Jump to content

Talk:Superlens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did anyone except for Mr. Pendry ever reproduce this effect ?

[edit]

It's a very new idea - I think that it should be mentioned.

From the scientific american article on the topic, I believe it was reproduced. 69.255.20.212 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some skeptical reviews of the work: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/08/first-superlens-not-so-super-yet.ars DonPMitchell (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many demonstrations of superlenses since that article was written (and even before). The link you give is not a good critique of the current state of the art, plain and simple. Superlenses were demonstrated years before that article was written by groups including Zhang's at Berkeley. (non-WP user) 09:07, 14 March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.254.204 (talk)

I'm more than skeptical! Some of what is contained in the article is valid (such as super resolution with the tiny holes) but the main subject of the Pendry lens using a supposed (but impossible) negative index of refraction material is not physically realizable. Please see my comments at [1] Interferometrist (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that didn't come out right (I'm new to editing WP!). I was trying to reference my comments on the talk page about negative index of refraction materials at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials#Not_valid_science Interferometrist (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the Negative index metamaterials talk page. Here is the link: Talk:Negative index metamaterials#Not valid science---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials#Not_valid_science

Added some novice understanding

[edit]

The diagram I added isn't by means precise (not really sure how to make perfect ray diagrams), but I think it gives a good idea on how the focusing works.

I think focusing the article on Pendry's lens will make it more clear, as it seems to be the thing most popularly referred to as a superlens. Pyjeon (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project templates

[edit]

Added wiki project templates Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background on research status

[edit]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120109102916.htm -- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this substantially

[edit]

I came here to find out how a superlens works. I'd like to be polite, but I'm very frustrated. I've read many times now about how conventional lenses are used to visualize cells -- like four times -- along with several descriptions of why conventional lenses can't make clear images of things smaller than the wavelength of light that they focus. Get to the point!

Then when it seems like the author is about to describe how a superlens works, he or she just drops jargon. It uses near-field electromagnetic waves, rather than far-field! It's a metamaterial! There's a layer of gold atoms! But never mind how that allows better resolution! Because metamaterials!

Please, just a layperson's description of how it works. Without a 5,000-word preamble about conventional lenses, analogies about pencil-line widths, and stuff about staining biological cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize. After carefully reading the article, I have an inkling about how a superlens works, but there are many gaps. Some I could fill in with my own speculation, others remain. Unfortunately, until I understand the topic better myself, I won't be able to substantially improve the article. Art Carlson (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article is very hard to understand. On reading some other internet sources and, in particular, Pendry's original PRL paper, I conclude that the original material is no more intelligible. Also, the entire matter seems rather like a back-of-the-envelope calculation without much further investigation of the details. Altogether, I find the PRL paper unworthy for publication, especially in PRL (it's a shame, but it's by no means the first such paper to appear in a high-impact journal). Assuming the subject deserves any mention at all on Wikipedia, I suggest editing the article to make it clearer and less biased:
  • The preamble of the article should state what the superlens is rather than what its potential uses are, assuming that the theory is correct and it can be implemented in practice.
  • The term "perfect lens" is very misleading. This term was coined by Pendry, as it seems, although there is such a term in optics, which means something completely different. I see no reason for repeating it in this article.
  • Given that the primary potential use (circumventing the Abbe limit) is of such fundamental importance, the way the superlens is to achieve this goal should be presented much more clearly.
Overall, I seriously doubt the correctness of the theory itself, in fact, as my understanding is at this point, I would call it meta-science.
BTW, is there a way of marking the article as "meta-scientific" such that non-scientists can identify it as speculation or even false? MoogX (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you are absolutely right, that the possibility of a passive imaging system in the far-field (more than a few wavelengths from the object) beating the resolution limit, is absolutely invalid. Unfortunately, according to the rules of Wikipedia, knowledge which is supported by credible sources and has not been widely debunked by leaders in the field, is considered valid material to include and present as fact. The characteristics of the article you mention which leave the presentation vague and lacking a clear explanation, are an indication of the basic problem. The proper term for this study, I believe is Pathological science, and someday, I am sure, the "Perfect Lens" will appear as an entry in that article! I have no doubt of that at all :-) Interferometrist (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Interferometrist: and @MoogX:, I made a few edits. Could you suggest further improvements? I think it's fine to continue including information from credible sources that hasn't been widely debunked, but the thrust of the article should naturally be the best current understanding of the concept, major experiments, and likely applications (however limited). – SJ + 06:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Superlens title needs qualifying title words to clarify it is inventive speculation, not science.

[edit]

The Superlens article is a carefully compiled collection of inventive speculations on the subject of bypassing the clasical physical limits of Newtonian optics and Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equations.

The rhetorical appeal of the article comes from the fact that every student who has looked through a microscope has experienced the ambiguity and blurring of images visible in the instrument. Instead of a super lens, accurate observation and discovery requires years and careers and a wide variety of inductive and deductive experimentation.

Previous Editing Talk writers have called for substantial editing. I suggest "Superlens" should be edited to make it clear it is a story of a succession of inventors who have tried to bypass the limits of physical optics. Then the article can be organized into efforts at bypassing the Rayleigh criterion, changing the wavelength of the light source, surface profiling with electron probes, and decoupling the Maxwell field symmetries.

All the super lens stories end in the same way, the experimental setup does something interesting but there is a lot of noise in the data or the next generation of apparatus can't quite be built. In a way, the super lens idea is to biology as the 100 MPG carburetor story is to the car industry and the perpetual motion machine was to the 18th century steam engine business.

Lee mck (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Lee_mck[reply]

There's real science here, independent of the inventors, if we can only extract it from the confusion, redundancy, and puff. – SJ + 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of negative index of refraction

[edit]

I corrected the text for the figure by adding the 'a) ', but the figure in 'a' is incorrect. The right hand arrow in the blue normal material should be closer to the normal than the incident ray. Perhaps make the normal material a different color to set it apart. -- Steve -- (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Superlens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs rewriting

[edit]

This article is quite frustrating to read. It has way too many titles and too less actual content. Sometimes it isn't even clear which title is over which sub-title. The article is basically written as a list of achievements instead of as an explanation of the subject. While achievements are valid in a wikipedia article, they should not come instead of the explanation. 185.175.35.246 (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superlens&oldid=1208416100"