Relative merits of phononics vs. plasmonics: the energy balance approach

The common feature of various plasmonic schemes is their ability to confine optical fields of surface plasmon polaritons (SPPs) into subwavelength volumes and thus achieve a large enhancement of linear and nonlinear optical properties. This ability, however, is severely limited by the large ohmic loss inherent to even the best of metals. However, in the mid- and far-infrared ranges of the spectrum, there exists a viable alternative to metals – polar dielectrics and semiconductors, in which dielectric permittivity (the real part) turns negative in the Reststrahlen region. This feature engenders the so-called surface phonon polaritons, capable of confining the field in a way akin to their plasmonic analogs, the SPPs. Since the damping rate of polar phonons is substantially less than that of free electrons, it is not unreasonable to expect that phononic devices may outperform their plasmonic counterparts. Yet a more rigorous analysis of the comparative merits of phononics and plasmonics reveals a more nuanced answer, namely, that while phononic schemes do exhibit narrower resonances and can achieve a very high degree of energy concentration, most of the energy is contained in the form of lattice vibrations so that enhancement of the electric field and, hence, the Purcell factor is rather small compared to what can be achieved with metal nanoantennas. Still, the sheer narrowness of phononic resonances is expected to make phononics viable in applications where frequency selectivity is important.