Reply to the Comment on "A self-assembled three-dimensional cloak in the visible" in Scientific Reports 3, 2328
Abstract
In a recent comment arxiv:1310.1503 Miller et al. noted that a cloak we previously presented (Scientific Reports 3, 2328) that exploits a scattering cancellation technique to render an optically small dielectric particle invisible suffers from increased extinction. According to Miller et al. this disqualifies the terminology of a cloak. We concur with the crux of the comment but wish to stress that we never claimed nor suggested a reduction in extinction. A scattering cancellation cloak cancels scattering. The issue, therefore, seems to be whether the structure should be called a cloak or not. We understand a cloaked object as an object that is not perceived by an external observer. We argue that optically small particles are much easier seen in a scattering configuration whereas it is difficult to perceive them in extinction; providing justification to the terminology as used.
- Publication:
-
arXiv e-prints
- Pub Date:
- October 2013
- DOI:
- 10.48550/arXiv.1310.5888
- arXiv:
- arXiv:1310.5888
- Bibcode:
- 2013arXiv1310.5888M
- Keywords:
-
- Physics - Optics
- E-Print:
- This is a reply to a comment published in arxiv:1310.1503