Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#21

Post by joeberon » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:16 PM UTC

Slightly related: One thing I've learnt in Physics is that there are still a huge number of practical and fundamental problems to be solved. You might expect everything easy will already be done by now but that's just not true. Hence we still manage to write so many papers! In fact many Physicists have too many papers they want to write and not enough time to write them. This was a huge surprise for me coming in to my PhD. I had naively assumed that physicists were all scrounging for any morsel of content to publish!!

Of course it depends on the field. It's a requirement here in the UK to publish a paper to get your PhD (at least I've been led to believe that), and many particle physics students really struggle to manage to fulfill this. On the other hand gravitational wave detectors have a huge amount of unexplored science as there are so many things that we still do not fully understand about the detectors themselves.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#22

Post by kennyadam » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

xondono wrote: post #19

I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements , which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like t…

Haven't read the paper, not an expert... but you still feel qualified to dismiss it?

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#23

Post by jhncls » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

thechao wrote: post #12

The paper is from Nov 2018, and is easy to find online. It’s a pretty amazing result; the examples they give in the paper are for some reasonable shaped primary surfaces and some really neat “exotic” stuff. The solution actually admits aberrant free solutions for any geometry that doesn’t include self-crossing rays. So, some of the ‘weird’ examples include a Bessel-function cross section, negative index of refraction…

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03792 "Rigorous analytical formula for freeform singlet lens design free of spherical aberration"

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.11129 "Single lens telescope"

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#24

Post by TheRealPomax » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

"It is unclear whether he finished eating the Nutella bread."

This article is alright.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#25

Post by mykowebhn » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

> After months of working on solving the problem, Rafael González recalls, “I remember one morning I was making myself a slice of bread with Nutella, when suddenly, I said out loud: Mothers! It is there!”

> He then ran to his computer and started programming the idea. When he executed the solution and saw that it worked, he says he jumped all over the place. It is unclear whether he finished eating the Nutella bread.

This is my favorite quote from the article. Soon to be the most famous slice of Nutella bread?

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#26

Post by TheRealPomax » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

xondono wrote: post #19

I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements , which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like t…

It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article?

These people solved optical abberation. Even if their work leads to lenses that are twice as expensive as they are today, people whose research, or jobs, rely on perfect optics will be more than happy to pay what it costs to work with those.

Anyone else can wait until one or more companies figures out how to make the manufacturing process cost effective at scale.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#27

Post by Koshkin » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:37 PM UTC

readams wrote: post #17

I'm not sure I really follow how this actually will result in better lenses. Is the precision of the numerical solution really the problem, or is the problem the actual precise manufacturing of the lens elements? I have a strong suspicion that the numerical solution is as precise as needed and the limiting factor is the manufacturing, but I would be interested to hear how this results in something new.

Your suspicion is justified. The news here is the discovery of an analytical formula - which is "precise," sure, but whether using it directly in an actual computation could yield a more accurate and practically useful result is a good question, due to the complexity of the formula.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#28

Post by russdill » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:38 PM UTC

TheRealPomax wrote: post #26

xondono wrote: post #19

I have not checked the actual paper, but according to the article itself: > Moreover, the solution involved aspherical elements , which are harder to manufacture in a precise way and are thus more costly. > Their findings were published in the article General Formula for Bi-Aspheric Singlet Lens Design Free of Spherical Aberration, in the journal Applied Optics. I’m no expert in optics, but that does not sound like t…

It also doesn't sound like the kind of advancement that makes camera lenses play mp3 files, but then: neither of those two things are even remotely relevant to the article? These people solved optical abberation. Even if their work leads to lenses that are twice as expensive as they are today, people whose research, or jobs, rely on perfect optics will be more than happy to pay what it costs to work with those. Anyon…

Currently abberation is dealt with by including multiple lenses. Even if the lens costs twice as much, it's still a wine from a price point.

But yes, only for applications that care about abberation.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#29

Post by zaroth » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

mykowebhn wrote: post #25

> After months of working on solving the problem, Rafael González recalls, “I remember one morning I was making myself a slice of bread with Nutella, when suddenly, I said out loud: Mothers! It is there!” > He then ran to his computer and started programming the idea. When he executed the solution and saw that it worked, he says he jumped all over the place. It is unclear whether he finished eating the Nutella bread.…

Gave me shivers reading it. Beautiful example of the incredible mystery of the human mind.

Poof! And the solution materialized. Of course, all the groundwork had been laid. All the neurons primed. Just incredible.

And that formula. Damn.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#30

Post by TheRealPomax » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

chroem- wrote: post #4

Will this have any implications for astronomy?

Not at the large scale - there aren't really any refracting telescopes left (based on lenses) when it comes to serious research, we replaced them with reflecting telescopes instead (based on mirrors).

There's a few notable exceptions, like the Lick Observatory, but in terms of impacting the state or progress of astronomy, the research from this article is unlikely to have an impact outside of small scale labs and amateur astronomy.

That's not to say the benefits there won't be appreciable for those who rely on optical telescopes, but you won't see this research make a difference for ground based arrays like NRAO, VLA, or in space telescopes.