Paper detail

Focusing: coming to the point in metamaterials

The point of the paper is to show some limitations of geometrical optics in the analysis of subwavelength focusing. We analyze the resolution of the image of a line source radiating in the Maxwell fisheye and the Veselago-Pendry slab lens. The former optical medium is deduced from the stereographic projection of a virtual sphere and displays a heterogeneous refractive index n(r) which is proportional to the inverse of 1+r^2. The latter is described by a homogeneous, but negative, refractive index. It has been suggested that the fisheye makes a perfect lens without negative refraction [Leonhardt, Philbin arxiv:0805.4778v2]. However, we point out that the definition of super-resolution in such a heterogeneous medium should be computed with respect to the wavelength in a homogenized medium, and it is perhaps more adequate to talk about a conjugate image rather than a perfect image (the former does not necessarily contains the evanescent components of the source). We numerically find that both the Maxwell fisheye and a thick silver slab lens lead to a resolution close to lambda/3 in transverse magnetic polarization (electric field pointing orthogonal to the plane). We note a shift of the image plane in the latter lens. We also observe that two sources lead to multiple secondary images in the former lens, as confirmed from light rays travelling along geodesics of the virtual sphere. We further observe resolutions ranging from lambda/2 to nearly lambda/4 for magnetic dipoles of varying orientations of dipole moments within the fisheye in transverse electric polarization (magnetic field pointing orthogonal to the plane). Finally, we analyse the Eaton lens for which the source and its image are either located within a unit disc of air, or within a corona 1<r<2 with refractive index $n(r)=\sqrt{2/r-1}$. In both cases, the image resolution is about lambda/2.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.