7 ms·

can anybody explain why this is better than a mirror?

leeoniya 12y ago
i had exactly the same thought. why not a nanomirror?
wtvanhest 12y ago
Mirrors absorb and transmit light. This article from wiki explains what a perfect mirror would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_mirror I believe the most important part of the article is: "The team then ran light beams through the lattices and confirmed that they could flow light (without loss) through turns that are twice as tight as any done previously." If you can bend light without loss, I imagine that is very valuable. All that said, IANAP (I am not a physicist) so if someone else can correct me or add more information, I'm sure that would be helpful.
- spott 12y ago
  It can't bend light without loss... It actually is pretty lossy (the paper references an attenuation of 270 cm^-1, or 1/e loss per 270 cm.)
vmarsy 12y ago
"controlling the light beams without losing their energy has been the challenge" I guess perfect mirrors that don't loose any energy don't exist?
- fargail 12y ago
  I like how you quoted the word that you misspelled on the second line
  - glibgil 12y ago
    What a nauseating comment.
bcbrown 12y ago
It's not useful to transmit light through air; instead waveguides are used[0]. I don't know all the benefits, but I imagine trying to keep a path through space for light beams to travel is harder than using a waveguide. In that case, mirrors are useless. You can think of a waveguide as being a highly engineered mirror, really. However, the turning radius of a fiber-optic beam isn't great, and apparently this is an improvement on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide#Optical_waveguides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide#Optical_waveguides
spott 12y ago
One reason is because mirrors (freespace optics in general), are limited in how narrowly confined the beam can be. Generally speaking, waveguides can have cross sectional area of ~ λ^2 or less, while freespace optics can only get below that for some small focus volume. So a chip with mirrors on it would have to be much much bigger to handle the beam width of all the laser light.

i had exactly the same thought. why not a nanomirror?

Mirrors absorb and transmit light. This article from wiki explains what a perfect mirror would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_mirror I believe the most important part of the article is: "The team then ran light beams through the lattices and confirmed that they could flow light (without loss) through turns that are twice as tight as any done previously." If you can bend light without loss, I imagine that is very valuable. All that said, IANAP (I am not a physicist) so if someone else can correct me or add more information, I'm sure that would be helpful.

spott 12y ago
It can't bend light without loss... It actually is pretty lossy (the paper references an attenuation of 270 cm^-1, or 1/e loss per 270 cm.)

vmarsy 12y ago

"controlling the light beams without losing their energy has been the challenge" I guess perfect mirrors that don't loose any energy don't exist?

fargail 12y ago
I like how you quoted the word that you misspelled on the second line
- glibgil 12y ago
  What a nauseating comment.

bcbrown 12y ago

It's not useful to transmit light through air; instead waveguides are used[0]. I don't know all the benefits, but I imagine trying to keep a path through space for light beams to travel is harder than using a waveguide. In that case, mirrors are useless. You can think of a waveguide as being a highly engineered mirror, really. However, the turning radius of a fiber-optic beam isn't great, and apparently this is an improvement on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide#Optical_waveguides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide#Optical_waveguides

spott 12y ago

One reason is because mirrors (freespace optics in general), are limited in how narrowly confined the beam can be. Generally speaking, waveguides can have cross sectional area of ~ λ^2 or less, while freespace optics can only get below that for some small focus volume. So a chip with mirrors on it would have to be much much bigger to handle the beam width of all the laser light.