Re: [ATM] Superlens (negative refractive index)

["Jerry" <wa4guu@verizon.net>]

I know. Though I put it as a question, it was my claim that the waves would
have to exceed the speed of light.  I stand by that claim.  I guess I am
stuck in "old school" thought that the index of refraction is a ratio of the
speed of light in a vacuum to the speed of light in the indexed medium in
question. If the index of the new glass -Bk7 were -1.517 for d light, what
would that mean about the speed of d light in the glass compared to its
speed in a vacuum?

Maybe something else is negative, but the index of refraction is not.

As for reflection....  What is the value of the negative index at the
reflecting surface?  Does the angle of reflection change with wavelength in
accord with the change in the "negative index"?

The guys doing the kitchen table cold fusion made a lot of smart people look
silly. Or was it a lot of silly people they made look silly?

You are right. I don't understand the physics.

Jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: William LeeSent: Sunday, October 22, 2006 5:42 PM
To: Jerry
 
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/