5 ms·
I really hate when the press releases don't actually reflect the science in the paper. In this case there are no indestructible light waves and there is no opaq
by barbegal 5y ago
I really hate when the press releases don't actually reflect the science in the paper. In this case there are no indestructible light waves and there is no opaque material. There is simply a wavefront which passes through free space (air) and through a scattering medium (what you would probably call a translucent material) such that the relative intensity of the two images produced are the same. The phase of the light is not the same and neither is the intensity because some is absorbed and reflected by the scattering medium.
- solipsism 5y agofree space (air) Surely that's not the science. Space and air are not the same thing. Air is, of course, a scattering medium.
- jasonwatkinspdx 5y agoFree space is commonly used to refer to EM propagation in air in RF contexts. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-space_path_loss Here the distinction is between propagation models that include ground plain, terrain, or airborne clutter.
- solipsism 5y agoTIL. Still, I think the strongly in strongly scattering medium is important. It's very confusing to leave it out.