Abstract

Recently, Xiao et al. [Opt. Lett. 39, 574 (2014) [CrossRef]  ] compared two sets of boundary conditions and the resulting transformation coefficients for an electromagnetic wave at a temporal boundary. They claimed to identify a correct set and to resolve the existing discrepancy in the literature. We point out that the boundary conditions discarded by Xiao et al. as incorrect have been used in the literature for rapidly growing plasma, for which the material model of Xiao et al. is not appropriate. We show that Xiao et al. misinterpreted the results from the literature by opposing two sets of boundary conditions that are related to different material models of the temporal boundary.

© 2014 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Equations (3)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Metrics

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article level metrics are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription