New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

The Quest for the Superlens

Built from "metamaterials" with bizarre, controversial optical properties, a superlens could produce images that include details finer than the wavelength of light that is used

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Almost 40 years ago Russian scientist Victor Veselago had an idea for a material that could turn the world of optics on its head. It could make light waves appear to flow backward and behave in many other counterintuitive ways. A totally new kind of lens made of the material would have almost magical attributes that would let it outperform any previously known. The catch: the material had to have a negative index of refraction ("refraction" describes how much a wave will change direction as it enters or leaves the material). All known materials had a positive value. After years of searching, Veselago failed to find anything having the electromagnetic properties he sought, and his conjecture faded into obscurity.

A startling advance recently resurrected Veselago's notion. In most materials, the electromagnetic properties arise directly from the characteristics of constituent atoms and molecules. Because these constituents have a limited range of characteristics, the millions of materials that we know of display only a limited palette of electromagnetic properties. But in the mid-1990s one of us (Pendry), in collaboration with scientists at Marconi Materials Technology in England, realized that a "material" does not have to be a slab of one substance. Rather it could gain its electromagnetic properties from tiny structures, which collectively create effects that are otherwise impossible.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe