Reply to comment by A.V. Kildishev et al. [physics/0609234] and V. M. Shalaev et al. [Opt. Lett. 30, 3345 (2005)]
A. N. Grigorenko
Abstract
We discuss the claims of the comment at arXiv.org:physics/0609234. We show that A.V. Kildishev et al. misread our method of extracting of optical constants of nanostructured films. The theoretical calculations performed in the comment appear to be in a direct contradiction with an experiment. We demonstrate that the theoretical calculations suggested being free from ambiguities (V.M. Shalaev et al., Opt. Lett. 30, 3345 (2005)) require an additional experimental verification, which can be performed by observing physical effects of negative refraction.
Create a lesson
Related papers
Ultra-Low-Loss Silicon Nitride on Sapphire for Broad-Transparency Nonlinear and Quantum Photonics
Abdur-Raheem Al-Hallak, Shuai Liu, Kailu Zhou et al.
Self-starting Dynamics in All-fibre All-Normal-Dispersion Thulium Mamyshev oscillator
Dennis C. Kirsch, Kirill Grebnev, Alberto Rodriguez Cuevas et al.
Field-driven attosecond deflection of electron beams at the position of planar foils
Xiaofan Gui, Kenichi L. Ishikawa, Yuya Morimoto
Cavity Solitons
W. J. Firth, G. K. Harkness
Ultra-broadband transient absorption down to 200 nm enabled by soliton dynamics in gas-filled hollow capillary fibers
Pieter J. Brongers, Kyle Barlow, Deepjyoti Satpathy et al.
Dual-Symmetrized Construction of Electromagnetic Beams Beyond the Paraxial Approximation with an Explicit Separation of Scalar and Vectorial Corrections
Abdullah F. Alharbi, Kayn A. Forbes