Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Quantum Cloaking Makes Molecules Invisible 118

Posted by kdawson from the can-you-see-me-now dept.
KentuckyFC writes "An international team of physicists has applied the ideas of cloaking to the quantum world and worked out how to hide quantum objects such as molecules. In the quantum world, seeing is equivalent to detecting a quantum object. In the case of molecules, that means looking for the terahertz radiation they produce when they vibrate (abstract). By designing a 'quantum corral,' an elliptical nanostructures that absorbs terahertz waves at a precise frequency, the team says it is possible to hide molecules that emit at exactly that frequency. They say their quantum corral would be ideally suited to detecting molecules of specific species while ignoring others. And that may mean a new generation of molecular detectors on the horizon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Quantum Cloaking Makes Molecules Invisible More

Quantum Cloaking Makes Molecules Invisible

Comments Filter:

  • Ears.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 16, 2008 @05:36PM (#25780403)

    By designing a 'quantum corral,' an elliptical nanostructures that absorbs terahertz waves at a precise frequency

    Sounds sort of like how the human ear works.

  • Lord have mercy! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by moniker127 ( 1290002 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:03PM (#25780571)
    Last week they announced the first laser cannon, now we're working on the base technology for tricorders? Maybe startrek IS an accurate timeline.

    • Re:Lord have mercy! (Score:5, Funny)

      by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:11PM (#25780621)

      Well, the Eugenics Wars were supposed to have happened by now, also referred to as the "third world war". Also, we should have launched few more probes by now -- Voyager, which will later gain sentience and attempt to kill everything that isn't perfect, and Nomad, which later returns to blow the hell out the planet because we killed off the whales. Lastly, we've only got four years left to build a self-enclosed and self-sustaining ecosystem in Portage Creek, Indiana.

      P.S. You've been geeked. ^_^

      • Re:Lord have mercy! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 ) * <tmh@nodomain.org> on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:19PM (#25780663) Homepage

        Voyager was launched in the 1970's. Voyager 2 left the solar system in 2007... so should be picked up by aliens just about now.

      • except that nomad had nothing to do with the whales.

        • you're right. sorry... got confused. There's so many cylindrical probes that attacked either Earth or the Enterprise that it's hard to keep them all straight.

          • i think all that was Sulu's doing....

          • You're forgetting the cylindrical probe that "attacked" pretty much any alien life form that could arguably be described as a humanoid female. Of course it is rumoured that Jim Kirk had little problems keeping his cylindrical probe straight, so I'm not sure your use of the term all is quite accurate once we adjust for the critical ommision* either ...

            disclaimer:

            Critical ommisions not to be confused with nocturnal emmisions (that means you Kirk)

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:39PM (#25780777)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Lord have mercy! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:51PM (#25780847)

          Two things sugar. First, I am a "chick", and I've been able to get them for awhile. Second, as you said, Spock referred to the Eugenics Wars in Space Seed as "the last of your so-called world wars" -- so what you're going on about is an minor plot inconsistency. zomfg! An inconsistency in Star Trek canon? Like THAT's never happened before. So about my geek card? No, not yours. And just so we're clear... Yes, there are fangirls for TOS. We're all gay though so don't get your hopes up little boy. ;) We're also responsible for most of the spock/mccoy slashfic out there.

          • I have to say.... I instantly love you! :D
            On first post. ;)

            Now the question is, who looks less geeky.
            I'm half afghani, half luxemburgish, have a light brown tan, do not live in a basement, and actually date girls.
            Gooooood luck! :P

            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by Hurricane78 ( 562437 )

              Oh, and on the gay part... I know this is protection. *hopes* ;))

            • "I'm half afghani, half luxemburgish"

              Ok I'm fine understanding the 50% Afghani. But its the luxemburg(ish) bti I'm not sure about.

              Are you not sure about the Luxemburg, so just though luxemburgish? (Well around that area)

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Xaria ( 630117 )

            I knew that too, and I'm *not* gay. I have my third baby on the way to prove it. I *am* taken though, obviously. :)

            Maybe the war pre-first-contact wasn't a world war ... I don't think they ever actually called it WW3 did they?

            Must also add, it was supposed to be Voyager VI that become V'ger (and the link that made them Borg, as alluded to above, is non-Canon). Nomad turned up in TOS, but the whale probe was alien.

            • Yes, I got the probe name wrong. Sorry.. So many probes have attacked earth or the enterprise that I can't keep them all straight. And almost all of them have been phallic-shaped. ^_^ If you ask me, Kirk attracts them.

            • Maybe the war pre-first-contact wasn't a world war ... I don't think they ever actually called it WW3 did they?

              They did call it the last World War in Space Seed. I just happened to have been watching this episode last week, so it was pretty fresh in my mind. I decided to play it again and double check.
              At around 3.5 minutes into the episode Mr. Spock says:
              "The mid 1990's was the era of your last so-called World War."
              I thought they called it World War 3 later on in the episode, but that might just be me misremembering this beginning part. Regardless, the poster several posts above asserted:

              The Third World War was not the Eugenics Wars. The Eugenics Wars happened around the time of the 90s. There's a few non-cannon novels about them and they were mentioned in the TOS Episode Space Seed. The Third World War happened around the middle of the 2000s and ended ten years before the events of First Contact in 2063

              According to Space Seed,

            • I knew that too, and I'm *not* gay. I have my third baby on the way to prove it. I *am* taken though, obviously. :)

              Not to troll here (seriously), but:

              1) Gay women can get pregnant and have babies, too.

              2) It is possible to be pregnant, but not be "taken". Being pregnant is not obvious evidence of being partnered with someone.

              Not trying to make you out to be some kind of bad person, just offering some food for thought. A lot of people have had a certain kind of thinking ingrained for so long, they they don't even realize they're doing it.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Xaria ( 630117 )

                1. Okay, I have my third baby conceived through the standard biological methodology of mammals on the way to prove it. As opposed to IVF or a turkey baster. Better? ;)

                2. I more meant the fact that it was my third baby, but you are quite right. I know someone who had three babies, and not one of them was to the same father or even from a committed relationship.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • OK, so the million-dollar question now is: can a Bird-of-Prey made out of this stuff shoot while while cloaked?

          • First, I am a "chick"

            oh, so you must be FAT then

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by myxiplx ( 906307 )

            Hahahah, +1 Pwn3d :-)

      • Is it "third world" war or third "world war"?

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        True enough that the Eugenics Wars DID happen by our current date in (In the first timeline we were introduced to) WWIII was almost always used to refer to a separate conflict that is still to come.

        In any case, all this idle speculation is moot, as Gene Roddenberry came back to warn us about all of this so that we may change the future for the better.

        PS You've been trekked. ;)

    • Last week they announced the first laser cannon, now we're working on the base technology for tricorders? Maybe startrek IS an accurate timeline.

      And with Obama as president we might even see Star Trek's Utopian Socialism.

  • Of course, now we'll look for the "corral" matrix that surround it instead of the molecule itself. It's certainly interesting, but I don't see a practical application for this just yet. Perhaps an improvement in optics that allows for high energy photons (ie, lasers) to pass through a lens without melting it? Maybe someone who knows more about physics can chime in here?

    • Well, if we ever get nanobots that can detect cancer cells, we could (in theory) detect irregularities in the frequencies emitted by unhealthy(cancer) cells in the body. I have no idea whatsoever if that's even viable (it might be that cancer cells still give off the same frequency) but it's a thought nonetheless.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Panaflex ( 13191 )

        Well, I was thinking a detector to accurately represent the wave form of any molecule, creating an equal inverted wave, and shooting it back at the molecule.

        e=mc^2

        Particles are waves - so why couldn't we just unmake the particle? Bwa ha ha! Quantum Bomb?

    • Re:Not quite a cloaking device (Score:5, Informative)

      by rts008 ( 812749 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @07:16PM (#25780971) Journal

      TFA: "First what does it mean to see or not see a quantum object? Fransson and co say that seeing is equivalent to detecting quantum objects and in the case of molecules that means looking for the terahertz radiation they produced when they vibrate.

      "We propose a method for detecting and manipulating quantum invisibility based on THz cloaking of molecular identity in coherent nanostructures," says Fransson and buddies.

      In practice, this means designing quantum corals, elliptical nanostructures, that absorb terahertz waves of specific frequencies. When a molecule that emits this frequency is placed at the focus, it cannot be spotted. It is essentially invisible.

      Useful? You bet. Such a quantum coral would be ideally suited to detecting molecules of specific species while ignoring others. For example, if you have a particular molecular species that poisons your measurements, then what you need is a cloak that will make it invisible to your detectors

      It's ideas like this that are going to make cloaking mighty useful one of these days.

      Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0811.1782: Quantum Detection and Invisibility in Coherent Nanostructures"

      Right now they are talking 'invisible to terahertz radiation detecters they currently use, and this would be useful.

      As often happens, the summary is not real clear. This is not meant to be a 'cloak of invisibility'(D&D/RPG style), nor a 'cloaking device'(Romulan style) device, just (initially) a means to 'clean up' some lab tests.

  • AHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHH! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Now I can finally lose my stuff in the fabric of reality... not just underneath the front seat of my car.

  • Tough challenge? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PeterAitch ( 920670 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:07PM (#25780601)

    The theoreticians seem have thrown down a considerable challenge here. Designing and building will likely be very different things. Makes most of the stuff fabricated so far seem almost macro-scale.

    Isn't it a bit naughty to include star-trek tags on a real-science piece (even if it IS distinctly theoretical)?

  • "suited to detecting molecules of specific species"

    Don't they mean specimens?

  • In the quantum world, seeing is equivalent to detecting a quantum object. In the case of molecules, that means looking for the terahertz radiation they produce when they vibrate (abstract). By designing a 'quantum corral,' an elliptical nanostructures that absorbs terahertz waves at a precise frequency, the team says it is possible to hide molecules that emit at exactly that frequency. They say their quantum corral would be ideally suited to detecting molecules of specific species while ignoring others. And that may mean a new generation of molecular detectors on the horizon."

    That's what I've been saying all along!

  • Duh..... (Score:3, Informative)

    by IHC Navistar ( 967161 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:27PM (#25780709)

    "By designing a 'quantum corral,' an elliptical nanostructures that absorbs terahertz waves at a precise frequency, the team says it is possible to hide molecules that emit at exactly that frequency."

    -No shit. You can hide objects by thowing something that absorbs the radiation emitted by them. I can hide an LED by keeping it in my shed, with the shed's construction material absorbing the light and heat emitted by the LED.

    Basically, the nanostructure they built is nothing more than a filter that filters out terahertz wavelengths, like a red colored filter blocks out wavelengths in that frequency range.

    Not a "breakthrough" by any means, but interesting in that they developed a substance that can filter out terahertz wavelengths.

    • Durrr? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bananatree3 ( 872975 )
      This drab technology is no more amazing than the "cloaking" technology that hides copper in infrared. Its ridiculous technology like this that becomes tomorrow's practical application, somehow somewhere.

      Who the hell would have thought shooting light in a beam would be so useful?

    • ". . .like a red colored filter blocks out wavelengths in that frequency range."

      From what I remember from high school physics class, a red filter blocks out *everything except for* light in the red frequency ranges. That is, it allows red to pass, but blocks green, blue, yellow, etc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Fjandr ( 66656 )

      This was my first thought on reading the summary. That you can make a molecule invisible by shielding detection is like saying you can make the sun invisible by putting a box over your head.

    • Although, the shed example is likely to work, you came up with a better idea even eariler. The first words of your response are "No Shit". Too bad you included the word 'No'. Shit, it seems, could easily block out the light as well as a shed. And, I should add, its much cheaper.

      And based on your response, Shit, is what the scientists are full of.

  • Strange Idea I had... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NoobixCube ( 1133473 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:38PM (#25780773) Journal

    I know almost nothing about quantum mechanics, so correct me if I'm wrong. On this scale, isn't observation interaction? Would preventing observation also prevent interaction with what is inside the cloak? How would the cloak behave if you tried to detect what's in it with a laser (or something)?

    • I'm no quantum physicist either, but it seems to me that a cloak is a cloak... Consider a man wearing black clothing hiding in a dark room. You try to find him with a flashlight, just like you'd try to find the molecules in the cloak. So if you tried, one of two things would happen:

      1. You wouldn't detect the molecules because of the cloak.
      2. You'd detect them and the cloak would be a failure.

      Certainly nothing of universe-imploding significance, I think.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If all the reflected waves are absorbed, the object will be black (at least in the spectrum of absorbed wave frequencies). Thus, the object is detectable indirectly, by absence of reflected frequencies.

        Phail!

    • On this scale, isn't observation interaction?

      i think you mean the scale below - quarks. those have only been able to be observed by interaction (where-the-hell-is-that-quark-now-science).

      i could be completely wrong as i'm not a quantum physicist either

  • The real challenge in cloaking (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hoytak ( 1148181 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @06:49PM (#25780835) Homepage
    is the engineering. I recently attended a talk where the speaker presented a theoretical way to completely cloak a large object (i.e. person, car, etc.). It was possible to completely prevent detection within a reasonable range of the visible spectrum. (I don't think it's been published yet, or I'd post a link.) The assumption was that the object was surrounded by a material in which you had complete control of the metric space properties, i.e. the propagation coefficient of light at each point. Now there's a challenge for the engineers...
  • What presence or bearing could we suppose such a discovery might/might not have as regards the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the applicable research being done in situ?

  • != Invisible (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DynaSoar ( 714234 ) on Sunday November 16, 2008 @08:53PM (#25781527) Journal

    Putting something where it can't be seen is not the same as making it invisible. Making it unable to be seen at a particular frequency does not mean it can't interact with something else, for instance gravitationally with the 'corral'. That would make it detected.

    If the above were not so, all your friends who didn't happen to be within eyesight would be invisible. Nothing wrong with that as long as you're willing to accept the notion that just because your friends are invisible doesn't mean they're imaginary.

    At best, in complete isolation, the molecule would be both visible and invisible. It would be in Schroedinger's cat box.

    • I don't think they're using invisible to mean "imperceptible". More like they're using it to say "typically we detect molecules by looking for their terahertz radiation. this method makes them invisible using that method." By your definition, not being able to interact with ANYTHING else really means the object doesn't exist. My invisible friend really takes exception to that.

      • I don't think they're using invisible to mean "imperceptible". More like they're using it to say "typically we detect molecules by looking for their terahertz radiation. this method makes them invisible using that method." By your definition, not being able to interact with ANYTHING else really means the object doesn't exist. My invisible friend really takes exception to that.

        They're not saying it by saying it? Masking a particular frequency doesn't make something invisible. Radiation impinging on the object being passed through as if the object weren't there, that's invisible. Obviously they're not saying imperceptible because they're talking about using the device as a detector.

        Theoretically an object could exist that couldn't interact with anything. Practically this is impossible as everything in the universe was part of a singularity initially and thus entangled. By Bell's t

    • You leave my imaginary friends out of this, you insensitive clod!
  • Maybe I'm conflating two different areas of "quantum" here, but here goes.

    At the quantum level of physics, if you observe something, the very act of observing will cause the quantum state to collapse, meaning you can't directly observe what ever it is you are trying to observe !?
    If you can create a filter that effectively only allows you to observe things that can pass through that filter, doesn't that mean that a quantum objects state can now be defined without direct observation ? The filter has already
  • If all the mad supergeniuses trying to get the word p3n*s through my email filter would turn their attention to this instead, we'd be cloaking whole planets by now. ... and solved AIDS and cancer. and boredom. i could go on...
  • Maybe that's how all that dark matter is hiding.

  • I just love scanning for lire forms!

    Life forms!
    You tiny little life forms!
    You precious little life forms!
    Where are you?

  • On the principle that any good science will be used for evil purposes I postulate that this will lead to a new generation of undetectable performance enhancing drugs.

    You wouldn't want to waste this capability doing useful research, would you?

Slashdot Top Deals

It was kinda like stuffing the wrong card in a computer, when you're stickin' those artificial stimulants in your arm. -- Dion, noted computer scientist

Close