Physicists Close in on 'Superlens' 199
An anonymous reader writes "In Oregon, physicists have developed a material for creating a real superlens that in theory could attain a one-nanometer visual resolution. The idea is to use exotic materials to create "negative" refraction of light, which literally means steering it in the opposite direction of that found in the natural world."
They've been around (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, people will find better information by searching for "left-handed" and "metamaterial" rather than "negative index" on the various sites.
Re:Aww. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:These would be nice! (Score:5, Informative)
Not lenses - diffraction compensators! (Score:5, Informative)
A very similar thing is dispersion compensation in fiber-optical communications where the dispersion of one fiber is compensated in another with dispersion of opposite sign. This way, a signal can go through the two fibers without being distorted by the chromatic dispersion. Dispersion and diffraction (i.e. free space light propagation)are mathematically virtually the same thing, and the negative-index material is equivalent to having a fiber with dispersion of the opposite sign. So perhaps it's more right to think about the super.lenses as "diffraction-compensators"?
Re:What about zone plates? (Score:5, Informative)
- INSANE chromatic abberation (linear z-dispersion with wavelenght)
- Multiple orders of refraction (the spot that has the 1st order in focus also shows the higher orders unfocused, so the effective spot is MUCH larger)
- VERY low efficiency (talk about 1/100ths of the photons to actually get where they are supposed to)
They are nice were there is nothing else available (or possible because of beamline restrictions, like when there is no space for glancing angle mirrors &co), but sadly they arent that good...
Re:These would be nice! (Score:1, Informative)
First of all electron microscopes are relatively cheap and then you don't get resolutions down to atom-size with electron microscopes. No even close.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanning_electron_mi
More information about their work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is that really possible? (Score:2, Informative)
The trick is, that the AFM tip is very close to the surface, much closer than the UV wavelength. Thereby the lightwaves to not have the pathlength to interfere and cancel out, and you can get optical microscopy images with a resolution of about 1/10th the wavelength of the used source.
B.
Re:Negative Refraction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Its even stranger... (Score:4, Informative)
It should also be noted that these negative index materials rely on resonant behaviour, and are consequently highly dispersive.
Re:Not lenses - diffraction compensators! (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, in reality, the resolution is limited by absorption and the length-scale of the artificial structures.
Light doesn't go faster than c in these materials... see some of my other posts on this...
Re:E=MC^2, yo. (Score:2, Informative)
The ramifications of this technology are very large, not just for the optical realm, but for other frequencies also.
Re:These would be nice! (Score:2, Informative)
BTW TFA has no information about what material/technology does this use. Anyone got links?
Re:Is that really possible? (Score:5, Informative)
As far as I can tell, the idea is that diffraction doesn't work quite how it's taught in classrooms: there is a standard "far-field" portion, which is limited to a resolution equal to the wavelength of the light; but there is also a "near-field" portion, which "contains all of the sub-wavelength spatial details about an object, but
The object, lens and image all have to be located within the near-field, less than one wavelength in size, else the waves decay too much - that limits the practical applications, but it could apparently be useful for the optical storage industry.
Re:mandatory Star Trek quote (Score:4, Informative)
You can't peek into the eye of a needle by throwing bowling balls at it, but you can very well thread a long thread through it, even if the volyme of the thread is far larger than the volume of the eye of the needle. You just need a coherent light source exactly perpendicular to the surface. Then your only problem is diffraction, which is already better mentioned by other posts.
Re:These would be nice! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They've been around (Score:3, Informative)
The blue lines represent the path taken by light. The red lines represent the surface of the material.
The MPEGs might be worthwhile as well. I couldn't take the time to view them because of my dog-slow web access here at work.
And to clarify on the importance of these developments... No, left-handed materials are not really "new" in either theory or in practical use. What is new is materials that are left-handed for light in the visible spectrum. Recall that index of refraction is dependent on wavelength (or frequency, take your pick). To get left-handed material, you need two rare scenarios to occur at once: one electrical and one magnetic, and it has been more difficult to create this situation with some wavelengths (such as visible light) than with others (such as microwaves).
I believe they have taken to being called "metamaterials" because we need to "build" custom crystal structures tailored for our needs, and they don't tend to grow in "normal" ways.
negative index of refraction: a stick picture (Score:2, Informative)
light ray
__\__|
___\_|
----------- refractive material boundary
_____|\
_____|_\
normal
obviously i can't tilt slashes any more =) so this is an example of a refractive index of 1
negative index of refraction
light ray
_\__|
__\_|
----------- refractive material boundary
__/_|
_/__|
normal
refractive index of -1
This is weird so the hullabaloo
Re:These would be nice! (Score:2, Informative)