AMAZING PHOTO! scientists closer to creating invisibility cloak
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
Okay... I can see how this would work, using that method... however... what about this...
If light were being redirected in many directions/ways, to create a given illusion... couldn't that also, possibly create MULTIPLE shadows, at various end points of light distribution?
If light were being redirected in many directions/ways, to create a given illusion... couldn't that also, possibly create MULTIPLE shadows, at various end points of light distribution?
If properly applied, there should be no shadows except for the darkness inside the cloak's surface area. I suddenly get a humorous mental image of having a robotic bird with camera eyes attached to the top of the craft for looking out of.
^^
You don't have to block all wavelengths of light, just the visible ones. You could still see in the infrared for example like the Predator
Imaging in the future a solider putting on a night-vision set and seeing the "eyes" of otherwise invisible enemy soldiers staring at him. Now that would be creepy lol.
You don't have to block all wavelengths of light, just the visible ones. You could still see in the infrared for example like the Predator
Imaging in the future a solider putting on a night-vision set and seeing the "eyes" of otherwise invisible enemy soldiers staring at him. Now that would be creepy lol.
Perhaps the more realistic and also more effective way of doing it would be to sense all incoming photons with a sensory surface on one side of the object, then reproduce them all with a projector on the other side.
That way, the incoming radiation could be analyzed to one's heart's content. Also, rerouting the light around the object would result in a time delay which would give a telltale phase shift vis-á-vis the surrounding light; the sense-and-project method could eliminate that, by projecting photons that have been subtly altered so as to match the phase of a fictional photon that would have gone straight through.
Such a system would naturally have a bit of a time lag (inherent in the onboard analysis and projection systems) that would be as telltale as the phase shift of the perfect rerouter. But against semi-static backgrounds, the reprojector would still give better camouflage when the opponent has advanced sensing devices rather than just Mk I eyeballs.
Said advanced opponent would of course be watching at multiple wavelengths, rather than just getting phase information out of optical data. Fortunately, few sensors outside the broad optical range (IR, visual, UV) can be made truly "imaging" in terms of resolution - the long-wavelength end inherently so, the short end due to current and projected technology limitations. So it would suffice to have a projector capable of IR through UV plus some radio downrange from that, then a relatively diffuse X-ray and gamma source (intensity control only) to fool those sensors, and never mind longwave radio when you cannot see the object at those wavelengths regardless of whether it's cloaked or not.
Timo Saloniemi
That way, the incoming radiation could be analyzed to one's heart's content. Also, rerouting the light around the object would result in a time delay which would give a telltale phase shift vis-á-vis the surrounding light; the sense-and-project method could eliminate that, by projecting photons that have been subtly altered so as to match the phase of a fictional photon that would have gone straight through.
Such a system would naturally have a bit of a time lag (inherent in the onboard analysis and projection systems) that would be as telltale as the phase shift of the perfect rerouter. But against semi-static backgrounds, the reprojector would still give better camouflage when the opponent has advanced sensing devices rather than just Mk I eyeballs.
Said advanced opponent would of course be watching at multiple wavelengths, rather than just getting phase information out of optical data. Fortunately, few sensors outside the broad optical range (IR, visual, UV) can be made truly "imaging" in terms of resolution - the long-wavelength end inherently so, the short end due to current and projected technology limitations. So it would suffice to have a projector capable of IR through UV plus some radio downrange from that, then a relatively diffuse X-ray and gamma source (intensity control only) to fool those sensors, and never mind longwave radio when you cannot see the object at those wavelengths regardless of whether it's cloaked or not.
Timo Saloniemi
The projector would need to be able to produce a practically infinite resolution image, and at an incredible brightness or darkness. The time delay of rerouting the photons around the cloaked object would be almost immeasurable since they would still be traveling at the speed of, well. . . light. When you're talking 300 million m per second, a few dozen, or even a few hundred feet of 'rerouting' would be irrelevant. the object would need to be HUGE for anyone with even perfect vision (and looking for it) to be able to notice it. (About 1/100 of a light second would be my guess.)
The same feat would have to be achieved by the light-bender. Current and projected systems can bend only a very narrow range of wavelengths, and don't do that at particularly high resolution. They are also limited in the intensity they can handle.
I trust the Invisible Man would have a broad selection of tricks in his sleeves. For example, the B-2 reputedly uses coloring agents that are injected to the contrails when the bomber has to fly at altitudes where those form. A stealthy surface vessel might try and tow a counterwave generator to minimize her wake; a ground vehicle might have elaborate brushes and soil dispensers to hide its tracks. If hovering in rain were an expected role for a stealthy vehicle, a set of water nozzles would no doubt be introduced...
In any case, we are only talking "partial invisibility", and in any environment other than the vacuum of space it's going to be a rather small part. The light-bending systems spoken of here would be optimal for the space environment where omnidirectional invisibility (that is, portraying of the background distant starfield and the very occasional sun or planet in place of the vehicle no matter where it's viewed from) at standstill and motion alike is required; on ground, a chameleon camo tarpaulin would probably be the more useful approach, and at sea, going underwater or airborne would be far more effective than trying out trickery at the surface.
Timo Saloniemi
Well, the thing is... with a cloak, it is only effective to cause YOU not to see an object... which means, before you bend the light for the cloak, you (or more specifically, the cloak itself), would have to know where YOUR line of sight is, or else, the light bending would not be truly effective.
And, even a light-cloaked object would still give off heat, so night-vision would be able to pick up a cloaked object.
And, even a light-cloaked object would still give off heat, so night-vision would be able to pick up a cloaked object.
Nope. The method we're talking about is omnidirectional. There is no 'aiming' of the rerouted photons to any particular viewer. They come out on the other side where the would have originally traveled, just slightly delayed.
Great, now we're two steps closer to peaking in the women's changing room and killing people better -- and neither one is accepted by society!
Got it!
See? Damn thing works well!
And, mods, I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I AM hosting the picture.
See? Damn thing works well!
And, mods, I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I AM hosting the picture.
Got it!
See? Damn thing works well!
And, mods, I wanted to make it perfectly clear that I AM hosting the picture.
THAT'S AMAZING!!! I CAN'T SEE A THING!!! IT WORKS!!!
when I first saw the article there WAS a cool picture with it.
Believe me
Believe me
