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."

Anyone have access to Applied Physics Letters???

[tuck_williamson]

I read the summary and terms like 'predicted analytically and demonstrated through simulation' don't seem to indicate that the material is actually developed. Unfortunately I don't have a subscription so I couldn't delve further. Anyone care to see if this is just speculation or if they actually have a material that seems to have neg refractive-index properties.

Re:Enough is enough

[carlos_benj]

By the way, I'm posting AC because I lost my email address.

Did you lose it in some metaphysical device?

The term 'metaphysical' is only used in the title and first line of the article. The scientists all use the term 'metamaterials' instead. A better definition of what 'metamaterials' are:

Metamaterials are engineered composites that exhibit superior properties not observed in the constituent materials or nature.

From DARPA [darpa.mil]

What the hell!?

[autopr0n]

I'm sure this lenses is real, but the submitter is hopelessly confused about the laws of nature and metaphysics. For one thing, metaphysics doesn't really have much to do with real physics at all, but rather refers to thinking about the nature of reality. Questions like "does god exist", "What makes something 'true'", "how can paradoxes exit" etc. Something that violates the laws of nature is supernatural.

And secondly, nothing can violate the laws of physics anyway. If something can't be explained by physics, then it means our theories are wrong, not the thing is 'supernatural' or whatever. Geez.

And to think, my great post about using enzymes to create electricity rather then expensive fuel cells got deleted.

Re:Anyone have access to Applied Physics Letters??

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the paper, it's a simulation of a realisable structure to achieve this NRI. So no new `real' experimental results, all computer stuff.

The nice thing about these NRIs seem to be the fact that they amplify the evavensent waves. Normally these waves decay exponentially with distance from the lens. Some microscopy techniques make use of them to achieve better-than-diffraction limited resolution.

Additionally, the realisable structure they are talking about in the paper is for microwaves - hence the mobile 'phone aspect.

Re:You cannot transcend the laws of nature

[watzinaneihm]

Y I learnt in school that refractive index = (1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 .
Which means that if refractive index is negative then speed of light is exceeded in the material , ummm.. no the square root of a number is negative .... ????
A bit of googling brought this [aps.org] out , which says that the rule of thumb I used is incorrect in "metamaterials".Ahh.. releif

Re:How about other uses outside of the visible lig

[ergo98]

One organization makes a robotically controlled radiation delivery "laser" that does effectively that by continuously moving around your body: It aims at the tumor constantly, but only spends a very small percentage of time on any other area of the body, hence the total radiation to the tumor is very high, while the destruction of healthy cells is limited.

Hearing about that product I imagine that that is a really cool and noble software development pursuit.

Re:smaller glasses?

[vidarh]

And for the people who have problems with too heavy glasses Lasik is unlikely to be an option. My gf is one of them - she spends a fortune getting her lenses halved, and even then they look quite thick at the edges. If she'd gone for glass lenses they'd be unbearably heavy. The thickness of the lenses also means she have to go for thicker (and heavier) frames to keep the lenses from falling out.

For her Lasik is getting within reach, but still carries a significant risk of further loss of vision and is unlikely to get her eyesight to the point where she don't need glasses.

Glasses is going to remain the only safe option for a lot of people for years to come.

Re:You cannot transcend the laws of nature

[canajin56]

So, what you're saying is that if we gather all that information, then we CAN make a perfect model of planetary motion. Not saying what you say is false, you just have a weak argument for the case.

Well, two points. One is that, due to the heisenberg uncertainty principal, you can not gather all of that information exactly
The second is that all of these "rules" are just approximations. For example, assuming you had all that information, and used a classical newtonian model, your answer would be slightly off because of special relativity. And, more than likely, if you used special relativity, your answer would still be off, because there are probably more complicated underlying rules;

If you use a newtonian model of a ball rolling down a slope in a vaccume (To get rid of air resistance), your answer is going to be pretty close to correct. If you take into account that gravity will change VERY slightly as its height changes, your answer will be slightly more correct, assuming you get a very good model of the gravitational field. If instead, you model the ball and slope at the atomic level, your answer will be even more correct, and take a HELL of a lot longer to come up with. If you model it at the sub-atomic level, well...you get the idea. There comes a point where we don't KNOW what lies beyond. All of these "Laws" are approximations that are good enough for what they are used for. Does it matter that your answer for how far the ball will roll is off by a quarter millimeter? Not in most cases.