Re: [ATM] Superlens (negative refractive index)

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

	It is interesting that Kingslake in Lens Design Fundamentals assigns
unity index to air.  Rutten and Venrooij in Telescope Optics assigns unity
index to vacuum. In Introduction to Lens Design Geary does the same. I have
a few more books but I think Kingslake is going to be odd man out.

	I think it is the vacuum that is 1. But I read the books, I don't
write them. 

	Of course the index of air must be at some standard temperature and
pressure. Rutten and Venrooij gives air 1.00029 and Kingslake gives the
inverse of that .9997 as the vacuum index.

	Thanks to Vladimir for putting negative index to rest. No such thing
as negative index of refraction.

Jerry


-----Original Message-----
From: Bob May
 
Actually, neither of the V's will become negative and thus, the n
will never become negative.  Something not obviuos to most and is
the truth.  You can never really get to an actual negative number
for any of that.  The negative that the dumb media is talking
about is that the number goes negative relative to the n of space
(1.000).
Bob May



-----Original Message-----
From: Vladimir Galogaza

>To get a negative index of refraction, the speed
>through the material needs to be faster than the surrounding
>medium.  If we all lived in glass, the air surrounding us would
>indeed have a negative index relative to what we know of.

I do not get this.
if  n=v1/v2  then n is not negative until one of v's is negative.

If  v1>v2  then n>1 
if  v1<v2  then n<1  

but never negative.

Where  assumption that n is negative if  v2>v1 came from .
Have  I missed something?

Regards Vladimir.

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

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