Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News Science

Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten 55

Posted by Hemos from the moving-to-the-next-challenge dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten More

Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten

Comments Filter:

  • And then... (Score:4, Funny)

    by binaryspiral ( 784263 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:26AM (#12335744)
    Diffraction Limit Has Been Beaten

    And then had its wallet stolen.

  • Zoom-Eyes (Score:1, Interesting)

    by kniLnamiJ-neB ( 754894 )
    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.
    • Though when your sitting in the waiting room looking at the glossy for the pair of cybereyes your about to get, make sure to read the fine print:

      Zoom feature: 1x to 40x digitally enhanced optical zoom. This feature can be integrated with a smartlink and tactical system for auto tracking of targets. NOTE: Field trials have shown this feature is best used while head is kept gyroscopically stable, otherwise extreme neaseua will occur!

  • What is diffraction limit? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by naveenkumar.s ( 825789 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:28AM (#12335761)
    Can anybody illustrate diffraction limit? The wikipedia definition is too geeky.

  • You insensitive clods (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:39AM (#12335838) Homepage
    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?!
    • Wear contacts.
      Very few people just can't wear contacts.
      For the rest, they are very cheap now (even in poor countries, where I live), because they are so much cheaper to manufacture.

      The vision is astounding, and of course, you lose that myopic super-ability of having ultra-vision for small things, but a magnifier does the job.

      If refuse to get rid of glasses as a fashion statement, or something like that, well, maybe the coke-bottle lenses are jujst a part of it.
      • I'm not myopic, but I do wear glasses. The problem with contacts is:

        1) We don't want to expend mony for something disposable
        2) We don't want something slipping around in our eye and annoying us
        3) We don't want our eyes constantly irritated, etc.
        4) We don't want to have to go around putting drops in our eyes.
        5) Everyone who does have contacts complains about them nonstop, that's not very conducive to us wanting them.
        • I can't argue with the money thing, of course, but _in_my_country_, you can get 1 year worth of disposables for 2500 pesos, that's 100 US dollars, or 77 euros.
          Of course, in many places in the world, that _is_ expensive.
          On the other hand, a nice set of regular glasses costs 3000 or 4000 pesos here.
          Added to the difference in quality of vision, it's a non issue, if you can afford them, of course.

          2 - you don't feel disposables (I have very annoying allergies in my eyes, and I don't feel _disposable_ contacts,
    • Vision therapy....Lasic surgery...contact lenses...plenty of options, bud.

  • Hmmm. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) * on Monday April 25, 2005 @08:52AM (#12335935) Journal
    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. :)
    • 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).

    • Re:Hmmm. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amelagar ( 132324 )
      Um. Mirrors don't have diffraction.

      • Re:Hmmm. (Score:2)

        by Shag ( 3737 ) *
        Okay, then, I guess we don't have to worry about it. :D

        In an optical system such as a terrestrial cassegrain telescope, where the light passes through the Earth's atmosphere, hits a primary mirror, is reflected to a secondary mirror, then through a hole in the center of the primary mirror to, say, a CCD, there are optical limits (defined by physics that I don't know) beyond which the detail of distant objects cannot be resolved. The results of all this are what's known as "seeing."

        For example, I know tha

  • Satellite telescopes? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Markus Registrada ( 642224 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:08AM (#12336033)
    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?
    • Probably not, no. The major stumbling block in satellite imagery is atmospheric distortion, as you say. Even with adaptive optics and intense post-processing the degree of blur caused by particulate scattering and heat lensing effects cannot be corrected. The only way that I can see this working is if a grid of (high power) infrared lasers, each tuned to a slightly different frequency, were pointed at the target being photographed, in such a fashion that if projected in a perfectly straight line they'd cove

    • Re:Satellite telescopes? (Score:4, Funny)

      by deglr6328 ( 150198 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @09:37AM (#12336335)
      I hear that the other reason is because most people don't usually walk around holding their credit cards face up above their heads. :o)
      • 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.

    • This has absolutely no relevence to remote sensing or long-distance imaging in any way. Evanescent waves are "vanishing waves." That means that they disappear within a few wavelengths of the surface from which they are emitted. The "superlens" must be located close enough to the object to collect evanescent waves in order to work. Thus, the primary application is microscopy.

      CV
  • In all my years of /.'ing, I don't recall another summary with such a high syllable/word ratio...

    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

  • 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.

    Those certainly were the first things I thought of!

  • Impact on lense and waveguide design is huge (Score:3, Informative)

    by metoc ( 224422 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @11:10AM (#12337385)
    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/ [ucsd.edu] 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

  • Slowly catching up to Roayl Rife..... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shpoffo ( 114124 ) <nospamNO@SPAMnewalexandria.org> on Monday April 25, 2005 @12:11PM (#12338166) Homepage
    One day, perhaps, scientists will invent new & modernly acceptable language to say the same thing that Royal Raymond Rife [rife.org] was talking about earlier last century. Rife's microscope [www.rife.de] 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 [rt66.com]. 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
    • Oh, where to begin? Anybody who found this "interesting" or "insightful" ought to read the London Science Museum's discussion of Rife's microscopes. In fact, Rife's microscopes have been rather thoroughly investigated by museums, microscopy companies such as Basuch and Lomb, and a wide array of other interested parties. The general conseus is that Rife created some very mechanically complex but optically sub-par microscopes which utterly fail to produce the miraculous effects he claimed. One could go on, bu

      • but it's easier to just read the Science Museum report here...

        And if you had, you would have come across the part that reads

        "...and a central element that had been vandalised out of the instrument. When this element was removed was the subject of considerable conjecture, and its contents even more."

        Meaning the device wasn't functional during the analysis performed. You almost certain read this part:

        "Cowden tended to agree with colleagues in the United States who pronounced it a flawed design

  • Index of refration... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spock the Baptist ( 455355 ) on Monday April 25, 2005 @02:55PM (#12339942) Journal
    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...
  • This is exactly the kind of Hard-Science News I depend on Slashdot for. I have heard about this work with microwaves and was hoping it would apply to higher frequencies as well. I am curious why this doesn't make the main Slashdot page however. I'm tired of seeing article after article about software lawsuits. More Hard-Science News I say.

    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 sus

    • Amen!

      This is a reeeeeaaaalllllyyyyy hot post.

      It's got the ol' research juices flowing big time. Spent the entire day reading online papers on the subject. Fun! Fun! Fun!

      Did I say this was Fun?!?!?!?

      Allow me to recomend the following articles, and papers...

      http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-6/p37.ht m l

      JOURNAL OF OPTICS A: PURE AND APPLIED OPTICS:
      J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt. 7 (2005) S3-S11

      Left-handed electromagnetism obtained via nanostructured metamaterials: comparison with that from microstructure
    • Errm, I could be wrong here, but don't think I am:

      An object smaller than the wavelength of light you are 'looking at' CAN'T be that color.

      It would have to reflect that wavelength of light; unlikely.

      Oh, wait. Just remembered: You can't look at an object (structure) that is smaller than the wavelength of whatever you are using to illuminate said object with. Hence things like electron microscopes; resolution is limited by wavelength, diffraction limit just made it *WORSE* than a single wavelength.

      So, this
      • Since the wavelength of blue light is 470nm, and the claim here is to have imaged down to 40nm with visible light, this must not be the case.

        Keep in mind that light is not just a wave but a particle. I don't understand the physics of it, but being unable to focus both the nearfield and farfield aspects of a wave is what previously prevented ascertaining the exact location of the atom that emitted a specific photon. It will be interesting to see what the new limit on resolving will be. Perhaps theorecti

  • 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.

    • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The medium is the message." -- Marshall McLuhan

Close