Talk:Superlens: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:08, 14 March 2010

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on browsers other than Internet Explorer.

WildBot found one or more links in this article with broken #section; for more information on #section links see Wikipedia:Linking#Piped links to sections of articles.
The broken #section links found were: EM spectrum #microwave

This box was placed by WildBot, a bot designed to keep it up to date and then remove it when the links are fixed. If WildBot is malfunctioning, or you have suggestions for improvements, please leave a message.

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): Dispersive, Hyperbolic, Viability, Lens, Interface, Amplified, Finite, Array, (2x) Near-field

For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page.

Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

The Manual of Style for section headings says "primary headings are then ==H2==, followed by ===H3===, ====H4====, and so on."

The article's first heading has three "=" and later there is a heading with two "=":
===Image formation===
==Nano-optics with metamaterials==

This box was placed by WildBot, a bot designed to keep it up to date and then remove it when the links are fixed. If WildBot is malfunctioning, or you have suggestions for improvements, please leave a message.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics C‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Spectroscopy C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spectroscopy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SpectroscopyWikipedia:WikiProject SpectroscopyTemplate:WikiProject SpectroscopySpectroscopy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Engineering Unassessed

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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]

Added some novice understanding

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

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

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

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials#Not_valid_science

[1]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 There are some skeptical reviews of the work: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/08/first-superlens-not-so-super-yet.ars
 [[User:DonPMitchell|DonPMitchell]] ([[User talk:DonPMitchell|talk]]) 15:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
+: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
 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 <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials#Not_valid_science</ref>