Invisible Cloak


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#1
Share with you some news of exciting new tech

we need next generation camera to emit electron or radiation for detection of objects in the near future....because some things become invisible as light can pass through them without reflecting any. So we cannot capture them with camera anymore. Optics will become a thing of past.
 

sk.images

New Member
Dec 9, 2005
1,244
0
0
www.pbase.com
#2
The newspapre/site name, 'Pravda' translates to english as 'Truth'. Believe-it-or-not :dunno: - I won't until i see it, don't see it in this cae, with my own eyes.
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#3
From my understanding of the article, the new technology simple means that the object does not reflect any light to the viewer. I don't see how that is going to make the object invisible.:dunno:

If a object doesn't reflect any light, we will just see it as a black object. For it to be truly invisible, the object has to blend into the background ie; reflected lights from objects in the background has to pass through (or at least go round the object) to reach the viewer's eyes.

So the problem at hand is how to make light rays pass through the object, and not the scattering of light on the surface of the object.
At least that's what seem logical to me.;p
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#4
canon website has some good eduction about physics of light...hopefully we can witness some new technology breakthrough soon and survive from drastic social restructure
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#7
Prismatic said:
From my understanding of the article, the new technology simple means that the object does not reflect any light to the viewer. I don't see how that is going to make the object invisible.:dunno:

If a object doesn't reflect any light, we will just see it as a black object. For it to be truly invisible, the object has to blend into the background ie; reflected lights from objects in the background has to pass through (or at least go round the object) to reach the viewer's eyes.

So the problem at hand is how to make light rays pass through the object, and not the scattering of light on the surface of the object.
At least that's what seem logical to me.;p
we will not see a black object but we can see thing around it that reflects light. The explanation is correct. You might be confused with Black hole as there are lights around the it appears as hole.
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#8
SnakeJackal said:
we will not see a black object but we can see thing around it that reflects light. The explanation is correct. You might be confused with Black hole as there are lights around the it appears as hole.
I don't think so. When light falls on an object, it is either, reflected, absorbed or transmitted. If according to the article, the light is not reflected, then it must be either absorbed or transmitted through the object. So unless a viewer can see the light rays from the things behind the object (as the light is transmitted through the object), it means the object is absorbing all the light. So we will see it as a black object against a background.

Granted that according to the technology, we won't be able to 'see' it in a technical sense, since no light rays is reflected from the object.But it will not be invisible as in see-thru because it's still blocking out light rays from the background.
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#9
this techniques require spherical/cylindrical shape where light pass through the objects. This resembles the UFO shapes ... we cannot see it even it is around us and motionless. But as it moves we see them. "The frequency of radiations change in moving objects, and therefore it’s impossible to keep them invisible"
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#10
Prismatic said:
So unless a viewer can see the light rays from the things behind the object (as the light is transmitted through the object), it means the object is absorbing all the light. So we will see it as a black object against a background.
Possibly the object absorb the light but relay it on the structure within it and release all on the other side without any deviation/distortion and even same amount of energy. Thus it will still appear invisible.
 

kitkat

New Member
Mar 5, 2005
568
0
0
#11
SnakeJackal said:
Possibly the object absorb the light but relay it on the structure within it and release all on the other side without any deviation/distortion and even same amount of energy. Thus it will still appear invisible.

Currently that is not possible. You need a material that is able to calculate the ever changing of frequency of light (reflected and refracted) from all angles. For plasmons to appear "invisble" , you need to have particles that is able to manipulate the "individual" wavelenght (of visbile spectrum of light wavelehgt). Etc, now we have lead sulfide (PbS) nanocrystals that is able to make certain wavelength - infra red, invisible, but not all wavelength.

It is most likely that "patent" as indicated in the article, will make an object less visible (etc from radar), rather than totally invisible. We are moving into that, however, we are still generations away from there. I have serious doubt on the article patent's claim.

I think this discussion should be under "Kopitiam"
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#12
To be sure, I'm not going dispute the authencity of the article, since it's impossible and pointless anyway. But I would say, take it with a bit of salt. For a few reasons, some aspect of the article is slightly questionable.
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#14
kitkat said:
Currently that is not possible. You need a material that is able to calculate the ever changing of frequency of light (reflected and refracted) from all angles.
you are right. I guess the method depends on the intensity of light and cannot completely filter off 100% light spectrum. The method is only able to hide motionless objects and poosibly reduce the visibility to very low.

Actually we have already a material that is invisible. Glass can consider as almost invisible, isn't it?
 

yanyewkay

Senior Member
Sep 22, 2004
3,924
0
0
Cons digger.
#15
SnakeJackal said:
Possibly the object absorb the light but relay it on the structure within it and release all on the other side without any deviation/distortion and even same amount of energy. Thus it will still appear invisible.
you must be joking. I haven't heard of how applying a coating on an object can allow the photons to channel (tunnel) thru the object relaying info from behind to front.

I agree with primatic more. it'll be like if i had a ball coated with that 'thingy' it should look like this
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#17
Slivester said:
Pravda was the Communist Party of USSR's catalyst paper, used to be state-controlled, sort of a propaganda tool.
The catalyst really can stir up things :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie: the impact is really strong
 

Jun 25, 2005
396
0
0
www.geocities.com
#18
yanyewkay said:
you must be joking. I haven't heard of how applying a coating on an object can allow the photons to channel (tunnel) thru the object relaying info from behind to front.

I agree with primatic more. it'll be like if i had a ball coated with that 'thingy' it should look like this
I think it is hard for even proffessional to give good explanation. There is a condition for the coating to works as explain in the articles. You cannot just coat any object anyhow.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom