My (naïve both with respect to the last time I touched optics in the context of physics class and to the zero times I’ve touched optics in the context of optometry) impression is surprise here; just because of the fact that there’s simply not so much lens volume in the eye itself compared to the volume of that corrective lens, so I’m surprised that the natural lens could(without being grossly abnormal, tumor impinging on the eye socket and deforming the eyeball or something like that) could have so much need of adjustment in such a small space when the corrective lens requires so much space to implement the adjustment.
Does anyone know how the problem breaks down? Are materials that are both durable and cost effective not actually all that hot optically, so you need to brute force it a bit unless you are willing to spend $10,000 on yttrium doped exotic glass and metamaterials that die if you look at them funny? Am I starkly underestimating the amount of lens the eyeball manages to implement? Are the edges of corrective lenses particularly thick, even if the active areas aren’t, just because it’s cheaper to stock blanks in fewer sizes and only grind the areas that matter rather than thinning across the entire lens?
