Slashdot Mirror


How To See Through an Invisibility Cloak

AMESN writes "Ways to bend light around objects and render them invisible are becoming a major field of scientific study and gaining ground. While no actual invisibility cloak exists yet, researchers are also theorizing on how to beat the perfect cloak."

32 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The Possibilities by Mikkeles · · Score: 5, Funny

    The kind I want to go out with. WooHoo; particle launcher!

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  2. How to see through an invisibility cloak? by JKDguy82 · · Score: 5, Funny

    turn it on?

    1. Re:How to see through an invisibility cloak? by meow27 · · Score: 2, Funny

      or maybe, just look through it?

  3. rain by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No invisibility cloak can hide the fact that it's still a solid object. That or utilize various frequencies of EM as it would be extremely difficult to defeat radar + infared + visible + UV all at the same time.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:rain by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Even the vaunted "stealth" technologies of the 1980's and '90s were engineered only towards a certain set of frequencies.

      This 'invisibility cloak' could be defeated as easily as using a video camera with "night shot" built in (basically, an infrared emitter on the camera body sends out IR, and the lens picks that up, making it a bit more active than simply taking in whatever it sees). The cloak blocks the IR, so it'll either shine with the reflected waves or will show up as a shadow.

      Other ways to defeat it? Talcum powder or other particulates (like rain ferinstance).

      'course, I doubt that they could make such a "cloak" anyway, at least insofar as it would still show movement. So unless their 'spy' is really good at standing still, he's still liable to be noticed.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:rain by thelamecamel · · Score: 4, Funny

      How would it show movement? AFAIK the cloak should be able to move around and this movement shouldn't be visible to you.

      Or do you mean they won't be able to make a flexible cloaking ninja suit that keeps cloaking the ninja as they walk, despite the suit bending? The solution to that, of course, is to roll around inside a giant hamster ball/zorb cloaking device! Watch out... i'll sneak up on you and ROLL YOU TO DEATH.

    3. Re:rain by Anci3nt+of+Days · · Score: 2

      The solution to that, of course, is to roll around inside a giant hamster ball/zorb cloaking device! Watch out... i'll sneak up on you and ROLL YOU TO DEATH.

      Taking rick-rolling to a whole new level.

  4. The easy solution, from the article by JonC88 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just throw a stone at it.

    1. Re:The easy solution, from the article by sopssa · · Score: 4, Funny

      But what about when teleporting becomes common use technology? The invisibility cloak would have a teleportation field on top of it. The rock would be just teleported back to the person, and it could have a nifty effect in the invisibility drawing to smooth the effect (ie., instead of just teleporting, the stone would travel at a slightly increased, but still not noticeable speed for a moment)

    2. Re:The easy solution, from the article by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine throwing a stone at something you don't know is there to find it would be quite the feat.

  5. flour? by korney · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > While no actual invisibility cloak exists yet, researchers are also theorizing on how to beat the perfect cloak."

    How about flour and water? This reminds me of a joke...

  6. Re:The Possibilities by unitron · · Score: 3, Funny

    In that scenario aren't you supplying the particle launcher yourself?

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  7. You can't beat the perfect cloak... by unitron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can, it's not perfect.

    The real problem isn't detecting it. It's knowing that you need to be trying to detect it in the first place, and approximately when and in what area.

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  8. TFA by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Informative

    TFA mentions using charged particles and multiple wavelengths of EM to detect a clocked object. TFA suggests that they were measuring the actual effect on the path of the radiation its self although it should be pointed out that this is quite possibly unnecessary as high energy charged particle entering a solid material undergo an extremely high de-acceleration phase which causes charged particles to emit EM radiation. It's called Bremsstrahlung radiation and could quite possibly be detected.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  9. Why worry? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A perfect invisibility cloak is also a perfect blindness cloak. Unless you make i.e. missiles or bullets (dodge that, Neo!) with it, things with a predefined target, could be somewhat useless for most interesting uses. The imperfect are the useful ones.

  10. Re:It's been proved impossible using negative ior by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am not sure why people are being so slow to accept this.

    Because nothing in world has to be 100% perfect. It just has to work good enough. And maybe later there will be new discoveries that will improve it. That's how technology and science has always worked.

    Sure, there will always be ways to get around the invisibility cloak, just like people have ways to get around DRM. But it doesn't make it completely useless or non-working technology.

  11. Invisibility by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An "invisibility cloak" these days doesn't just necessarily apply to the visible light spectrum. The cloak could be a thermal or radar "invisibility" cloak, leaving an object perfectly visible to the naked eye, but invisible on other scans. Penetrating thermal invisibility cloaks might end up more important, because camouflage can take care of visible light from overhead, it's the thermal that's the giveaway.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  12. Re:Simple. by sopssa · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know about you, but I don't usually walk around in city with a flamethrower on.

  13. Re:Bahh... the Federation and Dominion figured it by copponex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks, buddy. I suddenly feel much better about myself.

  14. It's rather easy... by Antiocheian · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can drink a blessed potion of see invisible or eat an invisible stalker's corpse while invisible.

    1. Re:It's rather easy... by AaxelB · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can drink a blessed potion of see invisible or eat an invisible stalker's corpse while invisible.

      Or just be a monk. You also get the bonus of being incredibly badass.

  15. ahem, Nethack! by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Informative

    nt

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  16. Re:How about a $5 solution? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Funny

    > In any case, a well placed pebble should also work as it would bounce off in
    > a very obvious way.

    Better yet, a well-placed bullet. Just spray bullets in all directions at all times.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  17. Re:More uses than being invisible. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stealth technology, like that used in the B-2 bomber, F-117 nighthawk, and similar aircraft, was never about bending light around the plane. Because RADAR is an active detection technology - that is, it projects radio waves of a particular frequency and waits for a reflection - it was always about reducing the angles at which the radar would reflect.

    Plain old metal, no matter how you coat it, is like a pristine mirror for radio waves (the black color was simply because they only ever intended the planes to fly at night, so the original camoflage pattern was useless). A rounded surface, like that on most planes, will reflect RADAR signals coming from nearly any direction and at least part of the signal will be sent back to the RADAR. That's how RADAR is designed to work. To get around this, you need to minimize round surfaces so that very little, if any signal at all is returned to the RADAR. On-coming RADAR gets bounced up and down, and only a small portion of the radar signal from below gets sent back. They end up looking like large birds - a far cry from massive bombers.

    Light is harder, because we distinguish between multiple frequencies of light, so many materials difuse light, and we don't rely on a source projected directly from our own bodies to see. So for this we need to get light to bend around an object to cloak it.

    --
    Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  18. The solution by RudeIota · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone knows firing short, repeated bursts of tachyons between a 3 dimensional grid made up of Federation star ships is the most effective way to detect invisible, cloaked objects.

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  19. Why not simply track displacement? by Pyrion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This has always been something that's bothered me about Star Trek. It's well-established that "cloaked" objects, including people, still exist as solid matter and therefore displace whatever space they're occupying. I would think a foolproof means of tracking cloaked objects would simply be to concentrate on whatever it is they're displacing, and look for the telltale starship/person-shaped contour of gaps of nothingness where displacement is occurring. Take the interior decks of a Federation starship for example - authorized moving displacements signifying crew (tagged by their commbadges) if they simply ever thought to track the density and movement of the air they're pumping into each and every deck. Space is much the same way - it's not a perfect vacuum, and you can't tell me that Federation sensors aren't powerful enough to pick up damn near everything in their immediate surroundings.

    This also bothered me in Stargate: Atlantis the multiple times Atlantis was cloaked to hide it from orbiting Wraith vessels. They know what Atlantis looks like, can't they just scan the ocean's surface and look for the telltale snowflake shape of water displaced by the city?

    Point is: a cloaked object in a perfect vacuum (absence of everything) would be impossible to track using displacement, but a perfect vacuum exists only in hypothesis. Cloaked objects are always going to have to displace something, so rather than trying to pick up the cloaked object directly, why not concentrate on what you can see and look for gaps which shouldn't be there?

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  20. well... by thaddeusthudpucker · · Score: 2, Funny

    You could just get a magical eye like Mad-Eye Moody....

    1. Re:well... by ryzvonusef · · Score: 2, Funny

      Moody had a Byakugan?

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  21. Let's keep it real by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're getting a bit too excited here. If you read TFA you'll realize how limited this thing is. Many of these designs can only work at one frequency, usually microwave, in one direction, over a very small area, in 2D, and with considerable scattering and attenuation.

    That's a heck of a long way from a usable cloaking device. The problems of scattering and attenuation are going to be particularly intractable.

    It's unlikely that every one of the many shortcomings can each be improved by the needed factor of 100 or so.

  22. Silly question by eyrieowl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Use a scrying spell, obviously.

  23. Spychecking by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, the easiest way is to have Pyros that Spycheck, or just bump into the Spy by accident.

    Wait, you don't mean in Team Fortress 2?

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  24. Re:It's been proved impossible using negative ior by physburn · · Score: 2, Insightful
    That wouldn't prove cloaking impossible, it would require that a cloaking screen be powered in some way so that the dissipation of energy from the power source makes up for the extra entropy gained by the refracted light. Marl's proof can't apply that negative refraction is impossible for all frequencies, because we've have experimentally seen negative refraction at specific frequencies, including optical frequencies. What he disproved must a unpowered clock that operates over all frequencies at the same time.

    When it comes to use electrons to see cloaked items, there is science fiction and computer game presidence. In Alien vs Predator, the switching to Electric vision, the Alien can easily see a cloaked Predator.

    ---

    Optics Feed @ Feed Distiller