Slashdot Mirror


Bringing Back the Magic In Metamaterials

Charliemopps writes: Though it's 30 years late, transparent aluminum, as predicted in the 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, may finally be here. There have been many attempts to create transparent metals in the past few years, and some have been somewhat successful, if only for a few femtoseconds. But now, by modifying metals like silver and aluminum at the subwavelength scale, researchers are developing "Meta-Materials" that cause light to interact with these metals in new and interesting ways. One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an everyday person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

83 comments

  1. Pretty sure I read this on here 6 months ago or lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^ says it all

  2. Sapphire by chuckugly · · Score: 3, Funny

    If only we could mix a little of a common element, like say oxygen, with the aluminum, and grow transparent, super hard crystals.

    1. Re:Sapphire by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      Don't be ridiculous, that could never work in the real world.

    2. Re:Sapphire by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Crikey, we've discovered a rare Bing user in the wild! What a marvel!

    3. Re:Sapphire by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "In 1847, Ebelmen made white synthetic sapphires by fusing alumina in boric acid." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corundum

      if only 1847 hadn't invented sapphire by using alumina and boric acid... it is a shame that 'slightly blue(or other hues)' and 'totally transparent' are the only difference between science fiction and science fact.

    4. Re:Sapphire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bing users aren't afraid of change... that said we still keep coming back here everyday so we can see the, you know, "pass few years" worth of editorial bollocks in the first line of stories!

    5. Re:Sapphire by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, then you get a compound, that no longer has properties of the metal it is made from, like being electrically conductive. Sapphire is also ~20 less thermally conductive than aluminium too. You need to add zinc to make it conductive, which makes it less transparent.

      Conductive metal would be good for LED's and solar panels if they out-perform indium tin oxide

    6. Re:Sapphire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I have a whoosh to go with the totally transparent sapphire lens on my wristwatch?

    7. Re:Sapphire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we could mix a little of a common element, like say oxygen, with the aluminum, and grow transparent, super hard crystals.

      Err bullet proof glass read up people wakey wakey ...smell the coffee . where have you lot been these last 10 years ...

    8. Re:Sapphire by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Add a bit of chromium to make them see red :)

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    9. Re:Sapphire by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

      Bing users aren't afraid of challenge...

      TFTFY ~ Clippy

    10. Re:Sapphire by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      So it's ultra-hard like steel, ultra-light like aluminum, and ultra-clear like glass, while being a decent insulator of heat and electricity? Why aren't my windows made of this stuff?

    11. Re:Sapphire by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Expense. It is hard enough to grow a sapphire crystal big enough for a watch lens, a window would be much more difficult.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Sapphire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crikey, we've discovered a rare Bing user in the wild! What a marvel!

      I know bing is generally bad, but I've used it from time to time when the combined security settings on my work computer run into issues with Google's link redirection in their search. I didn't like that I had to do that, but there wasn't a quick way around google's links.

    13. Re:Sapphire by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Can you chemically grow them? Find a liquid or aqueous aluminum compound with lower bond strength than the crystal's bond strength (shouldn't be hard, unless your molecule looks like B12 and you want the cobalt). Grow enormous 14-foot crystal.

    14. Re:Sapphire by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be shocked for that to be true in the possibly distant future.

    15. Re:Sapphire by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      If you can come up with a better process, you can make some serious cash.

      There is also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... however, it is not as strong as sapphire. When you start talking about $1000 windows though, some people decide it just isn't worth the trouble.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:Sapphire by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yeah I figured it'd involve a lot of heat to make these things. Liquid crystal growth works extremely well with the right carriers, but finding such carriers can be hard. AlO2 won't bond with much, and would probably bond strongly if it did.

  3. What? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an every day person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

    What do you mean? You guys can't see viruses with the naked eye?

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an every day person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

      What do you mean? You guys can't see viruses with the naked eye?

      Antman, is that you?

    2. Re:What? by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      Only on my old XP machines.. cannot seem to find any on my Linux machines though, damnit! ;)

    3. Re:What? by WallyL · · Score: 1
  4. What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "in the pass few years" - just bad editing.

    "the subwavelength scale" - pure unadulterated bullshit.

    So, did they have to invert the polarity of the warp field? Give me a fucking break.

    1. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guys... guys... what, what if, you know, what if we reversed the... guys lol, what if we reversed the polarity of sub-space!

    2. Re:What is this BS? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Wave length is techno babble now? Where have you been for the last 150 years?
      Clearly those 19th century scientists were all basement dwelling Star Trek nerds!

    3. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the using a device to see things with the naked eye...

    4. Re:What is this BS? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Like a light switch?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like a balloon! and something bad happens!

    6. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No "subwawavelength" is technobabble. I am an analytical chemist.

    7. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They mean they're manipulating the material at scales smaller than the wavelength of visible blue light.

    8. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I am unsure what it means, but it definitely does seem to be a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superlens#Early_subwavelength_imaging

    9. Re:What is this BS? by drhank1980 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Contrary to what the AC said subwavelength is not technobable. I am a lithographer. Its basically referring to being able to resolve images smaller than the wavelengths of light you are doing the imaging with. You cannot see a virus through a microscope because the visible light emitted from it has a wavelength that is too large to allow enough diffraction orders into the lens to allow it to resolve any valid features at your eye. This is the Rayleigh resolution criterion in action. In practical lithography cases we add in a K1 factor to Rayleigh's equation to quantify how difficult an imaging case is for a given wavelength and NA.

      Subwavelength imaging has been around in semiconductor processing for decades with people using tricks such as off-axis illumination and phase shifting masks to allow a 365nm light source to print 200nm features or a 193nm light source to print 45nm features. If you have used a computer in the last 20 years odds are most of the critical layers were imaged using subwavelength imaging.

    10. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "the subwavelength scale" - pure unadulterated bullshit.

      .

      Subwavelength: distances shorter than the wavelength of the spectrum section you care about.

    11. Re:What is this BS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always a shorter wavelength or alternative methods of examination. The ones I have utilised:
      x-ray diffraction crystallography
      anticoincidence gamma ray spectroscopy
      Raman microscopy (which I understand is also used in microchip qa, a much more forgiving application than examination of nano-scale biological structures)
      Spectroscopic tricks. Thus, the term "subwavelength" had no meaning to me until your explanation. Thanks!

    12. Re:What is this BS? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      It looks like a rant about a language construct. I shrugged the word off as self-evident given we have such terms as "sub-zero temperatures", "subterranean", "subsurface", "subway". Some people might not like cooking up of new words like that, or such a rarely used word encountered in some narrow fields.

      Perhaps "nanotechnology" is a word we can bitch about, it's made up too and unlike "subwavelength" it doesn't have an actual clear meaning :)

  5. ALON for 12 years FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

    Been around for quite a while now, don't you think?

    1. Re:ALON for 12 years FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. Computer... COMPUTER!! by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

    The movie was mostly forgettable, aside from Spock neck-pinching a rude punk on the bus. But I remember the scene where Scotty is trying to show how to make transparent aluminum for the whale tank, and trying to get the Macintosh to respond by speaking into the mouse... "COMPUTER!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

  7. Trivia time... by bondsbw · · Score: 1

    ...just because I happened to look this up last week.

    To the naked eye, Pluto at our current distance is approximately the same size as a herpes simplex virus on a smart phone (assuming average viewing distance).

    --
    All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  8. Illumination wavelength by NormalVisual · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an every day person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

    Hmm, how does one see a 50nm virus when illuminated with 400 nm light, no matter how good the lens is? I guess you could illuminate it with far UV and use a fluorescent material to shift the wavelength of the magnified image into something visible, but I'm not sure what the lens has to do with that.

    --
    Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    1. Re:Illumination wavelength by Zaelath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention; how naked is the eye with a lens over it?

      Wait... do you mean I'm NAKED under all these CLOTHES???!

    2. Re:Illumination wavelength by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Theoretically, you can make a lens out of metamaterials that can resolve features smaller than the diffraction limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    3. Re:Illumination wavelength by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:Illumination wavelength by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      some viruses are "huge", Pandoravirus 1000nm, Megavirus chilensis 450nm.

      You should in theory be able to see those optically under 380nm violet light with a NA 1.6 lens

    5. Re:Illumination wavelength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary, as usual, is garbage. I've never seen the word "metamaterials" be used to describe transparent metals and have almost always heard it when referring to negative-index materials, photonic crystals and occasionally phase-change materials. While the summary makes no mention of this, negative-index materials are what's needed to make a "perfect lens" and are expected to be able to overcome the diffraction limit if we ever figure out how to get around their absorption losses.

      Furthermore, indium-tin oxide (ITO) is a transparent metal that I use everyday in research...

    6. Re: Illumination wavelength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it mentioned meta materials and perfect lens.

      And the article was all about meta materials perfect lenses and negative index materials.

      So that decided to drop negative index out of the summary the only thing missing...

    7. Re:Illumination wavelength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear lord no.

      No one meant to imply that any slashdotted was naked... The very thought of even a small percentage of them being naked could destroy a person.

      I assure you that underneath all the orange cheeto powder that covers most slashdotters there is only more orange cheeto powder...

    8. Re:Illumination wavelength by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hooking up with strange chicks is going to be tougher to stomach. Hell, I may not even want to shake hands (never mind exchange saliva) with them if I can actually see the various viruses that they have on them as a matter of existence and no matter how clean they are. I'd either be in the shower, pretty much constantly, or I would just not wear something like this.

      Also, with all these different sized objects... How is the pupil going to react? There is a finite amount that we can pick up so it seems the lens would have to move to refine images still.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re: Illumination wavelength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary basically calls transparent metals sci-fi when it claims that transparent metals only exist for femtoseconds at a time when they actually exist 100% of the time without doing anything fancy. The GP mentioned ITO and there are also ultra-thin layers of silver and aluminum; all of these are used in photovoltaics on a daily basis.

      The summary is nothing more than a weak attempt to get the sci-fi crowd interested in something unrelated to the opening lines, though the article itself is fine.

    10. Re:Illumination wavelength by WallyL · · Score: 1

      So it's orange cheeto powder all the way down?

    11. Re:Illumination wavelength by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your method of seeing a virus involves UV you are no longer seeing the virus, but the charred remains of one.

  9. Magic of Metamaterials? by WhoBeDaPlaya · · Score: 1

    It's called bandgap engineering yo...

  10. Slashdot No Longer For Geeks! by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm going to get modded to Hades in a second by the Dice fanbois, but damn...why don't we just post some Beiber videos here and be done with it? I don't think ten Slashdot posters locked in a room with two sticks could reinvent fire.

    Seeing viruses? Under any visible magnification, using whatever material as your lens, viruses are invisible. Unless transparent aluminium comes in the form of an electron microscope you're not going to see anything except for your willy, if you're lucky (where else would you be looking for viruses, hmm?).

    Does anybody with a B.S. degree (not a BS degree, a B.S. degree) preview any of this crap before posting it?

    Signed

    The Even More Irate Engineer

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Slashdot No Longer For Geeks! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      The quality of Slashdot has really gone downhill. Some stuff has happened in optics since the 1800s. It's theoretically possible with metamaterials to make a lens that can resolve features substantially smaller than the diffraction limit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

    2. Re:Slashdot No Longer For Geeks! by imboboage0 · · Score: 1

      Hey man. Don't mean to sound so rude, but get off your high horse. I spent five years at university, and never got my B.S. degree. I had my BS degree long before that. Still, I've been imbued with a massive amount of knowledge that helps me every day. Do not write off people without degrees. They're some of the smartest people you've met - some blew off the bullshit before the debt.

      Burn my karma before I do - I've had too much anyway. At least you'll learn maybe you're not the best fucking person ever. Off to watch Beiber videos...

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
    3. Re:Slashdot No Longer For Geeks! by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      The largest viruses have 450 nm capsid diameter. Violet light of 380nm on a glass lens with numeric aperture of 1.6 gives Abbe limit of 240nm.

      Oops, maybe you better get a refund on your B.S. degree. Or maybe the B.S. means Bovine Shtuff?

    4. Re:Slashdot No Longer For Geeks! by Khyber · · Score: 2

      You're an engineer, not a physicist, shut the fuck up.

      Metamaterials are theorized to be able to resolve detail past the diffraction limit. Practical application? Project the fucking image of the virus on the wall and watch shit happen in real-time. No more need for a fucking sample-killing electron microscope.

      Do you even have a B.S. in optical physics, asshole? I don't and even I knew about the theorized capabilities of metamaterials as lenses.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  11. Not a metamaterial by meerling · · Score: 1

    Transparent Aluminum isn't a metamaterial at all.
    "Aluminium oxynitride or AlON is a ceramic composed of aluminium, oxygen and nitrogen."

    Here's a link with a couple of pictures: http://dornob.com/transparent-aluminum-glass-like-see-through-metal/

    Metamaterials are undeniably a cool field, but they should have chosen something that's actually a metamaterial to mention in their article, and not a normal material that is decidedly not "new".

  12. Odd summary by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    The summary makes it sound like transparent aluminum, a Star Trek creation, is some sort of goal of science. That's really odd as a segue to the real story, metamaterials.

    1. Re:Odd summary by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The Meta-material happens to be transparent aluminum (and silver) so...

    2. Re:Odd summary by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Not really. Meta-materials can be made with a variety of properties. Some science fiction buff made a long stretch to compare them with a mythical material in an old movie. But what the movie predicted (quite obvious really just a super hard, transparent shield) and what meta-materials really can be made to do are entirely different.

    3. Re:Odd summary by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What I really want is flexible glass that can dent when dropped, allowing me to just hammer it back flat like a dented piece of steel.

  13. The nature of transparency by meburke · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised that it hasn't been done before this. In high school, (Many, many, many years ago...) we were taught that things were transparent because "light wave could pass through." In reality, we now know that in transparent materials, a photon striking the surface passes some of its energy to the next molecule, releasing another photon, which does the same, etc., etc., until finally the last photon is transmitted to an almost unobstructed medium (air, in our case). The key question has always been, "What is the difference in atomic structure between 'transparent' medium and 'opaque' medium?" The second question has been, "How can we change the atomic structure of supposedly 'opaque' materials to work like so-called 'transparent' materials without losing the characteristics that make the current 'opaque' materials useful to us?"

    Ceramic research has been on the edge of this discovery for years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    1. Re:The nature of transparency by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      In reality, we now know that in transparent materials, a photon striking the surface passes some of its energy to the next molecule, releasing another photon, which does the same, etc., etc.

      IANAP, but isn't that exactly what doesn't happen in transparent materials?

      When photons (individual packets of light energy) come in contact with the valence electrons of atom, one of several things can and will occur:

              An electron absorbs all of the energy of the photon, some of which is lost via the electron dropping between non radiative energy levels and the rest re-emitted at a lower energy. This gives rise to luminescence, fluorescence and phosphorescence.

              An electron absorbs the energy of the photon and sends it back out the way it came in. This results in reflection or scattering.

      An electron cannot absorb the energy of the photon and the photon continues on its path. This results in transmission (provided no other absorption mechanisms are active).

              An electron selectively absorbs a portion of the photon[clarification needed], and the remaining frequencies are transmitted in the form of spectral color.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:The nature of transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple, just click on the 'opaque' property in the Properties Manager to select or de-select.

    3. Re:The nature of transparency by meburke · · Score: 1

      Well, I must have drawn a million Feynman diagrams getting my explanation to stick in my head. Unfortunately the whole explanation is incomplete and it still takes a book to explain what we think we know. That might be too long to include in a /. post.

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
    4. Re:The nature of transparency by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I recall someone trying to give a brief explanation on a BBC science documentary a while ago. He drew some wiggly lines, then gave up and just said something along the lines of "...and it all just adds up to come out the way it does."

      It doesn't help when you find out things like the fact that the path light takes going from A to B is the shortest possible (in terms of time) through however many different materials are placed in its way. How does it know?!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    5. Re:The nature of transparency by meburke · · Score: 1

      Yah, that's the reason for all those Feynman diagrams (and they do look like sqiggly lines), and the fact that the path is a probability and not a certainty, and that the reflection is all dependent on the "spin" which is a brain stretcher all on its own...

      --
      "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  14. Say what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an everyday person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

    Can someone explain to me how using a lens to see something qualifies as "with the naked eye", exactly?

    1. Re:Say what? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think it is part of the normal bad science reporting.
      But for a lot of stuff now we cannot get the actual picture but a series of datapoint that a computer will translate as an image. Where assumption are made in the program and some parts may be distorted or just wrong.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Say what? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Your eye detects the same photons that were originally emitted by the object in question.

      Alternative proof by contradiction: your eye has a lens in it.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Say what? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an everyday person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.

      Can someone explain to me how using a lens to see something qualifies as "with the naked eye", exactly?

      ...as opposed to an electron microscope.
      An electron microscope "Senses" things and then creates a false image representing those things so you can have an idea of what it's sensing. You are not actually "Seeing" the thing in the microscope. With a perfect lens, light bounces off the object, passes through the lens and enters your eye. You are seeing the actual object, and not a false image of it.

    4. Re:Say what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, the phrase "naked eye" when applied to being able to view something corresponds to being able to see it *without* the aid of any instrumentation. The lens that is already within the eye is as naturally part of the eye as your skin is of your body, so the fact that lens plays a part in its optics is irrelevant.

    5. Re:Say what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Except that you are still using instrumentality to assist in resolving detail.... the phrase "naked eye" as applied to being able to see something means literally that... that using just the eye alone, without anything else, it can be seen.

      For chrissake, look the phrase up in a dictionary.

    6. Re:Say what? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.... not sure what happened to my attempt at putting html into my commment. Let's try that again (and hit preview before submit this time...)

      For chrissake look the phrase up in a dictionary.

      Okay, that time it worked.

  15. Prototypes of gold and aluminum exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prototypes of transparent metals exist gold aluminum many others demonstrated many times different companies have technology not impossible but not profitable since profitability is needed to make the production at any levels practical but it is still theoretical the demonstrations prove it by creating thin sheets of gold and aluminum which is more practical because it costs less than gold is better for electronic applications even though it costs more.

  16. Viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somewhat OT, but still: speaking about thee viruses, I doubt that our eyes would be stable enough to actually see these viruses. There is a reason why microscopes are sturdy, rigid and usually heavy gear.

  17. Please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go back to reddit

  18. "transparent aluminium" Again? by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    I've followed /.for the most part of the last 20 years. And I guess once every 2-3 years they do come with a headline of "transparent aluminium" breakthrough - which each and every time turns out to be some kind of ceramics that takes aluminium in each composition (a.k.a. "glass"). Let's see what they do have this time around.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.
  19. Aluminium oxynitride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aluminium oxynitride is not new. It's transparent aluminum. Been around for a LONG time.

  20. Naked eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of their more promising goals is to create a "perfect lens" which would allow an everyday person to view things as small as a virus with the naked eye.
     
    If you are using a lens, you aren't seeing it with "the naked eye".