Slashdot Mirror
Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten
deglr6328 writes "In what is being heralded variously as a "remarkable accomplishment" and a "breakthrough", physicists have reportedly beaten the diffraction limit at optical frequencies. First hypothesized to be possible 30 years ago by Russian physicist Victor Veselago, meta-material "superlenses" with negative refractive indices were first demonstrated around 2001 at microwave frequencies. The use of a thin silver film as an optical superlens in this case, has allowed the team to resolve features less than 40 nanometers wide; 10 times better than any conventional optical microscope. The consequences of the discovery are immediately apparent and include opportunities for extremely fine biomedical imaging in-vivo and greater increases in transistor density for microchips by superlens augmentation of photolithography masks."
Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten
And then had its wallet stolen.
Ever since Star Trek: First Contact, I've been wanting to get contacts/implants like Geordi's artificial eyes... Zoom would be SUCH a handy feature for regular vision! I wonder if something like this could be adapted to that kind of application.
Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
Can anybody illustrate diffraction limit? The wikipedia definition is too geeky.
extremely fine biomedical imaging in-vivo and greater increases in transistor density for microchips by superlens augmentation of photolithography masks
What about thinnner, lighter spectacle lenses for the 'Coke bottle' lens wearing, brunt of endless jokes myopic geeks?!
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
I don't suppose they'll find a way to apply this to mirrors, too?
:)
Though if it's just lenses, we might still see some very nice next-generation refracting telescopes.
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
As I understand it, one of the reasons satellites can't read your credit card is because of the diffraction limit. Yes, you also have distortion caused by inhomogeneities in atmospheric density, but that's correctable with adaptive optics. Scattering by particulates isn't correctable, but there often isn't much there.
Does this development mean that the main limit on satellite telescope resolution has fallen?
Also, is it just me or does it seem that, very recently, we've been getting intersting stories here again?
GTRacer
- Needs metalens for left eye
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I was wondering about this as well - the number of observations we are making of planets in other solar systems is already astonishingly large given the angular distance these objects subtend as viewed from Earth (true, many of the observations are indirect and thus don't directly depend upon the angular distance).
I wonder if the breakthroughs in bypassing the diffraction limit will allow for direct imaging of larger bodies (Jovian worlds at Jovian orbital distances).
www.eFax.com are spammers
Those certainly were the first things I thought of!
Fnord.
This pretty much means that the will be a huge amount of R&D put optics, and into redesigning everything from microscope lenses, camera (and cell phone) lenses, to telescope and space based lenses (now the US government can read the fine print on your credit card). Waveguides (read antennas) are also included which means redesigns of antennas for cell phones, wireless internet, radio, and satellites.
There is a nice summary of the issues on this site. http://physics.ucsd.edu/lhmedia/ It made sense to me, and I'm only a Biologist. The difference is the use of microwaves rather than visible light. Published in the May 2001 issue of Science
One day, perhaps, scientists will invent new & modernly acceptable language to say the same thing that Royal Raymond Rife was talking about earlier last century. Rife's microscope was a truly unique invention that still lacks rigorous investigation, mainly due to its extraordinary claims giving it a 'quack' status. The curioes can start at places like here. For those who read with a "zero tolerance" filter for anything that doesn't sound like a recent issue of Science or Nature, please step lightly where people are using "volatile" language....
.
-shpoffo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_refraction
see also Snell's Law,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell%27s_law
Snell's Law: n(a) sin A = n(b) sin B,
where a n(a) is the index of refraction of medium a, and A is the incidence, and n(b) is the index of refraction of medium b, and B is the angle of refraction, where both A, and B are normal with respect to the surface between the two media.
The plane formed by the normal line, and the of incident ray will contain the the refracted ray whether the index of refraction is positive or negative. However, a positive index of refraction will produce a refracted ray that will be measured in the positive direction from the normal line, whereas a negitive index of refraction will produce a refractive ray that has an angle of refraction that is measured measured in the negitive direction from the normal line.
STB
Just adding to the confusion...
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
In speculation I imagine it might take 3 super lenses, one for each frequency of red-blue-green (from previous reading the lenses are frequency specific), but I suspect it should be possible to image things in full color below the diffraction limit by adding the images together after three scans. Some day perhaps we will know the real color of objects that are smaller than one wavelength of light. Maybe red blood cells have little speckles of blue that just don't show because of the diffraction limit. Who knows what we may find. Since color spectrum is related to chemical composition we may be able to discover material and chemical properties in complex objects (mostly organic) we had not guessed at because they where hidden by being smeared out in the average.
Letter To Iran
The consequences of the discovery are immediately apparent
Umm, yeah, immediately apparent...
Anyway, according to the article, this can be used to make a better microscope, but what about making a better telescope, or laser? Both telescopes and lasers are inherently limited by diffraction, could some of this negative refraction be used to cancel it out?
Well, obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I haven't seen much of an explanation as to what this whole discovery actually means.
Didn't you see Enemy of the State? The "direct line of sight limit" has been broken already with the use of fancy computer post-processing.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Both telescopes and lasers are inherently limited by diffraction, could some of this negative refraction be used to cancel it out?
Earth-based telescopes are much more limited by diffraction in the air between the Earth's surface and the top of the atmosphere (this is what makes stars twinkle as seen by the unaided eye), though ISTR that the latest ones can compensate for air diffraction in real time(!).
This thing might have great application in a telescope based in Outer Space.
Tag lost or not installed.