Talk:Transformation optics

Applications

I've added a couple paragraphs to the coordinate transformation section. In the future I plan to expand into several sections with sample transformations and applications. Some I have references for (just not at hand or immediate time) include:

• Singular point cloaking (2006 demonstration by Smith et al)
• Line segment cloaking (broadband carpet/ground-plane cloak by Smith et al)
• Beam benders (plenty of simulation/theory but no experimental demonstrations)
• Field expanders/concentrators (same as beam benders)
• Field rotators (same as above)
• Antenna array applications (a couple papers out there - change array pattern of an arbitrarily-shaped array to a rectangular/linear one)

As alluded to in the stuff I've added, there are other open questions being researched. As we know from, eg, writing numerical simulation code, there are various ways to generate grids for a certain geometry. These directly apply to generating particular coordinate transformations. Again, still being researched, but in the future could be included here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RFenginerd (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I do have a request that we use the least amount of technical language possible, for the goal of being easily read. In other words, a bachelor's degree (or higher) in physics would not be a requirement to understand these articles. I admit that I have started out too technical with some of these articles, but I am now edeavoring to make the articles more accessible to the general reader. For instance, I don't see the need for a lot of math, because most of this stuff is conceptually understandable. And the math is one of the things I have, for the most part avoided. You may discover, as I have, that accessiblity is not so easy. I have had to rewrite, and rewrite again. Some articles need more work in this area than others. So far I think Metamaterial cloaking, and Superlens are the most readable metamaterial articles. The first part of photonic metamaterials is getting there. The others right now are in a state of technical jargonese - a chronic malady? (ha ha) ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is easy to conceptualize this stuff, but this is also a difficult, technical subject is it not? You can't explain in depth without the, ahh, depth. Perhaps divide the material into a non-technical overview or summary, with technical details as sub-sections? For those without access to journals available to the academic community, seeing the math can be a valuable learning tool. Believe or not, I didn't understand Maxwell's or Heavyside's work until I read the maths here in Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.213.199 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello I clearly don't agree mathematics are indeed usefull to understand the concept, and much more than a long talk about. One needs to express what is written in "transformation optics and the geometry of light". That is to put the process to compute and go from space deformations to permitivity and permeability. Non bachelor can read non technical parts, but that's not a reason to avoid them from the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinfran (talk • contribs) 22:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Transformation optics or electromagnetics?

Many authors have used the more general term *Transformation electromagnetics* for this topic, and I think it's more suited than transformation optics, as the scope of this subject is not limited to optical frequencies. Should we consider moving the article to Transformation electromagnetics ? Physicsch (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Please could you cite evidence for what you are saying.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A search in Google Scholar may help. Also take a look at the preface of this book (page viii, 5th line), it is mentioned directly:

...research area of transformation electromagnetics/optics,...

Physicsch (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)