ε1 µ1 > ε3 µ3. But
we could not find any.
3.2 Leaky surface modes
Let us now consider the situation in which the field is evanescent in the left- handed
medium. Then γ2 is purely imaginary on the real axis. Since e
2 γ′′
h tends towards infinity
when h → +∞ then relation (4) can be verified only if r23 has a pole (r21 cannot have
one since the field is always propagative in the upper medium). This means that the
structure may support a leaky mode only if the interface between medium 2 and 3 can
support a guided mode. It is now well-known that such an interface actually supports a
surface mode [17,18] which can, depending on media 2 and 3, be backward (resp. forward)
corresponding to a pole under the real axis (resp. above the real axis but on the other
Riemann sheet). The leaky wave always has the same propagation direction as the surface
mode, whatever the thickness of the slab, as shown figure 4. In the case of a forward leaky
wave, only the zero belongs to the first Riemann sheet, just under the real axis. The pole
shown figure 4 belongs to the other Riemann sheet.
 0.05
 0.15
 0.25
 0.35
 1.05  1.1  1.15  1.2  1.25  1.3  1.35  1.4  1.45  1.5
−0.45
−0.35
−0.25
−0.15
−0.05
 1.7  1.75  1.8  1.85  1.9  1.95  2  2.05  2.1  2.15  2.2
Figure 4: Location of the poles in the α
complex plane for different values of h with
ε1 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = ε3 = 1 and (a) ε2 = −0.5 and µ2 = −1.5, showing a forward surface
mode and (b) ε2 = −5 and µ2 = −0.5, showing a backward surface mode.
Figure 5 finally shows the excitation of a backward leaky surface wave by a gaussian
beam. The chosen values of µ2 may be obtained with simple split ring resonators [19] for
instance.
Figure 5: Modulus of the field for a left-handed slab with ǫ1 = 9,ǫ3 = µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −0.5,µ2 = −1.5 and h = 0.6 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ
and an incidence angle of θ = 21.496. The pole corresponding to the leaky mode is located
at αp = (1.0993 + 0.001267i) k0.
4 Fundamental property
Let us a consider a structure with left-handed materials. We will call corresponding
right-handed structure the structure obtained by replacing any left-handed medium by a
medium with opposite permittivity and permeability, without changing the geometrical
parameters.
In this section, we will concentrate on the link between the reflection coefficient of a
left-handed slab and the one of its corresponding right-handed structure.
Let us consider the interface between a right-handed medium labelled i and a left-handed
medium j. The reflection coefficient of such an interface is rij . We will now define
r+ij the reflection coefficient of an interface between medium i and right-handed medium
characterized by |εj| and |muj|. It is not difficult to see, from the expression of rij that
. (6)
This allows to understand why the Goos-Hänchen shift of an interface between a right-
and a left-handed medium is the opposite of the corresponding right-handed structure [11]
since the phases of both structures are opposite on the real axis.
The reflection coefficient r can now be written
e2iγ2 h
1− e2iγ2 h
r+23 e
−2iγ2 h − r+21
1− r+21 r+23 e−2iγ2 h
Since
except when z is on the cut line, then γ(z∗) = γ(z)∗ and hence r+ij(z)
∗) so that
r(z)∗ =
∗) e2iγ2(z
∗)h − r+21(z∗)
1− r+21(z∗) r+23(z∗) e2iγ2(z
, (10)
which can simply be written
r(z)∗ = r+(z∗), (11)
where r+ is the coefficient reflection of the corresponding right-handed slab. Note that
this relation does not hold on the cut line, but that it holds for the two Riemann sheets.
This means that the poles of the left-handed slab and the poles of the corresponding
right-handed slab are symmetrical with respect to the real axis. This means that L2
waves can be excited for the same incidence angle for both structures. This is not the
case for L1 modes : the function r on the real axis is continuous with the lower part of
the first Riemann sheet whatever the situation and the poles which are above the cut line
thus have no effect on the real axis.
As an example, we have computed the field in TE polarization inside and around the slab
when it is illuminated with a gaussian beam for the left-handed slab and its corresponding
right-handed structure. The results are shown figures 6 and 7.
Figure 6: Modulus of the field for a symmetrical slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = 1.5, µ2 = 1 and h = 1.3 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ and
an incidence angle of θ = 22.78.
Figure 7: Modulus of the field for a symmetrical slab with ǫ1 = ǫ3 = 9, µ1 = µ3 = 1,
ǫ2 = −1.5, µ2 = −1. and h = 1.3 λ using a gaussian incident beam with a waist of 20 λ
and an incidence angle of θ = 22.78. The pole corresponding to the leaky mode is located
at αp = (1.16823− 0.01125i) k0
5 The grounded left-handed slab
The grounded left-handed slab is a much more simple structure for (i) there is no need to
distinguish two different types of leaky slab modes and (ii) the structure can not support
any leaky surface mode. All the leaky modes are then slab modes and are found for
α < n2 k0. The reflection coefficient of the grounded slab is given by (2) with r23 = −1 for
the TE polarization and r23 = 1 for the TM polarization so that the relation dispersion
gives
|r12| = e2 γ
h. (12)
Since |r12| > 1 then all the solutions of the dispersion relation are located in the lower
part of the complex plane so that they are all backward.
It is then easy to show that the relation r+(z)∗ = r(z∗) still holds. As a consequence,
the leaky modes of a grounded left-handed slab and of its corresponding right-handed
structure can be excited for the same angle of incidence of the impinging beam.
6 Conclusion
In this paper, we have thoroughly studied the leaky modes of a left-handed slab for realistic
values of the permittivity and permeability of the left-handed medium [7,19,20] which can
be obtained using structures like split-ring resonators. Our results can be summarized as
follows. Left-handed slab may support two types of leaky modes :
• Leaky slab modes, which are always backward because of the negative refraction
phenomenon. When the transmission is not null, leaky modes of the left-handed
slab and of its corresponding right-handed structure are excited for the same angle
of incidence.
• Leaky surface modes, which may be backward or forward depending on the propa-
gation direction of the surface wave itself.
This work could help to interpret many giant lateral shifts as excitations of exotic leaky
waves [12, 13, 16]. Since the existence of backward slab waves is linked to the property
of negative refraction, and since these leaky waves constitute a signature of a left-handed
slab behavior we think that they could be used to characterize the left-handedness of
metamaterial or photonic crystal structures far better than other methods [21].
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the French National Agency for Research (ANR), project
030/POEM. The authors would like to thank Alexandru Cabuz and Kevin Vynck for their
help.
Annex
In this annex, we will clearly define the choice we have made for the definition of the
complex square root and prove that for z on the first Riemann sheet (but not on the cut
line) we have |rij(z)| > 1 when media i and j are not both right-handed.
Since the square root can be continued on the complex plane, r and rij can be continued
as well. We have chosen to take
2 with z = r eiθ and θ ∈]−π, π], as a definition
of the square root. This means that we have placed the cut line on the negative part of
the real axis and if x is a positive real,
−x = i
x. This defines the square root on the
entire complex plane, to which we refer as the first Riemann sheet. When we write that
z is on the second Riemann sheet, it will mean that we have taken the opposite of
defined above.
With this choice, we have (i) ℜ(
z) ≥ 0 (ii)
for z on both sheets but not on
the cut line (iii) if ℑ(z) < 0, ℑ(
z) < 0 and if ℑ(z) > 0, ℑ(
z) > 0 (iv) the function
γ(z) =
ǫ µ k20 − z2 has a cut line on the real axis (on ] − ∞,−n k0] ∪ [n k0,+∞] more
precisely) and the function γ on the real axis is continuous with the part of the complex
plane which is under the cut line : when z passes through the cut line from the first
Riemann sheet (coming from the lower part of the plane) to the second Riemann sheet,
γ(z) is continuous. When a function which can be written using γ(z) presents a pole,
it must be found either (i) for z on the first Riemann sheet and under the real axis (we
will say that the pole itself is on the first Riemann sheet in this case) or (ii) for z on the
second Riemann sheet but above the real axis.
We have
rij =
κi − κj
κi + κj
. (13)
The modulus of rij reads as
|rij|2 =
(κi − κj) (κ∗i − κ∗j )
(κi + κj) (κ
i + κ
|κi|2 + |κj|2 − 2 (κ′i κ′j + κ′′i κ′′j )
|κi|2 + |κj|2 + 2 (κ′i κ′j + κ′′i κ′′j )
, (15)
where κ = κ′ + i κ′′.
Let us define x and y the real and imaginary part of z = x + i y on the first Riemann
sheet. Let us assume that x > 0. We have
n2 k20 − z2 =
n2 k20 − x2 + y2 − 2 i x y. (17)
If y > 0, then x y > 0 and thus ℑ(n2 k20 − z2) < 0 so that finally ℑ(γ) < 0. If y < 0,
then x y < 0 so that ℑ(γ) > 0. Since γ(−z) = γ(z) the result will hold for x < 0 too and
for x = 0, γ(z) is real and positive so that the result obviously holds. So the imaginary
part of γ(z) is positive (resp. negative) when the imaginary part of z is negative (resp.
positive).
For any right-handed medium, κ has the same property than γ. For a left-handed medium,
since κ = γ
or κ = γ
depending on the polarization, the imaginary part of κ has the sign
of ℑ(z). Since i and j are not both right-handed, then κ′′i and κ′′j have not the same sign
and the product κ′′i κ
j is always negative. Since ℜ(
z) > 0 for all z on the first Riemann
sheet then κ′i κ
j is always negative too.
Finally, since κ′i κ
j + κ
j < 0, we have |rij| > 1 for all z except on the real axis. Please
note that rij is not, in the particular case of a left-handed medium, the reflection coefficient
on the interface [22].
REFERENCES
[1] V. Veselago, “The Electrodynamics of substances with simultaneously negative values
of ǫ and µ”, Usp. Fiz. Nauk. 92 517 (1967).
[2] R. Shelby, D. Smith, and S. Shultz, “Experimental Verification of a Negative Index
of Refraction”, Science 292 77 (2001).
[3] I. Shadrivov, A. Sukhorukov, and Y. Kivshar, “Guided modes in negative-refractive-
index waveguides”, Phys. Rev. E 67 057602 (2003).
[4] P. Tichit, A. Moreau, and G. Granet, “Localization of light in a lamellar structure
with left-handed medium : the Light Wheel”, Opt. Expr. 15 14961–14966 (2007).
[5] J. Pendry, D. Schuring, and D. Smith, “Controlling Electromagnetic Fields”, Science
312 1780 (2006).
[6] T. Tamir and H. Bertoni, “Lateral displacement of optical beams at multilayered and
periodic structures”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 61 1397 (1971).
[7] D. R. Smith, S. Schultz, P. Makos, and C. M. Soukoulis, “Determination of effec-
tive permittivity and permeability of metamaterials from reflection and transmission
coefficients”, Phys. Rev. B 65 195104 (2002).
[8] F. Goos and H. Haenchen, “Ein neuer und fundamentaler Versuch zur Totalreflexion”,
Ann. Phys. 1 333 (1947).
[9] D. Felbacq, A. Moreau, and R. Smaali, “Goos-Haenchen effect in the gaps of photonic
crystals”, Opt. Lett. 28 1633 (2003).
[10] A. Lakhtakia, “On plane wave remittances and Goos-Haenchen shifts of planar slabs
with negative real permittivity and permeability”, Electromagnetics 23 71 (2003).
[11] P. Berman, “Goos-Haenchen shift in negatively refractive media”, Phys. Rev. E 66
067603 (2002).
[12] I. Shadrivov, A. A. Zharov, and Y. Kivshar, “Giant Goos-Haenchen effect at the
reflection from left-handed materials”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83 2713 (2002).
[13] L. Wang and S. Zhu, “Large negative lateral shifts from the Kretschman-Raether
configuration with left-handed materials”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87 221102 (2005).
[14] A. Moreau and D. Felbacq, “Comment on ’Large negative lateral shifts from the
Kretschman-Raether configuration with left-handed materials”’, Appl. Phys. Lett.
90 066102 (2007).
[15] F. Pillon, H. Gilles, S. Girard, M. Laroche, R. Kaiser, and A. Gazibegovic, “Goos-
Haenchen and Imbert-Fedorov shifts for leaky guided modes”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B
22 1290 (2005).
[16] X. Chen and C. Li, “Lateral shift of the transmitted light beam through a left-handed
slab”, Phys. Rev. E 69 066617 (2004).
[17] R. Ruppin, “Surface polaritons of a left-handed medium”, Phys. Lett. A 277 61
(2000).
[18] I. Shadrivov, A. Sukhorukov, Y. Kishvar, A. Zharov, A. Boardman, and P. Egan,
“Non-linear surface waves in left-handed materials”, Phys. Rev. E 69 016617 (2004).
[19] C. Soukoulis, T. Koschny, J. Zhou, M. Kafesak, and E. Economou, “Magnetic re-
sponse of split ring resonators at terahertz frequencies”, Phys. Stat. Sol. B 244
1181–1187 (2007).
[20] S. O’Brien and J. B. Pendry, “Photonic band-gap effect and magnetic activity in
dielectric composites”, J. Phys. : Condens. Matter 14 4035–4044 (2002).
[21] J. Kong, B. Wu, and Y. Zhang, “Lateral displacement of a Gaussian beam reflected
from a grounded slab with negative permittivity and permeability”, Appl. Phys. Lett.
80 2084 (2002).
[22] D. Felbacq and A. Moreau, “Direct evidence of negative refraction at media with
negative ε and µ”, J. Opt. A : Pure and Appl. Opt. 5 L9 (2003).
	Introduction
	Leaky modes and giant lateral shifts
	The left-handed slab
	Leaky slab modes
	Leaky surface modes
	Fundamental property
	The grounded left-handed slab
	Conclusion
