當初做這東西的時候,坦白說我是從弦論AdS/CFT去做這東西,因為都是自己做論文
不知道老闆標準在那裏不敢口試,轉去超材料我完全不知道這在幹嘛,後來一年了我漸漸
看出這裏面的秘密了,每次遇到瓶頸和挫折,我就去超材料教皇ICL的 John Pendry和
Duke大學的D. R.Smith網站朝聖,我自己亂翻了一點超材料的歷史,因為文章很長
我自己只是單據翻譯並沒有做整段的修飾,如果鄉民覺得翻得不好請見諒,只是好玩和樂趣
當時已經沒時間了,如果有興趣的人可以幫我翻譯得更好並且傳閱這故事,希望台灣有一天
能夠有真正科學傳承,我相信諾貝爾物理獎提名者John Pendry和D. R.Smith能,我們也行!
這種算是一種凝態物理新興領域,是屬於那種數學很"簡單"但是需要經驗,巧思和創意的
http://people.ee.duke.edu/~drsmith/metamaterials/metamaterials_history.htm
超材料和負折射的故事：個人的角度
The Story of Metamaterials and Negative Index: A Personal Perspective
One of the questions I am often asked is how metamaterials first started.
Arguably, metamaterials is now a billion dollar enterprise, if you add up all
of the funding that has poured into metamaterials research and development
over the years. In addition, metamaterials has become one of the most exposed
if not overexposed areas of research, with the term "metamaterial" reaching
well into the popular media
我經常被問的其中一個問題是 超材料如何開始起源的。可以說，如果你加上大量
所有匯入超材料的研究和發展多年來的資金，超材料現在是一個數十億美元的企業，。如
此之外，超材料已經成為曝光率最高的領域之一；即使不是曝光最高的領域，”超材料”
這個名詞已經在大眾媒體廣為人知。
So, how did it all start?
Just as a matter of full disclosure, what I'm writing here is not an official
or comprehensive history. It's a history from my point-of-view, about what
was on my mind at the time and the events that happened to and around me. The
field of metamaterials has a lot of threads; I don't think anyone at this
point could recount a complete story of the development of the field, which
by now contains the contributions from thousands of researchers
那麼，這一切是怎麼開始的？
正如所公開的事實，我在寫在這裡不是官方的或全面性的歷史。這是一個關於當時的故事
和當下發生在我周圍的事件在我的腦海裡從個人觀點來看的歷史。超材料領域有非常非常
多的子領域; 我不認為任何人有能力完整描述這個現在包含成千上萬的研究人員的貢獻發
展的一個完整歷史。
But, for me, the beginnings of metamaterials were very modest. I had no grand
visions, or particular end goals. Metamaterials, or artificial materials,
were for me just a hobby, really - a means of trying to understand an
entirely unrelated phenomenon. I never anticipated that negative index
materials, or cloaking, or any of the other almost magical properties of
metamaterials would exist. All of the really big discoveries made in this \
field, by our group or by other groups, were all pleasant surprises!
I don't know how a discovery is "typically" made. What I find interesting
about the events that led to the development of the metamaterials field is
the seeming randomness of events and, maybe, the luck that was involved. If
there is any message here, it is to learn as much as you can about everything,
as deeply as possible; and, to play around with ideas until you obtain an
almost intuitive knowledge of them. As you build an internal mental
picture of a subject, you also want to allow that picture to evolve and adapt
as you gain more information. Being intellectually honest is also important -
never let your desired outcome interfere with reality, however tempting! I
suspect these very generic and simple rules are prerequisites for progress
and discovery in any field, but I can only give a firsthand account of what
happened for the case of metamaterials. By definition, a discovery is
something you don't anticipate, so all you can do to make a discovery is be
very aware; be opportunistic; and gain as much knowledge as possible.
但是對我而言，超材料的開端是非常普通的。我沒有宏大的願景或特定的終極目標。超材
料或人工材料在以前對我來說真的只是一種嗜好， - 試圖了解一個完全不相關的現象的
一種手段。我從來沒有預料負折射率材料，或隱形斗篷，或其他以另一近乎神奇的特性的
超材料會存在。我們的研究團隊或其他的研究團隊都驚喜於超材料所有在這一領域取得了
非常大的發現，！
我不知道超材料的發現是如何“典型地”進行。我覺得有趣的是有關導致該領域的發展的
事件的發生看似隨機地發展，也許這牽涉到運氣。在這裡如果有相關的任何訊息透露是:
盡可能地廣泛並盡可能地深入地學習你所了解的一切; 並且一直”玩弄”的物理想法，直
到你認為是理所當然的直覺。並在你的腦海打造一個以此領域為主題的物理圖像，如果你
想更進一步地讓那個物理圖像進化和適應在腦海裡讓你獲得更多的信息。理智上地誠實也
很重要 – 然而絕不要讓你所渴望的誘人結果來干擾實驗事實！我懷疑這些非常通用的且
簡單的規則是任何領域進步和發現的先決條件，但我只能給當時對超材料所發生的情況做
為第一手資料。根據定義，所謂的 發現 是一些你不預期的事，因此你對所發現能做的是
盡可能地清楚地了解;帶點碰運氣的;並盡可能地獲得知識。
In the following, I provide my personal background and perspective on the
events surrounding metamaterials, but I also try to include conversations and
discussions and arguments I had with my friends and colleagues. People assess
and react to the unknown very differently and with very different states of
mind. I think, for the case of metamaterials, the controversy that erupted
and the back-and-forth scientific discussions really highlight the excitement
that resulted as our collective intuition was challenged by some of the
notions that emerged. It was great to be at the center of the metamaterials
explosion; metamaterials continues to be an endlessly fascinating field with
seemingly endless possibilities. Although some of the arguments and debates
were frustrating at the time, I never blamed anyone for expressing an
alternative point-of-view; I have come away from the entire experience with
the belief that the scientific community as a collective is dedicated,
sincere and robust. I'm always amazed at the willingness that others have to
deeply evaluate and investigate any idea that arises, for no reason other
than pure scientific curiosity. It's a healthy impulse that guides us all to
the truth and makes possible the intense progress that benefits all of our
lives!
接下來，我將對關於超材料周圍的事件提供個人背景和的個人觀點，但我也嘗試包括與我
與我的朋友和同事們的對話和討論及爭論這個話題。對於這個未知領域的人反應和接觸都
非常不同，並且反應出非常不同的心理狀態。我認為，超材料的所爆發的爭議和背後反覆
不斷地科學討論，導致違反我們當下集體的直覺被挑戰，正是這些新概念的產生真正地突
顯這種興奮。這在當初超材料領域爆發時刻是非常偉大的;超材料看似無限的可能性至今
仍是無止盡迷人的領域。雖然當時有些論點和辯論當下曾是令人沮喪的，我在表達個人觀
點時從來沒有指責任何人; 我在科學界的經驗一路走來一直是: 敬業、真誠和穩健的體驗
。我總是驚訝於有非常深入地探討和思索任何新的點子想法的人出現時，這正完全是人類
出自於純科學的好奇心的意願。這種健康的鼓勵引導我們邁向所有的真理且盡可能快速的
進步來利於促進我們的生活！
這世界發現負折射
It was in mid-December of 1999, during the time our manuscript on negative
index materials was under submission to Physical Review Letters. While doing
some background research, Willie Padilla and I had run across a paper by
Russian physicist Victor Veselago, published in 1968, that had theoretically
predicted the existence of the artificial material we had just succeeded in
creating and had demonstrated in the lab - a material with a negative index
of refraction. Because our material was actually a construction of little
copper wires and rings rather than a conventional material, we were calling
it a "metamaterial," a term that had just recently been coined to describe
artificial materials. Shelly Schultz, my PhD and postdoctoral advisor, burst
into my office one day, really excited - practically breathless.
"I've been in this business for over forty years, but now I'm going to do
something I've never done in my life." As often with Shelly, he delivered the
news with a level of seriousness that bordered on the dramatic.
"What's that? I asked.
"I'm going to organize a press conference on the discovery of negative index
metamaterials at the American Physical Society March Meeting in Minneapolis."
當時那是在1999年12月中旬，在我們關於負折射率材料的手稿提交給物理通訊評論
(Physical Review Letters)期間。當時做了一些相關背景研究，Willie Padilla和我偶
然發現了一篇前蘇聯物理學家Victor Veselago於1968年的論文，他曾從理論上預言了人
工材料的存在，這正是我們剛剛成功地創造並在實驗室中證實 - 一個折射率為負的材料
。因為我們的材料實際上是一些小銅線和銅環所構成，而不是一般的傳統材料，我們稱此
為“超材料”，即最近剛剛被用來形容人工材料的術語。有一天，我的博士和博士後導師
Shelly Schultz真的是很興奮地；幾乎喘不過氣來衝進我的辦公室-。
“我已經在這個行業超過四十年，但現在我將會做一些從來沒有在生命中完成的壯舉。”
由於經常伴隨著Shelly發表的新聞是以某一種看似嚴重程度但是近乎戲劇性的發展。
“那是什麼？我問。
“我將籌辦明年美國物理學會三月會議的新聞發布會，地點在Minneapolis籌辦有關負折
射材料的發現。”
While initially skeptical about the artificial material work, over time
Shelly had become truly inspired, especially once we had discovered the
Veselago paper; now he was brimming with enthusiasm. Shelly held a deep and
profound passion for science and especially loved to challenge himself and
others with intellectual puzzles and conundrums. This passion made him a
dynamic and dazzling lecturer who could inspire and transfix his audience, as
he rattled out physics concepts with a rapid-fire, machine gun like tempo.
Though most of his life had been spent in San Diego, Shelly had never lost
the fast-paced, New York delivery that he was well known for. Shelly didn't
just present the facts; he liked to build a story, usually dangling some
mystery in front of the audience at the beginning of a lecture, then building
up to the resolution for a grand finale. His lectures were thus engaging,
delivered in an inimitable style that left his listeners excited and wanting
more. He was one of the very few professors at UCSD who routinely had a 100%
approval rating from his classes - a nearly impossible feat.
儘管一開始懷疑的人工材料的工作，隨著時間的推移，Shelly已經變成真正的振奮人心，
尤其是當我們發現了Veselago的論文； 現在他洋溢著熱情。Shelly保持著對科學的深刻
和深遠的熱情，尤其是他自己喜愛和他人挑戰智力上的困惑和難題。這種激情使他成為充
滿活力和光彩奪目並鼓舞和讓他的聽眾目瞪口呆的講師，因為他以機關槍一樣的節奏急速
地慌亂了物理學的概念，。雖然大多數他的生活已經過了在聖地牙哥(San Diego)，
Shelly從未輸過的快節奏，紐約的發行，他是眾所周知的。Shelly不只是呈現事實; 他喜
歡搭建了一個故事，通常是在演講的開始在觀眾面前晃來晃去增添一些神秘感，然後建立
解決問題為壓軸。他的演講都是這樣如此迷人的，在一個獨特的風格，留給他的聽眾激動
和欲罷不能。他是極少數教授在加州大學聖地亞哥分校(UCSD)的課經常有100%的出席率，
一個幾乎不可能完成的壯舉 –
In Veselago's paper about negative index materials, Shelly had found one of
the greatest mysteries that he had ever come across. His intuition had been
knocked for a loop, and Shelly was reveling in the endless puzzles that a
negative index-of-refraction brought. Veselago suggested that nearly all of
electromagnetics would have to be rethought if negative index materials were
ever found and we had found them! Everything that Shelly had taught for forty
years - even basic concepts, such as Snell's law of refraction - now required
a second look. For Shelly, this was big news, and he wanted to share it with
the world.
在Veselago關於負折射率材料的論文，Shelly發現他曾所未見所遇到的最大的謎團
之一。當時他的直覺大吃一驚，Shelly陶醉在負折射率所帶來無止盡的難題的思想。
Veselago建議:如果負折射率材料被發現，則迄今發現的幾乎所有的電磁學都必須重新
思考，而我們已經找到了他們！甚至基本的概念，例如折射的Snell折射定律 - - 這
Shelly曾教了四十年的一切現在需要第二次看。對於Shelly而言，這是個大新聞並且想
要與世界其他人分享。
I, on the other hand, was shocked and almost immediately paralyzed with fear.
Why did we need a press conference? A press conference would mostly target
non-scientists; why would the general public be the least bit interested in
something as arcane as negative index? What immediately jumped into my mind
was all the press that had been generated by the cold fusion experiments
years before, in which a group of scientists from the University of Utah had
claimed to have accomplished a nuclear fusion process in a material. The
images of the Utah scientists prematurely celebrating their presumed
breakthrough with Champaign suddenly came to mind. Similar to what Shelly was
proposing, the Utah group had decided to announce their results before their
paper was published, before the rest of the scientific community even had a
chance to confirm their findings. In the end, when the results could not be
reproduced, the Utah scientists - perhaps unfairly - suffered enormously.
另一方面，我非常震驚並且幾乎陷入立刻癱瘓的恐懼。為什麼我們需要一個新聞記者
會？新聞記者會將主要針對非科學家; 為什麼一般大眾會對一點點神秘感的負折射懺生興
趣？立刻躍上我的大腦裡產生的全是由當年新聞界說已經由冷融合實驗那幾年，其中一組
來自猶他大學(University of Utah)的科學家曾聲稱在材料中實現核融合的過程。猶他大
學的科學家用香檳過早地慶祝他們假設的突破的影像突然浮現在腦海中。類似於Shelly被
建議，在猶他團隊決定宣布他們的成果的論文發表之前，在這之前科學界的其他人，甚至
有機會以確認他們的發現。最後，當實驗結果不能被重製，猶他大學的科學家 - 也許遭受
巨大的不公平 。
A press conference could seriously backfire. We had done a very interesting
experiment, for sure, but we had no idea if negative index was actually
useful for anything; moreover, all of our interpretations had not been really
tested. We were drawing our conclusions by inferring a lot from a combination
of experiments and simulations; there would need to be much more work done to
really substantiate the results.
But Shelly was adamant. He saw negative index as an important breakthrough
and was convinced the rest of the world would be as fascinated as he was.
Brushing aside my concerns, he wanted to organize a press conference, and he
wanted me to go with him to Minneapolis to participate. My only consolation
was that, unlike cold fusion, which stood to solve the world’s energy needs,
no one would understand or care about negative index. If we were somehow
wrong or had misinterpreted our results, maybe we could still go unnoticed.
記者招待會可能會嚴重適得其反(事與願違?)。我們已經確定做了一個非常有趣的
實驗，但是我們不知道，如果負折射率是用於什麼實際的用途；此外，我們所有的解釋並
沒有得到真正的檢驗。我們的結論透過一連串實驗和模擬組合的圖表推斷; 將有需要做
更多的工作證實實驗結果。
但Shelly態度十分堅決。他認為負折射率作為一個重要的突破，並深信世界的其他人
將和他一樣為之著迷。撇開我的顧慮，他想組織一個記者招待會，他要我跟他一起去
Minneapolis參加這會議。我唯一安慰的是，不像冷核融合堅持解決世界的能源需求，沒
有人會了解或關心負折射。如果我們以某種方式錯誤或錯誤詮釋了實驗的結果，也許我們
仍然可以被忽視。
As the time of the APS meeting and press conference drew near, reporters
started calling. And calling. And calling. I had thought no one would be
interested, but it seemed like everyone was interested.
"I was on the phone for more than an hour with the science reporter from the
New York Times, Shelly announced one day ."I tried to explain negative
refraction to the reporter, but I'm a little disappointed that he had so much
trouble getting it. Shelly seemed genuinely surprised.
The New York Times? Seriously? That was coverage I hadn't expected in my
wildest thoughts. And many other major newspapers were also calling and
considering running the story. There wasn't much I could do. I could only
answer questions if any reporters or journalists decided to call, to the best
of my ability. The cat was out of the bag, and there was no turning back.
隨著APS會議和記者招待會的時間逼近，記者開始不斷地打電話。打電話。打電話。我
原以為沒有人會感興趣，但它似乎像大家很感興趣。有一天Shelly宣布
“我在電話上和超過與來自紐約時報的科學記者通話一個多小時。”
我試圖向記者解釋負折射，但我有點失望他有很大的麻煩理解它。Shelly似乎真的感到
很驚訝。紐約時報？認真的嗎？我從沒想到那是直播這是我最瘋狂的想法。和許多其他主
要報紙也打電話，並考慮講這件事。所有我所能做的只是，如果有任何記者決定打電話給
我，盡我最大的努力能回答問題。貓已在袋子外面，而且沒有回頭路了。
For the press conference, the staff at APS wanted a couple of distinguished
physicists to be on a panel to support and discuss the results. Shelly asked
Walter Kohn, a physicist at UC Santa Barbara who had won the Nobel Prize in
Chemistry in 1998, and Marvin Cohen from UC Berkeley. They were both
intrigued with the negative index after Shelly explained to them the
experiments, and graciously agreed to be on the panel.
The press conference was held in March of 2000, about a month before the
paper would be published in early May. While reporters and possibly some
researchers would have copies of our manuscript to evaluate, most other
scientists would not. I was incredibly uncomfortable with it all! The night
before the press conference, I couldn’t sleep, distraught and almost sick
with the thought that we were making a big deal about our work when we might
have missed something technical, or were overstating the significance. It was
frightening.
在記者招待會上，美國物理學會(APS)工作人員在面板上想了一對傑出的物理學家來
支持和討論的結果。Shelly問一個在加州大學聖巴巴拉分校贏得了1998年諾貝爾化學獎於
的物理學家Walter Kohn與加州大學伯克利分校Marvin Cohen。在Shelly向他們解釋了實
驗結果之後，他們都對負折射率感興趣，並慷慨地同意成為在面板上的人物。
2000年3月召開的記者招待會上，五月初大約論文即將發表一個月的之前。儘管記者
還有一些研究人員可能將有我們的手稿的影印本來評價，雖然大部分其他科學家不會。我
是極為不舒服這一切的！當晚的記者招待會前一晚，我幾乎睡不著而心煩意亂，對我們正
在做的工作做了極大的思考幾乎快生病。我們可能已經錯過了一些技術性的，或者工作被
嚴重誇大重要性。這是令人恐懼的。
The concept of a negative index of refraction is pretty technical. Shelly had
a talent for explaining complex ideas and making people feel like they
understood them. He was at a stage in his career where he knew how to convey
the big picture, and not get bogged down in the technical details. I didn't
have that talent. Moreover, Shelly was not shy; he was outgoing and filled
with self-confidence. I was far more the introvert, and also riddled with
doubts that we hadn’t been self-critical enough with respect to our theory
or experiments. I was terrified about every statement I made, and tried to
qualify every sentence to the point that everything I said became useless. As
I anticipated the day of the press conference, I imagined trying to explain
negative index to journalists, or - even worse - trying to answer what
negative index might be good for. The thought of telling a reporter "negative
index is good for reversing Cerenkov radiation" made me queasy. Even trying
to explain what a "magnetic permeability" and an "electric permittivity,"
which were absolutely necessary to understand the structure we had build, was
next to impossible. Those concepts are difficult enough for physicists to get
straight!
負折射率的概念是相當地技術性。Shelly有一種天賦解釋這複雜的概念，使得人們覺
得自己了解它。他是在他的職業生涯一個階段，他知道如何傳達大局，而不是為了得到的
技術細節越陷越深。我沒有那個天賦。此外，Shelly不是靦腆; 他是非常外向並充滿了自
信。
我十分內向也充滿了疑惑，我們對於我們的理論或實驗沒有足夠的自我批判。我很擔
心我的每一個聲明並試圖資格使每一句話到如此的地步:我說的一切變得毫無意義。正如
我在記者招待會當天預期，我想像試圖解釋負折射率給記者們，或者 - 甚至更糟 - 試圖
回答負折射率可能是可能是有益的。告訴記者“負指數有利於反轉Cerenkov輻射”讓我作
噁。甚至還要努力解釋什麼是“磁導率”和“介電常數”，這是對我們所建立的結構所絕
對必要的了解對記者而言幾乎是不可能的。這些概念即使對物理學家都很難直接了當的理
解！
Shelly's enthusiasm, though, was unbridled and unstoppable. "Negative index
is a major, major discovery!" He'd say, "What is it good for? I don't know.
But when the laser was invented, no one knew what to do with that either, and
now lasers are in supermarkets. No one could have predicted that!"
Negative index was pretty neat, but, in the end, we were scattering
microwaves off of metal. To my mind, while we had found a really interesting
effect and fulfilled a thirty year old conjecture, it wasn't the same as
demonstrating a laser, which had produced non-classical, coherent light for
the first time based on a quantum mechanical effect. I would never have
compared our metamaterial structure to the laser.
But, despite all of my reservations and concerns, the press conference went
forward. And, instead of no one being interested, the science journalists
were really intrigued and negative index looked like it would become the
story for the 2000 APS Meeting.
Shelly的熱情，雖然是不受拘束的和不可阻擋的。
“負折射率是主要的重大的發現！”
他會說，“這是什麼好處？我不知道，但是當雷射被發明出來，沒有人知道該怎麼做，現
在雷射是在超市可買到，沒有人能夠預料到！”負折射是相當巧妙的，但是，最終我們被
侷限在金屬中散射微波。在我看來，雖然我們發現了一個非常有趣的效果，並實現了三十
年前的猜想，這是不一樣的展示雷射，它已經產生基於量子力學效應的第一次非經典的同
調光。我從不會比較超材料結構跟雷射的不同。但是，儘管我所有的保留和關注，記者招
待會上前。並且，沒有一個不是不感興趣的，科學記者們真的很好奇負折射且看起來像它
會成為2000年的APS會議的故事。
As I had expected, it was a difficult topic for the reporters to cover, and
equally difficult to convey the importance. I also had my first experience of
dealing with science reporters, which turned out to be fantastic. The
journalists who covered the science stories truly loved science and tried
very hard to get the story right, while making it palatable for their
audience. I was deeply impressed with their care in writing the story, fact
checking and allowing us to review drafts for accuracy. They worked hard
trying to explain our own discovery for us, suggesting analogies and even
postulating possible uses for our arcane materials.
正如我所料，對記者報導這個主題是困難的，並同樣地難以傳達的重要性。我也第一
次和記者相處的經驗原來是奇妙的。報導這些科學故事的記者真正熱愛科學並且很努力地
讓這個故事的正確性真實呈現，同時也使他們的觀眾愉快地接受。我在寫故事讓因為他們
的關心被深深地打動了，核對事實並讓我們回顧草稿的準確性。他們努力試圖解釋我們的
發現，建議類比甚至為我們的神秘物質可能的用途的提出假設。
I also got a sense of where accuracy has to be sacrificed for the sake of
generating interest or conveying to non-specialists quickly. At one point I
was working with a reporter from the Washington Post, who was covering the
APS press conference. He was on the phone with his editor, and we were making
last minute changes to his story just before his deadline. The editor wanted
a title.
The reporter was listening to something the editor was saying. Then, he
cupped his hand over the phone and leaned over to me: "My editor likes the
title 'Left-Handed Material Said to Reverse Energy.' Is that ok?
I thought about it. "No, our material really doesn't reverse energy-I'm not
even sure what that means exactly. Our material just scatters waves, and
inside the material waves appear to propagate the wrong way, back toward the
source. But it's just an illusion; the flow of energy is still the same. The
title is definitely misleading, if not entirely wrong."
The reporter got back on the phone to the editor. "He says your title isn't
right. Energy doesn't go backwards. Yeah. Yeah. Ok."
我也感受到了為了讓非專業人員產生興趣或快速地傳達給非專業人員訊息，犧牲精確
度是必須的。有一次，當我正與華盛頓郵報記者工作時，他在播報美國物理學會(APS)的
新聞記者招待會。他與他的編輯在電話中通話，且我們只是他的最後期限之前做出了最後
一分鐘改變他的故事。該編輯想要一個標題。
記者在採訪中聽到一些編輯在說什麼。然後，他用他的手遮著電話並俯著身對我說：
“我的編輯喜歡這標題”左手材料說成反轉能量。“ 這樣可以嗎？
我想過這個問題。“不，我們的材料並沒有真的反轉能量 - 我甚至不確定這代表的正確
意思是什麼。我們的材料只是散射波，在材料內部的波傳播了出現了錯誤的方式，回到光
源，但它只是一個幻覺，能量的流動仍然是相同的。這標題如果不是完全錯誤的也絕對是
誤導性的 “。
記者回電給編輯。
“他說，你的標題是不正確的。能量沒有後退。是啊、是啊，好吧。”
The reporter leaned over again, hand over the phone and declared "we're gonna
run with that title anyway. My editor likes it."
Not much I could do! The article was great, and, wrong as it was, the short,
catchy title would unquestionably attract readers' attention.
To my surprise, the press release from the APS (which can be viewed here) and
the press conference caught fire and within a week everyone was talking about
negative index. The story was global, and reporters even found and obtained
comments from Victor Veselago, who had postulated about negative index more
than three decades before.
記者俯身再次交出手機並且宣布“我們要運行這個標題呢，我的編輯喜歡它。”沒有太多
我可以做！這篇文章是偉大的，而且，錯了，因為它是中，短，吸引人的標題無疑地會吸
引讀者的注意力。出乎我的意料，從APS（它可以被看作新聞稿在這裡）所發佈的新聞且在
新聞記者招待會起火，在一周之內每個人都在談論負折射。這個故事是全球性的，記者甚
至發現和獲得三十多年前提出負折射假設的Victor Veselago的意見。
開端
In 1997, I was into my third year of a postdoc in the group of Sheldon
("Shelly") Schultz, in the Physics Department of the University of
California, San Diego (UCSD). I had completed my PhD in the same group in
1994, on the topic of microwave scattering in photonic crystals. After
graduating and becoming a postdoc, I had switched research topics, and was
now investigating the optical microscopy of metal nanoparticles. While the
two topics may seem unrelated, they both involved the interaction of light
with materials - structured materials, in the former case; and metals, in the
latter. My postdoc advisor, Shelly, had formed a company called Seashell
Technologies to try and commercialize the metal nanoparticles for use as
super bright labels in biological assays. As part of my postdoc research, I
was to develop methods to simulate and better understand how light interacted
with the metal nanoparticles and how we might optimize them.
Why metal nanoparticles?
1997年，我在加州大學聖地亞哥分校（UCSD）的物理系的 Sheldon ("Shelly")
Schultz教授的團隊底下當第三年的博士後。我在1994年同一團隊已經完成了博士學位，
當時念博士時在研究在光子晶體微波散射的題目。博士畢業並成為博士後之後，我又轉而
研究課題，當時正在研究金屬納米粒子的光學顯微鏡。儘管這兩個題目看似無關，它們都
牽涉到光與材料的互相作用 -在前者(博士時)是以光與結構材料交互作用; ，在後者
(博後時)是光與金屬交互作用。我的博士後導師Shelly曾成立了一家叫做背殼(Seashell)
的公司嘗試技術和商業化的金屬納米粒子作為生物測定的超亮標籤。由於我的博士後研究
的一部分，我是發展模擬並更佳了解光與金屬納米粒子如何相互作用的方法，並且如何對
其進行最佳化。
為什麼金屬納米粒子？
As it turns out, certain metals scatter visible light like crazy. The
incident electric fields of the light cause the electrons in the metal to
oscillate, scattering the light with enormous efficiency. If you look at a
bunch of silver nanoparticles under the right kind of microscope, they look
like bright, colorful beacons, or colorful stars in the night sky. Physicists
have longer understood the basics of why the metal nanoparticles are so
bright: Light impinging on a metal sphere, for example, is a classical
physics problem that can be solved exactly; all that is needed to describe
the problem is a certain property of the metal called the "electric
permittivity,"" which is denoted by the symbol . No matter how complicated
are the microscopic details of a material, its response to electromagnetic
waves (like light or radio waves) can be mostly understood by just two
parameters: The electric permittivity, ε, and the magnetic permeability, μ.
For most non-magnetic materials, like metals, you can ignore μ entirely, and
pretty much describe all the optical properties of the material just by ε.
For certain metals at optical wavelengths, ε is a negative number. A
nanoparticle that has a negative ε can actually bind light on its surface,
squeezing the light into nanosized regions that are much smaller than the
wavelength of light. This tight, localization of light is one of the main
features of metal nanoparticles and what makes them so fascinating to study.
It also makes them really tough to study.
事實證明，某些金屬的散射在可見光像發瘋似的。光的入射電場導致在金屬中的作振
盪，散射光具有巨大的增益。如果你在合適的顯微鏡看一束銀納米粒子，它們看起來像明
亮的，多采多姿的烽火，或是在夜空中豐富多彩的星星。物理學家們很久以前就已經知道
為什麼金屬納米粒子是如此明亮的基本知識：比如，光照射在一個金屬球是可以有精確解
的一個經典物理學問題; 所有這一切需要說明的問題是所謂的“電容率”，“這是符號記
為 的金屬某些性質。不管有多麼複雜材料的微觀細節，其對應於電磁波（光或無線電波）
就只要了解這二個參數，介電常數 和磁導係數 。對於大多數的非磁性物料，如金屬，
可以完全忽略，和許多幾乎所有描述材料的光學性質一樣，我們關注主要是 的性質。
對於某些金屬在光波波長， 是一個負數。具有負 的納米顆粒實際上可以結合在其表面上
的光，擠壓光波進入納米尺度，這是比可見光的波長小很多。這種緊密的，局域化的光是
金屬納米粒子的主要特徵之一，這是為什麼他們讓人如此著迷的研究。
這也使得他們真的很難學。
Because light can vary at a scale much smaller than the wavelength on a metal
nanoparticle, it is hard to compute light scattering from a metal
nanoparticle that has an arbitrary shape. Most electromagnetic simulators
solve for the electric and magnetic fields at a discrete number of points
within a volume. Normally, the density of points needed is a few times
smaller than the wavelength. For metal nanoparticles, though, a much larger
density is required, meaning way more points to capture the physics
accurately. And so, the computational time shoots up as does the required
memory. While the computational difficulties are much more tractable now, the
"plasmon" problem was a major challenge in 1997!
Since our group was more on the experimental and conceptual side, it didn't
seem like developing and debugging numerical methods was the most efficient
task for me. Luckily, at a near-field conference I attended in the Czech
Republic, I saw an inspiring talk by Olivier Martin (then a postdoc at the
ETH in Zurich), who presented what looked like the ideal method for computing
the properties of nanoparticles. His was the first talk of the conference,
and I knew immediately that his method was the one we should be using! At the
conference I was able to discuss the plasmon problem with Olivier, and he
also became very intrigued with the challenge. He was very happy to visit our
group in San Diego and help us get a more quantitative understanding of
nanoparticles with different shapes. His method was great, and we
collaborated closely for many years.
Still, it was a struggle to figure out exactly what was going on with these
nanoparticles, especially when trying to match up the simulation predictions
with what we were seeing under the microscope.
因為光可以在尺度上變化上比金屬納米粒子的波長小很多，所以具有任意形狀的金屬
納米顆粒計算的散射光的計算是非常困難的。大多數電磁模擬軟體解決的電場和磁場在一
個離散點的數目的體積內。通常情況下，所需的點的密度是小於波長幾個數量級。然而，
對於金屬納米顆粒，更大的密度是必需的，這意味著需要更多的點來精確地獲得其物理性
質。
因此，計算時間拍攝所需要更多的記憶體。目前計算的困難聽話是服從的多，
“電漿(等離子體)”的問題是在1997年是主要的一大挑戰！
由於我們團隊為更多的實驗和概念方面，對我來說最重要的是最有效率數值方法不像
是開發和除錯的數值方法並太重要。幸運的是，在我參加的一場捷克共和國近場學術會議
上，我看到了一個鼓舞人心的講座，由Olivier Martin（當時他是蘇黎世ETH的博士後）
提出看起來像計算納米粒子的性質的理想方法。他是會議的第一個講者，我馬上就知道他
的方法正是我們所需要那一個！在這次會議上，我能夠和Olivier討論這個電漿問題，而
他也對這問題充滿非常好奇與挑戰性。他很高興來參觀我們在聖地牙哥團隊，幫助我們獲
得具有不同形狀的納米粒子更定量的了解。他的方法是偉大的，我們密切地合作多年。
不過，試圖在模擬預測與我們在顯微鏡下所看到的結果弄清楚這些奈米粒子到底發生
了什麼事情，這是一場挑戰。
(待續)
PS:歡迎幫我當初自己翻譯文章修飾得更好,當時我只是為了瞭解一些物理和歷史