{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028499454825732226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010978681806218747, 'mean_word_length': 4.496590204587725, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 2, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Subwavelength imaging with materials of in-principle arbitrarily low index contrast

Perfect imaging with Maxwell's fish eye opens the exciting prospect of passive imaging systems with a resolution no longer limited by the wave nature of light. But it also challenges some of the accepted wisdom of super-resolution imaging and therefore has been subject to controversy and discussion. Here we describe an idea for even simpler perfect-imaging systems based on geometrical optics and prove by experiment that it works.


Introduction
The archetype of perfect imaging with positive refraction is Maxwell's fish eye [1][2][3][4][5][6]. It is easy to understand why Maxwell's device may focus light with unlimited precision if we consider the fact [2] that it represents the geometry of a virtual sphere-in physical space, light propagates in a medium with Maxwell's profile as if it were confined to the surface of a sphere 6 in virtual space [4]. Imagine light emission on the virtual sphere. A wave emitted at a point source on the sphere must converge with point-like precision at the antipodal point, simply due to the perfect symmetry of the sphere. The sphere thus turns the wave expanding from the point of emission into a converging wave at the image point.
It is also easy to understand why perfect imaging is possible in this case, using an argument by Feynman [8] that goes as follows [9]. Maxwell's equations of light propagation are completely time-reversible. Therefore the emission process at a point source can be completely reversed at the image, provided one crucial element is present, a source run in reverse-a drain. Otherwise the absorption at the image would not be the exact time reverse of the emission at the source. The drain at the image point is also something natural in imaging where one wishes to detect an image, for example by photochemical reactions or in a charge coupled device array. The drain represents a detector 7 . The crucial point of perfect imaging is that, given a choice of detectors in the image area, the light localizes at the correct ones.
The fact that the correct light localization naturally happens in Maxwell's fish eye is also understandable if we imagine the absorption in an array of detectors as the time reverse of the emission by a collection of point sources. Given perfect time symmetry, the light must settle down at the image points that correspond to the actual source points and avoid the ones 3 corresponding to potential source points that did not emit. In this way, a sharp image is formed with a resolution given by the cross section of the detectors and not by the wave nature of light.
Despite the simplicity and generality of these ideas and arguments, they stirred up controversy [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23], because they challenge some of the accepted wisdom of super-resolution imaging [24]. It has been an often unquestioned mantra that perfect imaging is only possible if evanescent waves are amplified in some way. It has been firmly accepted that evanescent waves are the carriers of subwavelength details and that the near-field information is lost in the far field, as evanescent waves exponentially decay away. However, this belief is in contradiction with Feynman's general argument based on the time-reversal symmetry of Maxwell's equations [8,9]. The near field of a point source is not lost in the far field, but rather constitutes a natural part of the emission process. If the emission is reversed in a point detector the near field naturally arises. The precise information about the point of emission is not gone; it is carried by the light wave; yet to retrieve it requires unusual imaging systems [25].
In a previous paper [11], we implemented Maxwell's fish eye for microwaves and observed subwavelength imaging. In this paper, we demonstrate an idea [25] for a modified fish-eye mirror that requires, in principle, an arbitrarily low index contrast. Such a device can be made with conventional graded-index materials. In our case, however, we used a microwave metamaterial, because of its low cost. We have demonstrated subwavelength imaging for microwaves, because microwave technology gives us a degree of detail and precision that is currently impossible in the optical range of the spectrum. In addition to demonstrating an idea for reducing the demands on the materials required for perfect-imaging systems, our experiment illustrates two fundamental points that may also become important in practice.
Firstly, we demonstrate that it is not necessary to detect the field with perfect efficiency. The undetected part of the field does not localize at the detectors with subwavelength resolution, but the detected part of the field finds its way into the right detectors. The subwavelength image appears in the detectors, but not necessarily in the field around them. However, what counts in practice is only the detected part of the field, which implies that the efficiency of the detectors is less important than their resolution.
Secondly, for the perfect imaging of light waves, ray optics seems sufficient; we only require that all light rays from any point of the source intersect at the corresponding image point, which is the defining property of an absolute optical instrument [3]. Within geometrical optics, all rays reach the image with the same phase [3], which seems to guarantee perfect imaging also in wave optics.

Theory
It may be surprising that geometrical optics alone is able to predict the perfect imaging of waves. Note, however, that geometrical optics goes beyond ray tracing: it is an approximative theory for the propagation of electromagnetic waves. In geometrical optics, rays serve as guiding lines for the propagation of the phase, the intensity follows their density and the polarization is paralleltransported along them [6]. Rays rule the waves: they completely dominate their behaviour, as long as geometrical optics is valid. The condition for the validity of geometrical optics is the requirement that the optical properties of the material do not vary significantly on the scale of the wavelength.
Consider the simplest nontrivial case for imaging: two-dimensional (2D) wave propagation in a planar medium, which is also the case we investigate experimentally. The electromagnetic 4 wave shall be polarized such that the electric field vector is orthogonal to the propagation plane. In this case, the complex Fourier component E of the electric field strength obeys the Helmholtz equation where n denotes the refractive-index profile, k = ω/c, with ω being the (angular) frequency, and c is the speed of light in vacuum. The local wavelength is given by In geometrical optics, we represent the field in terms of the amplitude E and phase ϕ as where both E and ϕ are real. Substituting the ansatz (3) in the Helmholtz equation (1) gives where we ignored ∇ 2 E in the equation for (∇ϕ) 2 on the grounds that the amplitude varies less than the phase. This term becomes important in the regions where the field becomes very strong, for instance near the source and image points. However, it turns out that it simply results in a phase shift of the wave at the point where the field is concentrated, as we will show. The relations (4) formulate the foundations of geometrical optics for our case, the 2D propagation of electromagnetic waves in planar media 8 . They describe how the refractive-index profile moulds the phase and how the phase gradient governs the transport of the field intensity. Light rays are the lines orthogonal to the phase fronts; they follow ∇φ and obey Hamilton's equations [6]. A criterion for the validity of geometrical optics is the requirement [26] |∇λ| 1, which means, according to definition (2), that the index profile ought to vary on larger scales than the wavelength (the inverse of the relative gradient |∇n|/n should be much larger than λ). Suppose that geometrical optics is valid and that all light rays from each point in the emission region intersect at the corresponding imaging point (figure 1). As the rays carry the complete wave, the field near the point of emission must reconstitute at the image point, provided a drain is present there. We may see this from the following argument. Close to the source point r 0 and the drain at the image point r 0 the field intensity grows significantly on a scale that is smaller than the wavelength and hence also smaller than the variation of the material. Near r 0 and r 0 we can thus regard the medium as being uniform, with constant refractive index n 0 and n 0 , respectively. Imagine first the emission at the source. The solution of the Helmholtz equation is where H (1) 0 is a Hankel function (Bessel function of the third kind [27]). Near the source the field is enhanced as [27] E ∼ E 0 2i π ln |r − r 0 | (near field), Here the light rays converge at the imaging point, but also the field intensity diverges such that geometrical optics is no longer valid. Nevertheless, the approximate solution from geometrical optics matches an exact solution around the imaging point where the medium is assumed to be uniform. The far field captured by geometrical optics seamlessly matches the near field at the detector in the focus. Therefore, geometrical optics may be used to predict perfect imaging.
but further away we see from the asymptotics of the Hankel function [27] E One verifies that the asymptotic formula (8) is consistent with the relations (4) of geometrical optics. Expression (6) thus describes how the near field (7) of the source is connected to the far field (8). Comparing equations (8) and (7), we also see that the transition from the near field to the far field comes with a phase shift of π/4. The field then propagates away as an outgoing wave, following the laws of geometrical optics. If, as we have assumed, all light rays from r 0 focus at the image point r 0 , the phase must be uniform at the image where we can regard E as the ingoing wave with some complex constant E 0 that contains the amplitude and the phase of the wave approaching the image point. If, as we have also assumed, a detector is placed at the image point, the far field (9) goes over into the near field for a uniform medium with index n 0 close to the image point ( figure 1). Here H (2) 0 is the complex conjugate of H (1) 0 . In this way, the emission and absorption are seamlessly connected to geometrical optics. Therefore, we can use geometrical optics for predicting the condition for perfect imaging. Behind this reasoning lies the idea that the near field is simply a natural part of the emission and absorption processes. Our experimental results turn out to be consistent with this concept.

Design
The use of geometrical optics widens the design of perfect-imaging devices. Designing perfect lenses with radial symmetry is an inverse scattering problem. This problem was probably first solved by Luneburg in his 1944 lectures on optics at Brown University and was later published in his posthumous book [2]. In 1953, Firsov [28] independently developed the same procedure for the equivalent problem in classical mechanics [29]. Here we use the notation of [30] where a visual interpretation of scattering tomography was developed; for more details, see section 8 of the textbook [6]. The only ingredient we are going to add to Luneburg's case is a mirror.

Luneburg's design problem
Consider a radially symmetric index profile n(r ) that extends to the radius r 0 (figure 2). We require that all rays emitted from a point at radius r 1 (with r 1 r 0 ) are focused at an opposite point at radius r 2 (with r 2 r 0 as well) as long as they hit the index profile. Consider a ray with impact parameter b. The scattering angle between the two points is as long as b r 0 ; otherwise the scattering angle is zero, because the ray misses the focusing index profile. The profile that implements these scattering data is given in implicit form by [6,30] where the turning parameter ρ is defined as The turning parameter ρ is the impact parameter b for which the trajectory has a radial turning point at r . The reconstruction formula (13) is implicit, because n is not directly expressed as a function of the radius, but in terms of the turning parameter. Not all scattering data are physically allowed, because the function n(r ) might be multi-valued (it may have several values of n for the same radius r ). If n(r ) is single-valued, Luneburg's formulae (13) and (14) establish a refractiveindex profile that implements the scattering data χ(b).

Figure 2.
Luneburg's design problem. Consider light rays (red) that may pass through a spherically symmetric medium (grey). We require that all rays that do pass through the medium from radius r 1 arrive at radius r 2 exactly opposite to their starting point (meaning that the starting point and the end point lie on a straight line through r = 0). We characterize the rays by their impact parameters b. The impact parameter is proportional to the angular momentum and is therefore a conserved quantity, as the figure indicates. The initial and final segments of the trajectories are inclined by the angles α 1 and α 2 . The drawing shows that b = r 1 sin α 1 = r 2 sin α 2 , which is all we need to know for solving Luneburg's design problem by tomography.

Maxwell's fish eye
In order to see how Luneburg's theory works, consider the case of Maxwell's fish eye. Here the medium extends to the radius r 2 that corresponds to the equator of the virtual sphere. Light emitted at the equator should be focused on the opposite side of the equator. We thus require In this case, α 1 = α 2 = arcsin(b/r 0 ). We use the integral and obtain from the reconstruction formula (13) the index profile in terms of the turning parameter: We substitute this result in definition (14) of the turning parameter and solve the resulting equation for ρ. We obtain Maxwell's profile [1]: Maxwell's fish eye may act as a perfect-imaging device if we take r from 0 to infinity or if we terminate the refractive index profile at r 0 , as our design method suggests, and surround it by a mirror there [4]. In this case, the refractive index ranges from 1 at r 0 to 2 at the centre.

Modified fish-eye mirror
In the following, we are going to modify Maxwell's fish eye such that the required range of the refractive index profile is reduced. We will argue that the modified device still acts as an absolute optical instrument [3] capable of perfect imaging if we surround it by a mirror. Suppose that the two radii r 1 and r 2 in Luneburg's design problem (figure 2) are the same, but r 0 < r 1 , and we surround the device by a mirror at the radius r 1 . Light coming from a point P on the mirror is focused on the other side and reflected, whereupon it goes through the focusing medium once more and returns to P. Consequently, light rays form close loops, provided they strike the focusing index profile. Suppose that we pick the point r inside the medium that lies on a ray trajectory. As all light rays that strike the medium form closed loops, so must all rays going through r. The radial symmetry of the device implies that all these rays must also go through −r. Therefore, a source at r is perfectly imaged at −r ( figure 3). However, if the source is outside of the focusing profile, r > r 0 , not all ray trajectories are closed and the image is not perfect ( figure 3). In the case of the original fish-eye mirror [4], all ray trajectories are closed, because r 1 = r 0 , no rays lie outside of the focusing medium.

Index profile
What does it take to make a modified fish-eye mirror? We obtain from the reconstruction formula (13) and relation (14) with the angles (12) and condition (19)  The radius is a monotonically increasing function of the turning parameter ρ (seen by differentiation) and r ρ. Consequently, ρ is a single-valued function of r : the index profile is physically allowed. The function ρ(r ) must be monotonically increasing as well. Furthermore, the function n(ρ) is monotonically decreasing in ρ (seen by differentiation again) and, consequently, n is monotonically decreasing in r : the highest index value is the value at the origin with [31] n max = exp 2 π With the help of this formula, one can compute by a simple numerical integration the required index range for the modified fish-eye mirror ( figure 4). We see that n max may be arbitrarily close to 1 for sufficiently small radii r 0 . Given the radii r 0 and r 1 , the index profile itself is easily computed by storing a table of (r, ρ) values. Here ρ ranges from 0 to r 0 and r is numerically calculated according to formula (20). Then an interpolating function ρ(r ) is constructed from the calculated data and the index profile is computed as n = ρ(r ) r for 0 r r 0 , and n = 1 for r > r 0 . Figure 5 shows the profiles of the modified fish-eye mirrors depending on the ratio between the mirror radius r 1 and the radius r 2 of the material. They are modifications of Maxwell's profile (18) with n arbitrarily close to 1. We could multiply the profile by a constant n 1 and still have the same functionality, because the ray trajectories are unchanged. We thus find that the index contrast, the relative difference between n at the centre and n 1 at the rim of the material, may be arbitrarily low. Perfect imaging is possible with materials of arbitrarily low index contrast.

Experiment
Our design facilitates the perfect focusing for light rays. In our theory, we use the approximation of geometrical optics to conclude that waves should be perfectly imaged. Usually, it is the wave nature of light that limits the resolution of optical instruments [3,32]. It is therefore essential to test whether our modified fish-eye mirror does indeed exhibit subwavelength resolution. We test this on microwaves, because for microwaves we can make measurements of the field with a precision currently impossible for visible light. Figure 6 shows a picture of our device. We use it for microwave radiation of 30 mm free-space wavelength (10 GHz frequency). The lens is placed inside a thin brass dish that acts as a circular mirror from the sides and ground plate at the bottom. In our device, r 0 = 50 mm and r 1 = 65 mm. It consists of 17 metamaterial rings with a height of 5 mm. The 15 inner rings are made of Rogers Ultralam ® 3000 circuit board patterned with 'I' or square-shaped copper structures on one side. The spacing between two neighbouring rings in the radial direction is 2.94 mm, and so is the unit size of the cells on each ring-our structures are one order of magnitude smaller than the wavelength. The two outer rings are simply made of a 0.1 mm thick mylar substrate. The inset of figure 6 shows the theoretical (blue line) and simulated (red squares) values of ε = n 2 for the rings of the lens. The simulated values are numerically retrieved from the scattering parameters of a stack of planar metamaterial sheets with given patterns [33]. In our experiment, the lens is placed inside a parallel-plate waveguide mounted on a flat stage driven by a computer-controlled x y step motor [11,33,34]. With the movable waveguide Figure 6. Microwave imaging device. The lens sits in a brass dish that serves both as a circular mirror and a ground plate. The modified fish-eye profile is produced by a microwave metamaterial made of patterned circuit board. The inset shows the theoretical curve of ε = n 2 versus the simulation results for the metamaterial layers.

Microwave device
we can scan the field through a scanning cable. The scanning resolution is given by the step size, 1 mm. For scanning we use a coaxial cable connected to a vector network analyser (HP 8722D) that also synthesizes the microwave radiation we inject into the chamber. As sources and drains we use coaxial cables as well. All cables are Teflon-filled and have 1.68 mm outer shell diameter and 0.5 mm inner core diameter. By adjusting the exposure of the inner core we control the cross section of the cables; the scanning cable has zero exposure and the source and drain cables have an exposure length of 4.8 mm.
We observed in our experiments that the cross section of the cables is important for the detection in perfect imaging. We believe that this fact can be explained as follows. Due to the granularity of our metamaterial, the electromagnetic wave cannot localize below a certain length scale. If the cross section is smaller than this scale, as the cross section of the scanning cable certainly is, one cannot extract sufficient radiation from the field for forming a subwavelength image-the scanning cable simply scans the field and does not alter it significantly. The exposure length of the sources and outlets was optimized for maximal field localization, which probably means that it was optimized for reaching the cross section that matches the localization length in our device.

Measurements
The resolution of imaging is best demonstrated by placing two sources in the device. If the sources appear as separate peaks in the image we may claim to be able to resolve them. Figure 7(a) shows the scheme of our experiment. On the yellow dashed circle we place two sources a distance of 0.2λ apart, where λ is the local wavelength (2). Opposite to the sources we insert nine outlet cables at 0.1λ distance from each other. We scan the field at the outlets. We also measure the field going through the outlets as follows. All outlets but one are terminated by The distance between the sources is 0.2λ, where λ is the local wavelength. An ordinary instrument would not be able to resolve the two sources, but here we image them with a modified fisheye mirror ( figure 6). The image is detected by nine outlets also indicated on the yellow dashed circle. We average over four runs of the experiments and obtain statistical error bars. (b) Imaging outside of the lens, which corresponds to the left picture of figure 3 where we do not expect perfect imaging. We record the throughput through the outlets (black dots) and scan the field along them (grey dots). Our measurements show that the two sources are not resolved. (c) Imaging within the lens where perfect imaging is possible. The scanned field (grey dots) does not exhibit marked peaks at the expected image points, but the throughput (black dots) distinguishes the two sources, thus demonstrating subwavelength imaging with a modified fish-eye mirror. impedance-matched absorbers; the one outlet is connected to the detecting port of the vector network analyser where the amplitude is measured. The throughput through each outlet is measured one by one by repeating the experiment within the relevant outlet connected. In this way we demonstrate the effect of a multiple-detector array with just one life detector at a time. We repeat the entire experiment four times for reducing statistical fluctuations. We investigate two cases: sources and detectors outside of the lens (for r 0 < r < r 1 ) and inside the lens (for r < r 0 ) that correspond to the ray trajectories illustrated in figure 3. Figure 7(b) shows the results for the attempted imaging outside of the lens and figure 7(c) the results when the sources and detectors are inside the lens area. In both cases the scanned field (grey dots) does not resolve the two sources. However, when the imaging occurs inside the lens the measurements of the throughput (black dots) resolve the sources, despite the fact that they are separated by the fraction 0.2 of the local wavelength.

Discussion
In our previous demonstration of subwavelength imaging with Maxwell's fish eye [11], we clearly observed the localization of the field at the image outlets, but with the modified fisheye mirror we were not able to observe this effect. The subwavelength image appeared in R e t r a c t e d 13 the detected throughput; yet there it is also significantly less clear than in the original fish eye [11]. These findings suggest that the modified fish eye depends in a more sensitive way on inaccuracies in its implementation, in particular on the structure size of the material used (2.94 mm in our case). One might expect that the less the demands on the index range become, the higher the requirements on the accuracy of the profile. Graded refractive-index materials or tapered waveguides [35,36] instead of metamaterials might not suffer from problems caused by the granularity of a metamaterial.
The fact that the subwavelength image appears in the detected intensity profile, despite its absence in the field localization, is consistent with the idea that perfect imaging is not sensitive to the detection efficiency but rather to the resolution of the detectors (and the structure size of the material). If the detection is not perfect we can imagine the field as a mixture of an undetected field and the field that has undergone detection. The undetected field does not localize with subwavelength resolution and so does not form sharp spikes, but only the detected field does. In our case we could not observe this feature with the fairly crude implementation of a modified fish-eye mirror by a circuit-board metamaterial. However, in the detected intensity the undetected field is missing-by definition-and so the image becomes sharper. This aspect appears to have made it possible for us to resolve the two sources that were 0.2λ apart, despite the limitations of our device. As the detection of an image is the very point of imaging, we can claim to have observed subwavelength resolution.
Our measurements also show that subwavelength details only appear in the detected image in the case when all the rays are focused, i.e. when the device acts as an absolute instrument [3]. They illustrate the two ingredients for perfect imaging with positive refraction-the perfect focusing of light rays and the detection of the image.

Summary
Our theory suggests that absolute optical instruments [3] are possible with materials of arbitrarily low index contrast. We argued that such devices image with a resolution no longer limited by the wave nature of light. In practice, the resolution is rather limited by the cross section of detectors and the granularity of the material used. We performed a microwave experiment that supports these ideas, where we demonstrate the resolution of subwavelength details with a device that has a lower index contrast than Maxwell's fish eye. If these concepts are indeed correct they may pave the way for practical perfect-imaging devices where imaging matters most, for visible light.