Surface angular momentum of light

beams
Marco Ornigotti1 and Andrea Aiello2,3,∗
1
Institute of Applied Physics, Friedrich-Schiller University, Jena, Max-Wien Platz 1, 07743
Jena, Germany
2
Max Planck Institute for the Science of Light, Günther-Scharowsky-Strasse 1/Bau24, 91058
Erlangen, Germany
3
Institute for Optics, Information and Photonics, University of Erlangen-Nuernberg,
Staudtstrasse 7/B2, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
∗
[email protected]

Abstract: Traditionally, the angular momentum of light is calculated

for “bullet-like” electromagnetic wave packets, although in actual optical
experiments “pencil-like” beams of light are more commonly used. The
fact that a wave packet is bounded transversely and longitudinally while a
beam has, in principle, an infinite extent along the direction of propagation,
renders incomplete the textbook calculation of the spin/orbital separation of
the angular momentum of a light beam. In this work we demonstrate that
a novel, extra surface part must be added in order to preserve the gauge
invariance of the optical angular momentum per unit length. The impact of
this extra term is quantified by means of two examples: a Laguerre-Gaussian
and a Bessel beam, both circularly polarized.
© 2014 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (260.0260) Physical optics; (260.6042) Singular optics; (260.2110) Electromag-
netic optics.

References and links

1. J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (Dover, 1954).
2. J. H. Poynting, “The wave motion of a revolving shaft, and a suggestion as to the angular momentum in a beam
of circularly polarised light,” Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 82, 560–567 (1909).
3. R. A. Beth, “Mechanical detection and measurement of the angular momentum of light,” Phys. Rev. 50, 115–125
(1936).
4. C. G. Darwin, “Notes on the theory of radiation,” Proc. R. Soc. London A 136, 36–52 (1932).
5. L. Allen, M. W. Beijersbergen, R. J. C. Spreeuw, and J. P. Woerdman, “Orbital angular momentum of light and
the transformation of Laguerre-Gaussian laser modes,” Phys. Rev. A 45, 8185–8189 (1992).
6. S. M. Barnett and L. Allen, “Orbital angular momentum and nonparaxial light beams,” Opt. Commun. 110,
670–678 (1994).
7. S. J. van Enk and G. Nienhuis, “Spin and orbital angular momentum of photons,” Europhys. Lett. 25, 497–501
(1994).
8. S. J. van Enk and G. Nienhuis, “Commutation rules and eigenvalues of spin and orbital angular momentum of
radiation fields,” J. Mod. Opt. 41, 963–977 (1994).
9. S. M. Barnett, “Optical angular-momentum flux,” J. Opt. B Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 4, S7–S16 (2002).
10. M. V. Berry, “Optical currents,” J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 11, 094001 (2009).
11. C.-F. Li, “Spin and orbital angular momentum of a class of nonparaxial light beams having a globally defined
polarization,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 063814 (2009).
12. K. Y. Bliokh, M. A. Alonso, E. A. Ostrovskaya, and A. Aiello, “Angular momenta and spin-orbit interaction of
nonparaxial light in free space,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 063825 (2010).
13. S. M. Barnett, “Rotation of electromagnetic fields and the nature of optical angular momentum,” J. Mod. Opt.
57, 1339–1343 (2010).

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6586
 14. I. Bialynicki-Birula and Z. Bialynicki-Birula, “Canonical separation of angular momentum of light into its orbital
and spin parts,” J. Opt. 13, 064014 (2011).
15. O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, “Observation of the spin Hall effect of light via weak measurements,” Science 319,
787–790 (2008).
16. A. Aiello and J. P. Woerdman, “Role of beam propagation in Goos-Hänchen and Imbert-Fedorov shifts,” Opt.
Lett. 33, 1437–1439 (2008).
17. M. Onoda, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, “Hall effect of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 083901 (2004).
18. K. Y. Bliokh and Y. P. Bliokh, “Conservation of angular momentum, transverse shift, and spin Hall effect in
reflection and refraction of an electromagnetic wave packet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 073903 (2006).
19. A. Y. Bekshaev, “Oblique section of a paraxial light beam: criteria for azimuthal energy flow and orbital angular
momentum,” J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 11, 094003 (2009).
20. A. Aiello, N. Lindlein, C. Marquardt, and G. Leuchs, “Transverse angular momentum and geometric spin Hall
effect of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 100401 (2009).
21. S. Franke-Arnold, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, “Advances in optical angular momentum,” Laser Photonics Rev. 2,
299–313 (2008).
22. Optical Angular Momentum, L. Allen, S. M. Barnett, and M. J. Padgett, eds. (Institute of Physics, 2003).
23. K. Y. Bliokh, A. Aiello, and M. Alonso, “Spin-orbit interactions of light in isotropic media,” in The Angular
Momentum of Light, D. L. Andrews and M. Babiker, eds. (Cambridge University, 2012), pp. 174–245.
24. H. A. Haus and J. L. Pan, “Photon spin and the paraxial wave equation,” Am. J. Phys. 61, 818–821 (1993).
25. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Photons and Atoms (Wiley-VCH, 2004), Chap. I.
26. J. B. Götte and S. M. Barnett, “Light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” in The Angular Momentum of
Light, D. L. Andrews and M. Babiker, eds. (Cambridge University, 2012), pp. 1–30.
27. J. H. Crichton and P. L. Marston, “The measurable distinction between the spin and orbital angular momenta of
electromagnetic radiation,” Electron. J. Diff. Eq. Conf. 04, 37–50 (2000).
28. T. A. Nieminen, A. B. Stilgoe, N. R. Heckenberg, and A. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, “Angular momentum of a strongly
focused Gaussian beam,” J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 10, 115005 (2008).
29. J. Humblet, “Sur le moment d’impulsion d’une onde électromagnètique,” Physica 10, 585–603 (1943).
30. M. Lax, W. H. Louisell, and W. B. McKnight, “From Maxwell to paraxial wave optics,” Phys. Rev. A 11, 1365–
1370 (1975).
31. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University, 1995).
32. R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Oxford University, 2000).
33. J. J. M. Braat, P. Dirksen, A. J. E. M. Janssen, and A. S. van de Nes, “Extended Nijboer-Zernike representation
of the vector field in the focal region of an aberrated high-aperture optical system,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 20,
2281–2292 (2003).
34. J. J. M. Braat, S. van Haver, A. J. E. M. Janssen, and P. Dirksen, “Energy and momentum flux in a high-numerical-
aperture beam using the extended Nijboer-Zernike diffraction formalism,” J. Eur. Opt. Soc. Rapid 2, 07032
(2007).
35. D. B. Ruffner and D. G. Grier, “Optical forces and torques in nonuniform beams of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,
173602 (2012).
36. A. E. Siegman, Lasers (University Science Books, 1986).
37. The same “correction” factor β was found in [6]. However, the expression (4.4) in [6], when evaluated for
l = 0 = p in the paraxial limit 1/(2kzR ) = θ02 /4 ≪ 1 gives Jz /E ≃ (σz /ω )(1 + θ02 /4) instead of Jz /E ≃
(σz /ω )(1 − θ02 /4), as given by Eq. (8) in [28]. The difference between the two results resides in the fact that
different types of beams and geometries (planar versus spherical) are considered.
38. W. L. Erikson and S. Singh, “Polarization properties of Maxwell-Gaussian laser beams,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 5778–
5786 (1994).
39. J. Leach, J. Courtial, K. Skeldon, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and M. J. Padgett, “Interferometric methods
to measure orbital and spin, or the total angular momentum of a single photon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 013601
(2004).
40. O. G. Rodrı́guez-Herrera, D. Lara, K. Y. Bliokh, E. A. Ostrovskaya, and C. Dainty, “Optical nanoprobing via
spin-orbit interaction of light,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 253601 (2010).
41. P. Banzer, U. Peschel, S. Quabis, and G. Leuchs, “On the experimental investigation of the electric and magnetic
response of a single nano-structure,” Opt. Express 18, 10905–10923 (2010).

1. Introduction
In his Treatise of Electricity and Magnetism [1], Maxwell pointed out that the electromagnetic
field carries both energy and momentum, and that the momentum can have both linear and
angular contributions. Today it is common knowledge that the angular momentum (AM) of
light can be thought of having two contributions: a spin part associated to polarization (firstly

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6587
theoretically investigated by Poynting [2] and then experimentally demonstrated by Beth [3]),
and an orbital part associated with the spatial distribution of the field, as first recognised by
Darwin [4]. About sixty years later, thanks to the seminal work of Allen and Woerdman [5],
the topic of AM of light experienced a new renaissance, producing a considerable amount of
literature on the subject, including theoretical discussions about the separation of AM in spin
and orbital parts for optical beams [6–14], the spin-Hall effect of light [15–18], the geometric
spin-Hall effect of light [19,20], and a huge variety of experimental applications such as optical
tweezers, spatial light modulators and vortex beams. A satisfactory review of the development
of the field of optical AM of light can be found in Refs. [21–23].
The AM of light has been frequently separated, by many authors, into a spin part and an
orbital part (see, e.g., [24] for a didactic presentation of the subject). As emphasized by Bir-
ula&Birula [14] such separation can be either gauge dependent or gauge invariant. The latter
result is achieved, according to Darwin [4], by expressing the optical AM in terms of the Fourier
transform of the electromagnetic fields. On the contrary, the gauge dependent separation is ob-
tained, traditionally, when in the expression of the optical AM
!
J = ε0 E × B) d3 r,
r × (E (1)

the magnetic field B is replaced by the curl of the vector potential A , namely B = ∇ × A . After
partial integration Eq. (1) takes the split form [25, 26]
! ! ! " #
J = ε0 E × A d3 r + ε0 ∑ Eξ (rr × ∇) Aξ d3 r − ε0 ∑ ∇ξ Eξ r × A d3 r, (2)
ξ ξ

where ξ ∈ {x, y, z} and the first and the second integral represent the spin part and the orbital
part, respectively, of the optical AM. The third integrals is usually omitted in the textbook ex-
pressions of J because, as consequence of the Gauss’ theorem, it will be identically zero if
the fields vanish sufficiently quickly as |rr | → ∞. This requirement, as pointed out by Crich-
ton&Marston [27] and Nieminen et al. [28], is often understood while its fulfillment should
be carefully checked case by case. For example, the electric and magnetic fields of an optical
“bullet-like” wave packet with a finite transverse and longitudinal (with respect to the direction
of propagation) extent, by definition vanish as |rr | → ∞ and the third term in Eq. (2) can be safely
neglected. However, this is no longer true for a “pencil-like” beam of light whose span along the
direction of propagation is virtually infinite. This simple but important fact was already noticed
by Barnett&Allen [6] (see Eqs. (3.15-18) in their paper) who, nevertheless, simply classified
the third integral in Eq. (2) as a nonparaxial contribution to the AM per unit length of the beam
and did not investigate its physical content.
In this paper we thoroughly investigate the physical nature of the latter term in Eq. (2) that
we call the “Surface Angular Momentum” (SuAM) of light. At the fundamental level, we
demonstrate that even for an optical beam with a small angular spread around the direction
of propagation (paraxial beams), the SuAM term must be retained in order to guarantee the
gauge invariance of the theory. From an experimental point of view, we show that SuAM arises
whenever the intensity of an optical beam is recorded by a planar detector which, in practice,
performs a two dimensional integration over a cross section of the beam perpendicular to its
direction of propagation. As this is the case occurring in the majority of experimental optical
setups, we believe that the impact of our new results may be significant. All our conclusions
are valid for light beams propagating in free space.
The structure of this Article is as follows. In Sec. II we first calculate the total AM density
j (rr ) of a monochromatic beam of light described in terms of the vector potential A . Then, by
following the standard procedure, we decompose j (rr ) into the sum of three terms: the well-
known orbital and spin AM parts and the third term, leading to the SuAM. Next, we integrate

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6588
 j (rr ) upon a two-dimensional surface at z = const., mimicking the detection process, thus ob-
taining the total AM per unit length J . This unravels the nature of the SuAM term and how it
manifests in the actual detection of the AM of a light beam. For the sake of completeness, we
conclude this section by calculating the explicit form of the SuAM for the cases of Laguerre-
Gaussian and Bessel beams. In Sec. III we calculate again J but, this time, in a gauge invariant
manner by using the angular spectrum representation of the electric and magnetic fields. Then,
by comparing the expressions for J obtained in Secs. II and III we show that the SuAM term
cannot be neglected even for paraxial optical beams. Finally, we draw our conclusions.

2. Theory of SuAM
To begin with, consider a monochromatic beam of light with angular frequency ω whose real
electric and magnetic fields E (rr ,t) and B (rr ,t) are expressed in terms of the complex field
amplitudes E (rr ) and B(rr ) as E (rr ,t) = Re[E
E (rr ) exp(−iω t)] and B (rr ,t) = Re[B
B(rr ) exp(−iω t)].
Following van Enk and Nienhuis [8] we write the cycle-averaged linear momentum, angular
momentum and energy densities, respectively,
ε0
p (rr ) = E ∗ × B) ,
Re (E (3a)
2
ε0
j (rr ) = r × Re (E E ∗ × B) , (3b)
2
ε0 " #
u(rr ) = E · E ∗ + c2 B · B ∗ , (3c)
4
where E and B are written in terms of the transverse vector potential A (rr ) as [25]

E = iω A and B = ∇ × A with ∇ · A = 0. (4)

By using Eqs. (3) and (4) we can express the AM densities j (rr ) as [27, 29]:
$ &'
ω ε0 " # ∂ % ∗
j (rr ) = Re A ∗ · − irr × ∇ A − iA
A∗ × A + i ∑ Aξ (rr × A ) . (5)
2 ξ ∈{x,y,z}
∂ξ

According to [27], the first term in Eq. (5) represents the orbital part of the AM and the second
term gives the spin AM of light. The third term is a three-divergence that vanishes when inte-
grated over a volume V whose surface boundary S is far enough from the field sources to give
A(rr )|S ≈ 0 . However, as noticed in [27], the latter relation should be checked whenever the
decomposition (5) is used. In the remainder of this Article, we will show some consequences
of the failure of the relation A(rr )|S ≈ 0 .
Haus and Pan [24] pointed out that for a monochromatic beam of light of angular frequency
ω propagating in the z direction, the classical optics analogous of the helicity ±h̄ of a photon,
namely the projection of the spin AM along the direction of the linear momentum, is given by
the ratio êez · J /U = ±1/ω , where J and U denote the cycle-averaged AM and energy per unit
length:
! !
J= j (rr ) d2 r, U= u(rr ) d2 r, (6)

where d2 r = dx dy and the integrations extend over all the plane xy at z = const. It should be
noticed that for a monochromatic optical beam that can be represented by a superposition of
homogeneous plane waves solely (namely, without contributions from evanescent waves) both
J and U do not depend upon the longitudinal coordinate z and, therefore, are conserved during

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6589
free propagation. Henceforth, we shall use over line symbol to denote normalization according
to the rule
J
J= . (7)
U/ω

This definition of helicity is consistent with the physical picture of a beam of light as observed
on a laboratory bench, where it travels across plates, lenses and other optical devices before
eventually shining the surface of a planar detector. Last but not least, it should be noticed that
the calculations by Haus and Pan [24] are valid not only in the strict paraxial limit where the
fields are purely transverse with respect to the propagation axis z, but also when first-order
corrections (in the sense of Lax et al., [30]), leading to small longitudinal fields components,
are accounted for.
As a consequence of the surface integration, a beam-like field “feels” the contribution given
by the z-part of the latter term in Eq. (5), namely ∂!z [A∗z (rr × A )], because such
! a term is not
integrated when one calculates J . In practice, since ∂ξ [A∗ξ (rr × A )] d2 r = ∂z A∗z (rr × A ) d2 r,
we can write the SuAM contribution in the following form:
! ( )
∂
J surf = Re iA∗z (rr × A) d2 r, (8)
∂z
* +
A∗ × A ) − r · (A
where Re iA∗z (rr × A ) = i [z(A A∗ × A )êez ] /2. From Eq. (8) it appears that the J surf
depends both on the potential vector A and the position vector r , thus revealing a seemingly hy-
brid spin/orbital nature. Now, we can calculate J surf from Eq. (8) by writing the vector potential
as a superposition of homogeneous plane waves
!
1 , (kk ⊥ ) exp (irr ⊥ · k ⊥ + iz kz ) d2 k,
A(rr ) = A (9)
2π

where A , (kk ⊥ ) : k · A
, (kk ⊥ ) = 0 is the so-called angular spectrum of the field evaluated at
z = 0 [31] and k = (kx , ky , kz ) is the wave vector with k = |kk | and ω = k c. For the sake of
consistency, henceforth we shall use the following notation: r ⊥ = (x, y, 0), k ⊥ = (kx , ky , 0),
r ⊥ · k ⊥ = x kx + y ky , k⊥ = |kk ⊥ | and d2 k = dkx dky . By definition, kz is not an independent vari-
able and can be fixed to the non-negative value kz = +(k2 − k⊥ 2 1/2
) ≥ 0, which is appropriate
for the forward homogeneous fields considered here. For a circularly polarized optical beam,
the angular spectrum can be chosen of the form

, (kk ⊥ ) = A(k
A , k ⊥ )ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ),
- .
, k ⊥ )| exp i α
= |A(k , (kk ⊥ ) ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ), (10)

where the real-valued amplitude |A(k, k ⊥ )| and phase α

, (kk ⊥ ) determines the spatial profile of the
beam and ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) is the complex-valued polarization vector defined as:

ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) = n σ − k (kk · n σ ) /k2
= − k × (kk × nσ ) /k2 . (11)
√
In the equation above n σ = (êex + iσ êey )/ 2 with σ = ±1, represents the wave vector-
independent configuration-space helicity assigned in the (global) laboratory reference frame

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6590
{êex , êey , êez }. By definition ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) is not normalized; however, since its norm

ε ∗⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) · ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) = 1 − |kk · n σ |2 /k2
2
k⊥
= 1−
2k2
≡ 1 − ϑ 2, (12)

is polarization-independent, we can assume that the normalization factor√is tacitly contained in

, k ⊥ ). Here, the dimensionless parameter 0 ≤ ϑ < 1/ 2:
the expression of A(k

kx2 + ky2
ϑ2 = , (13)
2k2
defines the angular spread of the beam around the direction of propagation z, and the paraxial
regime is characterized by angular spectra such that the condition ϑ ≪ 1 is satisfied. At this
point, by substituting Eq. (9) into Eq. (5) and using Eqs. (10) and (11) one obtains after a
straightforward calculation the orbital part
! / 0
orb ε0 ω , 2 kx kz ∂α, 2
Jx = − |A | σ 2 + kz d k, (14a)
2 k + kz2 ∂ ky
! / 0
ε0 ω , |2 σ k y k z − k z ∂ α , 2
Jyorb = − |A d k, (14b)
2 k2 + kz2 ∂ ky
! / 2
1 20
ε0 ω , |2 σ ϑ ∂α, ∂α,
Jzorb = |A + k x − k y d2 k, (14c)
2 1−ϑ2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

the spin part

!
Jxspin =
ε0 ω , |2 kx kz d2 k,
2 σ |A (15a)
2 k2 + kz2
!
Jyspin =
ε0 ω , |2 ky kz d2 k,
2 σ |A (15b)
2 k2 + kz2
!
ε0 ω , |2 1 − 2ϑ 2 2
Jzspin = σ |A d k, (15c)
2 1−ϑ2
and the surface part of the optical AM per unit of length:
!
Jxsurf = −
ε0 ω , |2 kx kz d2 k,
σ |A (16a)
2 k2 + kz2
!
Jysurf = −
ε0 ω , |2 ky kz d2 k,
σ |A (16b)
2 k2 + kz2
!
ε0 ω , |2 ϑ2
Jzsurf = σ |A d2 k. (16c)
2 1−ϑ2
In addition, the energy per unit length is given by
!
U ε0 ω , |2 d2 k.
= |A (17)
ω 2
Note that all the quantities (14-17) are z-independent, so they cannot vanish if one would per-
form an additional integration along the axis z to obtain the AMs in a given, finite, volume.

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6591
 The explicit form for J surf is the first main result of this Article. What does it represent? First
of all, it should be noticed that at this stage the angular spectrum A , (kk ⊥ ) is perfectly general
and may represent, for example, an electromagnetic beam with arbitrary orbital AM. The z-
component of the integrand in Eq. (16c) is proportional to ϑ 2 /(1 − ϑ 2 ) as noticed already
in [6]. This contribution is O(ϑ 2 ) and therefore disappears in the strict paraxial limit where
such terms are not retained [24]. In order to understand better how J surf affects the total AM
per unit length we sum the three contribution and obtain
! / 1 20
orb spin surf ε0 ω , 2 σ ∂α, ∂α ,
Jz + Jz + Jz = A
| | + kx − ky d2 k. (18)
2 1−ϑ2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

It is instructive to compare Eq. (18) with Eq. (38) in [9] where Barnett calculates the ratio
between the cycle-averaged angular momentum density flux Mzz and the energy density flux
F through the xy plane, namely Mzz /F . In our case, for a circularly polarized beam with
helicity σ and by using Eq. (9), it follows that
! / 1 20
ε0 c2 , 2 ∂α, ∂α,
Mzz = A
| | kz σ + kx − ky d2 k, (19)
2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

and
!
c2 ε0 ω , |2 kz d2 k.
F= |A (20)
2

The main difference between Eq. (18) and Eq. (19) resides, apart from the trivial factor c2 /ω ,
in the extra multiplicative term kz = k(1 − 2ϑ 2 )1/2 ≃ k(1 − ϑ 2 ) in the integrand. Of course,
in the paraxial limit kz → k and the two expressions coincides. There is, however, a pro-
found conceptual and practical difference between the energy density U and the energy den-
sity flux F (Poynting vector flux). The physical quantity that is actually measured by com-
mon detection devices as CCD detectors, photographic plates, photoresists, etc., is the time-
averaged value of the scalar energy density (namely, loosely speaking, the number of pho-
tons in the unit volume) integrated over the detector surface, rather than the Poynting vec-
tor flux [32–34]. This distinction between scalar and vector quantities becomes crucial when
measuring spin-dependent non-paraxial optical phenomena as, e.g., the geometric spin Hall ef-
fect of light [20]. In fact, the standard theory of photo-detection (see, e.g., sec. 4.11 of [32]
and chap. III of [25]) shows that the observable intensity of the electromagnetic field is propor-
tional to the probability of observing a photoionization in a phototube detector which is given
(−) (+)
by the expectation value of the electric-field energy density operator Ê E (rr ,t) · Ê
E (rr ,t). As
shown in [32], only when a light beam is at least approximately paraxial the observable in-
tensity coincides with the flux across the detector surface of
( (−) ) the Poynting vector operator
(+) (−) (+)
ÎI (rr ,t) = ε0 c2 Ê
E (rr ,t) × B̂
B (rr ,t) − B̂
B (rr ,t) × Ê E (rr ,t) . Therefore, in general, is the
electromagnetic energy density and not the Poynting vector flux that matters in ordinary pho-
todetection.
It should be noticed that both J surf and J spin are proportional to the helicity σ of the incident
beam. However, this should not be interpreted as a signature of the spin nature of the SuAM,
since such a dependence also appears in spin-to-orbit conversion phenomena [35]. From Eqs.
(15) and (16) it follows that
!
ε0 ω , |2 d2 k,
Jzspin + Jzsurf = σ |A (21)
2

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6592
from which, by using Eqs. (7) and (17), we obtain
spin
Jz + Jzsurf = σ . (22)
Equation (22) shows that adding the z-component of the SuAM term to the z-component of the
spin AM per unit length ensures that the total “spin” AM per unit length along the propaga-
tion axis z is exactly equal to σ times the energy per unit length of the beam, the latter being
completely arbitrary. This our second main result.

2.1. Examples
In the remainder of this section, we calculate explicitly the SuAM for Laguerre-Gaussian and
Bessel beams to investigate how orbital AM affects J surf . Consider first the case of a Laguerre-
Gaussian beam of waist w0 , angular aperture θ0 = 2/(kw0 ) and with azimuthal and radial mode
indexes ℓ and p, respectively [36]. In this case, from Eqs. (15) and (16) we obtain
β 1 − 2β
J surf = σ êez , J spin = σ êez , (23)
1−β 1−β
where β = (θ0 /2)2 (2p + |ℓ| + 1) [37]. Although β depends on |ℓ| such a dependence is not a
consequence of the orbital AM of the beam (this would lead to a dependence from the signed
quantity ℓ), but it comes from the radial dependence of the beam profile. For a fundamental
Gaussian beam ℓ = 0 = p and β → θ02 /4. In this case, for θ0 ≪ 1, the small angle approximation
spin
furnishes Jz /σ ≃ 1 − θ02/4, in agreement with [28].
Next, we consider the case of a ℓth-order Bessel beam that, in the cylindrical polar coor-
dinates (r, φ , z), takes the form E(r, φ , z) = Jℓ (rk sin ϑ0 ) exp (iℓφ ) exp (izk cos ϑ0 ), where ϑ0 is
the angular aperture of the characteristic Bessel cone. A straightforward calculation shows that
Eq. (23) are still valid providing that β = sin2 ϑ0 /2. Note that for both Laguerre-Gaussian and
Bessel paraxial beams with θ0 = ϑ0 ≪ 1, one has J surf ∼ O(θ02 ), namely J surf becomes neg-
ligible. The absolute value of the “surface helicity” σ surf ≡ J surf · êez , is depicted in Fig. 1 for
both the case of a fundamental Gaussian beam (green solid line) and of a Bessel beam (blue
solid line) for ϑ0 = θ0 ∈ [0, π /2]. In the paraxial domain σ surf approaches zero and its contri-
bution can be neglected for θ0 ≪ 1. However, for non paraxial values of θ0 , |σ surf | becomes
comparable with the standard helicity value |σ | = 1 [24].

3. Gauge invariant calculation

In this section we calculate again the AM per unit length for a monochromatic beam of light.
However, this time we will not use the vector potential and, thus, our calculation will be man-
ifestly gauge invariant. Having this goal in mind, we write the electromagnetic fields in their
(homogeneous) angular spectrum form as
!
1 , (kk ⊥ ) exp (irr ⊥ · k ⊥ + iz kz ) d2 k,
E (rr ) = E (24a)
2π
!
1 , (kk ⊥ ) exp (irr ⊥ · k ⊥ + iz kz ) d2 k,
B (rr ) = B (24b)
2π
, and B
where E , fulfill the following relations stemming from Maxwell equations:
, = 0,
k ·E (25a)
k·B, = 0, (25b)
, = k ×E
cB ,. (25c)
k

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6593
 1.0

0.8

#Σsurf #$#Σ#
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 20 40 60 80
Θ0 !degrees"

Fig. 1. SuAM for a circularly polarized

√ fundamental Gaussian beam (green line) and Bessel
beam (blue line). At θ0 = θc ≡ 2 rad ≃ 81◦ the tails of the Gaussian angular spectrum
, (kk⊥ )|2 ∝ exp[−2(k2 +k2 )/θ 2 ] becomes no longer negligible for k2 +k2 ≥ k2
distribution |A x y 0 x y
where evanescent waves occur [31]. The angular spectrum representation Eq. (9) with kz =
+(k2 − kx2 − ky2 )1/2 ∈ R does not account for evanescent waves, therefore it breaks down
for θ0 > θc . This critical value is marked by a dashed vertical line. Such a problem does
not occur for a Bessel beam because in this case the angular spectrum does not possess tails
but is sharply peaked about ϑ0 .

As before, for a circularly polarized beam of light we can choose

, (kk ⊥ ) = E(k
E , k ⊥ )ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ )
- .
, k ⊥ )| exp i θ,(kk ⊥ ) ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ )
= |E(k (26)

, (kk ⊥ ) = E(k
and from Eq. (25c) it follows that c B , k ⊥ ) β ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ), where

β ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) = k × ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ )/k
= (kk × nσ ) /k. (27)

Once again, we assume that the normalization factor for the polarization vector ε ⊥ (σ , k ⊥ ) is
contained in the complex-valued amplitude E(k, k ⊥ ).
By substituting Eqs. (24)–(27) into Eq. (3) we obtain, after a straightforward calculation, the
following expressions for the energy per unit length
!
U ε0 , |2 d2 k,
= |E (28)
ω 2ω
for the Poynting vector
!
ε0 , |2 k d2 k,
S = c2 |E (29)
2ω

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6594
and for the AM per unit length:
!
−ε0 ∂ θ, 2
, |2 k z
Jx = |E d k, (30a)
2ω ∂ ky
! ,
ε0 , |2 kz ∂ θ d2 k,
Jy = |E (30b)
2ω ∂k
!
3 x 4 56
ε0 , 2 σ ∂ θ, ∂ θ,
Jz = |E | + kx − ky d2 k. (30c)
2ω 1−ϑ2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

By comparing Eq. (30c) with the expression of the AM flux below

!
3 4 56
2 ε0 , 2 ∂ θ, ∂ θ,
Mzz = c |E | k z σ + k x − ky d2 k, (31)
2ω 2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

one may be tempted to identify the term proportional to σ in Eq. (30c) with the spin part of
the AM per unit length. However, such a term differs from the expression of Jzspin given by Eq.
(15). Moreover, from Eqs. (14) and (15) it follows that
! / 1 20
orb spin ε0 ω , 2 ∂α, ∂α,
Jz + Jz = A
| | σ + kx − ky d2 k, (32)
2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

which does not coincides with Eq. (30c). However, if we add Jzsurf to Eq. (32) we obtain the
result given by Eq. (18) that we rewrite below:
! / 1 20
orb spin surf ε0 ω , 2 σ ∂α, ∂α,
Jz + Jz + Jz = |A | + kx − ky d2 k. (33)
2 1−ϑ2 ∂ ky ∂ kx

Finally, the two expressions given by Eq. (30c) and Eq. (33) coincide (apart from the trivial
factor ω linking the electric field and the vector potential amplitudes E , and A, , respectively).
An analogous result is found for the other two components Jx and Jy . It should be noted that
Eq. (33) is independent from z, thus indicating that the total (spin plus orbital plus surface) AM
per unit of length is conserved during the free propagation of the beam.
In summary, we can recollect the results obtained in this section as follows: By using the
angular spectrum representation for the electromagnetic fields, we have calculated the AM per
unit length J for an arbitrary beam of light, either paraxial or non paraxial. Then, we compared
this result given by Eq. (30) with the expressions (14-16) of J orb , J spin and J surf and we found
that

J = J orb + J spin + J surf . (34)

The equation above unambiguously shows that the gauge invariant expression of J on the left
side can be obtained via the gauge dependent calculation on the right side, only when the SuAM
is accounted for, irrespective of the paraxial or non paraxial nature of the beam of light.

4. Conclusions
One of the key aspects of this work, is the illustration of the interplay between paraxial approx-
imation, AM of light and gauge invariance. The actual situation can be schematically illustrated
as follows. In the simplest electromagnetic field, the plane wave, the electric and magnetic fields
are strictly perpendicular to the direction of propagation of the wave. Differently, for a beam of

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6595
finite waist, a nonzero component of the electric field Ez parallel to the direction of propagation
z of the beam, is unavoidable [38]. This component, although small with respect to Ex and Ey in
collimated beams, is responsible for the difference between A) linear and angular momentum
fluxes from one side, and B) energy density and AM per unit of length from the other side. In
fact, as shown in [9], both fluxes depends only upon the transverse fields components Ex , Ey
and Bx , By . On the opposite, it can be shown that the energy density and the AM per unit of
length, receive a contribution from Ez and Bz , as well [20]. What quantities are more physically
meaningful, A) or B)? There is not a definite answer to this question. In principle, the fluxes
obey more general conservation laws and therefore, from a theoretical point of view, are more
appealing. On the other hand, the quantities more commonly measured in standard laboratories,
are the energy density and the AM per unit of length. In practice, it will be the experimental
configuration at hand to set the choice between A) and B), because spin, orbital and total AM
of light may be measured by means of different techniques [23]. Many detection apparatuses
yield the ratio between the angular momentum per unit length and the energy density per unit
length. Typical examples thereof are Stokes parameter measurements in paraxial polarization
optics (the third Stokes parameter, usually denotes s3 , gives a measure of σ ; see, e.g., [27] and
Sec. 6.2 of [31]) and interferometric methods in single photon AM detection [39]. In all these
cases, the energy density of light per unit length is measured by means of commonplace photo-
detectors as CCD cameras, photographic plates, photoresists, etc. and the quantities calculated
in this work are the relevant ones.
How gauge invariance enters this discussion? In the paraxial approximations the quantities
A) and B) coincide and the spin/orbital separation of the AM is manifestly gauge-invariant
in both cases. However, beyond paraxial approximation only the fluxes A) remain explicitly
gauge-invariant, as shown by Barnett [9]. Oppositely, gauge-invariance is no longer guaranteed
for the AM per unit of length outside paraxial approximation. In fact, in this paper we have
demonstrated that the textbook expression for the angular momentum per unit length of a beam
of light, containing a spin and an orbital part solely, is not complete and that a third part must
be included in order to preserve the gauge invariance of the theory. We call this new term
the surface AM (SuAM). This quantity is derived considering the virtually infinite extent of
the beam along the direction of propagation. We believe that our results may have a relevant
conceptual impact upon the very lively and timely research field about AM of light [40, 41].

Acknowledgment
We are grateful to Konstantin Bliokh for fruitful and stimulating discussions.

#205301 - $15.00 USD Received 22 Jan 2014; revised 4 Mar 2014; accepted 4 Mar 2014; published 13 Mar 2014
(C) 2014 OSA 24 March 2014 | Vol. 22, No. 6 | DOI:10.1364/OE.22.006586 | OPTICS EXPRESS 6596