Q&A with photonics pioneer, Richard Soref - Part 1

Richard Soref has spent over 50 years researching photonics, contributing groundbreaking work in the areas of liquid crystals, silicon photonics and the broader topic of mid-infrared wavelengths and Group IV photonics. For 27 years he was employed at the Air Force Research Laboratory. He has also worked at the Sperry Research Center, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and is now a research professor at the University of Massachusetts in Boston.

In part 1 of a two-part interview with Gazettabyte, he details his research interests, explains what is meant by Group IV photonics, and discusses why photonics has not matched the semiconductor industry in terms of integration, and how that could change. 

Optics is a seemingly small subset of physics but really optics is a huge field with a deep, variegated nature waiting to be discovered

Richard Soref

Q: Having gained your Ph.D. in 1963, you have spent your career in what you call the science of light. What is it about photonics that you find so captivating?

RS: I’ve been drawn to its diversity and classical beauty. Photonics used to be called optics until it was re-labelled by the OSA. Optics is a seemingly small subset of physics but really optics is a huge field with a deep, variegated nature waiting to be discovered. To make progress, you need multiple disciplines, and I’ve always been captivated by the materials science aspect that opens the door to new physics and new devices.

Can you outline your career and how you ended up as a research professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston?

RS: A general outline is that I chose employers who would encourage exploration of new avenues, would give me freedom to fly or fall – and both are built into research. Basic research is where my talents and passion align.  And it helps to be obsessive. 

In the early years, I worked mostly alone. Then the pleasures of collaboration became important, and for decades I have been fortunate to have outstanding research partners who did heavy lifting of things like quantum mechanics and electromagnetic modelling.

At Lincoln Lab, I continued the nonlinear optical studies that I began during my Stanford Ph.D. work. Sperry Research was an excellent environment until it fell victim to the corporate research shutdown contagion. Ironically or prophetically, impurity-doped silicon infrared sensors were an early focus at Sperry.

Lithium niobate sparked my 40-year interest in electro-optics: Pockels [effect], Kerr [electro-optic effect], Franz-Keldysh [effect] and more. My extensive work on liquid crystals gained a lot of traction, and at an Information Display show I met scientists from South Korea who told me that my early papers helped them with their commercial flat-panel TV products. It was fulfilling to hear that.

Apart from some governmental distractions, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) years were a happy time and I welcomed the support of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR); the AFOSR is a national treasure.

Fibre-optic telecom emerged in 1985 when I was at AFRL. The fibres needed semiconductor assistance, I felt. That’s when the new silicon insights came to me. I’m glad that I was able in 1989 to identify silicon-on-insulator (SOI) as the primary waveguided-network platform, and I’m gratified that brilliant and innovative research groups around the world entered this field early on. They strived successfully to perfect this technology. To do my part, I tried to surround the problem in a 1985-2015 series of papers, among them my 1991 silicon-germanium-tin (SiGeSn) direct-gap prediction and my 1992 opto-electronic integrated circuit (OEIC) proposal. My most-cited work is a 1987 paper on free-carrier electro-optics.

Summarising, I had two visions at AFRL: Group IV photonics and long-wave integrated optoelectronics, where long wave denotes anything from two to 200 microns, although the mid-infrared wavelengths are key because of their room temperature possibilities. Perhaps there is a third vision: the multi-technology 3D chip on which seven technologies including bio-chemical could be combined.

Sadly those creative years drew to a close when the Massachusetts laboratory was shut down by the Air Force and the party moved to Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio. At that point, I joined the University of Massachusetts in Boston to stay near family and to keep the technical flame alive in research. I’m still collaborating with wonderful people, most of them young. 

Can you provide rigour regarding some definitions? Starting with silicon photonics, silicon mid-infrared optics and Group IV photonics, can you define each and do you have a preference for a particular term? 

RS: The silicon-photonics term is strongly entrenched in the global community. The phrase includes on-chip germanium photo-detectors and presumably germanium lasers. Nevertheless, I think this term is a bit narrow or misleading about the silicon-germanium-tin materials (SiGeSn) that likely will be used in the monolithic silicon chip of the future. 

I am in the minority when I say that I prefer the wider term Group IV photonics (GFP) which takes into account those three-part alloys as well as diamond and graphene. This GFP term was coined in 2003 in my office at Hanscom when Greg Sun and I were dreaming constructively about a new, dedicated IEEE conference, the international meeting I co-founded in 2004.

In the coming years, the purely photonic integrated circuit, the PIC chip, will evolve, after money is spent, into the opto-electronic chip, and the transistors will be CMOS or BiCMOS or heterojunction bipolar

What about the OEIC, how does it differ from silicon photonics?  And lastly, nano-photonics, how does it compare to silicon photonics? 

RS: The opto-electronic integrated circuit describes the synergistic marriage of nano-photonics and nano-electronics on the same silicon chip. Others have called this an electronic-photonic integrated circuit or EPIC. In essence, the OEIC is a transistorised photonic chip containing electronic intelligence, signal processing, computation, electrical control of active photonic devices, and perhaps RF wireless transceiving capability, which I strongly advocate.

In the coming years, the purely photonic integrated circuit, the PIC chip, will evolve, after money is spent, into the opto-electronic chip, and the transistors will be CMOS or BiCMOS or heterojunction bipolar. These possibilities illustrate the diversity of GFP.

As for nano-photonics, it is a subset of silicon photonics populated by wave-guided components whose smallest cross-section dimension is 15 to 30 percent of the free-space wavelength. Photonics, like electronics, started as micro and shrank to nano. The term nano means nanometer-scale and applies also to quantum-dot diameter, quantum-well layer thickness and photonic-crystal air hole diameter.

In over half a century, electronics has undergone an extraordinary transformation from simple integrated circuits to profoundly complex ones. Yet while integrated optics was spoken of as early as 1969 in the Bell Labs paper by Stuart Miller, integration has been far more modest. Why?

RS: The main roadblock has been the lack of compelling applications for medium scale and large scale photonic integration. Perhaps this was a lack of vision or a lack of market to drive the integration research. 

Another inhibiting factor is the large expense, the cost-per-run of making a photonic integrated circuit, although the OPSIS user foundry [before it closed] and other user facilities have mitigated entry costs to some extent.  Additional factors are the area-footprint and volume of the photonic building blocks. The photonic device size is generally larger, or much larger, than the size of the modern individual transistor.

Is this about to change? 

RS: To some degree, yes. People are packing photonic components together in a circuit but there are limits on how closely this can be done. These constraints lead me to wonder whether photonic integration will follow the same historical path as micro- and nano-electronics, the same developmental story.  Will there be a Moore’s law for photonics with PIC packing density doubling every 18 months? The billion-photonic circuit is not on the cards, so I doubt that the law will hold.

The diffraction limit of optics and the single-mode criteria set lower limits on photonic size, although plasmonic devices go below those dimensional limits and are compatible with photonics.

I see glimmers today of where LSI can make a difference. A near-term use is a 128x128 array of electro-optical phase shifters for optical beam steering.  More speculatively, we have electro-optical logic arrays, spectrometers on-chip, optical neural networks, dense wavelength-division multiplexers and demultiplexers, quantum processors, and optical computers using dense nano-LED arrays.

The government has deeper pockets than industry for sustained R&D efforts

What are the major challenges today making optical devices using a CMOS fabrication process?

RS: A partially-met challenge is to actualise a stable and reliable process in a 130nm or 65nm CMOS node for manufacturing the active and passive photonic parts of the on-chip network. We need process procedures for principal components which are recipes defined with a new design library. Whether to standardise photonics is an open question. When and where to place transistor circuits on-chip is a challenge. Putting transistors on a separate chip is a near-term alternative.

It takes art as well as science to determine the opto-electronic layering and to decide whether the available processing temperatures necessitate fabrication at the front end or back end of the overall process.

I believe that a manufacturing initiative is an essential next step for GFP to convince friends and skeptics alike of the long-term commercial and military value of GFP offered in new generations of energy-efficient ultra-performance chipsets. The government has deeper pockets than industry for sustained R&D efforts, so I believe that the Department of Defense can be the force driving GFP expansion into higher realms at very low costs per chip. 

That’s why I welcome the new 5-year Integrated Photonics Institute project as part of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation, funded by the RAMI bill [Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act]. It is a bill that would train the workforce, while public-private partnerships will transform research into products and will deploy infrastructure that supports US-enterprise competitiveness.

For the second part, click here