Slashdot Log In
A Step Toward an Invisibility Cloak
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Jan 18, 2009 03:41 PM
from the can-you-see-me-now dept.
from the can-you-see-me-now dept.
Technology Review has a writeup on the latest advance in the lab towards an invisibility cloak made of metamaterials, described this week in Science. We've been following this technology since the beginning. The breakthrough is software that lets researchers design materials that are both low-loss and wideband. "The cloak that the researchers built works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz — a swath as broad as the visible spectrum. No one has yet made a cloaking device that works in the visible spectrum, and those metamaterials that have been fabricated tend to work only with narrow bands of light. But a cloak that made an object invisible to light of only one color would not be of much use. Similarly, a cloaking device can't afford to be lossy: if it lets just a little bit of light reflect off the object it's supposed to cloak, it's no longer effective. The cloak that Smith built is very low loss, successfully rerouting almost all the light that hits it."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Plan For Cloaking Device Unveiled 342 comments
Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that a plan for a cloaking device has been unveiled. The design is pioneered by Professor Sir John Pendry's team of scientists from the US and Britain. Proof of the ability of his invention could be ready in just 18 months time using radar testing. The method revolves around certain materials making light "flow" around the given object like water."
[+]
Material With Negative Refractive Index Created 210 comments
holy_calamity writes "The race to build a material with a negative index of refraction for visible light has been won by researchers in Germany. The advance could lead to super-lenses able to see details finer than the wavelength of visible light, or the previously predicted invisibility cloak for visible light." From the article: "[The researcher] determined the refractive index of the material by measuring the 'phase velocity' of light as it passed through. His measurements show the structure has a negative refractive index of -0.6 for light with a wavelength of 780 nm [the far red end of the visible light spectrum]. This value drops to zero at 760 nm and 800 nm, and becomes positive at longer and shorter wavelengths."
[+]
Technology: Scientists Closer To Invisibility Cloak 308 comments
Aviran was one of many readers to submit news of a just-announced development in the ongoing quest to develop a working invisibility cloak, writing: "Scientists say they are a step closer to developing materials that could render people and objects invisible. Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects. Previously, they only have been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects" Reader bensafrickingenius adds a link to coverage at the Times Online, and notes that "the world's two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week." Tjeerd adds a link to a Reuters' story carried by Scientific American.
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, a cloaking device can't afford to be lossy: if it lets just a little bit of light reflect off the object it's supposed to cloak, it's no longer effective.
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
The Predator still got his ass shot up good with that hand-held vulcan gun, because the soldier saw the 10% of light that he couldn't cloak.
Parent
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Why would that be no longer effective? If the cloak reroutes 90% of the light, then you're left with 10% opacity, right? Sure, something that translucent would be very difficult to see, especially from a distance.
The Predator still got his ass shot up good with that hand-held vulcan gun, because the soldier saw the 10% of light that he couldn't cloak.
Yes, but if you look at it from a D&D point of view, you get a 90% miss chance, which is a game-breaking advantage.
Parent
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but if you look at it from a D&D point of view, you get a 90% miss chance, which is a game-breaking advantage.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
Parent
Re:Why not let a bit through? (Score:5, Informative)
For those of you who have wondered where the "robe and wizard hat" thing came from:
http://bash.org/?104383 [bash.org]
Parent
FUUUU (Score:5, Informative)
Direct link please!
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21971/?a=f [technologyreview.com]
Garbage javascript broke for me and the page didn't get past a white page.
Re:FUUUU (Score:5, Funny)
It's not broke... it's cloaked!
Parent
Re:FUUUU (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Blindness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Blindness (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
wavelength = length (Score:5, Informative)
frequency is in hertz.
wavelength is a length, so it will be in meters or feet or inches or volkswagen bugs.
that is all. </pedantic>
Re:wavelength = length (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:wavelength = length (Score:5, Funny)
Not for those of us who don't live in a vacuum, you insensitive clod!
Parent
Re:wavelength = length (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
invisibility schmisibility (Score:5, Funny)
Invisibility cloak bullshit again (Score:5, Interesting)
Metamaterials are interesting enough _whithout_ that stupid invisibility shit everytime.
I mean, lenses without diffration limit are also interesting. And opposed to the inisibility stuff, they might really work.
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can see what happens inside the Girls' dorm!
Giggity-giggity-goo.
NOT Invisibility Cloak: RADAR Cloak (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it just me, or would this stuff work VERY well as a RADAR cloaking device?
1-18 GHz is solidly in the microwave (millimeter-wave RADAR anyone?) range...
Re:NOT Invisibility Cloak: RADAR Cloak (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh, here we go again! Radars and optical vision do not work in remotely the same way. Creating invisibility in the two different realms is a completely different problem.
In most vision situations there are two critical factors which don't occur in the great majority of radars. The first is illumination of the target from angles other than the viewing angle (OK, there are bistatic radars, but they are not common) and the other is a background which is illuminated. Try to think about this for just a few moments. Why can't we all make ourselves invisible just by wearing matt black clothing? Well, obviously because we will stand out against the background unless we happen to be standing in front of black wall or wandering around in a coal mine. The whole point of the fictional 'invisibility cloak' is that it works in all circumstances. We can already be invisible in certain carefully controlled environments, that after all is what camouflage is all about.
But, a radar is rather like wandering about in the above mentioned coal mine, or perhaps a dark forest with a miner's lamp fixed to your head. The background is basically black and the illumination comes from the viewing direction. In this scenario, someone dress entirely in black would be effectively invisible. And that is the key point to grasp. In the world or radar we can achieve invisibility simply by making sufficiently 'black' 'paint'. The weird ability of these meta-materials to allow the illumination to pass through the target un-disturbed is of no benefit. Since we don't have a receiver on the other side of the target to detect this energy it isn't relevant. Now, sure, we can all dream up complex bistatic radars which rely on the obscuration of the signal to detect the target, but I remain to be convinced that such a thing can be made sufficiently versatile to be useful.
Can I stress that I am not suggesting the these meta-materials don't have an application in the world of radar. They seem to me to be particularly useful where one wants to remove a fixed object which obscures the view of your radar. For example, consider a radar on a ship. It may well find that in some directions its view is obscured by other parts of the superstructure. If the could cover these other bits of the ship with meta-materials such that the radar pulses could pass 'through' and back again undisturbed, then our radar's field of view would be increased. Such an application would work perfectly well with even the relatively narrow band materials presented previously.
Parent
from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
"Now [that] this is becoming a more feasible technology, we will start to see a lot more of it."
Heh, i thought the goal was to see a lot less of it :)
No Photo No Talk! (Score:4, Funny)
I look forward to the photo of the prototype.
18 GHZ is NOT the width of the visible specturm (Score:5, Informative)
7000 -> f = lambda/c -> 4.28275E+14
5000 -> f = lambda/c -> 5.99585E+14
Difference -> 1.713E+14 Hz -> 1.713E5 GHZ
About 171,000 GHZ not 17
The sentence above is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:One color invisibility certainly could be of us (Score:5, Funny)
...and I ain't an engineer.
I bet you've a schoolteacher.
Parent
Re:One color invisibility certainly could be of us (Score:5, Informative)
Bah, "ain't" is a perfectly valid contraction for "am not", and has been since at least 1706. (See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=ain't&searchmode=none [etymonline.com]) Proscriptionists object to it largely because it's often used for "is not", or "are not", which was seen as somehow "perverting" the English language.
In fact, though, "ain't" has been used that way since at least the 19th century.
About the worst that you can say of "ain't" is that it's inappropriate for a formal register, but so are most contractions.
Cheers,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Pedant
Parent