Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th May 2006 16:00 UTC
Geek stuff, sci-fi... 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."
Order by: Score:
so?
by rockwell on Thu 4th May 2006 16:07 UTC
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

//superlenses placed very close to a small object //

so ... they could cloak very small objects ... that are hard to see anyway?

Whee.

Wake me when they can cloak an aircraft carrier.

Reply Score: 4

RE: so?
by Zoidberg on Thu 4th May 2006 16:21 UTC in reply to "so?"
Zoidberg Member since:
2006-02-11

so ... they could cloak very small objects ... that are hard to see anyway?

By putting a huge lens in front of it no less. Sorry but I don't remember that from Star Trek. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: so?
by Tuishimi on Thu 4th May 2006 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE: so?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yes! That's how they always knew there was a cloaked romulan or klingon ship in the vicinity...

Captain, there is a gigantic lens off the port bow.

Go to red alert Mr. Spock, there must be a klingon ship nearby!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: so?
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 4th May 2006 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE: so?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

We do not have the tech yet, but it is physically possible to generate lensing effects using a generated force (look at eh lensing effect of gravity)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: so?
by JulianFietkau on Thu 4th May 2006 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: so?"
JulianFietkau 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)?

Reply Score: 1

RE: so?
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 4th May 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "so?"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

small by proportion.

Reply Score: 1

Just have to say..
by ma_d on Thu 4th May 2006 16:41 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

What does this have to do with operating systems?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Just have to say..
by Ronald Vos on Thu 4th May 2006 16:58 UTC in reply to "Just have to say.."
Ronald Vos Member since:
2005-07-06

Wannabeslashdotism ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Just have to say..
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th May 2006 17:07 UTC in reply to "Just have to say.."
Thom_Holwerda 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

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Just have to say..
by tommybear on Thu 4th May 2006 17:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just have to say.."
tommybear Member since:
2005-12-15

This has nothing to do with computing... unless you are using a computer to calculate the waves...

So why is this on OS News again?

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Just have to say..
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 4th May 2006 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Just have to say.."
Thom_Holwerda 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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Just have to say..
by tommybear on Fri 5th May 2006 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just have to say.."
tommybear 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.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Just have to say..
by Zoidberg on Fri 5th May 2006 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just have to say.."
Zoidberg 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

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Just have to say..
by hobgoblin on Fri 5th May 2006 07:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Just have to say.."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

only when he is replying to the same question for the X+1th time...

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Just have to say..
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th May 2006 07:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Just have to say.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

only when he is replying to the same question for the X+1th time...

Thank you ;) .

Reply Score: 5

RE[8]: Just have to say..
by hobgoblin on Fri 5th May 2006 09:50 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Just have to say.."
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

not a problem.

alltho i think the formula would have been more correct if it was X = X + 1 inside a loop ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Just have to say..
by vitae on Thu 4th May 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Just have to say.."
vitae 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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Just have to say..
by elsewhere on Thu 4th May 2006 21:12 UTC in reply to "Just have to say.."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

What does this have to do with operating systems?

Because now that it's been officially discovered, Gentoo will likely have an eBuild for this any day now.

Reply Score: 5

Interesting Developments
by Bajan on Thu 4th May 2006 16:42 UTC
Bajan
Member since:
2006-01-05

This is some exciting news.Earlier this year a scientist predicted human time travel could be possible this century and now this.

Reply Score: 1

Hmmm
by bbell on Thu 4th May 2006 17:06 UTC
bbell
Member since:
2006-05-04

Can I fire photon torpedoes with the cloak on?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Hmmm
by segedunum on Thu 4th May 2006 19:09 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Can I fire photon torpedoes with the cloak on?

Only if you're willing to risk detection by ionised gas.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Hmmm
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 4th May 2006 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmmm"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

umm... the photon torpedos did not create an ionizing gas, it was their impulse engine exhaust.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Hmmm
by Tuishimi on Thu 4th May 2006 19:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Ouch! Score 1 for the ST fan. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Hmmm
by encia on Thu 4th May 2006 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmmm"
encia Member since:
2005-11-16

Raction from anti-matter/matter produces ionizing particles e.g. high frequency photon particles.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmmm
by Tuishimi on Thu 4th May 2006 19:19 UTC in reply to "Hmmm"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

No. The lens will be in the way!

Reply Score: 4

correction
by JackSmack on Thu 4th May 2006 17:21 UTC
JackSmack
Member since:
2006-05-01

Unless i am mistaken this is the 28474674688376th time you have said it! Get it right next time Thom! ;)

Not sure this is really even computing related though but I will suck up and say it is anyway...

Reply Score: 1

RE: correction
by riha on Fri 5th May 2006 11:03 UTC in reply to "correction"
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

Well, these superlenses as you can read can be used in future DVD/CD/whatever-format reaaders/writers for example.

As said in article, everything that has to do with light and/or lenses will benefit from these lenses.


So go another place and gag, please.

Reply Score: 1

Uh oh
by peejay on Thu 4th May 2006 17:30 UTC
peejay
Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't watch Star Trek. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uh oh
by lopisaur on Thu 4th May 2006 18:03 UTC in reply to "Uh oh"
lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

Yeah, techies are not all trekkies! (The implication actually offends me ;-) )

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Uh oh
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 4th May 2006 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh oh"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

ok, so use another series... like Stargate SG-1

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Uh oh
by Wintermute on Thu 4th May 2006 19:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Uh oh"
Wintermute Member since:
2005-07-30

um, not all techies enjoy series in general...

:), I did enjoy 2001: A Space Odyssey though

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uh oh
by Tuishimi on Thu 4th May 2006 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh oh"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Geek-lite? ;)

Reply Score: 2

Cloacking
by vasper on Thu 4th May 2006 19:34 UTC
vasper
Member since:
2005-07-22

And who will cloak the giant superlense?

As for stargate, I think you mean Stargate Atlantis. SG-1 doesn't have cloaks.

Edited 2006-05-04 19:37

Reply Score: 1

Invisibility
by smitty on Thu 4th May 2006 23:06 UTC
smitty
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.

Reply Score: 1

A small point
by chuck on Fri 5th May 2006 03:35 UTC
chuck
Member since:
2006-03-20

Graeme Milton is a mathematician, not a physicist.

Reply Score: 1

Noise canceling headphones ...
by WorknMan on Fri 5th May 2006 04:17 UTC
WorknMan
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.

Reply Score: 1

Cloaking my PC
by ArcadeFX on Fri 5th May 2006 12:01 UTC
ArcadeFX
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>

Reply Score: 1

Um...
by Brendan on Fri 5th May 2006 14:51 UTC
Brendan
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.

Reply Score: 1

Re: Um...
by vasper on Fri 5th May 2006 19:28 UTC
vasper
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.

Reply Score: 1

Wave cancellation
by lilsirecho on Sat 6th May 2006 02:50 UTC
lilsirecho
Member since:
2006-04-05

Phase cancellation can only be accomplished at a single frequency and there can be no variations in transmission through lenses( ie, phase shift distortion, aberration, and impurities). Not a good prospect for "cloaking" anything!

Reply Score: 1