Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

A Step Towards an Invisibility Cloak

Posted by kdawson on Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:18 PM
from the who-goes-there dept.
Science
An anonymous reader alerts us to work out of Purdue University in Indiana, where researchers have produced a design for a method of cloaking objects of any shape and size at a single wavelength of visible light. The math for such an invisibility effect was worked out last year at Duke and in the UK, but the new work, to be published in Nature Photonics this month, is the first practical design. The lead researcher, Vladimir Shalaev, notes that even though the current design works only at a single wavelength, and so would not convey true invisibility, it could still be useful — against, for example, night-vision goggles or laser target designators. Shalaev calls the technical challenge of producing an all-wavelengths cloak "doable in principle."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Negative Refractivity for Optical Computing 125 comments
zero_offset writes "This article in EE Times details Purdue's efforts to create a material with negative refractivity. One of the important results would be the ability to create optical computers due to the effect's tendency to amplify and focus light at wavelengths larger than the thickness of the nanowires used in the transmission system. Purdue's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering's Vladimir Shalaev says, "Using these plasmonic nanomaterials, we hope to directly manipulate light, guide it around corners with no losses and basically do all the fundamental operations we do with electronic circuits today, but with photons instead." Nanowires, surface plasmon polaritons, optical computers, nanoscale metamaterials, unnatural refractivity -- what's not to like?" We did a story on the first material known to have a negative index of refraction last year.
[+] Mathematicians Design Invisible Tunnel 171 comments
New calculations show how to make an electromagnetic "wormhole" — a tube that is invisible from the sides but allows light to shine down the center. The practical applications are a ways off, as even the design of a spherical invisibility cloak has not advanced beyond working (in theory) for a single wavelength of visible light.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

A Step Towards an Invisibility Cloak 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Error Message (Score:5, Funny)

    by FooAtWFU (699187) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:22PM (#18652421) Homepage
    Never has this notice been more appropriate:

    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
    • Nothing for you to see in this wavelength. Please select another one.
    • Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean no one is watching me", hum ?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ConvertEJ__ (1084651)
        Yes, just what our society needs. So we get these "invisibility cloaks" and what is next? Use in law enforcement? Cops can spy on us from behind these cloaks? An amendment to the Patriot Act? I'm not saying these are necessarily bad things, but we sure as hell have to weigh the possible negative uses of such a technology.

        Following suit with that article about the RIAA pushing for pretexting in California, I could just see them getting their hands on invisibility cloaks.
        Be careful pirating music, the RIAA c

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cyphercell (843398)
        If we don't let Japan and China learn about the technology, who will build it? All joking aside, countermeasures already exist and in many cases are far more advanced. Either way India is not considered an enemy http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti c le/2006/04/19/AR2006041902480.html [washingtonpost.com]. If you're concerned about outsourcing, don't be, let the Indians go to school in the US, that way at least our universities don't rot from lack of use.

      • Re:Serious Note: Foreign Students & Critical T (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kalidasa (577403) on Sunday April 08 2007, @08:24AM (#18654773) Journal

        There's nothing in this article to suggest that the student with the Indian name (Uday K. Chettiar) is not an American citizen, nor that Wenshan Cai or Alexander V. Kildishev are not American citizens, or that Vladimir Shalaev himself is not a US citizen (the fact that he was educated in Russia isn't an impediment: my grandparents were educated in England, and became citizens as adults); a cursory Google search finds nothing to suggest that they are not US citizens, either. However, I do know that Title 22 of the US code includes International Traffic in Arms Regulations (http://www.epic.org/crypto/export_controls/itar.h tml), and that universities and private companies in the US are required to stick to these regulations pretty closely, for fear of losing all federal funding: technologies that are covered under these regulations can only be worked on by US Citizens and those with "permanent resident" (green card) status. The fact that there have been a number of prosecutions of companies for technology transfers to China is proof that these regulations are taken seriously (though one does wonder about equality of enforcement with this particular administration).

        So, apparently you assume that anyone without a European name is not a citizen - or, at least, anyone with an Indian name is not a citizen: you didn't question Prof. Shalaev, Mr. Cai, or Mr. Kildishev. Looking at your website (http://www.geocities.com/deskofreporter/), I see that you do raise some interesting points about Taiwan's relationship with China, but that the tone you use in doing so has an aroma of xenophobia. I'd suggest that you look into the history of great American immigrant patriots, beginning with Alexander Hamilton and continuing on through Albert Einstein (he became an American citizen in 1940 and remained one until his death).


      • Out of curiousity, what comment would you make about Japan or China excluding US scientists access to this research? Would you object? Because the way things are going, the US is going to be increasingly finding itself in the position of other countries having a lead in certain technological areas.

        As to India not signing up to the NPT, that would carry a little more moral weight if the US wasn't ignoring the treaty itself.

        And Iranian students seeking bombs, is that a particular problem at your university?

  • Invisible to lasers, anyway. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AJWM (19027) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:23PM (#18652439) Homepage
    One wavelength hardly invisibility makes, but as the blurb suggests, it renders the target invisible to laser designators. Wonder how much power it can handle, would it be an effective shield against weapons-grade lasers?

    • Re:Invisible to lasers, anyway. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:30PM (#18652485)
      Weapons-grade lasers (i.e. lasers that do damage themselves) are with todays technology not really an issue. To create damage comparable to conventional methods of kaboom, you'd have to haul around a LOT more material and those pieces also tend to be a LOT more expensive. War is a cost/gain game, so don't expect to see any laser weapons too soon on the battlefields of the world.

      What this aims at is laser targeting systems. Those lasers carry hardly enough firepower to cause any damage (ok, should you look RIGHT into them, maybe you might have some problem), but they point out the target to a laser guided weapon. And, well, you can't hit what you can't see (unless you decide to fire a spray of those kickass expensive laser guided weapons, which has not really a good cost/gain relation).

      • Re:Invisible to lasers, anyway. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kandenshi (832555) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:37PM (#18652525)
        I'm curious about something though...
        I have absolutely no experience/knowledge of these laser targetters, but how much more expensive would it be to be able to use different wavelengths of light?

        1. Try wavelength X: Oh darn, they're protecting against that with a shiny cloaking device, so...
        2. Try wavelength Y: Profit!!!/explosions

        The bomb or whathaveyou is searching for a very specific wavelength(X) right? But still doesn't seem like it should be impossible to program it to cycle through 2-3 wavelengths(X->Y->Z) until it finds your dot to lock onto.

        Still, it's a neat toy they're working on. I wouldn't mind one once they build one that's less selective.
        • I'm no expert for military grade lasers myself, but as far as I know, you need different media for different wavelengths. I.e. you'd have to mount one laser per wavelenth you want to try.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ShooterNeo (555040)
            Well, yes, that is true for most convential lasers. Usually, the light emitted is a property of what elements you dope the lasing medium with (for solid state lasers) or what gases you used (for well, gas lasers)

            However, if this horribly complex and expensive sound cloaking technology (against just 1 wavelength) ever become a threat, it would be trivial to upgrade the military lasers to a tunable one. There are numerous ways, including using free electron lasers which can be tuned to a wide range of wavel
      • "Weapons-grade lasers (i.e. lasers that do damage themselves) are with todays technology not really an issue. To create damage comparable to conventional methods of kaboom, you'd have to haul around a LOT more material and those pieces also tend to be a LOT more expensive. War is a cost/gain game, so don't expect to see any laser weapons too soon on the battlefields of the world."

        I didn't RTFA (hey, this is slashdot) but from the summary it sounds like a truly effective cloak of this sort is still some t
      • You are forgetting the fact that, unlike kaboom, laser travels instantly (unless you try to shoot Martians) and precisely. This makes them better suited for shooting down airplanes and cruise missiles. There is also an option of using a smaller laser to blind the pilot.
    • Well, I guess this means we now have an effective anti-shark defense system...
      • The S1A1 remote controlled great white shark [newscientisttech.com] has a secondary offensive capability based on 1) rows of sharp teeth and 2) neural implant boosted hunger, all guided by a keen sense of smell. Obviously, we planned for Chinese frogmen in invisibility suits.

        This is all classified info BTW, please kill yourself after reading it, unless you happen to have SPECOPS/JAWS clearance.

    • Re:Invisible to lasers, anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cyphercell (843398) on Saturday April 07 2007, @11:10PM (#18652713) Homepage Journal
      I remember watching Black Hawk Down, and noticing that this troop (a motley crew of special forces) had the benefit of night vision effectively throughout the movie. When watching it I thoroughly believed that this was an advantage that made them successful in surviving the event. Imagine to armies fighting with night vision while one side has their special forces being cloaked.

      • Re:Invisible to lasers, anyway. (Score:5, Informative)

        by YGingras (605709) <ygingras@ygingras.net> on Sunday April 08 2007, @12:33AM (#18653145) Homepage
        Except that night vision devices aren't restricted to a single wavelength. Night goggles only amplify the light in the whole spectrum. The whole thing, not a single wavelength. The output is converted to monochrome to stimulate the more sensitive rod cells. By limiting color output the pupil stays more dilated and can gather more light. Its the same thing with astronomical telescopes. You read your maps with a red light and you get eyes pieces with exit pupil [wikipedia.org] matching your night time pupil diameter.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ozydingo (922211)
          Even if night vision did work on detecting a single frequency, it wouldn't be a robust viable solution. Simply change the wavelength your night vision operates on, and the cloaking devices become useless. For this reason this technology as it stands currently is really not a viable solution for any military application as long as your opponents know anything about it (better hope they don't read Slashdot!)

          Don't get me wrong, I think it's still cool and a good first step, just not with any militarily robus

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rtb61 (674572)
            The cloaking device is most likely just a spectrum shifting coating. Catch is, a dirty tank, would be a dead tank.
        • So if the cloaking worked out to say 95% then night vision goggles could probably be used as a countermeasure? If so, how well do you think it might work (I'm guessing 100%)?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Plutonite (999141)
          Yes, but infra-red sensors (which are one kind of night vision devices) typical use a tight range of wavelengths and thus could possibly be fooled or at least made inefficient. I do not know the extent of usage by the military in combat, but they tend to be useful in situations where you want to know if somebody is inside a room..etc before entering, because IR can penetrate thin barriers (doors..etc). As for air/space surveilance of ground activity, IR is far more important than light amplification in dete
    • One wavelength hardly invisibility makes, but as the blurb suggests, it renders the target invisible to laser designators.

      Invisible to laser speed checks would have some non military applications.

      Michael
  • That's what's gonna dictate whether it will be seen on the battlefield or not. If it's cheaper to produce another gunship or tank than to stealth an existing one, it will probably only be used on first strike weapons.

  • One step towards the most duped story (Score:4, Interesting)

    by noidentity (188756) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:38PM (#18652531)
    Sure, each article is a slightly different take, but I swear there have been at least four previous articles about some kind of invisibility device in the past year, all turning out to really be invisibility in a very restricted sense, i.e. a particular electronic device doesn't "see" the object.
    • Are you telling me you have the foresight to see more of these coming? Isn't that blindingly obvious? I wish I had that kind of vision. I have yet to see an invisibility device myself, FWIW.
    • Don't worry I take there's an upcoming post on a research group's article that claims invisibility when the viewer closes their eyes. While also not true invisibility the technique does work with all light spectrums. The researchers aren't suggesting a method to get the enemy to close their eyes but they do point out that everything has a downside.
      • Oh, it's easy to get the enemy to close their eyes. Just get set their Slashdot comment filter to only show trolls.

  • Meh (Score:4, Funny)

    by vertigoCiel (1070374) on Saturday April 07 2007, @10:42PM (#18652571)
    Wake me up when you've got an "invisibility" device that'll let me sneak into the girls locker room without getting seen.

    • Re:Meh (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 07 2007, @11:50PM (#18652923)
      I think I have one, I've been invisible to girls for years.

  • Laser sharks (Score:4, Funny)

    by unchiujar (1030510) on Saturday April 07 2007, @11:15PM (#18652727)
    Oh noes, invisible sharks with lasers !!!

  • Sadder, but wiser. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A friendly note to the photonics project managers, researchers and general staff:

    Don't make the same mistake I did. Learn from my experience that one should never, ever put the invisibility generator on top of the anti-gravity device.

  • Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mikachu (972457) <mikazuchi@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 07 2007, @11:31PM (#18652819) Homepage
    It's Denton. Remember the briefing.

    Don't mod me down just because you don't get it. ;)
  • What about the ground? Can the light even bend around an object that is stuck to another? I don't think so ...
    So wouldn't it make two dark spots on the ground? that could be used to identify if someone is using an invisibility cloak.

  • Precious, my precious (Score:5, Funny)

    by OldManAndTheC++ (723450) on Sunday April 08 2007, @12:27AM (#18653107)

    According to TFA:

    Leonhardt, a professor of theoretical physics, wrote a commentary piece about the Purdue paper appearing in the same issue of Nature Photonics. In the commentary, he compares the Purdue design to the Roman creation of "the first optical metamaterial," a type of glass containing nanometer-scale particles of gold. In ordinary daylight, a cup made of the glass appeared green, but then it glowed ruby when illuminated from the inside.

    So basically, this will be made out of (a form of) gold, and encircle the object to be rendered invisible?

    I'm betting that, in order to work, it will need to be inscribed with the phrase: Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

  • first off, theyre slowly replacing aging nvg's with FLIR systems, second nvg's sensed a spectrum, though i forgot which one, ultraviolet was it?, the point is its not a single wavelength... even if i'm wrong and it is only one wavelength then it would be trivial to broaden the spectrum or have the sensors modulate.

    the same thing with a laser, you modulate the beam according to a hash function for each laser/missile pair, the string that produces the hash code could easily be communicated real time from air

  • This innovation and others like it have seen far too much press already. I know, I know, it's slashdot and no one RTFA anyway, but if you did you'd quickly realize that there really is nothing to see here. Let me explain at least for those of you who will read a comment if not any of the articles appearing in popular science sources for the last several months:

    Imagine for the moment placing an object behind a mirror. Better yet, inside a mirror. Amazing! You cloaked it from observation from visible wavel

  • Dirt/damage resilience? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Jesus_666 (702802) on Sunday April 08 2007, @06:40AM (#18654381)
    I'm not really into nanostructures, but this sounds pretty fragile. Someone has already pointed out that mere dirt could render it useless - but what about damage? Military vehicles aren't exactly going to be dusted off with badger hair brushes, so if the nanostructure is eroded by water (and cleaning brushes) the coat isn't going to last long. And if water can't do it small stones probably can and there are lots of those in the field.

    I see this as a general problem with light-bending nanomaterials - while they might work in a lab environment, real-world environments have enough ways of disrupting them to make them much less useful.

      • You do know Harry Potter is a fictional character, right?


        Yes muggle. No need to fret, "Harry is fictional".


        There's no such thing as wizards we^h^h They don't exist.

      • Re:Happy Harry (Score:5, Funny)

        by slashbob22 (918040) on Saturday April 07 2007, @11:37PM (#18652863)

        You do know Harry Potter is a fictional character, right?
        Which is why he is invisible in the non-fictional wavelength.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          that's why I responded. /. is a great site for professionals (with or without our flaws), great interviews, direct link to Intel and of course goatse I really don't understand. report abuse would be great so this shite could be deleted.
      • While I agree that Slashdot shouldn't ban any exercise of free speech, I'm pretty sure one of this site's rules is no advertising your site in discussions, espeically if it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. This guy is just spamming articles with ads, without making even the slightest effort to make it look like a normal response. I agree that there needs to be a "report abuse" link that /. higher-ups can then review and make a decision based on. There's a difference between free speech and sys

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.