English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We point out inconsistencies in the recent paper by Oughstun et al. onSommerfeld and Brillouin precursors [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, 1664-1670 (2010)].Their study is essentially numerical and, for the parameters used in theirsimulations, the difference between the two limits considered is not asclear-cut as they state. The steep rise of the Brillouin precursor obtained inthe singular limit and analyzed as a distinguishing feature of this limitsimply results from an unsuitable time scale. In fact, the rise of theprecursor is progressive and is perfectly described by a Airy function. In theweak dispersion limit, the equivalence relation, established at great length inSection 3 of the paper, appears as an immediate result in the retarded-timepicture. Last but not least, we show that, contrary to the authors claim, theprecursors are catastrophically affected by the rise-time of the incidentoptical field, even when the latter is considerably faster than the mediumrelaxation time.

Comment on "Optical precursors in the singular and weak dispersion limits"