Talk:Metamaterial

message: The video showing refraction at at an air-metamaterial interface is highly enlightening. Is it an experimentally-acquired sequence of photographs, is it a plot of the numerical solution of Maxwell's equations, is it a plot of some approximate solution, or is it simply a cartoon painted up by a human artist? Whichever it is should be noted in the caption. 129.63.129.196 (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Better caption to the refraction video

message: The superlens created at Berkley did not have a negative index of refraction.  All materials with a negative index of refraction are for microwave frequencies.  See Superlens —This unsigned comment was added by 67.189.113.62 (talk • contribs) on 03:04, 20 March 2006.
If it had a negative index of refraction for microwares, then it by defintion has a negative index of refrarction.  I just does not have one for visible light, only microwave light.  And don't make me explain how microwaves are light again.--Scorpion451 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Superlens

message: It says that a 'C' ring with is axis in the propogation direction (I assume this means the ring is flat to oncoming radiation) would produce negative permeability. In fact, this only creates negative permitivitty. Negative permeability is created when propagation is in the plane of the ring and the B field then acts perpendicular to the loop. This is not possible if the axis of the ring is alined with the propogation vector of the light. See "Stefan Linden et. al., Magnetic Response of Metamaterials at 100 Terahertz, www.sciencemag.org, Vol 306, 19th Nov 2004, pg 1351-1353" for diagrams of permeability and permitivity with different orientations in respect to the incoming light.
Although it does say that "an induced current is created and the generated field is perpendicular to the magnetic field of the light. The magnetic resonance results in a negative permeability; the index is negative as well.", this is not magnetic resonsnace; the B field would have to be in the same direction of the normal of the loop (or have a component thereof) to create a current and then the induced field could not possibly be perpendicular to the driving field (just think Lenz's Law). If I'm missing something pleae feel free to enlighten me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.132.3.12 (talk • contribs) on 07:48, 31 August 2006.
It's like a solenoid, the magnetic force is at a right angle to the current, but the looped shape distorts the field causing it to flow in the same direction as the current.  The structure of the metamaterial sets up a similar situation, only it reverses the right hand rule, making it the left hand rule, and effectively making the induced field at a right angle to the driving field.  Yes it's wierd, that's what makes metamaterials facinating. --Scorpion451 02:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Theoretical Models, 2nd and 3rd Paragraphs

message: According to the article "Unveiling the first invisibility shield" in Popular Science, light travels faster through a metamaterial than a vacuum. Was this a mistake? — Daniel 04:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should clarify between two different measures of velocity: group velocity (energy velocity), and phase velocity (speed of translation of the wave pattern).  Physicists agree the energy velocity (i.e. speed of information transmission) never exceeds the constant speed of light in "vacuum," designated c. Ryan Westafer (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Sci 

message: The phrase in the first line of the 2nd paragraph that reads "at least as small" is strange wording. Does that mean "at most as small"? In other words, as small or smaller? Please clarify. Unclepea 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size ambiguity 

message: Is the example at the end of the Nri paragraph correct?
"consider the following: a person submerged in a swimming pool filled with a hypothetical liquid with negative N would appear to float above the pool instead of appearing to be beneath the surface."
If the positive refraction index would make the submerged body look closer than it is, then the negative will make them appear "underneath" or even behind the view point.
I think you have the idea of the Plane and the Normal the wrong way around in this example. Otherwise it's been explained very well.
Daniel
--80.195.237.107 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Negative refraction index 

message: http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn10816.html
195.210.210.217 12:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breakthrough? 

message: In the subsection "Negative refractive index", there's a list of some cool properties of metamaterials with negative n. The last point in the list is: "Higher frequencies have longer, not shorter, wavelengths in such a material ". I've added a citation needed flag to this, as I haven't encountered it in the literature on this topic, and I have the feeling it might be incorrect. (It runs contrary to the definition of frequency, which is phase velocity/wavelength.)
Can anyone find the proper reference for this fact? (Otherwise, I think it should be deleted as a precaution...)
GameGod 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just wondering about that before you changed it. What would be the relationship between wavelentgh and frequency in that case, lambda = nw/c ? 
18.95.7.45 20:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Factual Error 

message: In the opening paragraph this sentence exists:
"Such unusual properties could be a negative refractive index or infinite inertia (which are not found in naturally occurring materials)."
I've gotta say, "infinite inertia" sounds like dubious science to me - generally there's not much in science that is "infinite" and if some object possessed /infinite/ inertia then either its mass or velocity was infinite, both impossible AIUI.
There's no further mention of inertia in the article, nor here on the discussion and google didn't produce anything significant regarding this phrase ... so is this "infinite inertia" just buzzwordiness ... or outright nonsense or vandalism or ...???
Anyway, just a heads up about this fishy sounding phrase ... and thanks to all who contribute and edit to wikipedia!
--wikifreeman 21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can help with some explanation here, as metamaterials are not fringe or pseudo science but hard science on the cutting edge of our understanding of chemistry, quantum physics, and engineering. The doppler effect is difficult to understand in terms of metamaterials as it requires one to think in ways which we are not used to. The viewer is stationary, yes, but the photons of light or phonons of sound are moving, and moving though a medium with unique refractive properties.  This means that the wave itself will be curved in bizare ways. One of the effects of this is that the apparent wavelength of the photon or phonon will appear to lower as it approaches, and rise as it recedes from, a viewer.  The infinite inertia refers to the fact that a metamaterial can, in precise circumstances, temporarily halt light by trapping it in the lattice of electromagentic fields within the material or within the particles themselves as a quantum spin state charge. Another way to phrase this would be infintite internal inertia. Such effects have been thoroughly demonstrated, and you can see the article slow light for more information. You are correct in saying that very little in science is infinite, but the catch in a metamaterial is that it is not 'infinite' infinite inertia. The infinite inertia is an induced effect that lasts only as long as the proper conditions remain, whether that be an external current applied to the metamaterial, a temperature to which the material is raised or lowered, or internal quantum state which can be thrown off balance. At the point that these conditions end, the light trapped within the metamaterial is freed from its electromagnetic 'cage' and re-emmited. I hope that I have cleared up some of the misunderstandings about the properties of these materials.--Scorpion451 rant 17:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious Science? ("infinite inertia"?) 

message: I am no expert in this field, but there does not appear to be any mention of the developments at Los Alamos National Laboratory by Hou-Tong Chen, Richard Averitt, Willie Padilla and others, which resulted in the fabrication of a controllable device. I would have thought this is very significant for the future use of metamaterials.
http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/9935
parellic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parellic (talk • contribs) 17:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TeraHerz metamaterial devices 

message: I'm new to this, but under External Links | Research groups (in order of importance), the number one spot is occupied by a site which appears to have nothing to do with Metamaterials.  Maybe someone can correct this?72.90.243.147 (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?Vandalism 

message: This entire article is hard for someone not already familiar with its concepts to understand. Although it has the virtue of having good spelling and of being grammatical, it could benefit from a complete rewrite due to its confusing and overly terse content and style. The final paragraph is particularly infelicitous. It and many others could also benefit from the addition of line drawings or other diagrams.
An example of an article of similar speciality and difficulty that is nevertheless easier for a nonspecialist to understand, due to its clear writing and its use of diagrams, is Block cipher modes of operation.
While it is certainly useful for an encyclopedia article to be accessible only by specialists in its field, it is even more useful if each article were understandable by a much wider audience. Then, besides being informative, the encyclopedia might also be tutorial, which greatly enhances its usefulness to society. David (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: I have merged the section Metamaterial research from the article Cloaking device into the section Development and applications. I also split the section "Development and applications" into subsections to present the ideas in a more organized fashion. Please centralize discussion regarding this merge on this talk page, and feel free to change anything I merged. — OranL (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Cloaking device]] 

message: You're doing great job expanding that article. Just a bit of advice: (i) please check for duplicate references and replace them using  <ref name=xxx> and then  tags; (ii) please format references using ,  , etc., templates; (iii) please avoid personal phrases ("Author X observed ..." in favor of "... was observed in"). Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed ref. 18 in metamaterials as  (well, accessdate is older than today, but this is Ok). Indeed, the topic seems out of fiction, but that is the beauty of modern Science and of wikipedia, which can describe thing which are not in the books yet. That said, information on WP must be reliable. Media tends to grossly exaggerate the facts. Please try to get to the real reports (e.g., in my last edit, I put there the original link to the Science paper). On the other hands, media reports are a useful support, as they provide free-access details, like videos, etc. You can always ask me further details when needed. Materialscientist (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Metamaterials]]

message: I fixed the requested citation tag for Reference number 8. I also added the illustration (or whatever you call it). Ti-30X (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Tag 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in the new article Negative index metamaterials and the discussion on its talk page. Note that the article really focuses on stealth applications, and there is a discussion in progress on whether to retitle the article, or to broaden its focus to cover negative index materials more broadly. There is some overlap with this article; some shuffling of material between the two articles may be beneficial.--Srleffler (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative index metamaterials 

message: The negative index metamaterial essay-like article has recently appeared has enormous overlap with this article, in a way that makes it completely synonymous with this one. This is the Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, which is where synonymous material is collected into one article.
The invisibility/cloaking discussion is covered in both places, as is the discussion of negative refractive index, and the lead of negative index metamaterial suggest that it covers all uses of negative index metamaterials; but almost the whole of this article covers that.
Unless a clear distinction can be made between these two articles or a clear subarticle relationship can be established then these two articles need to be merged.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you focus on writing and improving articles so that they don't overlap in the first place then we won't have to pick up the pieces afterwards. It's not like you didn't know these articles existed. This is not a publishing company for your magazine articles. Encyclopedias do not have multiple article on the same topic. They're supposed to say everything once, somewhere, not multiple places in the hope that nobody will notice and will make it FA by mistake or something.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, but unfortunately that is not how WP operates right now - if you look around you'd notice that overlap is a norm, I think because many editors feel more comfortable working alone. (I have had, by chance two FAs and a few GAs on one overlapping topic - nobody complained ;-) I'm not saying this should be, but believe it is better to let them write, and correct the writing, rather than have nothing written at all - WP is in desperate need of constructive contributors. This especially refers to active projects. Stale, abandoned articles is another story. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not going to fly this time. Please restrict yourself to not overlapping if it in any way possible; or if they are considered synonymous, merging. You can have strict subsets if they can't be merged.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, they used to be on different topics, but recent edits have made them on the same thing- electromagnetic metamaterials. I queried the claim that metamaterials are inherently electromagnetic, and 3 'references' to this were produced. Unfortunately I checked all three, and they all qualify the kind of metamaterial it is by prefixing it with optical, electromagnetic and so forth, they do not define the concept of a metamaterial as being electromagnetic, and other sources I have read describe non electromagnetic materials. The way this article and the other article is being edited is causing me increasingly great concern.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not expect to check references and find that they do not support the claims made, nor do I expect to find non reliable sources like commercial materials made to sell stuff that is doubtless vetted by nobody.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Metamaterial 

message: There is now a new section entitled "The six spokes of expanded metamaterial research." Please do not remove, move, or delete this section. One or two other editors and I will be editing the section, and hopefully use it as a base to expand the Metamaterial article. This gives a lot of basic information to start with. Thank you for your cooperation. Ti-30X (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the phrase 'spoke' used in relation to these organizations in the references? I had a  look, but I found nothing. Is this term your WP:OR???- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is  a metaphor and organizing principle. But, thanks for asking. I will have to give this some thought, however. I never considered it OR. It is just a tool for clarity at the moment. Anyway, I will confer with other editors and see if this violates OR. Ti-30X (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A new section added

message: I am thinking that the paragraphs in the introduction, beginning with "With a negative refractive index researchers have been able to create a device..." probably need to be thrown out. ( I am the previous author of these paragrpahs, too.) Just from my peliminary work on the other section and reading some new information, I can see that this is too narrow a definition. Metamaterials now have broader applications, if they didn't before. Come to think of it, it may be tough to pack all the new available information into one article. Also, I think this statement will have to be removed sooner rather than later: "Electromagnetics researchers often use the term metamaterials more narrowly, for materials which exhibit negative refraction". Again, this is too narrow a focus with the current information available. So if no one objects I will be removing these from the article, soon, to make room for a better introduction. Thanks. As usual this is open to discussion. Ti-30X (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition I have provided is a much more accurate definition, than the previous one. Whenever metamaterials are defined, they are defined in reference to the following: artificial (synthetic) materials not found in nature. I don't want to offend anyone but metamaterials are not defined as being different from other synthetic materials. In the scientific journals that I have read, any reference or definition to metamaterials is that they are artificial fabrications not found in nature. Except for the word synthetic I wrote most of this first paragraph also. Well, things change. I kept the rest and we can edit what I have, with what is there already.  Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing

message: Chirality and bi-isotropic media: This section is currently being developed. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I disagree with your assessment. Negative index of refraction is an effect or a phenomenon. In fact, one could say a single phenomenon. Whereas, double negative metamaterials (NIMs, etc.) are metamaterials which can produce negative index of refraction, along with a number of other effects. In addition, as a type of (revolutionary) material they can be discussed from different points of view such as a periodic or lattice structure, effective permittivity and permeability, subwavelength,  type of electromagnetic metamaterial, optical or microwave wavelength, exhibit properties not found in nature, and so on and so on... I suppose a connundrum is that both link to "Negative index metamaterials". However, that article appears to be relevant to them both. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections development

message: I won't be doing anymore with acoustic metamaterials. I prefer research on other metamaterial types (probably EM). There may more that can be done with acoustic metamaterials if someone else wants to work on that area. Sorry. As much as I try the interest is just not there. Ti-30X (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic metamaterials

message: If no one objects I would like to do a whole article on THZ metamaterials. There appears to be enough material. In this way we could comfortably expand or expound on other categories. I will begin on a sub page using most of what is in this article on THz MM's to start with. And if there are then no objections I can move it out to Wikipedia. By the way, this will be straight science. It will be simply THz Metamaterials. I will see if I can add material to the Split-ring resonator article without taking away from the effectiveness of this article.  Ti-30X (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to the sub page article (on my sub page): (link no longer needed) Ti-30X (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In case some are not aware, I moved this article out into Wikipedia. Here is the link: Terahertz metamaterials. I am removing the link to my sub page.Ti-30X (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terahertz Metamaterials

message: I want to move this here for reference purposes. I will keep the first paragraph in the article because I think it is worth having the information in the article. I think it is noteable enough.Ti-30X (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Groups engaged in metamaterial research

message: I have found two references in the reference section that are incorrect, so far. These are references that I added for citations. They were correct when I entered them with the templates. Somehow they have been changed where they both have the wrong authors, and a PMID number that goes to an article entitled "Association of cytokine gene polymorphisms and liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B". The DOI numbers are correct (were correct?). I simply deleted and re-entered one reference with the correct information (see revision history). 
Actually, it is a better reference than the first one. However, I would like this situation corrected. There is no reason to add a PMID number, especially if it is inaccurate, and especially if we end up with the wrong authors. Who knows what else was incorrect. Please don't add PMID numbers if the reference doesn't already have one. Any reference that didn't have one in the first place, is because the DOI led directly to the cite of the journal that published the article. I do supply a link to the PDF when I can. In any case a PMID number is not needed and changing the authors names is not in any way helpful. If someone is in doubt about a reference then address it here on this talk page, or on my talk page. Please, do not blantantly change information in the references. Of course, now, this just occured to me that this could be a case of vandalism. Ti-30X (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Every reference url-linking system has its problems. DOI and PMID are considered most reliable, as they are supposed to be accurate, stable and lead you to the article abstract, instead of annoying with "buy online" options. They are also much shorter than urls. I don't know how the mix-up occurred, but it might be due to citation bot, which I did run several times on metamaterial pages. If there is a problem with pmid or doi number, the bot might pick wrong article for reference from the external database. This is very rare, but it does happen (I have encountered several broken doi during last half a year). Annoying - definitely. We can avoid using citation bots (if they are indeed a problem here), though they are useful, and are generally recommended on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted a complaint at citation bot talk and got reply that the bug is fixed. Let me know if you notice further errors. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal article refrences

message: If no one objects, I think we could do a whole article on Metamaterial antennas. Of course we would have a summation in this article and a link to the "main" article. I have just barely scratched the surface with the material that is available in this area. The same is true for Terhertz metamaterials. There are also other categories that we haven't looked at yet. Also, I would like to add more to seismic metamaterials. 
In any case, this has been really good. We have included many types of metamaterials, and created a much better article. Kudos, to Wolfkeeper for writing a great introduction which provides a focus (for me) for this article. There is so much material out there on metamaterials - it is amazing. Ti-30X (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the link to the new (split off) article Metamaterial antennasTi-30X (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamaterial antennas 

message: I am thinking that it is best to go ahead and create a split for Acoustic metamaterials. This will give us more room in this article to expand into other areas, and this will give us more space to expand Acoustic metamaterials. Hopefully, no one objects. Here is the new article: Acoustic metamaterials Ti-30X (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Acoustic MM's

message: There isn't much on metamaterials related to Avionics or Aerospace that I am able to find. So I am going to remove this as a section header. I will change it to "Tuneable metamaterials". And these are different because with previous NIMs discussed - in order to m get a negative refractive index (to operate at a different frequency)  the periodicity and size of the elements would have to be changed. These type of "Tuneable metamaterials" appear to be tuneable in hand, so to speak. Ti-30X (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Avionic metamaterials

message: I am exapanding this section at the moment. I will be fleshing out the other sections that I have introduced these past few days. Apparently EBG's are photonic crystals (PC) and are also referred to as (PBG). I didn't realize this, and only noticed a similarity previously. I am thinking I will keep the opening line in this section say EBGs are PCs (and PBGs) and then just go ahead and use the nomenclature PC, interchangable with PBG thereafter. I also have research  available on PCs that I can use for this section. Ti-30X (talk) 10:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand there may be some good reasons to refer to these "band gap" structures as EBGs at certain times. Ti-30X (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: EBG

message: I added a relevant image to this section. I felt that I had to make it 335 px in size so the words in the image are readable. It helps explain what the image is, besides the caption beneath the image. It seems to look OK. Ti-30X (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative refraction in the blue-green spectral range

message: Because the Metamaterial article was going over 105 kilobytes, and becasue many subsections still need to be expanded I split Tunable metamaterials into a new article. There is still plenty of information and articles available on this topic. So, this will work out fine. Ti-30X (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tunable metamaterials

message: The statement "A recurrent issue with either naturally occurring, or conventional materials, is the lack of magnetic response." does not seem to be supported by its reference, which states that there is a magnetic resonance in an array of single nonmagnetic metallic split rings. It seems to me that a resonance is certainly a "response". In fact, the reference indicates that it is precisely this magnetic response that can create a negative index of refraction. David spector (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is false. Feel free to delete in the future. Maybe this sentence was read incorrectly, "however, a large magnetic response, in general, and a negative permeability at optical frequencies, in particular, do not occur in natural materials." --69.225.5.183 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic response claim is not supported by reference 

message: The size of the "Metamaterial" article has nearly reached 104 kilobytes. Therefore I split the content of "Photonic metatmaterials" off to a new article entitled Photonic metamaterials. 
In addition, I think it would be a good idea to somehow shrink the peliminary information in Seismic metamterials. I mean the general concepts such as S waves, P waves, Elasticity, etc., etc. Since this article could use the space, and since there are already good articles about these concepts, whittling this down, imho, is appropriate. Also, of course, I want to add more content about Seismic metamaterials.
I am wondering if it would be a good idea to move most of the material in the SRR section over to the SRR article. I would rather keep it in Metamaterial, but we could probably use the space. 
I came across some research into a type of metamaterial that the army is working on, and I think this would certainly make a fine addition to the "Metamaterial" article. Ti-30X (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photonic metamaterials

message: I restored the blurb about Novel Electromagnetic Materials without the "P". However, program is used in the section entitled "Current Programs and Overviews." There is also Programs, Collaborators, Funding, and "Research group" are all used on the top part of this page. Each section contains exciting work that is ongoing in metamaterials, in many organizations. 
I never wrote "magnetism isn't a naturally occurring phenomenon" anywhere in this article. That would be ridiculous. This particular paragraph has been misunderstood. It is about "magnetic response". It is not about magnetism. I wrote "A recurrent issue with either naturally occurring, or conventional materials, is the lack of magnetic response. Such materials are particularly rare at Terahertz or optical frequencies. However metamaterials are helping to fill this gap." I never wrote magnetism isn't a natural occuring phenomenon. A different meaning has been mistakenly read into this section. This happens all the time with people everywhere about anything. In any case, I can supply  peer reviewed journal articles that reiterate what I wrote. It would not be in this article if I could not back it up. Ti-30X (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration

message: Not only is that not "basically what you wrote" it shows the problem with this article. You own the article and you won't allow others to correct your glaring errors.
Just because someone's page says the word "program" on it, does not mean that's part of the name of the research group, and doesn't make it the official acronym just because you made up an acronym.
Not even in quantum mechanics does none mean small. You have dozens of problems of these types throughout the article. You're reading books and partially copying from them into this article without any understanding of what they say. Overall the information you've put in this article is factually inaccurate and internally inconsistent.  
It took me a week to get you to stop fighting over your renaming of Smith's research group. Nothing, like the fact that wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources and none exists, could get you to see the reason the made up name you applied to the group isn't on the page or in any google searches or anywhere but on your page and copied from your article is that it isn't the name of the group.
Now we've learned from you that "magnetic response" has nothing to do with magnetism. It is about "magnetic response". It is not about magnetism. See above.
There's no way anyone could spend two weeks for every physics error in this article while the article is being copied throughout cyberspace, and people are probably reading it, and its factual inaccuracy is not a concern to anyone, least of all its owner.
The article should be pared down to a stub, rewritten out of article space, and reposted when it has accurate physics.
Yes, no article is better than giving irresponsible made-up, and partially copied random pieces of information to the readers. Wikipedia has a responsibility for accuracy now that it dominates the search engine returns.
This is unbelievable. But, eventually the Essjays are all found out. He was at least embarrassed about it in the end.
When someone fights you for days to keep in a made-up acronym, and then returns that "lack of" is the same as "lack of large," and that "magnetic response" has nothing to do with magnetism, and is writing a wikipedia article that's being copied throughout cyberspace, it's time to stop AingGF and beyond time to start being concerned for the reader.
--69.225.5.183 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Lack of" does not equal "lack of large" 

message: Surprisingly, I haven't acutally found much more information than I have written for Seismic metamaterials. I could use the main peer reviewed article "Achieving control of in-plane elastic waves" and elaborate some of the articles that are numbered as references for the science involved. However, much more than this is really not available. I suspect it is because this is really new science. The last word that I have so far is this type of metamaterial is in the development stage. So, I can add more as more material becomes available. In the meantime this section is probably best merged with "Acoustic metamaterials", with a small summary left behind. Again, we can use the space. Thanks Ti-30X (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to go ahead, and create a new article for Seismic metamaterials. These type of metamaterials are distinct from Acoustic metamaterials, even though similar materials and physics concepts are employed. Ti-30X (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seismic metamaterials

message: I recently split content from Metamaterial lens to the new article: Perfect lens. This will pretty much cover Metamaterial lenses up to the present, including microscopy. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfect lens

message: I couldn't find anything in wikipedia physics articles that acutally describe what an incident wave is. So here is a section with a brief, and simple description. Please feel free to add to it, or tighten it up if need be. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is completely inappropriate and not very helpful.  Terms such as "incident wave" should be explained under a page on optics, electromagnetics or wave theory.  It is definitely not specific to metamaterials and the definition given here is not very clear.  I suggest that it should be deleted ShiftyDave (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Incident wave

message: I moved these two sections to the SRR article. It was the most available place at the moment. More than likely Nonlinear metamaterials will become an article, and the articles concerning controllable permeability might be moved to other articles. This merge allows "Metamaterial" to be a regular article once again. Other, future,  metamaterial content can be linked to this article. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonlinear metamaterials are not necessarily based on split ring resonators, so moving the material there is not necessarily appropriate.  I have added a brief intro to the topic to the main article.  I agree with your suggestion to create a separate article on nonlinear metamaterials. ShiftyDave (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that nonlinear metamaterials do not neccessarily belong in in the SRR article. I moved it there so this main "Metamaterial" article could move on and just be its own article. In fact, it is almost time to remove the under construction template for this article. In addition, there are nonlinear metamaterials that consist of SRRs so it is an OK to place to keep them there temporarily. Thanks very much for your input and efforts so far. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonlinear metamaterials and Controllable magnetic response...

message: Strong critiques have been made in the literature on the subject of metamaterials. To this day, some of these critiques have not been answered, and a reader of this page might benefit from knowing that not everyone accepts the current views on metamaterials, and in particular on negative index.
Relevant resources include:
1- Vadim A. Markel, "Correct definition of the Poynting vector in
electrically and magnetically polarizable medium reveals that negative
refraction is impossible," Opt. Express 16, 19152-19168 (2008)
2- Benedikt A. Munk, "Metamaterials: Critique and Alternatives."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baptiste.auguie (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques 

message: Just to let those of you who edit this article, that a team at St. Andrews University in Scotland have developed Metamaterials on to fabrics. Before ths they were only found on flat hard surfaces. link here []. Krásné nápady (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamaterials on Fabrics 

message: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2011/0215_ss_Metamaterials.html
“We are extremely excited about the outcome of this collaboration, which represents a game change in the field of metamaterials,” said Werner. “In particular, we have succeeded in designing metamaterials that considerably improve conventional horn antennas by more than an octave bandwidth with negligible loss, and advanced the state-of-the-art in the process.”
:Which type of metamaterial is this? Hcobb (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a metamaterial antenna. FYI, this article is written in a highly promotional tone. There are already pratical real world metamterial antennas that are commercially produced for wireless systems.  So, it might be best to try to glean the facts and eschew the hype pertaining to this article. Hopefully this is helpful. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, it appears that only prototype has been built, so it is still in the lab. I surmise that a promotional article like this needs to be written to justify the investment. I think the bottom line is - this is more research, and probably only an incremental advancement. I hope this helps also. Thanks for your interest in the metamaterials articles. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another article . This tone is more sedate, and the facts are somewhat clearer. Keep in mind, that when the press carries stories of these novel devices the achievement tends to be inflated to be more than it is. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  spacecraft antennas 

message: Taking a run at this. Feedback welcomed. Comments:
* The inclusion of photonic crystals is confusing. They don't appear to fit the definition of a metamaterial and their WP page doesn't call them one. Conversely, LHM are mentioned but not discussed in the classes section.
* DPS aren't metamaterials, either, according to the engineered, sub-wavelength definition. Do we need a broader definition or should the piece note that they are included for contrast only.
*Shortened section headings (again). These headings need not exactly match the titles of articles that they summarize. They are for the convenience of readers of this article, for whom seeing the word metamaterial over and over is nothing but visual noise.
Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit/reorg 

message: Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia for the general public. That is why Wikipedia policy requires that, wherever possible, non-technical language be used in parallel with technical language in its articles (translating and clarifying as much as possible for the lay reader). 
This is also good practice for scientists who need, for many reasons, to know how to communicate about their field to non-scientists. 
It is also good manners not to communicate in a cryptic, self-absorbed way to people who are not scientists.
2602:306:BDA0:97A0:466D:57FF:FE90:AC45 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unintelligible techno-speak: Article needs more parallel non-technical language for the lay reader

message: I wonder if someone could say over what freq band the structure in the intro section exhibits negative index?  Also, what's the difference between a metamaterial and a photonic crystal?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.230.153 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure in the Introduction Section  

message: I am afraid the (electromagnetic) metamaterial physics are much more complicated than the article implies. It should be substantially rewritten, or at least a warning about its approximate nature should be added! Please take a look on the related discussion under Talk:Negative_index_metamaterials - it applies to this article as well. --FDominec (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplistic theoretical background 

message: I wondered if the research promulgated by Roderic Lakes (and appearing variously in Nature etc.. ) on designed materials and structure - some with emergent properties (and natural analogues too) should be included.
The terminology is in terms of the cellular structure of materials but I feel that for thermal, mechanical and acoustic structures - and even extreme behaviours this is all very relevant.
Lakes, R. S., "Materials with structural hierarchy", Nature, 361, 511-515 (1993). Cover issue
and Lakes, R. S., "Cellular solid structures with unbounded thermal expansion", Journal of Materials Science Letters,  15,475-477 (1996). 
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/lakescvbrief.html 
My own interest is how structured materials might best be made and, as lakes mentions, manufacturing (since the time of Eiffel) has been a major issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianSpence (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanical (& thermal) metamaterials? 

message: It would be a good idea to mention Auxetic metamaterials in the section on elastic materials.  There are other types of metamaterials discussed elsewhere (Mechanical_metamaterials), but this article on the whole seems to give an extremely high weight to negative-index materials (in all contexts) and almost no mention of other types. I was very surprised to not see Auxetics mentioned at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.208.23 (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auxetic materials? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Metamaterial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618194347/http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_(2000).pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Smith_PRL_84_4184_(2000).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060906103800/http://ceta.mit.edu/pier/pier51/17.0407071.Wu.WPCGK.pdf to http://ceta.mit.edu/PIER/pier51/17.0407071.Wu.WPCGK.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719231753/http://www.dukenews.duke.edu:80/2006/10/cloakdemo.html to http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/cloakdemo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220020959/http://news.duke.edu:80/2009/01/invis09.html to http://news.duke.edu/2009/01/invis09.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Metamaterial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618193936/http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Shelby_APL_(2001).pdf to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/pubs_smith_group/Shelby_APL_(2001).pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090720003945/http://people.ee.duke.edu:80/~drsmith/about_metamaterials.html to http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/about_metamaterials.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719225821/http://www.rsl.ku.edu/~eecs501/Hi-Z_surfaces/Sievenpiper1999TMTTpp2059-2074.pdf to http://www.rsl.ku.edu/~eecs501/Hi-Z_surfaces/Sievenpiper1999TMTTpp2059-2074.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100302010715/http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12657 to http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12657
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 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Metamaterial. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.duke.edu/2009/01/invis09.html
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 11:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 23:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Metamaterial. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100627193056/http://ultracold.physics.berkeley.edu/seminar/pmwiki/Main/MetamaterialsGenerateNovelElectromagneticProperties to http://ultracold.physics.berkeley.edu/seminar/pmwiki/Main/MetamaterialsGenerateNovelElectromagneticProperties
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Like: electric-material, electromagnetic-material, optic-material, philosophy-material(materialism), add infimum...sorry forgot my password again...75.82.19.242 (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  lets change metamaterial to ?-material 

message: The field of material is to well established and broad-in use everyday-for one article...
...Many Subjects in this field like: electric-material, electromagnetic-material, optic-material, philosophic-material(materialism), add infimum...75.82.19.242 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metamaterial to ?-material