Re: [ATM] Superlens (negative refractive index)

[William Lee <wjl12@comcast.net>]

Jerry,

I don't think you quite understand the physics.  I never claimed that  
negative refractive index means that waves have to exceed the speed  
of light.  Frankly, negative refractive index already exists (it's  
called a mirror). So, claiming it can't exist, especially if you  
don't have a basic understanding of physics, is useless.

It's simple: index of refraction=+/-sqrt(epsilon*mu)
where epsilon and mu are the permitivity and permeability as usual  
from Maxwell's equations

Bill

On Oct 20, 2006, at 5:21 PM, Jerry wrote:

> I haven't read the Sci Am article. I'm sure I wouldn't understand  
> it if I
> had. But I'm guessing the article was by the same guys that did the  
> kitchen
> table cold fusion with pancake mix and a breast pump a few years back.
> Frankly I don't think doing it at microwave or a single wavelength  
> is going
> to work either.  I still think we are talking about a necessity of  
> the waves
> exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum else they refract the same  
> way as
> OSLO says they will. I seem to remember something about super  
> conductors
> with negative resistance...... and that would mean the lower the  
> voltage the
> higher the current.  What ever happened to superconductors?
>
> Jerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Lee
> No, it means the electric permitivity and the magnetic permability
> are both negative (for normal materials, they are both positive).
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>  Jerry wrote:
>
>> So that means the speed of light is faster in these mediums than in a
>> vacuum?
>>
>> We've come a long way. FAST.
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Lee
>>
>> Has anyone read the article on superlenses and metamaterials in Sci
>> Am? (July 2006)  I finally read it (I'm a little behind on my
>> reading) and there are some fascinating implications for negative
>> refractive index mediums: resolution finer than the wavelength of the
>> light.
>>
>> Now, they've only been able to do this in the microwave region, but
>> the implications for optical astronomy are awesome.  Also, it would
>> seem to imply that radio astronomy would be able to be done with
>> smaller antennas and better resolution.
>>
>> Finally, not to be limited by diffraction!
>>
>> Clear Skies,
>> Bill
>> _______________________________________________
>> ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
>>
>

_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/