NIM references along with our comments
Also check out the many News and Science News articles on LHM at
our LHM news page.
NIM Home |
LHM Publicity |
Our paper in
PRL, V.88 No.18, 187401-1 6 May 2002
disproves almost all claims about LHM starting from Veselago's paper, and
including Pendry's perfect lenses.
Veselago's paper in Sov. Phys. Usp. V. 10, No. 4 Jan-Feb 1968 (p. 509)
started it all with an
error in fig.2 which depicts ray focusing
by flat nim slabs. This is the first such figure that has the arrows
in wrong direction inside the LHM. It has been
copied so far by everyone
in the negative refraction literature.
Our comment in
PRL, V.87, No. 11, 119701-1 10 Sept. 2001
plasmons paper in PRL, June 1996 V.76, 25, 4773 by Pendry et. al.
conclusively disproved the contention that there are
"Extremely low frequency plasmons in metallic mesostructures" arising
due to "electrons becoming as heavy as nitrogen atoms" in wires that are
a few micron wide. We showed that this result was based on
two elementary errors that negated their arguments:
neglecting electron collisions and violating gauge invariance.
No reply to our comment was published by PRL, indicating a final
settlement of the question of "low frequency plasmons".
However, some reseachers
continued to cite the "low frequency plasmons" paper.
Pendry's "Perfect Lens"
(PRL V.85, No.18, p. 3966 30 Oct 2000)
paper. Now we have shown that the perfect lens is
is very imperfect in almost every sense. It does not focus wave energy.
Even for phase ray focusing, it has severe spherical and chromatic abberations.
Prism experiment paper in Science V. 292, p. 77, Apr 6 2001
claimed to have demonstrated negative refraction. However, their
measurements can be interpreted in terms of diffraction effects
rather than in terms of negative refraction.
The NIM prism turns the waves into inhomogeneous waves that should decay.
However, no data is presented on variation of intensity with distance.
Also, the relative magnitudes of the two peaks corresponding to PIM and NIM
prisms is not given (both are normalized to their resoective peak values).
't Hooft comment on perfect lens
PRL V.87, 24, 249701-1 Dec. 10 2001,
Williams comment on negative refraction
PRL V.87, 24, 249703-1 Dec. 10 2001,
and Pendry's replies
PRL V.87, 24, 249702-1 and 249704-1 Dec. 10 2001,
For contact and comments, please send email to email@example.com.
© 2002 Metamaterials LLC. All