Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Closer To Invisibility Cloak
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.
I would have claimed 1st, but someone appears to be cloaked.
Vescere bracis meis.
The lead engineer on the project added "Our engineers are currently testing the cloak extensively in women's locker rooms, on their speeding cars, to sneak into class late, to hide from bumbling crooks, and in other comic scenarios which have, to date, only been seen in lame movies. Our hope is to perfect the technology to the point where an engineer can sneak up on the bully that tormented him in high school and kick him in the testicles." After detailing the particulars of the complex optic engineering of the project, he concluded with "The day is now in sight where we will have a cloaking device truly worthy of an early-90's Kirk Cameron movie--or, God willing, even a Michael J. Fox made-for-TV movie from the 80's."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Scientists closer to fulfilling fantasy of hiding in girl's locker room.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
At first I was going to complain about the lack of pictures, but then I realized they wouldn't be too revealing anyway.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Very thin 2D objects eh? Nice.
"the world's two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week."
You can find the Nature abstract here. And if you have a subscription, you can read the full research and see the data they collected from experiments.
According to the Ars Technica article on this, the Science link will be here.
There seems to be a few more papers and articles on this but if you're interested you can search for optical metamaterials with negative refractive indexes.
My work here is dung.
"His cloak is perfect... no tachyon emissions, no residual antiprotons." on a serious note, would this not be vulnerable to infra-red cameras?
Any problem caused by a tank can be solved by a tank.
This was posted in Pharyngula yesterday. The usual prescient commenters noted that nowhere on the researchers' pages was there active speculation about an "invisibility cloak", and it was probably just some reporters going wacky over the possibilities. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/get_your_invisibility_cloak_he.php
This story has popped up here and there in the press today, but when I actually RTFA the actual breakthrough is negative refractive index materials, in the visible spectrum.
The application is not invisible tanks and infantry, but microscopy.
See here for photoshopped image that enhances the misleading headline http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7553061.stm
I don't really see many applications for war unless they can allow the person underneath the cloak to see. That's one of the drawbacks to being invisible, since light goes around the cloak no light reaches the invisible person's eyes, and thus the person cannot see. However, I could see someone under fire activating the cloak, and just laying low for a while
And the locker room will be full of girls wearing invisibility cloaks.
I mean, I can see right through it.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
I'll believe it when I see it.
Then you'd be a dark spot, or two dark eye shaped spots.
--why?