Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon 296

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i've-heard-that-before dept.
davaguco writes "It seems that we will finally be able to make ourselves invisible" It seems like this story resurfaces every few months and then gets submitted a zillion times so here it is. Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon More

Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon

Comments Filter:

  • Pictures (Score:5, Funny)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:23PM (#15255244) Homepage Journal
    The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here [jpassion.net].

    • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Funny)

      by clevershark ( 130296 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:24PM (#15255252) Homepage
      You just think there were no pictures! That's how effective the technology really is!

    • Re:Pictures (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:28PM (#15255287)
      > The article doesn't have any pictures; one can be found here [http://www.jpassion.net/sitepix/blank_square.gif] .

      Nothing to see there. Moving right along...

      From TFA:

      Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

      Sounds an awful lot like the technology speculated about in Dean Ing's Ransom of Black Stealth One [powells.com] about ten years ago.

      • Nothing to see there. Moving right along...

        Am I the only one who finds this phrase particularly appropriate here?

    • If anyone would read TFA, they would have noticed the last paragraph:

      So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved.


      They haven't even made the prototype device that will undoubtedly be much larger than a cloak. A cloak using this technology is probably at least 30 years off (yes, that's a guess.)

  • Screw that! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gilmoure ( 18428 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:24PM (#15255248) Journal
    I want my Acme rocket roller skates!

  • Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:24PM (#15255250) Homepage Journal
    To create a Somebody Else's Problem field [wikipedia.org]? People are quite good at ignoring what they think isn't important (or what they don't want to recognize), so if you could find a way to convince people to ignore something, it would be just as effective as actual invisibility.

  • Nothing to see (Score:5, Funny)

    by EnsilZah ( 575600 ) <.moc.liamG. .ta. .haZlisnE.> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:24PM (#15255257)
    I really find it hard to believe that the "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." i just saw is accidental, some meta-humour by Taco perhaps?

  • Hmmm. (Score:5, Funny)

    by x_MeRLiN_x ( 935994 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:24PM (#15255258)
    I'll believe it when I see it.

  • Re: cloak of evasion (Score:5, Funny)

    by ltwally ( 313043 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:26PM (#15255267) Homepage Journal
    "Personally I'm still waiting for my cloak of evasion. 20% miss chance is awesome."
    Yeah, but it doesn't work against constructs or undead, which is why I'll take my epic level cloak of elvenkind any day of the week.

  • Actually invisibility gives 50% miss chance (Score:5, Funny)

    by cculianu ( 183926 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:29PM (#15255303) Homepage
    Actually, according to D&D 3.5 rules, if you are invisible (as with improved invisibility), but are detected (ie enemies know where you are due to listen checks and/or maybe you just cast a spell, etc) you get a concealment bonus of 50%, which is better than that 20% evasion that you are talking about. So given a cloak of evasion or a cloak of invisibility, I would much rather have the invisibility, thank you very much. Even with regular invisibility I think it's a 25% concealment bonus -- still better than 20%.

  • Apparently not quite reality yet (Score:5, Informative)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:30PM (#15255309) Homepage Journal
    From the end of TFA: So far the researchers have only worked through the mathematics to prove that the device is plausible. The practicalities of making one have yet to be solved.

  • Slashdotters already have that power (Score:3, Funny)

    by kimvette ( 919543 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:31PM (#15255314) Homepage Journal
    Slashdotters already have the power of invisibility. They can snipe other users with impunity via the Anonymous Coward feature. ;)

  • Tesla did it! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cyber_rigger ( 527103 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:34PM (#15255335) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like a rehash of a phase conjugate mirror.

    http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/pc_wave.htm [cheniere.org]

    • Sounds like a rehash of a phase conjugate mirror.

      Except, you know, possible in the real world. Tesla was brilliant, but towards the end he obviously cracked, and the people that invent stories of Russian scalar wave forcefields are worse.

  • Caution, YASD (Score:5, Funny)

    by dmeranda ( 120061 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:35PM (#15255352) Homepage
    You pick up a tattered cape (K unpaid). Only $250 for you.
    You put on the tattered cape.
    Suddenly, you can see through yourself.
    The nurse hits.
    You can not remove the cloak, it seems to be cursed.
    The nurse hits.
    The floor is too hard to dig here.
    Really attack Wengretik the shopkeeper?
    Wengretik strikes at thin air.
    The nurse hits.
    Wengretik hits. Wengretik hits.
    You die.
    • Die? (y/n) (n) n
      You pick up a forked wand.
      You zap a forked wand.
      You feel a wrenching sensation.
      You drink a ruby potion.
      Ooph! This tastes like liquid fire!
      You read a scroll labeled ELBIB YLOH.
      Being confused, you mispronounce the magic runes.
      Your tattered cloak falls to pieces!
      Death touches you! You die...

  • Invisible... or black?!?? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Izhido ( 702328 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:36PM (#15255362) Homepage
    ... when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.
    Maybe I'm getting this the wrong way, but if the object "absorbs" the light coming to it through the lens, wouldn't that object be perceived as black? I thought "invisible" is when any light coming behind the object passes through it, and into the observer's eye, with no obstacles whatsoever. But maybe it's just me...
    • That's exactly true for human vision and the requirements for true invisibility... However, radar isn't quite as sophisticated as human vision. Rendering an object black is essentially the same as rendering it invisible because radar systems detect the reflection of radar off of objects to determine their location. The radar is actively transmitted and I imagine it would be very difficult to determine the difference between lack of reflection from dissipation vs a lack of reflection from absorbance of an
      • If I recall correctly, something similar to this was used in the serbo-croatian conflict; one side found that they could detect incoming airborne objects (planes, missiles, etc.) by detecting "holes" in cellphone broadcast beacon radiation. They were basicly able to see every location in the sky where reflection was either greater or less than it should be.
    • Yes, in the article they said that they haven't yet worked out a way to make the blanket itself invisible. Heck, I have a quilt that my grandmother made me that will make me disappear. If only I could somehow make the quilt invisible itself. Maybe I should post an article and submit it to slashdot...

  • Another Jack Bauer fact... (Score:5, Funny)

    by flagstone ( 464079 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:36PM (#15255372)
    Didn't Jack Bauer already employ the "hoodie of invisibility" a couple of weeks (hours?) ago when sneaking onto the airplane?

  • Huh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:38PM (#15255393)
    I must not be a big enough nerd. I thought the cloak of evasion was something that helped you pay less taxes.

  • concepts are here (Score:2, Informative)

    by mikesd81 ( 518581 )
    I can only imagine the power it would take to run a cloak like in Start Trek or Stargate, howerver certain concepts are here. For instance Active Camoflage [wikipedia.org]. Granted it's not refracting light around the object, but it still gets the same result. I don't think we'll see a personal cloaking device, or for that matter one for a ship (where it makes it invisible) for a long time.

  • Keep it Away (Score:3, Funny)

    by Luscious868 ( 679143 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:42PM (#15255422)
    Keep it away from future Dick Cheney hunting parties. He already shoots at people he can see, imagine the damage something like this could cause.

  • /. is the invisibility club (Score:5, Funny)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:45PM (#15255459) Journal
    most slashdotters can make themselves invisible simply by entering a room

    (you're nodding your head right now, aren't you?)

  • erm... are they sure they have the physics right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moochfish ( 822730 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:47PM (#15255480)
    Prof Milton's team calculated that when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible.

    Wouldn't that make the cloak appear like a big black void of light?? Making things "invisible" requires light from the objects behind the cloak to pass through it.
    • Invisible can merely be concealed in such a manner as to not be detectible to the eye. Transparent allows light to pass through without distortion. Although this sounds more translucent, light passes through with slightly noticible effect.

      Main Entry: invisible
      Pronunciation: (")in-'vi-z&-b&l
      Function: adjective
      Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin invisibilis, from in- + visibilis visible
      1 a : incapable by nature of being seen b : inaccessible to view : HIDDEN
      2 : IMPERCEPTIBLE, INC

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:48PM (#15255491)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Me is confused

    "Effectively, they are making a piece of space seem to disappear, at least as far as light is concerned."

    And then

    Prof Pendry said the technology has great potential for hiding objects from radar

    So they've figured out how to bend light for optical camo. Neeto. Now how in the hell does this have anything to do with radar?

    • Re:Radar? (Score:3, Informative)

      by JedaFlain ( 899703 )
      Radio waves (which RADAR uses) are simply light waves. Radar works by bouncing the waves off an object. If this device refracts the light in such a way that it pass around the object without reflecting off of it, then the radio waves would not be able to return a signal to the radar station.

    • So they've figured out how to bend light for optical camo. Neeto. Now how in the hell does this have anything to do with radar?

      Umm, radar is light

      .

  • Ummm... I have one in my bathroom... (Score:5, Funny)

    by phamlen ( 304054 ) <phamlen&mail,com> on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @01:56PM (#15255548) Homepage
    From the article:
    The cloaking device relies on recently discovered materials used to make superlenses that make light behave in a highly unusual way. Instead of having a positive refractive index - the property which makes light bend as it passes through a prism or water - the materials have a negative refractive index, which effectively makes light travel backwards.

    Trust scientists to come up with a complicated term for "mirror" ... :)

  • The commercial (Score:4, Funny)

    by bastardknight ( 918695 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @02:02PM (#15255602)
    Can you seen me now? .... no? good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good. Can you see me now? .... no? Good.
  • BBC News also has an article on this from a spaceship cloaking perspective:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4968338.stm [bbc.co.uk]
  • I saw the technology at the Wired Nextfest in San Francisco, about a year ago.

    If you're standing, looking straight on to the "invidible item" it sorta works.

    Otherwise, there's a fair amount more work to be done.
    • However, the authors have so far only done the maths to verify that the concept could work. Building such a device would undoubtedly pose a significant challenge.
      Come on, just admit that you're talking shit.

  • Painting something black doesn't make it invisible (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @02:15PM (#15255695) Homepage
    All of these "cloaking" stories suffer from basically the same problem. Making something invisible is much, much more complicated than blocking light, or cancelling light, or anything like that.

    The article says, rather imprecisely, "when certain objects are placed next to superlenses, the light bouncing off them is essentially erased by light reflecting off the superlens, making the object invisible."

    But "erasing" the light reflecting off an object doesn't make it invisible, any more than painting a car black... even matte black... makes it invisible.

    In a dark room, if you cover a light with a black box it becomes invisible. When viewing a star from the earth, if it is occulted by, say, the moon passing between you and the object, it becomes invisible. If I pull a red cloak over myself, covering myself completely, you can no longer see me. You cannot tell who I am and if I stand very still perhaps you cannot tell that I am not a statue, so, in a sense, I have become invisible.

    But, to become invisible in the sense of H. G. Wells' "The Invisible Man," or a Star Trek cloaking device, or James Bond's invisible car, or what have you, requires much more than "not being able to see" the object. It means not being able to detect the presence of the object... under real-world lighting conditions, with real-world scenes _behind_ the object, and from more than one vantage point at the same time.

    That last one is the problem with many of these schemes. It doesn't do any good to make an object invisible when viewed by your right eye if there are "matte lines" around it when viewed with your left eye. It doesn't do a lot of good to make an object invisible as viewed from one soldier if it is visible to everyone else in the platoon.

    • Well, it will make you invisible in the dark...
    • James Bond had an invisible car? I don't remember seeing that...

      Invisible cars... *snap* that explains it! Here it is, after the year 2000 and I'm always wondering, where are all the flying cars? They must be invisible. So simple an explanation... I wonder why it never occured to me before...

      But seriously, the biggest problem with traditional invisibility is that the user would be blinded, as any photon sensed by the user is one not passed through. The third biggest problem would be non-invisible s

    • Going with the general spirit of dorkiness in the rest of this discussion, I'll point out that Bond had no invisible car and that you're most likely thinking of Wonder Woman's plane.
    • Well, they make it imprecise because the journalist and/or most readers quite often don't have the technical capability to grasp many of these rather involved concepts in a short article. But the article did give a hint in that it leverages a negative index of refraction. It basically "bends" light around something. For something to 'appear', light has to bounce off it or be emitted from it, and then enter a detector/your eye/whatever. If it never gets the "light bouncing off of it" part, then it's invi
  • Hollywood is always one step ahead. We had invisible cars years ago. Just wait until we have time travel - slight time travel mind you maybe +/- 60 seconds.
  • It works like this. At work I can be "putting out a fire" (a phrase to describe a crisis rush job) and talking to someone about what needs to be done, perhapos the person I'm putting the fire out for. But even then the floor sweeper person (the lowest position at the company) can step up to us and all the sudden I'm wearing a cloak. Attention shifts from the person I'm talking with, to that person and the floor sweeper.

    Now all I have to do is figure out how to make money off this cloak...
  • All of my clothing in high school must have been made of this material.
  • In the case of large vehicles/transports in a huge space (suggested by their Star Trek reference), magnetic invisibility is probably most important. And it's my understanding that magnetic cloaking devices do exist for some navy vessels -- systems of magnetometers attached to large electromagnets designed to cancel out the magnetic field.
  • Spock:
    It's light, Jim! But not as we know it. Not as we know it, not as we know it. It's light, Jim! But not as we know it, Captain.

  • A negative refractive index bends refracted light to the same side of the tangent line as the incident ray. While certainly interesting, I don't see how this could possibly be used to cloak a nearby object. It could make for some really cool sunglasses though.
    Positive refraction
      T
      |/
    ---
    /
     
    Negative refraction
      T
    \|
    ---
    /

  • I ALREADY HAVE THE POWER OF INVISIBILITY! (Score:3, Funny)

    by rubberbando ( 784342 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @03:09PM (#15256125)
    At least to women anyway, I smile and say hello and they don't seem to see me. Go figure. :-P
  • I tried to buy one of these but all I got in the mail was an empty box...

  • Cloak of Invisibility Coming Soon? (Score:3, Funny)

    by seven of five ( 578993 ) on Wednesday May 03, 2006 @04:58PM (#15257187)
    Cloak of Stupidity Already Here!

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close