Optical Tweezers

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.
org/ on July 29, 2015
10.1098/rspa.2003.1164
Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers

By A. M a z o l l i1 , P. A. M a i a N e t o1 a n d H. M. Nussenzveig1,2
1
Instituto de Fsica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Caixa Postal 68528, 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
2
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
Received 31 May 2002; revised 10 December 2002; accepted 31 March 2003;

published 24 September 2003
Starting from a Debye-type integral representation valid for a laser beam focused
through a high numerical aperture objective, we derive an explicit partial-wave (Mie)
representation for the force exerted on a dielectric sphere of arbitrary radius, position
and refractive index. In the semi-classical limit, the ray-optics result is shown to
follow from the Mie expansion, holding in the sense of a size average. The equilibrium
position and trap stiness oscillate as functions of the circumference-to-wavelength
ratio, a signature of interference, not predicted by previous theories. We also present
comparisons with experimental results.
Keywords: optical traps; semiclassical limit; Mie scattering
1. Introduction
Single-beam optical traps, commonly known as optical tweezers, have become a pow-
erful tool, with many applications in physics and biology (Ashkin 1997). They have
been used to measure forces in the piconewton range, opening the way for quan-
titative investigations in some fundamental elds of cell biology, such as molecular
motors (Wang et al . 1998; Mehta et al . 1999). The trapped particles are usually
dielectric microspheres, employed as handles in most quantitative applications (Svo-
boda & Block 1994).
In order to achieve trapping, a microscope objective is used to bring the laser
beam to a diraction-limited focal spot. Typical values of numerical aperture (NA)
are greater than 1, corresponding to beam-opening angles 0 > 60 . Gaussian beam
models are reasonable approximations for near-paraxial conditions (suciently small
opening angles; beam waist much larger than the wavelength). However, diraction-
limited beams cannot be represented by such models: theoretical treatments based
on near-paraxial approximations (Barton et al . 1989; Gussgard et al . 1992; Ren et
al . 1996) are not valid descriptions of optical tweezers (Svoboda & Block 1994).
Alternative approaches, based on geometrical-optics (GO) approximations (Ashkin
1992; Gu et al . 1997), should not be applicable to the microspheres usually employed
as handles, since their sizes are not much larger than the laser wavelength.
Most measurements employ indirect force calibrations against the Stokes law under
complicated boundary conditions for the ow of surrounding uid past the micro-
sphere, leading to discrepancies among results by factors of two or more. A reliable
derivation of the trapping force is sorely needed, so as to disentangle the eects of
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003) 459, 30213041

c 2003 The Royal Society
3021
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on July 29, 2015
3022 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig
aberrations, boundary perturbations (e.g. back reection of light at the glasswater

sample cell interface) and radiometric forces, opening the way for more accurate
measurements.
In this paper we present a rst-principles derivation of the optical force. We start
from the Debye-type integral representation of the laser beam as a superposition of
plane electromagnetic waves, developed by Richards & Wolf (1959). In contrast with
paraxial models that represent the strongly convergent light as a Gaussian beam, this
representation has the crucial advantage of correctly describing an optical beam with
large opening angle, also taking into account diraction at the entrance aperture of
the lens objective.
The eld scattered by the sphere is a superposition of Mie-type elds, each one
corresponding to a given plane-wave component of the incident beam. By making
use of suitable rotation operators, we derive analytical results resembling Debyes
formula for the radiation pressure of a plane wave (Nussenzveig 1992). In particular,
we obtain a single-variable integral representation for the multipole coecients.
The derivation of analytical results has two important consequences. First, it allows
us to explore a broad range of experimental parameters, since the numerical work
is limited to the evaluation of well-known Bessel and Legendre functions and of
integrals over a single variable, the angle dening the direction of a given plane
wave ( runs from zero to 0 ). Second, it allows for a rst-principles derivation of
the GO approximation, starting from the partial-wave result, by taking the short-
wavelength (semi-classical) limit. This derivation claries the connection between
wave and GO, showing that the latter holds as an average over the size parameter
= ka (a = microsphere radius, k = 2n1 /0 = wavenumber in the surrounding
medium, of refractive index n1 , 0 = laser vacuum wavelength), when 1. Results
for the axial force in the simpler particular case in which the microsphere is aligned
along the optical axis were reported by two of us (Maia Neto & Nussenzveig 2000).
In 2 we obtain the expressions for the force, from which we derive the GO result
in 3. Numerical results and comparisons with the few available experimental data
are found in 4. Section 5 contains the conclusions.
2. Optical force as a partial-wave series

We take circular polarization, so that the optical force eld is symmetrical under rota-
tions around the beam axis. In order to simplify the notation, we consider left-handed
polarization +. Polarization may be considered within the same formalism, and
the nal results obtained from those presented here, as discussed below.
Thus the electric eld of the strongly focused beam has the Debye-type (Richards
& Wolf 1959) integral representation (we omit the time factor eit ),
2 0
d sin cos e sin eik(r+R) (, ),
2 2
Ein (r) = E0 d (2.1)
0 0
where k = |k(, )| = n1 /c, (, ) = x + iy and the unit vectors x and y

are obtained from x and y, respectively, by rotation with Euler angles (, , ).
According to (2.1), the incident electric eld is a superposition of circularly polar-
ized plane waves. The focus is at r = R, the point where all plane waves are in
phase, yielding constructive interference and maximum intensity. As the dephasing
Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3023
among the plane waves increases, the intensity at the focal plane decreases, becom-
ing localized to a transverse dimension of the order of the wavelength. The factor
exp( 2 sin2 ) results from the Gaussian intensity prole of the laser beam at the
entrance pupil of the objective, I = Im exp(22 /w2 ) (where w is the waist, Im is
the intensity at the beam axis, and is the distance to the beam axis), and from the
Abbe sine condition = f sin , where f is the focal length, so that = f /w. Note
that we take a Gaussian beam before the passage through the objective. The actual
trapping beam, given by (2.1), is not Gaussian, and arbitrary values of 0 may be
considered, in a consistent way.
The scattered electric and magnetic elds Es and Hs are computed in appendix A.
We denote by n2 the absolute refractive index of the sphere. We neglect absorption,
assuming that both n1 and n2 are real. We employ a spherical coordinate system,
with origin at the centre of the sphere. For each plane-wave component of the input
eld (2.1), the scattered eld is a corresponding Mie partial-wave series, and the
resulting total scattered eld is a linear superposition of Mie components. They are
given in terms of the Mie coecients aj and bj , which correspond (when multiplied
by i/k) to the scattering amplitudes for electric and magnetic multipole waves. The
Mie coecients are functions of the size parameter , and of the relative refractive
index n = n2 /n1 (Bohren & Human 1983).
The optical force is computed through the Maxwell stress tensor. Because of
momentum conservation, we can take a spherical surface at innity:

F = lim 12 r d r(E 2 + 0 H 2 ) . (2.2)
r S(r)
Following Ashkin (1992), we dene the dimensionless force through a vector eciency
factor,
F
Q= , (2.3)
n1 P/c
where P is the laser power at the sample and c is the speed of light. Q quanties
how eciently the available eld momentum is transferred to the sphere. Except for
possible nonlinear optical eects (not considered in this paper), Q does not depend
on the laser power P . For normal incidence of a plane wave on a totally reecting
mirror, Q = 2. In optical tweezers, the maximum value of Q is usually smaller by at
least one order of magnitude.
We assume that the transmission loss through the objective is uniformly dis-
tributed within the focused beam, so that the intensity distribution is not aected
by this process. We may then ignore losses when considering the ratio in (2.3), and
replace P by the power lling the objective aperture,
P = 12 w2 AIm , (2.4)
where A = 1 exp(2 2 sin2 0 ) is the fraction of available beam power that lls the
objective aperture.
It is convenient to express the force in terms of cylindrical coordinates, with the
origin at the focus and the centre of the sphere at the point R = (R , R , zR ). Since
we take circular polarization, the cylindrical components do not depend on R (by
axial symmetry). The nal expressions are sums over the variables j, for the total

angular momentum J 2 (eigenvalues j(j + 1)) and m for its z component Jz , of the
form
j
= .
j,m j=1 m=j
The electric and magnetic elds in (2.2) can be written as

E = Ein + Es , H = Hin + Hs . (2.5)
Hence the squared elds in (2.2) contain terms of the form Ein Es and
2
Ein , (like- Es2
wise for H). The rst term does not contribute, whereas the last two yield separate
contributions to the force, denoted, respectively, Qe and Qs . Qe represents the rate
at which momentum is removed from the input beam (normalized as in (2.3)). It is
closely related to the eect of extinction (energy removal), resulting from interfer-
ence between incident and scattered elds. Part of this momentum is carried away
by the scattered eld, at the rate Qs , and part is transferred to the microsphere.
Thus the force is given by
Q = Qs + Qe . (2.6)
For the axial components, we nd

8 2 j(j + 2)(j m + 1)(j + m + 1)
Qsz = Re
A j+1
j,m
2j + 1
(aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 )Gj,m Gj+1,m + maj bj |Gj,m | ,
2
j(j + 1)
(2.7)
4 2
Qez = Re (2j + 1)(aj + bj )Gj,m (Gj,m ) , (2.8)
A j,m
where Gj,m and Gj,m are multipole coecients of the focused incident beam:
0
d sin cos e sin djm,1 ()Jm1 (kR sin )eikzR cos , (2.9)
2 2
Gj,m (R , zR ) =
0
Gjm
Gj,m (R , zR ) = i , (2.10)
(kzR )
where djm,m () are the matrix elements of nite rotations (Edmonds 1957) and
Jm are Bessel functions (Abramowitz & Stegun 1972). When the sphere is aligned
along the optical axis (R = 0), we may use the result Jm1 (0) = m,1 to sim-
plify (2.7)(2.10). The resulting expressions, as expected, agree with those obtained
by Maia Neto & Nussenzveig (2000).
For the transverse components, we nd

2 j(j + 2)(j + m + 1)(j + m + 2)
Qs = 4 Im
A j,m
j+1
[(aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 )(Gj,m Gj+1,m+1 + Gj,m (Gj+1,m1 ) )]

2j + 1
2 (j m)(j + m + 1) Re(aj bj )Gj,m Gj,m+1 ,
j(j + 1)
(2.11)


2 j(j + 2)(j + m + 1)(j + m + 2)
Qs = 4 Re
A j,m
j+1
[(aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 )(Gj,m Gj+1,m+1 Gj,m (Gj+1,m1 ) )]

2j + 1
2 (j m)(j + m + 1) Re(aj bj )Gj,m Gj,m+1
j(j + 1)
(2.12)
and
2
Qe = 2 Im (2j + 1)[(aj + bj )Gj,m (G +
j,m+1 Gj,m1 ) ], (2.13)
A j,m
2
Qe = 2 Re (2j + 1)[(aj + bj )Gj,m (G +
j,m+1 + Gj,m1 ) ], (2.14)
A j,m
where
0
G d sin2 cos e sin djm1,1 ()Jm1 (kR sin )eikzR cos .
2 2
jm (R , zR ) =
0
(2.15)
The transverse force contains products of multipole coecients for consecutive values
of m. Hence, as was remarked following (2.10), it vanishes when R = 0, as expected.
We have also considered polarization . The force in this case may also be com-
puted from (2.7)(2.15), provided that we change the sign of the azimuthal compo-
nent, Q [] = Q [+].
An important check of (2.7)(2.15), performed next, is to consider their semi-
classical limits, which must be related to the GO approximation.
3. GO limit
In this section, we obtain a closed analytical representation for the force in the GO
approximation, starting from the exact results (2.7)(2.15), in the form of an integral
over and of elementary functions. Previous approaches relied on time-consuming
numerical vector sums of the forces exerted by each ray (Ashkin 1992; Gu et al .
1997). Moreover, our approach takes into account the correct pre-factors describing
the intensity distribution in the focused beam, verifying the Abbe sine condition.
The derivation of the GO approximation from the exact partial-wave series is
a textbook example of the subtle nature of semi-classical approximations (Berry
& Mount 1972). It involves the following stages (Nussenzveig 1992; Nussenzveig &
Wiscombe 1980).
Equations (2.7), (2.11) and (2.12), giving the scattering component Qs , agree with the results
of Barton et al. (1989) (see also Farsund & Felderhof 1996) if we replace Gjm by paraxial multipole
coecients. In the same sense, the extinction component Qe as given by (2.8), (2.13) and (2.14) is also
formally equivalent to the result of Barton et al. To make the connection for the axial component Qez ,
we write cos djm,1 () as a linear combination of dj+1 j j1
m,1 (), dm,1 () and dm,1 (), allowing us to express
Gjm in terms of Gj+1,m , Gjm and Gj1,m . Likewise, for the transverse components Qe and Qe , we
expand G jm as a linear combination of Gj m with dierent j .


(i) As all quantum numbers in eigenfunction expansions must be large, summa-

tions over them are replaced by integrals.
(ii) The WKB asymptotic approximation is employed for all special functions.
(iii) All integrals involving rapidly varying phase factors are evaluated by the sta-
tionary phase method.
(iv) Finally, to suppress rapidly varying interference oscillations, averages over the
oscillations are taken. These stages are performed in Appendices BE.
The nal results are conveniently expressed in terms of the projection of the sphere
position along the direction perpendicular to a given optical ray dened by the unit
vector r(, ):
R = R (r R)r. (3.1)
The corresponding length is given by (without loss of generality, we assume that the
centre of the sphere is in the (y, z)-plane)

R (, ) = (1 sin2 sin2 )2R + sin2 zR
2 sin 2 sin z .
R R (3.2)
The force turns out to be the sum of two terms, Q = Q + Q , each one given by
an integral over the rays forming the incident focused beam. The axial components
are given by ( is the Heaviside step function)
2
2 2 0 2 2 sin2
Qz = 2
d sin cos e d F (R )(a R ), (3.3)
A 0 0

2 2 0
Q d sin cos e2 sin
2 2
z =
A 0
2
F (R )
d [zR sin2 12 R sin(2) sin ](a R ), (3.4)
0 R
, ,
where F , = 12 (FTE + FTM ), and
r cos(21 ) + cos[2(1 2 )]
F = 1 + r cos(21 ) (1 r )2 , (3.5)
1 + r2 + 2r cos(22 )
r sin(21 ) + sin[2(1 2 )]
F = r sin(21 ) (1 r )2 . (3.6)
1 + r2 + 2r cos(22 )
The r ( = TE, TM) are the Fresnel reection coecients for a plane interface, and
1 represents the angle of incidence of a given ray at the surface of the sphere (angle
between the ray direction and the normal at the point of incidence). It is given by
R
sin 1 = . (3.7)
a
2 is the angle of refraction inside the sphere,
sin 1
sin 2 = . (3.8)
n
For the transverse components, we nd Q = 0, and

0 2
2 2
Q = d sin2 cos e2 d sin F (R )(a R ),
2
sin2
(3.9)
A 0 0
0
2 2
Q d sin cos e2
2
sin2
=
A 0
2
F (R )
d [R (1 sin2 sin2 ) 12 zR sin(2) sin ](a R ).
0 R
(3.10)
In the axial case, R = 0 and equations (3.2) and (3.7) yield R = |zR | sin and
sin 1 = |zR | sin /a. Hence, in this particular case, the results given by (3.3) and (3.4)
become equivalent to those of Maia Neto & Nussenzveig (2000), whereas the radial
component vanishes.

The factors F and F in the above expressions can be identied with the longi-
tudinal and transverse components of the force exerted by a given ray with respect
to its direction of propagation r(, ). Thus we may also derive (3.3)(3.10) in the
framework of ray-optics theory. Note that the set of rays that hit the sphere and
thereby contribute to the force is dened by the inequality
R a, (3.11)
which explains the step function in (3.3), (3.4) and (3.9), (3.10). The remaining
pre-factors, not accounted for previously, describe the intensity distribution among
dierent rays in the focused beam, as implied by the Abbe sine condition and the
intensity prole at the entrance aperture of the objective. Indeed, the power dP
contained in a solid angle d = sin d d is given by

22
dP = Im exp d d, (3.12)
w2
where = f sin is the distance between the corresponding cylindrical sector of

the beam before the objective and the optical axis. From (3.12) and the Abbe sine
condition, we derive
dP = Im exp(2 2 sin2 )f 2 cos sin d d. (3.13)
The force exerted by a ray of given power dP and direction r(, ) was computed
by Roosen (1979) (note that R determines the direction perpendicular to the ray
in the plane of incidence, which contains the centre of the sphere):

R dP
dQ = F r + F . (3.14)
R P
Qz , which provides the restoring force along the axial direction, is overestimated by Ashkin (1992),
as a consequence of neglecting the sine condition (cf. Gu et al. 1997) and the corresponding factor cos
in (3.4). This diminishes the contribution of rays at large angles.

1.5
1.0
zeq / a
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
ka
Figure 1. Equilibrium position as a function of = ka, in units of the sphere radius.
The dashed horizontal line represents the GO value zeq /a = 0.286.
Decomposing the unit vectors in the right-hand side of (3.14) into cylindrical com-
ponents, using (3.13) and integrating over d, we recover, now in the context of
ray-optics theory, the results (3.3), (3.4) and (3.9), (3.10).
The integrals yielding the optical force in the GO approximation can be easily
performed by standard numerical techniques. As discussed in the next section, they
provide a reliable check of the partial-wave numerical results.
4. Numerical results
A remarkable qualitative feature of the exact results, not present in the GO theory,
is the oscillatory behaviour of the force as a function of the size parameter = ka.
When 1 and |n 1| 1, the force, with the sphere centre at the focus, is a
nearly sinusoidal function of the phase = 4n2 a/c associated with radial round-
trip propagation inside the sphere (Maia Neto & Nussenzveig 2000),
Q(R = 0) 8rcos sin2 ( 12 ),
where denotes an average over the intensity distribution of the focused beam
and r = 12 (rTE + rT M ) 1. In this approximation, the force is proportional to the
reectivity of a parallel plate interferometer of optical length 2n2 a. In particular, it
vanishes when the elds back-reected at the two interfaces interfere destructively.
In this case, the equilibrium position zeq is very close to the focus. More generally,
zeq as a function of shows oscillatory behaviour, which results from the sinusoidal
variation of the force at R = 0. In gure 1, we plot zeq as a function of , for a
xed value of the wavenumber k. The parameters correspond to the experiment of
Ghislain et al . (1994): 0 = 1.064 m, A = 0.91, 0 = 70 (angle in water), n1 = 1.32
and n2 = 1.57.
Very small spheres correspond to the Rayleigh limit, 1. The force is then
2
proportional to the gradient of Ein , with the dominant contribution coming from the
electric dipole term in (2.8) and (2.13) (Qs is negligible). Hence zeq /a 0 in this
limit. We see that zeq /a has a peak near = 1; in this intermediate range, the typical
We have employed Cauchys dispersion formula (Bateman et al. 1959) for computing the refractive
indices of water and polystyrene.

0.5
0.4
0.3
z/ a
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
R / a
Figure 2. Equilibrium position with a lateral external force. The plots represent the root z of
Qz (R , z(R )) = 0 as a function of R . All lengths are expressed in units of the sphere radius.
Solid line, a = 3.05 m ( = 23.8); dashed line, a = 3.09 m ( = 24.1); dotted line, a = 3.15 m
( = 24.2); dot-dashed line, GO.
0.1
0.035
Q
Q
0.2 0.040
0.045
0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
0.3 R / a
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

R / a
Figure 3. Transverse force Q , calculated at the point (R , z(R )) dened in (4.1), as a function
of R /a. Q is negative, corresponding to a force pointing towards the optical axis. Solid line,
a = 3.05 m; dashed line, a = 3.09 m; dotted line, a = 3.15 m; dot-dashed line, GO.
length-scale of the optical potential well is still partly governed by the wavelength
= 0 /n1 . For larger values of , we nd the oscillatory behaviour arising from
interference. We also show in gure 1 the value computed in the GO approximation
(horizontal dashed line).
Usually, in optical tweezers experiments, a lateral viscous drag force is applied
to the sphere. The sphere is then displaced from the position (R = 0, zR = zeq )
and a new equilibrium position is reached at a given distance R from the axis. If
the external force has no axial component, the new equilibrium position (R , z(R ))
satises
Qz (R , z(R )) = 0. (4.1)


0.3
0.2
Qmax
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ka
Figure 4. Maximum transverse force Qmax as a function of = ka. Theoretical results: par-
tial-wave (guide-the-eye solid line) and GO value 0.275 (horizontal dashed line). Experimental
results of Ghislain et al . (1994) with reported values of radius (squares), and with rescaled radius
(circles).
250 60
50
(pN m1)
200 40
30
(pN m1)
150 20
10
100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
k (m1)
50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ka
Figure 5. Transverse trap stiness as a function of = ka, for a xed wavenumber
k = 7.8 m1 and power P = 60 mW. Theoretical results: partial-wave (solid line) and GO
result = 541/ pN m1 (dashed line). Experimental results of Ghislain et al . (1994) with
reported values of radius (squares), and with rescaled radius (circles). Insert: transverse trap
stiness as a function of k, for a xed radius a = 2.0 m. Solid line, partial-wave results; dashed
horizontal line, GO result = 34.8 pN m1 .
This equation is solved numerically for z as a function of R , for dierent values

of the size parameter (we dene z as the smallest root of (4.1)). As shown in g-
ure 2, the interference oscillations have only a relatively small eect on the values
of z for values of R /a larger than 0.2. For the size parameters of the order of 24
used in the numerical calculation, GO provides a better estimate when consider-
ing the transverse force itself. In gure 3, we plot Q (R , z(R )) as a function of
R /a, for the same size parameters as gure 2. The force is approximately linear,
and it is mildly aected by the interference eect, as illustrated in the insert of
gure 3.

There are no roots of (4.1) beyond a specic value of R , close to 0.7a in the numer-
ical example considered in gure 2. We dene max as the maximum value of R .
It corresponds to the maximum external transverse force that can be equilibrated
by the optical force. In gure 4, we plot Qmax Q (max , z(max )) as a function
of the radius, as well as the GO value Qmax = 0.275. No tting is employed when
computing the theoretical values, but we apply a global rescaling of the parameter
to the experimental values reported by Ghislain et al . (1994). Good agreement
is obtained for both Qmax and the transverse trap stiness (see gure 5), provided
that we divide by a factor of 2 the values of that result from the data of Ghislain
et al . (1994). We plot the experimental points with (circles) and without (squares)
rescaling in gures 4 and 5. A possible source of this discrepancy (see 5 for further
discussion) may be the eect of spherical aberration (Ghislain et al . 1994), which
was theoretically analysed in the Rayleigh limit by Yao et al . (2001).
The transverse trap stiness is given by
n1 P Q
= , = 0, z = zeq . (4.2)
c
To calculate , we rst derive from (2.11) and (2.13) the partial-wave expansion for
Q, and then replace it into (4.2). In the GO approximation, Q depends on only
through /a. Hence the derivative in (4.2) is proportional to 1/a,
n1 P Q (/a = 0) k
= . (4.3)
c (/a)
In gure 5, we plot the results, for the same parameters employed above, against
the size parameter , for a xed wavelength. As before, we take the parameters of
Ghislain et al . (1994), with a power P = 60 mW. There is good agreement with the
GO result = (541/) pN m1 for large , except for a small-amplitude oscilla-
tion, which is related to the interference eect discussed in connection with gure 1.
For very small spheres, on the other hand, the optical force is proportional to the
static polarizability of the dielectric sphere (Rayleigh regime), and hence vanishes
as 3 . The crossover between these two regimes is associated with a peak near = 3.
The experimental points of Ghislain et al . (1994) also feature a peak, which agrees
with the theoretical prediction, provided that we take, as in gure 4, one half of the
diameter values reported by Ghislain et al . (1994).
It is probably easier to verify experimentally the oscillations displayed in gures 1
and 5, which result from interference, by scanning the laser frequency. In this case,
the expected variation of the trap stiness is shown in the insert of gure 5, for a
microsphere with a diameter of 2 m, as a function of wavenumber k. The oscillations
The numerical integration in (2.9), as well as in the calculation of Gjm and G

jm , was performed with
the help of a KronrodPatterson adaptative Gaussian-type quadrature method. The cut-o value jmax
in the Mie summation was chosen at the point where the relative contribution from additional terms
would be less than 1010 (taking care to avoid biasing in the addition of terms). In the computation
of the equilibrium position by (4.1), jmax was 46 for = 15.6 and 64 for = 31.2. For computation of
transverse force and stiness, the values of jmax were 37 for = 15.6 and 55 for = 31.2. Contributions
decreased rapidly beyond the edge terms j . The value of jmax did not depend on R in the range of
physical interest (R max ).
The interference oscillations are more important for the axial stiness, as discussed by Maia Neto
& Nussenzveig (2000).

around the GO value have the expected period k = /(2na) = 0.66 m1 corre-
sponding to a 2 variation of the round-trip phase . In this example, ve periods of
oscillation would be scanned by tuning the vacuum wavelength from 970 to 700 nm,
which is feasible with a Ti:Sapphire laser (trapping with a tunable CW Ti:sapphire
laser has been reported by Neuman et al . (1999)).
5. Conclusion
Partial (qualitative) agreement between wave and GO is found for size parameters
> 5. However, GO clearly overestimates the maximum transverse force in the
range shown in gure 4, whereas, for the equilibrium position (gure 1) and the trap
stiness (gure 5), the GO values tend to approach more closely the average of the
partial-wave results over a period of oscillation.
We have not taken into account the spherical aberration of the incident focused
beam, produced by the objective itself (which is corrected for the visible and not
for the infrared wavelength employed by Ghislain et al . (1994)) and by the glass
water planar interface. Rays at the edge of the focused beam intersect the axis in
the interval between the paraxial (Gaussian) focus and the interface.
Because of spherical aberration, the laser spot size increases with increasing depth
into the specimen chamber, so that both axial and transverse intensity gradients
decrease. Ghislain et al . (1994) reported a decrease of axial stiness with depth and
Felgner et al . (1995) found a reduction of both axial and transverse maximal trapping
forces. This is in line with gure 4, since the experimental values of the maximum
transverse force lie below the theoretical curve.
The stretching of the focal region by spherical aberration may help us to under-
stand why agreement between theory and experiment was improved by rescaling the
size parameter in gures 4 and 5 (no additional tting was employed).
Inclusion of spherical aberration in the theoretical treatment thus appears to be
required. We plan to address this question in the context of a comprehensive com-
parison with experimental results based on a new technique for measuring the trap
stiness (Viana et al . 2002a) and the power available at the sample (Viana et al .
2002b).
We thank Oscar Mesquita, Nathan Viana, Carlos Cesar and Adriana Fontes for valuable dis-
cussions, and Warren Wiscombe for suggestions on numerical integration and Mie scattering
calculations. This work was completed while H.M.N. held a National Research Council Research
Associateship Award at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. P.A.M.N. acknowledges sup-
port by CNPq, PRONEX, FAPERJ and the Millenium Institute of Quantum Information. We
thank the Jose Bonifacio Foundation for its support of the COPEA Optical Tweezers Labora-
tory.
Appendix A. Scattered eld

For spherically symmetrical scatterers, it is convenient to work with the Debye poten-
tials E and M , associated with electric and magnetic multipole elds, respectively
(Born & Wolf 1980). For electric multipole elds, we have

E E = i L E , HE = kL E , (A 1)
0

where L = ir is the dierential operator representing the orbital angular

momentum. The Debye potential for a plane wave with wave vector k = k k(k , k ),
amplitude E0 and polarization + is derived from the corresponding expression for
a plane wave along the z-direction, with the help of the matrix elements of nite
rotations dJM,1 ,

E0 J1 4(2J + 1) i(M 1)k J
J
E
k(r,,) = i jJ (kr) e dM,1 (k )YJM (, ),
k J(J + 1)
J=1 M =J
(A 2)
where jJ and YJM are the spherical Bessel functions and the spherical harmonics.
According to (2.1), the incident eld is a linear superposition of plane waves with k
varying continuously inside a solid angle bounded by 0 , and with suitable coecients
corresponding to the intensity distribution and position of the focus. From (2.1)
and (A 2), we derive the Debye potential describing the focused laser beam:

0

E0 4(2J + 1)
cos k e
2 2
E sin k
in (r, , ) = dk sin k iJ1 jJ (kr)
k 0 J(J + 1)
J=1

J 2
dJM,1 (k )YJM (, ) dk eikR ei(M 1)k .
M =J 0
(A 3)
The integral over k above is calculated in terms of the cylindrical Bessel function
JM 1 :
2
dk eikR ei(M 1)k = 2(i)M 1 eikzR cos k JM 1 (kR sin k )ei(M 1)R .
0
(A 4)
Once the Debye potentials for the incident eld are known, it is a simple matter
to obtain the scattered eld by considering the boundary conditions at the surface of
the sphere. sE , representing the electric multipole potential for the scattered eld,
is written in terms of the Mie coecients aJ :
E0 JM
sE (r, , ) = 2 i GJM (R , zR )ei(M 1)R
k
J,M
4(2J + 1) (1)
aJ hJ (kr)YJM (, ), (A 5)
J(J + 1)
(1)
where hJ is the spherical Hankel function and GJM is dened in (2.9). The result
for the magnetic Debye potential is computed in a similar way, in terms of the Mie
coecients bJ .
From the multipole expansions of the scattered eld, we calculate the optical force
using (2.2) (a detailed derivation of the optical force from the Debye potentials was
presented by Farsund & Felderhof (1996)).

Appendix B. WKB approximation for the rotation matrices

The WKB approximation to the rotation matrix djm,n (), for j 1, is given by
(Brussaard & Tolhoek 1957)
1/2
2
djm,n () [(1 2 )(1 2 ) (z )2 ]1/4
j
z
2 1
cos (j + 2 )
1
(1 x ) [(1 )(1 ) (z ) ] dx ,
2 2 2 1/2
(B 1)
where
m n
z = cos , = , = , (z )2 < (1 2 )(1 2 ) (B 2)
j j
and the inequality denes the classically allowed (oscillatory) region. The lower limit
of integration was not determined by Brussaard & Tolhoek (1957), except for n = 0,
when the rotation matrix reduces to an associated Legendre function.
Employing this reduction, as well as results for the asymptotic expansion of Legen-
dre functions of large degree and order (Thorne 1957), we nd that (B 1), for n = 1,
becomes
1/2
2
j
dm,1 () (2 sin2 m2 )1/4 cos[f,m () + ,m ], (B 3)

where
j+ 1
2 (B 4)
and

cos m cot
f,m () arccos m arccos . (B 5)
2 m2 2 m2
The domain of validity in (B 2) becomes
m+1
|sin( 12 )| < . (B 6)
2j
The phase constant ,m in (B 3) results from the unknown lower limit of integra-
tion in (B 1). In order to determine it, we apply the relationship (Gelfand & Shapiro
1956)
j(j + 1) sin [djm,1 () + djm,1 ()] = 2mdjm,0 (), (B 7)
together with the symmetry relation (Brink & Satchler 1968)
djm,n () = (1)jm djm,n ( ). (B 8)
Combining these relations for = 12 , we get
djm,1 ( 12 ) = m[j(j + 1)]1/2 djm,0 (/2)

1/2
m 2
(1)m+1 (2 m2 )1/4 cos[ 12 (j m)], (B 9)

where we have employed the WKB approximation to djm,0 .

Comparing (B 9) with (B 3), we get the value of the phase constant:

m
,m = (m + 34 ) + arccos . (B 10)

A similar procedure can be applied to djm,1 (). The nal WKB results are

1/2

j m+1 2 2 1/4 m
dm,1 () (1) ( sin m )
2 2
cos f,m () + arccos 4 ,
1

(B 11)

1/2

2 m
djm,1 () (2 sin2 m2 )1/4 cos f,m () arccos 14 . (B 12)

These results appear to be new. They have been numerically tested in several
sample cases, showing very good agreement and consistency with expected WKB
typical features.
Appendix C. WKB approximations to the multipole coecients

By applying Bessels integral representation of Jm1 , equation (2.9) becomes
Gj,m (R , zR )
2 0
1
= (2) d d sin H()djm,1 ()
0 0
exp{i[k(R sin sin + zR cos ) (m 1)]},
(C 1)
where
cos e
2
sin2
H() . (C 2)
Substituting djm,1 by its WKB approximation (B 3), we get
Gj,m (R , zR )
2 0
3/2
= (2) d d sin (2 sin2 m2 )1/4 H()
0 0
{exp[ik,m
+
(R , zR ; , )]

+ exp[ik,m (R , zR ; , )]}, (C 3)
where

,m (R , zR ; , ) zR cos + R sin sin [f,m () + ,m ]/k, (C 4)
with (m 1)
m1 m
. (C 5)
k k
The asymptotic behaviour of (C 3) in the GO limit, k , is obtained by apply-
ing the method of stationary phase for double integrals (Born & Wolf 1980). The

stationary phase point (, ) corresponding to is determined by the equations

m
cos = , (C 6)
R sin kR sin

2 sin2 m2
R cos sin zR sin = . (C 7)
k sin
Solving these equations with respect to , we nd
= kR (, ), (C 8)
where R is dened in (3.2). We recognize R as the impact parameter of a ray
incident along the (, ) direction, and (C 8) as the well-known semi-classical rela-
tionship between angular momentum and impact parameter (localization principle)
(van de Hulst 1957; Nussenzveig 1992).
The stationary phase points associated with the signs in (C 6), (C 7) dier from
each other, for zR = 0, by the transformation zR zR , . However,
in (C 1), 0 < 12 , so that, for a given sign of zR , only one of the two integrals
in (C 3) has a stationary phase point. The special case zR = 0, which we disregard
for brevity, can be similarly treated.
We also need to evaluate (Born & Wolf 1980) 2 at the stationary phase
point, where
2 2 2
, , ,
2 2

and stands for ,m as dened in (C 4). From now on, we omit the bars in (, ).
We nd
R sin [ 12 sin(2) sin (2R zR2
) + (cos2 sin2 sin2 )R zR ]
2 = . (C 9)
R cos sin zR sin
Finally, the stationary phase method yields
i sin H() exp(ik)
Gj,m (R , zR ) = , (C 10)
2 2 k( 2 sin2
m2 )1/4
where all quantities must be evaluated at the stationary phase point. The double
signs are irrelevant to evaluate the combinations that appear in the partial-wave
series.
Appendix D. Evaluation of Mie coecient averages

We evaluate here averages of Mie coecients and their products, which appear in
the partial-wave expansions of Q, taken over a size parameter range sucient to
eliminate rapid oscillations. We use the generic notation 1/2 to represent either
aj or bj , where , dened by (B 4), is related to the angles of incidence 1 and
refraction 2 of an incident ray by
= sin 1 = n sin 2 . (D 1)
The dominant contribution comes from values , which, jointly with (C 8),
implies
R a. (D 2)

The relationship between a given ray direction and 1 , as given by (3.7), follows
from (C 8) and (D 1).
The WKB approximation to the Mie coecients is obtained by substituting all
cylindrical functions by their Debye asymptotic expansions. Introducing the notation

[cos 1 ( 12 1 ) sin 1 ] 14 ,
(D 3)
n[cos 2 ( 21 2 ) sin 2 ] 14 ,
one nds (Nussenzveig 1992)

1 2i T21 T12 e2i()
1/2 = 1
2 [1 S(, )] = 1 R22 e , (D 4)
2 1 R11 e2i
where S is the S-function and Rij , Tij are spherical reection and transmission co-
ecients. In the Debye asymptotic approximation, these coecients are determined
by the Fresnel reection amplitude R at a plane interface, for the angle of incidence
1 and the corresponding polarization , with = TE for the magnetic multipole
coecient bj and = TM for aj ,
R22 = R = R11 , T21 = 1+R , T12 = 1R , T12 T12 = 1R2 = 1r ,
(D 5)
where r is the reectivity.
We also need +1/2 . In order to relate it with 1/2 , we employ recursion relations
among cylindrical functions, with the following result, to dominant order:

1 2i(+1 ) (1 r )e2i(2 1 ) e2i()
+1/2 = 1 + R e . (D 6)
2 1 R e2i(+2 )
While, according to (D 1), 1 and 2 are slowly varying functions of , and
are rapidly varying, by (D 3). Accordingly, by dening to be an average over one
period 2 in (corresponding to a small range in ), we get, to leading order,
1/2 = 12 . (D 7)
On the other hand, equations (D 4) and (D 6) yield

1/2 +1/2

1 1
= 1 r e2i1 + (1 r )2 e2i(1 2 ) .
4 1 r e2i2 + R e2i R e2i2 e2i
(D 8)
The evaluation of all such averages follows from the formula

+ cos(2) + sin(2) b + c b + c 1
= 2 + a , (D 9)
a + b cos(2) + c sin(2) b + c2 b2 + c2 a b2 c2
2
where the average is over a period 2 in the variable 2. The result is

1 (1 r )2 e2i(1 2 )
1/2 +1/2 = 1 r e2i1 + . (D 10)
4 1 + r e2i2

In terms of the denitions (3.5) and (3.6), it follows from (D 10) that
aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 = 1 12 (F + iF ). (D 11)
The cross-polarization average a1/2 b1/2 will not be needed, because the cor-
responding term in the partial-wave series in (2.7), (2.11) and (2.12) is negligible in
the GO limit.
Appendix E. Evaluation of the GO limit

In all partial-wave sums, the discrete indices (j, m) are converted to continuous vari-
ables ( = j + 12 , m), converting the sums into integrals. We then change the inte-
gration variables to (, ) by (C 6) and (C 8), so that (cf. (D 2))
0 2
() d d |J|(a R )(), (E 1)
j,m 0 0
where the Jacobian J is computed from (3.2), (C 6) and (C 8):

(, m) R
J = k2 sin [ 21 (2R zR2
) sin(2) sin + R zR (cos2 sin2 sin2 )].
(, ) R
(E 2)
Taking into account (C 9), we nd

J k2

2 = R |R cos sin zR sin |, (E 3)
and (C 6)(C 8) also yield

2 sin2 m2 = k sin |R cos sin zR sin |, (E 4)
so that, nally,
|J| 1
= . (E 5)
k 2 |
22|
sin m
2 2 kR sin
From (C 10) and (2.10), we get, taking (E 5) into account,

cos sin |H()|2
|J|Gj,m Gj,m = cos |JGj,m |2 = , (E 6)
2kR
so that, with 2j + 1 = 2 = 2kR , equation (2.8) leads to
2
8 2 0 d
Qez = d cos sin |H()|2 (a R ). (E 7)
A 0 0 2
Similarly, from (C 10),
sin |H()|2
|J|Gj,m Gj+1,m = exp [ik(,m +1,m )]
2kR

sin |H()|2
exp ik ,m
2kR

sin |H()| ( cos i 2 sin2 m2 )
2
= (E 8)
2kR 2 m2

and
j(j + 2)(j m + 1)(j + m + 1) 2
m2 . (E 9)
j+1
The last, cross-polarization term in (2.7) is of order 1 times smaller and can be
neglected.
Combining these results with (D 11), we derive, from (2.7),
0
4 2
Qsz = d cos sin |H()|2
A
0
2
d 2 sin2 m2
(a R ) 2 F + F . (E 10)
0 2 kR cos
Adding up (E 7) and (E 10), and taking (E 4) into account, we obtain the nal GO
result for Qz as given by (3.3) and (3.4).
By (2.15), G+j,m1 diers from Gj,m by having an extra sin under the integral
sign, as well as by the substitution m m 1 in the order of the Bessel function,
which leads to an extra factor ei when replaced in (2.13) and (2.14) (cf. (C 1)),
and similarly for Gj,m+1 . This leads to
sin2
|J|[Gj,m (G
j,m+1 ) Gj,m (Gj,m1 ) ] =
+
|H()|2 (ei ei ). (E 11)
2kR
Since 2
d cos g(sin ) = 0 (E 12)
0
for any function g, we nd (by (3.2), R depends on only through sin )

Qe = 0. (E 13)
We also derive from (E 11)
2
8 2 0 d
Qe = d sin2 |H()|2 (a R ) sin . (E 14)
A 0 0 2
On the other hand, similarly to (E 8), we nd

sin |H()|2
|J|Gj,m Gj+1,m+1 = exp ik + m + i , (E 15)
2kR m
and, taking (B 12) into account,
Gj,m (Gj+1,m1 ) = Gj,m (Gj+1,m+1 ) . (E 16)
Thus, neglecting the cross-polarization terms in (2.12), we nd
Qs = 0. (E 17)
With
j(j + 2)(j + m + 1)(j + m + 2)
+ m, (E 18)
j+1

we get, from (2.11), (D 11), (E 15) and (E 16),

0 2
2 2 |H()|2
Qs = Im d d (a R ) sin [2 (F + iF )]
A 0 0 R
{[R (1 sin2 sin2 )
12 zR sin(2) sin + R sin cos ]
+ i[R sin sin + R sin2 sin cos
+ 21 zR sin(2) cos ]}.
(E 19)
Several terms within square brackets in (E 19) are of the form of (E 12) and hence
do not contribute. Thus, adding the results of (E 14) and (E 19), we obtain the
GO result for the transverse force as given by (3.9) and (3.10). This completes the
derivation of the GO approximation from the partial-wave result.
References
Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I. 1972 Handbook of mathematical functions. New York: Dover.
Ashkin, A. 1992 Forces of a single beam gradient laser trap on a dielectric sphere in the ray
optics approximation. Biophys. J. 61, 569582.
Ashkin, A. 1997 Optical trapping and manipulation of neutral particles using lasers. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 94, 48534860.
Barton, J. P., Alexander, D. R. & Schaub, S. A. 1989 Theoretical determination of the net
radiation force and torque for a spherical particle illuminated by a focused laser beam. J.
Appl. Phys. 66, 45944602.
Bateman, J. B., Weneck, E. J. & Eshler, D. C. 1959 Determination of particle size and concen-
tration from spectrophotometric transmission. J. Colloid Sci. 14, 308329.
Berry, M. V. & Mount, K. E. 1972 Semiclassical approximations in wave mechanics. Rep. Prog.
Phys. 35, 315397.
Bohren, C. F. & Human, D. R. 1983 Absorption and scattering of light by small particles.
Wiley.
Born, M. & Wolf, E. 1980 Principles of optics, 6th edn. Oxford: Pergamon.
Brink, D. M. & Satchler, G. R. 1968 Angular momentum, 2nd edn, p. 147. Oxford: Clarendon.
Brussaard, P. J. & Tolhoek, H. A. 1957 Classical limits of ClebschGordan coecients, Racah
l
coecients and Dmn (, , ) functions. Physica 23, 955971.
Edmonds, A. R. 1957 Angular momentum in quantum mechanics. Princeton University Press.
Farsund, O. & Felderhof, B. U. 1996 Force, torque and absorbed energy for a body of arbitrary
shape and constitution in an electromagnetic radiation eld. Physica A 227, 108130.
Felgner, H., Muller, O. & Schliwa, M. 1995 Calibration of light forces in optical tweezers. Appl.
Optics 34, 977982.
Gelfand, I. M. & Shapiro, Z. Ya. 1956 Representations of the group of rotations of 3-dimensional
space and their applications. Am. Math. Soc. Transl. 2 2, 207316.
Ghislain, L. P., Switz, N. A. & Webb, W. W. 1994 Measurement of small forces using an optical
trap. Rev. Scient. Instrum. 65, 27622768.
Gu, M., Ke, P. C. & Gan, X. S. 1997 Trapping force by a high numerical-aperture microscope
objective obeying the sine condition. Rev. Scient. Instrum. 68, 36663668.
Gussgard, R., Lindmo, T. & Brevik, I. 1992 Calculation of the trapping force in a strongly
focused laser beam. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 9, 19221930.

Maia Neto, P. A. & Nussenzveig, H. M. 2000 Theory of optical tweezers. Europhys. Lett. 50,
702708.
Mehta, A. D., Rief, M., Spudich, J. A., Smith, D. A. & Simmons, R. M. 1999 Single-molecule
biomechanics with optical methods. Science 283, 16891695.
Neuman, K. C., Chadd, E. H., Liou, G. F., Bergman, K. & Block, S. M. 1999 Characterization
of photodamage to Escherichia coli in optical traps. Biophys. J. 77, 28562863.
Nussenzveig, H. M. 1992 Diraction eects in semiclassical scattering. Cambridge University
Press.
Nussenzveig, H. M. & Wiscombe, W. J. 1980 Eciency factors in Mie scattering. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 45, 14901494.
Ren, K. F., Grehan, G. & Gouesbet, G. 1996 Prediction of reverse radiation pressure by a
generalized LorenzMie theory. Appl. Optics 35, 27022710.
Richards, B. & Wolf, E. 1959 Electromagnetic diraction in optical systems. II. Structure of the
image eld in an aplanatic system. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 253, 358379.
Roosen, G. 1979 La levitation optique de spheres. Can. J. Phys. 57, 12601279.
Svoboda, K. & Block, S. M. 1994 Biological applications of optical forces. A. Rev. Biophys.
Biomol. Struct. 23, 247285.
Thorne, R. C. 1957 The asymptotic expansion of Legendre functions of large degree and order.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 249, 597620.
van de Hulst, H. C. 1957 Light scattering by small particles. Wiley.
Viana, N. B., Freire, R. T. S. & Mesquita, O. N. 2002a Dynamic light scattering from an optically
trapped microsphere. Phys. Rev. E 65, 111.
Viana, N. B., Mesquita, O. N. & Mazolli, A. 2002b In situ measurement of laser power at the
focus of a high numerical aperture objective using a microbolometer. Appl. Phys. Lett. 81,
17651767.
Wang, M. D., Schnitzer, M. J., Yin, H., Landick, R., Gelles, J. & Block, S. M. 1998 Force and
velocity measured for single molecules of RNA polymerase. Science 282, 902907.
Yao, X.-C., Li, Z.-L., Guo, H.-L., Cheng, B.-Y. & Zhang, D.-Z. 2001 Eects of spherical aber-
ration on optical trapping forces for Rayleigh particles. Chin. Phys. Lett. 18, 432434.


Optical Tweezers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optical Tweezers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optical Tweezers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on July 29, 2015

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers

Received 31 May 2002; revised 10 December 2002; accepted 31 March 2003;

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003) 459, 30213041

3022 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

aberrations, boundary perturbations (e.g. back reection of light at the glasswater

2. Optical force as a partial-wave series

where k = |k(, )| = n1 /c, (, ) = x + iy and the unit vectors x and y

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3023

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3024 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

The electric and magnetic elds in (2.2) can be written as

[(aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 )(Gj,m Gj+1,m+1 + Gj,m (Gj+1,m1 ) )]

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3025

[(aj aj+1 + bj bj+1 )(Gj,m Gj+1,m+1 Gj,m (Gj+1,m1 ) )]

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3026 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

(i) As all quantum numbers in eigenfunction expansions must be large, summa-

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3027

For the transverse components, we nd Q = 0, and

where = f sin is the distance between the corresponding cylindrical sector of

dP = Im exp(2 2 sin2 )f 2 cos sin d d. (3.13)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3028 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3029

0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3030 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

This equation is solved numerically for z as a function of R , for dierent values

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3031

The numerical integration in (2.9), as well as in the calculation of Gjm and G

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3032 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

Appendix A. Scattered eld

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3033

where L = ir is the dierential operator representing the orbital angular

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3034 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

Appendix B. WKB approximation for the rotation matrices

djm,1 ( 12 ) = m[j(j + 1)]1/2 djm,0 (/2)

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3035

Comparing (B 9) with (B 3), we get the value of the phase constant:

Appendix C. WKB approximations to the multipole coecients

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

3036 A. Mazolli, P. A. Maia Neto and H. M. Nussenzveig

stationary phase point (, ) corresponding to is determined by the equations

Appendix D. Evaluation of Mie coecient averages

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)

Theory of trapping forces in optical tweezers 3037

one nds (Nussenzveig 1992)

where the average is over a period 2 in the variable 2. The result is

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A (2003)