I comment on the recent paper by Setala et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 678 (2001)]. In that paper the calculation is entirely and exactly adopted from our previous work except the evanescent-field propagator. I shall demonstrate that the replacement of the propagator flaws the calculation. In their paper the numerical results show rich subwavelength information at absolute far-field distances (four times larger than the wavelength). I shall point out that the evanescent resolution at far-field distances cannot be of subwavelength. In the paper by Setala et al. the description of previous work is inaccurate and misleading. I shall give what I consider to be the correct guidelines for readers to learn about the standing controversy regarding the evanescent field of a dipole.
展开▼
机译：我评论了Setala等人的最新论文。 [J.选择。 Soc。上午。 A 18，678（2001）]。在那篇论文中，除了e逝场传播器之外，该计算完全和完全采用了我们以前的工作。我将证明更换传播器会影响计算。在他们的论文中，数值结果显示了在绝对远场距离（比波长大四倍）时，丰富的子波长信息。我要指出的是，远场距离下的渐逝分辨率不能具有亚波长。在Setala等人的论文中。对先前工作的描述不准确且具有误导性。我将为读者提供有关偶极子渐逝场的常设争议的正确指导。
展开▼
