Since all you boys and girls watch Star Trek: "Physicists Nicolae Nicorovici from the University of Sydney, Australia, and Graeme Milton, from the University of Utah, have proposed that devices called superlenses could be used to create a type of cloaking device. Using a principle called 'anomalous localized resonance', superlenses placed very close to a small object could mask its reflected light waves by resonating at the same frequency, much like how noise-canceling headphones mask sound waves by creating a sound that is at the same frequency but inverted in phase."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-09-13
Member since:2006-02-11
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2005-07-07
It's only possible with gravity though. So practical usage is still likely impossible, as any object that is meant to be cloaked needs to withstand this gravity as well, because it has to be placed close to the lense. Besides, shouldn't the lense effect be obvious if there's something behind the hidden object (e.g. a landscape)?
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
What does this have to do with operating systems?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. Yet we publish it. Why? Read our about page and you'll know.
http://www.osnews.com/contact.php
Oh, and this is only the 28474674688374th time we said this.
Edited 2006-05-04 17:09
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-06-29
So why is this on OS News again?
Because we as the staff want it to. Contrary to what you seem to think, you do not own OSNews. David Adams does, and he made me responsible for the news. In other words, it is my say what gets up here, and if it's up here, it belongs here. I decide what is worthy of OSNews, not you. Period, end of discussion.
Member since:2005-12-15
Because we as the staff want it to.
That's fine, I never said you weren't entitled to posting any news you wanted on this site.
Contrary to what you seem to think, you do not own OSNews.
Don't you tell me what I'm thinking Mr.
David Adams does, and he made me responsible for the news.
Yes and responsible for what you post too.
In other words, it is my say what gets up here, and if it's up here, it belongs here.
This might be true in your opinion, but may not apply to your readers.
I decide what is worthy of OSNews, not you. Period, end of discussion.
Not quite. You don't decide what is worthy for me. You might not think you owe your readers something, but they do add wealth to your site and look at your ads. So I think what you owe me, at a minimum, is some courtesy, because you did offend me and were rude. Your page with the statement about site content does NOT mention scientific news as possible content. If I want that, I'll go to slashdot. I fail to understand how your readers criticising your content gives you license to be rude to them. Now the discussion is over.
Member since:2006-02-11
Contrary to what you seem to think, you do not own OSNews. David Adams does, and he made me responsible for the news. In other words, it is my say what gets up here, and if it's up here, it belongs here. I decide what is worthy of OSNews, not you. Period, end of discussion.
Are you always this arrogant and rude? With that logic you could justify putting up news about fall fashions. Perhaps David Adams should reconsider his decision; if I owned the site I certainly wouldn't want someone with that attitude in charge of anything. It just seems to me a site called OS news should be about, well, OS news.
Edited 2006-05-05 05:01
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-02-20
Nothing at all. Yet we publish it. Why? Read our about page and you'll know.
"Our goal is to inform our readers with the latest news on a vast range of operating systems and computing environments, from the well-known mainstream OSes, down to small (but also very interesting technically) hobby or embedded ones. True to our tagline, "Exploring the Future of Computing," we're always on the lookout for the next major advance in computing technology, and eager to speculate on how it might change the way people use computing power in their daily lives. With this in mind, it's important to stress that though our focus is operating systems, there will always be other computing-related news that catches our attention."
Okay, read it. Not a thing in there about why an article about Cloaking Devices would be posted here. Maybe you could enlighten us further, Thom.
In other words, it is my say what gets up here, and if it's up here, it belongs here. I decide what is worthy of OSNews, not you. Period, end of discussion.
And maybe without the attitude even.
Member since:2005-07-13
Member since:
2006-01-05
Member since:
2006-05-04
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-16
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-05-01
Member since:2006-01-24
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2006-02-27
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:2005-07-30
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-22
Member since:
2005-10-13
Actual invisibility isn't being done by this because it only blocks a narrow spectrum - at least for now. And remember that this is all still in the theoretical stages. However, the naked eye would likely be able to see certain colors even while others were blocked.
The applications this is meant for are more along the lines of cloaking electronic signals, like letting electronic equipment operate near an MRI machine, or cloaking something from reflecting a radar signature.
Member since:
2006-03-20
Member since:
2005-11-13
Using a principle called "anomalous localized resonance," superlenses placed very close to a small object could mask its reflected light waves by resonating at the same frequency, much like how noise-canceling headphones mask sound waves by creating a sound that is at the same frequency but inverted in phase.
Have you guys ever tried a pair of noise canceling headphones that actually cancelled noise? I haven't.
Member since:
2005-07-06
<fun>
Imagine cloaking your computer. Hmm, upgrading a cloaked computer would be a challenge.
Oh, a cloaked bag, this would allow you to sneak out with laptops...well until you hit the shop lifting detectors, but you could claim you didn't take anything, since they can't see it. 
</fun>
Member since:
2005-11-16
superlenses placed very close to a small object could mask its reflected light waves by resonating at the same frequency
Wouldn't that make the object look black?
For "cloaking" you'd need to cancel light reflected from the front while transmitting any light that lands on the other side of the object (for any angle it could be viewed at, without distortion and with a minimum delay between back reception and front transmition).
The easiest way to do this would be to bend the light waves around the object rather than masking any of light waves. For the simplest case (a fixed view angle), this can be done with 4 standard/boring mirrors.
Member since:
2005-07-22
>> Wouldn't that make the object look black?
No, because the lenses would bend the light around the object, so in its place there will be a small distortion, that will make the object invisible as the backgound pattern will repeat over it. You could however be able to see the distortion if the pattern is smaller than the item masked.
Member since:
2006-04-05
