Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 219 posts

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

#81

Post by samirm »

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.

I think the problem was being unable to solve a generalized version of the equation. Our old methods only made it economically viable to make "good enough" lenses and now this method makes it economically viable to make "perfect" lenses.

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

#82

Post by arendtio »

hyperpallium wrote: post #42
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.…

This raises the perennial question of whether product placement is a legitimate source of funding for fundamental scientific research. After placing an ice-cube in my delicious glass of refreshing coca-cola brand carbonated beverage, I yelled Eureka! and jumped out of the bath. Is that really how it happened? Is it not inconsistent with the pursuit of truth?

Indeed. That is why I like the Nikon product placement a lot better because it just highlights what kind of a problem they create with the decision to have only one card slot.

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

#83

Post by doelie_ »

ttul wrote: post #33
zaroth wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was my thought. Why is it so damn complex? You’d think the solution would be simpler.

Probably looks a lot simpler in A-normal form, with intermediates factored out.

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

#85

Post by soganess »

xtiansimon wrote: post #72
soganess wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really natural, on first mention, to refer to something using a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? From that point on, to avoid repetition, mix in antecedents or generic names. Brands exploit this mechanic in language so that any time a, thereto unknown, good has to be addressed, that identification become advertising. It shifts from being a unique identification of an object/item…

>> It's really natural, when first mentioning it, to call something using by a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? Huh? ‘degenerate set’ being what, the brand placement? I likes me some Semiotics, though not sure what this passage refers to. In the context of a photography site, brand mentions must be a hazard. The author has no problem name dropping an Ancient Greek, Newton, Leibniz, H…

I don't know any Semiotics! But, in an effort to drive the conversation, I can be more precise with what I'm trying to say.

I'm working with this informal idea that there is always a relationship between the audience and the speaker. That relationship define a shared knowledge space.

If I am speaking to a group of my friends and need to refer to my brother the set of identifiers that uniquely conveys his identify to my friends might be {brother, Joe, Joe Blow, brother-man, etc}. Any of those identifiers coming from to me specify exactly one person, my brother. The degeneracy is that they equally identify him to the audience.

If you were not that close to me, and I say "brother", you might wonder if I have more than one brother. If you did not know me at all I might say Dr. Joe Blow to identify him and why he might be relavent in some area of expertise. As the relationship between speaker and and audience grows more distant the set size decreases. Inversely, the context-free uniqueness of the identification provided by the remaining identifiers has to be greater, with proper names maintaining greater uniqueness (sorry to the John Smiths of the world!) than nicknames and so forth.

To return to my point, the scientist in question called it Nutella because he does not have a deep relationship with his audience and that is the most unique way of identifying it. I don't believe he was doing anything atypical or nefarious. If he knew the audience well, he could have just said "breakfast", and they would know exactly what he meant because he has the same thing for breakfast most mornings.

The problem is that brands, unlike most proper names(obviously famous people are an exception), have a greater ethos associated with them. If my brother was named Joe Blow or Jim Deal, my unique referencing of him doesn't do much to color the statement around it. This is contrast to how much extra you get when you call a car a Ferrari vs a grand tourer. My point is that advertisers recognize this linguistic norm and exploit it, this is what brand identity is. As such, just the natural mention of a good becomes advertising.

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

#86

Post by sleavey »

joeberon wrote: post #21

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 m…

> It's a requirement here in the UK to publish a paper to get your PhD

Categorically false. I did my physics PhD in the UK and while I did publish a paper, it was not a requirement and I have plenty of friends who did not publish a paper and still got their physics PhD.

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

#87

Post by amluto »

ricardobeat wrote: post #80
amluto wrote: post #68

The article talks about the corners of an image being less sharp than the center. That’s not spherical aberration; that’s off-axis aberration. Spherical aberration causes the image to be less sharp at larger apertures. I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if this result helps indirectly with off-axis aberration, though — a closed-form solution to the spherical aberration problem may make it easier to optimize for lens sh…

What’s your background? In the photography field this is known as spherical aberration indeed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration

Physics, but not optics. Also, I read and understood the paper. The Wikipedia link seems to agree with me too. Look at the diagram there, and compare it to the diagram for coma [0].

Spherical aberration causes the single point in the center of the object to focus to a different place depending on where the ray hits the lens. This means that the image of that single point is not fully sharp. If you restrict what parts of the lens can be hit by rays from that point (by closing the iris, for example), you reduce the area in the focal plane that the rays hit.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_(optics)

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

#89

Post by jpablo »

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.…

¡Madres!

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

#90

Post by NeedMoreTea »

jjeaff wrote: post #79
soganess wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really natural, on first mention, to refer to something using a member of the degenerate set of its most unique identifier, right? From that point on, to avoid repetition, mix in antecedents or generic names. Brands exploit this mechanic in language so that any time a, thereto unknown, good has to be addressed, that identification become advertising. It shifts from being a unique identification of an object/item…

Hazelnut spread is one of those things that is much more commonly referred to as the brand name. No one says "Reynolds wrap" they say "aluminum foil". No one says "hazelnut spread", they say Nutella. No one says "resealable sandwich bags", they say ziploc bags.

Most people would just say "sandwich" unless the spread is somehow critical to the tale. I know it's a quote, but it sounds most odd to me as most people I know don't really brand drop in conversation. Coke is probably the big exception there...

TIL what ziploc bags are. Just called "sandwich bags" here. Cling film isn't "sarran wrap" here either. :)

Post reply on HN