Terahertz Imaging:Another Way to See Through Walls 145
311Stylee writes: "Wow. I've never even heard of this before, but it looks genuine with a writeup on MSNBC and Space.com . Existing technology is used to measure sea temperatures through clouds via satellite, but newer cameras could be used in a huge array of applications because of their ability to see through walls, clothing, smoke and clouds. Google gets 546 hits on T-rays, inlcuding one from AT+T Bell Labs."
Terahertz Imaging? (Score:1)
540Thz is right in the middle of the visible spectrum.
Not Visible, microwaves (Score:2)
Low-frequency versions of terahertz waves are known as millimeter waves, and they behave much like radio waves, Star Tiger engineers say. At higher frequencies, the terahertz waves straddle the border between radio and optical emissions.
Visible light has wavelengths up to around 750 Nanometers. Infrared has wavelengths extending (depending on who you ask) from there up to some number of micrometers.
At a frequency of 1 terrahertz, light has a wavelength of the speed of light (per second) / 1 trillion.
c per second is about 300 million meters.
300 million meters divided by 1 trillion is about 300 micrometers. A typical microwave oven uses a wavelength of about 100 micrometers. [ideafinder.com] (The link has some other helpful info about spectrum, but also some typos.)
This IS microwave radiation.
I don't know why they've decided to start calling them "T-Waves." I'd geuss that they're gearing up to put them into airports, and that somebody decided that they don't want to call them "microwave cameras" so that people aren't afraid of being cooked somehow.
Incidentally, Microwave detection is not a new development; the Military has been using Microwave transmitters since the 70s. What is new about these newer cameras is their sensitivity/accuracy; previous generations of microwave cameras were not sensitive enough to image much of anything.
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:2, Funny)
The problem was that these didn't have the kill when you suddenly came into contact with losta light. I was trying to spy on the hot neighbor nextdoor, when she turned on her porch light and blam! instant sun in my eyes.
Yeah... (Score:2)
The thing about satellites is they really can't do much more than look almost straight down.
Re:Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:1)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:2)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:1)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:2)
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:3, Interesting)
Microwave ovens use a frequency of 2.4 Ghz, which is no where near the Thz range.
This stuff could be called "super-infrared", it's more like optics than it is like radio.
Re:Not Visible, microwaves (Score:4, Interesting)
These wavelengths have the rather ungainly "millimeter and submillimeter" label. There's "far-infrared" at about 100 microns, and this regime runs from there out to, well, about a millimeter. :-)
I am an astronomer who works with submillimeter wavelengths at the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT [hawaii.edu]). In this regime, we're really at the boundary between optics and radio. You can almost think of it as the boundary between whether you treat light as a wave or as a particle.
Some of our astronomical instruments are radio-style "heterodyne" receivers which treat the light as a wave and produce spectral line information (telling you what molecules are out there and what they're doing). It's a bit like sweeping a radio dial through a range of frequencies and marking the signal strength of all the stations.
Other detectors treat the light much more as a particle, just measuring the total amount of radiation falling onto a pixel. On the JCMT we have such an instrument called SCUBA (the Submillimeter Common User Bolometer Array). They're analogous to the CCDs used at optical and infrared wavelengths. I'm guessing that the work mentioned in the article refers to detectors of this type, but I could of course be wrong. :-)
No, 540 nm (Score:3, Informative)
That is, 550e15 hz. Light is around 550 petahertz.
Re:No, 540 nm (Score:1)
Re:No, 540 nm (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, but 540 nm = 540e-9 m = 5.4e-7 m, not 5.4e-10m. So, the frequency of 540 nm wavelength light is about 3e8/5.4e-7 = 5.6e14 Hz = 560 THz.
This is roughly in the middle of visible light (400 to 700 nanometers [nasa.gov]) so light is indeed about 550 THz.
The article's talking about stuff with a frequency down about 1 THz, though, rather than hundreds of THz (which puts you up near a petahertz).
Beware the government! (Score:2, Funny)
Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, people can already see through your clothes--at least, if you're wearing something fairly diaphanous or skintight already, like a swimsuit, or very light-colored clothing. And all they need is an older Sony video camera with NightShot before they put special filters on to prevent the trick from working, or a newer model with modifications...
Does anyone else recall the breif hysteria when Sony video camera owners realized that using NightShot during the day allowed them to record an image that saw partly through swimsuits and light clothes, and that became public? News broadcasts were definitely playing it up. Sony immediately announced that future video cameras would ship with filters to prevent such imagery...
IIRC, the problem (or "bonus") was that the IR light emitted by NightShot would travel through thin or light-colored clothing before being either reflected or re-emitted (can't recall exactly how it works...), so that when captured by the lens during daylight capturing, it let one "see" through some clothing.
There is in fact a whole genre of Internet pr0n dedicated to capturing unsuspecting females in swimsuits or thin white clothing with such cameras. The films have a greenish tinge, like looking through some Night Vision goggles, but do indeed show body outlines, nipples, pubic hair, etc.
Now, if that can be done with a HandyCam for a few hundred dollars, you know the government with its budget can get a lot more sophisticated and see a lot more clearly...
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1, Informative)
Not quite the case. The camcorder doesn't emit infrared light, it just receives them that are emitted from the target, or anything with heat.
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1)
Got a reference to support this? It seems unlikely.
Remember that the label "infrared" covers a large chunk of the spectrum.. The type used in remote controls, camera auto-focus, etc is just below the visible spectrum. It behaves like visible light, and can be detected with the same sensors (try pointing a TV remote at a camcorder some time; you'll probably be able to see the IR LED flashing).
A person would have to be on fire to be emitting much infrared at these frequencies. Cameras designed to operate in this range normally have a ring of IR LEDs around the lens, or come with a similar light source.
Those "heat vision" cameras are operating at significantly lower frequencies of "infrared", and tend to require more exotic components (e.g. chilled sensors, or lenses made out of germanium).
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1)
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1)
or conversely if the camera was sensitive enough to see the heat from a table, or a wall, a person would be bright enough to flood the camera.
just a thought.
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1)
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:2)
Re:Beware Sony Owners Instead... (Score:1)
My understanding is that CCDs are actually more sensitive to IR light than they are to visible light, so camcorders have special filters built into them to prevent the captured image from being distorted by IR light. So, seeing more IR light is just a matter of removing the filter from inside the camera.
Re:Beware the government! (Score:1)
in its most simplisticly stated form, a "government" is the group of people in a geographic area that has the most & best guns telling everyone else what to do. Everything else about government are rules they write for themselves limiting how they will go about doing what they want to everyone else, including you.
In a democracy, anybody can join this group who wants to. Either get elected or get appointed or get hired (like an LA cop, for instance).
Now, back to your question: Any pervert in Gov't who has a peeping-tom fetish, or a Dom sex kink in their brain, can use this to do whatever their perverted minds dream up.
That's wy the government wants to look thru your clothes.
Oh, yeah, and there are some minor benefits to law enforcement as well.
Re:Beware the government! (Score:1)
To get elected, someone must get our votes. We can vote for putting limits on what our government can do to us. (As long as the government doesn't take away voting rights...)
The media can expose those government officials who lie (or "do whatever their perverted minds dream up").
The point is, I guess, that as long as the system keeps the right to vote, it is possible to put limits on what the government can do to you.
Re:Beware the government! (Score:1)
A tougher question. (Score:1)
Lots of boats (Score:2, Funny)
Uhm...Okay. Wait a minute. (Score:1, Funny)
...Wouldn't it just be easier to install a window?
Cheers,
Re:Uhm...Okay. Wait a minute. (Score:2)
Re:Uhm...Okay. Wait a minute. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Uhm...Okay. Wait a minute. (Score:2)
Hey!
You can't suggest installing Windows on Slashdot!
Qinteq (Score:4, Informative)
Following the election of Labour to power in 1997 the new government decided that the end of the cold war meant that this operation should make its own way in the commericial world. It's still government owned, at present, but will be sold off to the private sector at some time.
In effect these are the guys that gave the world radar and much else besides, So they mean business!
Re:Qinteq (Score:1)
Yes Bond , very funny, now put the T-camera down, I want to show you theis little beauty here.."
Brian P
Re:Qinteq (Score:1)
DERA was in fact cut in half, and the section deemed to be privatisable is now QinetiQ (minus a large amount of money for the damn silly name).
The other half still does more secret government work. I think it may still be called DERA, but I'm not sure.
I suspect the break up would've happened whichever party won the 97 election, since the conservatives were privatisation mad at the time.
how long before X10 sells these (Score:4, Funny)
_my_ bedroom? (Score:1)
Re:how long before X10 sells these (Score:1)
Just like in CS (Score:1, Funny)
And I suppose Next they'll make aimbots as well
Eh, it's old news... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm... (Score:1)
All the perverts ogling with a T-ray gadget at women will make me filthy rich!
Re:Hmmm... (Score:1)
I believe its been done before. Certainly one company has made IR shielding swim suits to protect against Sony cameras [slashdot.org]. Never actually seen them on sale, only ever heard of them.
Half IR, Half MW (Score:5, Informative)
The image of a slice of bacon shows different levels of T-ray transparency for lean and fatty areas. Since fat absorbs almost no T-rays, it looks white; meat absorbs roughly 25 times as many T-rays, so it looks dark.
Many compounds changed the T-rays in characteristic ways, due to absorption or reflection. Molecules and chemical compounds, particularly in the gas phase, showed strong absorption lines that can serve as "fingerprints" of the molecules. Metals and other materials with high electrical conductivity were completely opaque to terahertz radiation.
The T-ray imaging technique is notable in that it can distinguish between different chemical compositions inside a material even when the object looks uniform in visible light. Also, most plastics are transparent to T-rays, so it can "see" inside plastic packaging.
I believe they use pulses to illuminate the targets, just so that you don't cook them
Re:Half IR, Half MW (Score:1)
Will this finally inspire most lethargic, overweight privacy-paranoid geeks to get off their asses and exercise?
Negitive effects? (Score:1)
Re:Negitive effects? (Score:1)
Re:Negitive effects? (Score:1)
Re:Negitive effects? (Score:2)
As proof of my point, how would anyone in the world know that having a hair dryer could make you dumb enough to use one in a shower unless some moron did so. That's why we have a warning lable.
Re:Negitive effects? (Score:1)
its 7 years old? (Score:3, Insightful)
*sig*
Re:its 7 years old? (Score:1)
Paranoia has it's own rewards..
Re:its 7 years old? (Score:3, Informative)
Because you'd need a cryogenically cooled detector and even wierder detector materials than you have to use for thermal IR.
A camera that detects sub-millimetre waves (the proper name for THz-range EM) is even more of a pain to build than one of the good, expensive thermal IR cameras, so unless you have an application where a thermal IR camera or X-ray system or low-power impulse radar system won't work, you aren't going to sell any.
This market is apparently small enough that nobody's mass-produced sub-millimetre range imaging systems commercially yet.
Re:its 7 years old? (Score:2)
Is this news? (Score:1)
How does this help me? (Score:1)
Many people do this already!! (Score:1)
Possible consequences with mass production (Score:1)
Airport security and ethical problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Airport security and ethical problems (Score:2)
The Zen of Optics (Score:5, Funny)
Dave
Mu (Score:1)
Thank you for the Koan!
The space.com article looks almost like a hoax. Sounds like they copied everything from a marketing pamphlet. I often see articles that discribe what some technology might be used for, and how much better than other technologies, but it never tells you what the damn thing actually does. The AT&T article is better.
The T-Ray frequency might be suitable for computation, so i wonder if it's possible to read in T-Ray holograms in real time without a reference beam (by comparing the phase of the wave not only the intensity). It sounds like a complement to X-Ray CT and NMR.
Even if the T-Rays passed through everything, there would be still a chance, that the refractive index depends on the medium, which leads to a phase shift.
Re:The Zen of Optics (Score:2)
And there will also be a market for clothing interwoven with metallic thread.
And anytime I see something this obvious with "practically no references in the literature" it always makes the paranoid part of me wonder how much use the [name your own TLA gov org] is already making of it.
Re:The Zen of Optics (Score:1, Funny)
Out Into Infinity, or at least until you rip out your eyes.
(Cue Ray Milan in "The Man With The X-Ray Eyes")
Re:The Zen of Optics (Score:1)
New Fashion Accessory (Score:1)
nothing new (Score:1)
Mars, Coca-Cola etc (Score:1)
Doesn't that remind me of something? (Score:1)
couldn't resist
Re:Doesn't that remind me of something? (Score:1)
This can't be. The Palantír just allows you to gaze far away, it doesn't transport any sound. What Sauron is able to do (according to The Book) is to look upon the one who gazes at him. Pippin, for instance, looked at him and later told Gandalf that 'He just looked at me and I understood'. This happened after Isengard was laid down... oh, perhaps i shouldn't have said this.
Moderation totals: -1 = Offtopic
The Law (Score:1)
The same should most definitely appy to this one as well.
YOYODYNE LABS DISCOVERS "V-LIGHT" (Score:4, Funny)
Using a special set of goggles, wearers are able to experience the part of the electromagnetic spectrum YO Labs is calling "visual light," or "V-light."
"It's amazing," says one test subject, "I've never been able to appreciate bacon for what it was. With these goggles, I can differentiate the fat layer from the meat layer!"
Scientists are saying that "V-light" technology will herald a new age. Perfect Tommy said, "It will effect a paradigm shift, the likes of which we've never seen! I know there are many concerns about privacy and stuff, but really, this technology is good. We only use our powers for good."
Privacy advocates are calling "V-light" immoral. "The ability for people to tell the difference between, say, bacon and corned beef, is a god-given right. But I don't want people to be able to just look into my windows and see me prance around naked with a bowl of jello," says Kent Torokvei.
But government officials are adamant: "Visual light is a new technology that will enable us to catch criminimables," President George W. Bush said. "With it, we can tell if a terrorist is wearing something trendy, or something not-so-trendy. If we pull back his shirt, we might even be able to see if he has a bomb strapped to his chest. My advisors tell me we might even be able to tell if criminals are black or white, which will aid our police officers in their policy of racial profiling!"
"I don't give a flying wahoo what the President says," Buckaroo Banzai, head of the Hong Kong Cavaliers, said in a recent interview. "The fact of the matter is, I'm sick of biting into a slice of bacon and finding it being mostly meat. I need my fat. We can give these goggles to the poor and the malnourished, and they can use it to find fat people to eat just by LOOKING at them!"
"Fat people are a delicious and nutritious meal. I realized that after seeing that unsquashable watermelons did nothing to do to rid the world of famine. They're easy to hunt, and they're easy to bait. This is much better than trying to smash open an unsquashable watermelon."
And what about T-waves?
"Terahertz waves? That thing sucks big donkey dong. The real genius is V-light. Not only can I see intimate details, but I believe the technology can be tuned to predict the future somewhat. Here. Take off your pants. Lemme tune my goggles. Ok, I can see your nuts, and I can also predict that you will never die of autoerotic asphyxiation."
Great... (Score:4, Funny)
Priceless (Score:3, Funny)
802.11 or other wireless networking card: $150
TRay Camera springboard: $25,000
Being the first human with a tricorder AND the fact that it run Linux: Absolutely priceless.
Re: "Tricorder" (Score:2)
I am surprised you are the only one who mentioned "tricorder" (at least in a text search). The description sounds much more like a tricorder (composition analyzer) than something to see thru girls' clothes. Excerpt:
"AT&T Bell Laboratories scientists have demonstrated an innovative imaging system that uses optics and electronics to "see" the composition of objects - just as X-rays "see through" materials to reveal denser elements inside. They can show, for example, how much fat is in a slice of bacon, how much water is in a leaf, and whether a package holds a banana or a bomb - without touching it."
We already have X-rays to see thru things, so the uniqueness here is the "point and analyze" capabilities.
(Unless perhaps if it can see thru things without having the emitter on one side and the receiver on the other, which is what X-rays usually require in practice.)
Very good article on T-wave imaging... (Score:2, Informative)
"Recent Advances in Terahertz Imaging", Mittleman et al [nec.com]
See through clothings??? (Score:1)
Snow Crash! (Score:2, Insightful)
"never heard of this before" -- sheesh... kids these days
Re:Snow Crash! (Score:1)
Then we'll see how long those gargoyles last.
An application of astronomy technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Telescopes like the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT [hawaii.edu]) and the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO [caltech.edu]) have been using these THz waves to do astronomical research for about 15 years.
THz waves are in the millimeter/submillimeter regime of the electromagnetic spectrum, placing them between the far-infrared and the radio.
Just like we use infrared light to look at things which are at roughly room temperature, we use submillimeter light - with wavelengths about 10 times longer - to look at things which are about ten times cooler, down to a few tens of Kelvin above absolute zero.
This includes solar system bodies, comets, and clouds of interstellar gas and dust - the birthplaces of new stars. Just like in the articles, we can use submillimeter waves to see through things that entirely block visible (optical) light.
Can see through clothing? (Score:1)
What Technology Does Space.Com use? (Score:1)
Is this passive or active? (Score:2)
Now the AT&T Bell Labs article, on the other hand, says nothing about objects emitting anything, it talks exclusively about generating T-rays from the recording device, and measuring their effects, similar to X-Rays.
Are these articles talking about the same technology? Seems to be described quite differently.
Re:Is this passive or active? (Score:3, Informative)
Better Link to info about THz articles (Score:2)
Tom Clancy's Op Center had this already (Score:1)
T-Rays = Scanned by electrons (?) (Score:1)
E = planck*[speed of light]*frequency
Planck's constant is 6.63e-34 J/s (check Halliday), speed of light is 3e+8 m/s and the frequency is something like 1e12 1/s which is THz frequency.
Then you calculate the equivalent mass for this energy which is given by E=mc^2 (yes, this formula has some use) or simply make
h*c*f = m*c*c which is h*f/c = m
Now pick this mass and divide it my the mass of a resting eletron (=9.11e-31 kg, according to Halliday). By now you should have something around 2,4. Means, one photon of this kind has an equivalent mass of 2,4 resting electrons or one accelerated to some velocity, god know how much.
I mean, after all, I'm not allowing anyone to scan my body with this T-Rays. It's way more dangerous than X-rays (with which I work) and Gamma-Rays (which are emitted by the sun and hardly reach us). No thanks.
Re:T-Rays = Scanned by electrons (?) (Score:1)
For a photon, the energy is Planck's constant multiplied by the frequency. There isn't a speed of light term in there, so you're out by a factor of c.