Talk:Superlens

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.254.204 (talk)  
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials#Not_valid_science
Interferometrist (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Did anyone except for Mr. Pendry ever reproduce this effect ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Added some novice understanding 

message: Added wiki project templates Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Project templates

message: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120109102916.htm
-- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background on research status 

message: The Superlens article is a carefully compiled collection of inventive speculations on the subject of bypassing the clasical physical limits of Newtonian optics and Maxwell's electromagnetic wave equations.
The rhetorical appeal of the article comes from the fact that every student who has looked through a microscope has experienced the ambiguity and blurring of images visible in the instrument. Instead of a super lens, accurate observation and discovery requires years and careers and a wide variety of inductive and deductive experimentation.
Previous Editing Talk writers have called for substantial editing. I suggest "Superlens" should be edited to make it clear it is a story of a succession of inventors who have tried to bypass the limits of physical optics. Then the article can be organized into efforts at bypassing the Rayleigh criterion, changing the wavelength of the light source, surface profiling with electron probes, and decoupling the Maxwell field symmetries. 
All the super lens stories end in the same way, the experimental setup does something interesting but there is a lot of noise in the data or the next generation of apparatus can't quite be built. In a way, the super lens idea is to biology as the 100 MPG carburetor story is to the car industry and the perpetual motion machine was to the 18th century steam engine business.
Lee mck (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's real science here, independent of the inventors, if we can only extract it from the confusion, redundancy, and puff.  – SJ + 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Superlens title needs qualifying title words to clarify it is inventive speculation, not science.  

message: I corrected the text for the figure by adding the 'a) ', but the figure in 'a' is incorrect.  The right hand arrow in the blue normal material should be closer to the normal than the incident ray. Perhaps make the normal material a different color to set it apart.  -- Steve --  (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of negative index of refraction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Superlens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100415064417/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu:80/publications/pdfs/21.NanoLetters_2004_plasmonic-nanolith.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/21.NanoLetters_2004_plasmonic-nanolith.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140908111903/http://cmip.pratt.duke.edu/tomuri2009/sites/cmip.pratt.duke.edu.tomuri2009/files/pubs_purdue/2010_APB_MDC_Superlensing.pdf to http://cmip.pratt.duke.edu/tomuri2009/sites/cmip.pratt.duke.edu.tomuri2009/files/pubs_purdue/2010_APB_MDC_Superlensing.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100717004208/http://mesoscopic.mines.edu/mediawiki/images/3/3d/Waveprop_DNG_media.pdf to http://mesoscopic.mines.edu/mediawiki/images/3/3d/Waveprop_DNG_media.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100624130039/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/17.AppPhysL_12.22.2003_evwave-superlens.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/17.AppPhysL_12.22.2003_evwave-superlens.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100618195456/http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/greegor_apl_2005.pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/greegor_apl_2005.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100624132905/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/58.OptExp2007_Zhaowei.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/58.OptExp2007_Zhaowei.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090920063006/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu:80/publications/pdfs/54.%20Science.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/54.%20Science.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120831212000/http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu:80/publications/pdfs/147.NatComm_Jun.pdf to http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/publications/pdfs/147.NatComm_Jun.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714042835/http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/4/12 to http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/4/12
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091008075725/http://mitworld.mit.edu:80/video/455/ to http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/455
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060824041720/http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu:80/~vpodolsk/NIM/index.html to http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu/~vpodolsk/NIM/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060106051934/http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu:80/~vpodolsk/reprints.pdf/resolut.apl2005.pdf to http://www.physics.oregonstate.edu/~vpodolsk/reprints.pdf/resolut.apl2005.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080705153453/http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2004/37011d.pdf to http://www.nrel.gov/research_review/pdfs/2004/37011d.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is quite frustrating to read. It has way too many titles and too less actual content. Sometimes it isn't even clear which title is over which sub-title. The article is basically written as a list of achievements instead of as an explanation of the subject. While achievements are valid in a wikipedia article, they should not come instead of the explanation.
185.175.35.246 (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs rewriting