 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > This time, the URL really *does* say it all!
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_refractive_index
> >
> > Mmm, I wonder if POV-Ray can do this?
>
> sure:
> http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?id=88325
>
> Christoph Hormann, long contributor to povray, is one of the authors.
> http://www.imagico.de/
a more direct link in his own site:
http://www.imagico.de/pov/metamaterials.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> a more direct link in his own site:
> http://www.imagico.de/pov/metamaterials.html
Woah - so you mean POV-Ray already does this *now*?
Now suddenly the subject line seems even more appropriate. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> This time, the URL really *does* say it all!
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_refractive_index
>>
>> Mmm, I wonder if POV-Ray can do this?
>
> Wow that's something to think about. It was only a few years ago I
> learned that the refractive index is actually a complex number, useful
> when working with things like polarisers and (liquid) crystals that do
> funky things to the light.
Yeah, freaky isn't it?
(IIRC, the imaginary part of the complex number you speak of is just the
amount of absorption in the material, but yeah... it's derived from the
electronic permitivity and permeability or something. I find it rather
bizare that electronic properties should actually affect optical ones,
but there we are.)
BTW, did you know that there exist materials with an IOR even higher
than diamond? And there exist materials with a (positive) IOR < 1?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I find it rather
> bizare that electronic properties should actually affect optical ones,
> but there we are.)
Well yeh, what's light?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:50:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
spake, saying:
>> I find it rather bizare that electronic properties should actually
>> affect optical ones, but there we are.)
>
> Well yeh, what's light?
Feathers, balloons, air :-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote in message news:4732e9fc@news.povray.org...
>> I find it rather
>> bizare that electronic properties should actually affect optical ones,
>> but there we are.)
>
> Well yeh, what's light?
Feathers are light. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
news:op.t1gz8td6c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:50:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
> spake, saying:
>
>>> I find it rather bizare that electronic properties should actually
>>> affect optical ones, but there we are.)
>>
>> Well yeh, what's light?
>
> Feathers, balloons, air :-P
Oh bugger, I didn't see your reply seemingly 25 minutes before mine and I
said much the same thing.
I could swear I refreshed the list before posting.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:43:01 -0000, Brian Elliott
<NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> did spake, saying:
> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message
> news:op.t1gz8td6c3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:50:34 -0000, scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> did
>> spake, saying:
>>
>>>> I find it rather bizare that electronic properties should actually
>>>> affect optical ones, but there we are.)
>>>
>>> Well yeh, what's light?
>>
>> Feathers, balloons, air :-P
>
> Oh bugger, I didn't see your reply seemingly 25 minutes before mine and
> I said much the same thing.
>
> I could swear I refreshed the list before posting.
Great minds post alike.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> I find it rather bizare that electronic properties should actually
>> affect optical ones, but there we are.)
>
> Well yeh, what's light?
It's a phenomenon that has something to do with electricity, magnetism,
waves and particles, but nobody really understands what exactly. ;-)
Specifically, light is an electromagnetic wave (or is it a subatomic
particle?) in a particular frequency range (or is that particle energy?)
that registers in our eyes due to the chemical transformations it
induces in certain protein groups.
However, it's really damn unusual for a material's electrical or
magnetic properties to have any bearing at all on its optical properties.
* Impure water is an excellent conductor, while pure water is a very
good insulator. Yet both substances have almost identical optical
properties.
* Iron is highly magnetic, while aluminium isn't. Good luck telling the
two metals apart by their appearence!
* Electricity does not, under any remotely "normal" conditions, produce
light or affect it in any way. (E.g., you can't bend light using
electricity.) The same goes for magnetism.
Sure, theoretically they're related. But it's not something you see in
the real world very often. ;-)
(I still can't figure out why you can use an oscilator to make radio
waves, but not light rays...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> * Electricity does not, under any remotely "normal" conditions, produce
> light or affect it in any way. (E.g., you can't bend light using
> electricity.) The same goes for magnetism.
>
I thought lightning was normal at least in a storm.
> (I still can't figure out why you can use an oscilator to make radio
> waves, but not light rays...)
If you oscillate something fast enough it will heat up and emit light.
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
