Slashdot Mirror
More on Lenses with a Negative Index of Refraction
Roland Piquepaille writes "A University of Toronto researcher has developed a flat lens that doesn't respect the "normal" laws of nature and could significantly enhance the resolution of imaged objects. "The creation of an unusual flat lens may finally resolve a long-running controversy about the existence of materials that have metaphysical qualities -- so-called "metamaterials" -- that transcend the laws of nature. The lens could lead to amplified antennas, smaller cell phones and increased data storage on CD-ROMs. As says George Eleftheriades, the Toronto professor, "This is new physics." Check this column for more details and other references to metamaterials."
It is impossible to transcend the laws of nature. You can only determine that your understanding of nature has changed.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
is what this article does not respect. Either this is an early April Fools post ("left handed materials" from a Mr. ELEFTtheriades?) or just so poorly written as to be completely uninformative. First, I submit that all laws of nature are "normal". Second, there are some goofs in here that I could spot even 25+ years after taking my first and only course in physical optics. Light "normally" diverges through a flat lens? I don't think so...
New technology does not equal 'metaphysical' devices. That's a stupid and confusing use of the word. And do you really mean to tell me that anything which isn't completely understood 'violates the known laws of physics'? Take a valium.
'Metamaterials" are not "metaphysical", in the same way that metainformation is not inherently metaphysical. Meta is--say it with me people--just a prefix meaning (from the jargon file) "one level up" or if you prefer (from websters) "between, with, after, behind, over, about, reversely".
Metamaterials are carefully constructed arrangements of regular materials, whose properties combine to produce behaviours that no "pure" material can duplicate, including negative indexes of refraction.
This should not be a surprising concept to anyone who is aware that, for example, atoms can combine form metatoms (so-called "molecules") that have all kinds of properties not found when dealing with pure elements -- and yet the laws of nature survive!
There is no transcending the laws of nature going on here.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
I hate it when science discoveries are reported in that uber-hyped style. It so obscures what the real finding actually is. It looks like they have something here, but in between the whole 'transcend the laws of nature' garbage and the 'this is so fantastic and revolutionary it will change absolutely everything' garbage, it's hard to see what they actually have.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Actually, my BS detector went off in a few places in the linked article.
"Light passing through a flat glass lens will diverge." Not on my planet, bucko.
"'allows focusing almost two orders of magnitude higher than is possible with conventional lenses'..." Exactly what numerical quantity corresponds with "focusing?"
"the amount of information that could be stored on optical media would be vastly increased..." I thought that was limited by the wavelength of light used to record and read the information.
"By reversing the mathematical signs of the three main properties of all optical materials -- permittivity, permeability and refractive index -- Veselago showed that light going one way in normal materials would reverse direction in metamaterials." 1) Sure, if I start flipping signs in long-accepted equations that describe phenomena in the natural world, I can come up with all kinds of breakthroughs - antigravity, to say the least! 2) But if I set up a conventional refractive/reflective (I specifically omit "diffractive") optical system of any sort, can't I also run the light the other way identically?
Now, I think I recall an article in Scientific American some time back about structures made up of nanoantennae whose macroscopic optical properties were counterintuitive, but I don't think what I'm reading here speaks to that.
...and Physicists are terrible at English. Seriously guys, put down the calculator and look up some of the words you are using; you are starting to sound like Dubya (He misunderestimated my mathematical abilities!). Once they start reporting that "the discovery filled me with shock and awe and sent me into a regime of extreme delight" I'm gonna start waving a gun around. :-)
Seriously though, just because Joe Physics "proved" something with a number of complex mathematical conjectures and theories 20 years ago, that doesn't mean that all future results that contradict this are "violations of the fundamental properties of Nature". Please get down off your high horse. The universe was not created according to a first-year calculus textbook, and if you disagree with this you have your own regime...sorry...agenda to push, such as having a commonly-accepted theory with your name on it.
Reminds me of a graph published by a fairly respected researcher that one of my profs showed me that modeled the spectroscopic properties of a number of compounds to a tee. A whole lot of work went into this equation, and it was even more impressive when you consider the limited processing power of computers at the time. There was just one catch: the modeling equation had FIVE variables...oh sorry..."correction factors". My friend asked him if they tried fitting the properties of a cup of coffee to the graph as well, because it would probably fit with the proper "correction factors". He thought it was worth a try...but he IS a coffee nut.
I've noticed in the last few months that Slashdot's science coverage is going downhill. Good things go unmentioned, while crap like 'metaphysical' materials gets posted. Better refresh. Probably got a new story up about free energy or time travel. Or maybe one about creationism being correct, while we're at it.
Smaller still works because you can just make the guts of the phone smaller and use the rest of the space for more battery.