Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Closer To Invisibility Cloak

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the excellent-for-parties dept.

The Military 308

Aviran was one of many readers to submit news of a just-announced development in the ongoing quest to develop a working invisibility cloak, writing: "Scientists say they are a step closer to developing materials that could render people and objects invisible. Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects. Previously, they only have been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects" Reader bensafrickingenius adds a link to coverage at the Times Online, and notes that "the world's two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week." Tjeerd adds a link to a Reuters' story carried by Scientific American.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I would have claimed 1st (5, Funny)

nullCRC (320940) | about 6 years ago | (#24554943)

I would have claimed 1st, but someone appears to be cloaked.

Re:I would have claimed 1st (1, Offtopic)

martin_henry (1032656) | about 6 years ago | (#24555049)

His name is Nathaniel Teager. []

Re:I would have claimed 1st (5, Funny)

stainlesssteelpat (905359) | about 6 years ago | (#24555591)

His name was Robert Paulson. []

There fixed that for you.

I do claim 1st (0)

SL Baur (19540) | about 6 years ago | (#24555665)

I do claim firat post. I wrote about this in 1980 (I hope I still have the manuscript and rejection slip to prove it). I sure hope there isn't a patent involved.

Currently under "Cliche Movie Plot" (CPM) testing (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#24554953)

The lead engineer on the project added "Our engineers are currently testing the cloak extensively in women's locker rooms, on their speeding cars, to sneak into class late, to hide from bumbling crooks, and in other comic scenarios which have, to date, only been seen in lame movies. Our hope is to perfect the technology to the point where an engineer can sneak up on the bully that tormented him in high school and kick him in the testicles." After detailing the particulars of the complex optic engineering of the project, he concluded with "The day is now in sight where we will have a cloaking device truly worthy of an early-90's Kirk Cameron movie--or, God willing, even a Michael J. Fox made-for-TV movie from the 80's."

Re:Currently under "Cliche Movie Plot" (CPM) testi (1)

b4upoo (166390) | about 6 years ago | (#24555547)

I'd like to visit a few banks wearing this gizmo.

correction: (5, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 6 years ago | (#24554961)

Scientists closer to fulfilling fantasy of hiding in girl's locker room.

Re:correction: (5, Funny)

mikkelm (1000451) | about 6 years ago | (#24555027)

The fact that this is modded insightful is frightening in itself.

Re:correction: (3, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 years ago | (#24555129)

Better than "+1 Hot".

Re:correction: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555355)

Since you pointed that out, things have gotten more interesting. Once it gets to be informative, every I will be on comment.

arms race (5, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | about 6 years ago | (#24555135)

And the locker room will be full of girls wearing invisibility cloaks.

Re:arms race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555171)

Only if the cloaks have built-in air filters to remove odors.

Pictures? (5, Funny)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | about 6 years ago | (#24554965)

At first I was going to complain about the lack of pictures, but then I realized they wouldn't be too revealing anyway.

Re:Pictures? (4, Funny)

gehrehmee (16338) | about 6 years ago | (#24555133)

Theregister has a pretty nice artist's impression of the cloak []

Re:Hilarious (1)

Republican Gun (1174953) | about 6 years ago | (#24555351)

"Journalist's impression of troops equipped with the new cloaking technology on exercise" That was so funny!

Re:Pictures? (5, Funny)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | about 6 years ago | (#24555857)

I cant see them.. :D

Has it occured to anyone that once you take the cloak off you had better not set it down?

It really adds a whole new level to losing your keys if you set the cloak on them by mistake.

On a brighter note voyeurism just got easier.. :D

Re:Pictures? (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 6 years ago | (#24555387)

Don't forget the film demonstration:

This is Mr Lambert of Lewton. He cannot be seen. Mr Lambert, will you remove your invisibility cloak please? (gunshot and scream)
This demonstrates the value of not being seen.

Re:Pictures? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | about 6 years ago | (#24555445)

Picture? Here ya go -

I can also do a polar bear in a snowstorm -

*whew* I'm exhausted. That'll be $50 please.

Re:Pictures? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24555799)

Here ya go (hands you a blank slip of paper)... what, don't look at me like that. It's printed in invisible ink.

Re:Pictures? (1)

Greenmoon (656273) | about 6 years ago | (#24555593)

Augghh!! That was going to be my joke! Damn you!!! Well done.

Science writing at its finest (5, Funny)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | about 6 years ago | (#24554967)

Very thin 2D objects eh? Nice.

Re:Science writing at its finest (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 6 years ago | (#24554983)

It has trouble with very thick 2D objects.

Re:Science writing at its finest (1)

PJCRP (1314653) | about 6 years ago | (#24555067)

Heaven forbid the troubles it might encounter with the latter :o

Re:Science writing at its finest (2, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#24555265)

What about very short but thick 2D objects?

Re:Science writing at its finest (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 6 years ago | (#24555297)

As long as they aren't very long.

Re:A better title for the article (1)

antirelic (1030688) | about 6 years ago | (#24555557)

Considering the relationship between Berkley California and the Military, I dont know why UoB keeps making these types of break throughs. If UoB fashioned itself as a "rape victim" and cast the military as "the rapist" (not therapist) this could be called:

"Rape victim makes a better date rape drug."

If your following along this far, FSM bless you.

Re:Science writing at its finest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555679)

Very small rocks, a church and why not... a duck!

And then... (4, Informative)

PJCRP (1314653) | about 6 years ago | (#24554969)

Re:And then... (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | about 6 years ago | (#24555283)

If anything, it will be easy to spot, as humans pick out reflections and flashes, meaning that this would probably draw more attention than good camouflage.

I dunno.. seems pretty effective in UT.

MIT (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 6 years ago | (#24554977)

I thought I remember reading on Slashdot how some MIT guys already did a proof-of-concept on this a while back.

Re:MIT (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555331)

Yeah, they probably turned out the lights. See? Ha! no you don't! We're MIT! Take that you Stanford weenies!

Re:MIT (2, Interesting)

T3Tech (1306739) | about 6 years ago | (#24555333)

I seem to recall seeing something as well. Though I've long figured that in certain applications the use of fiber optics could do a pretty good job of making something at least really, really hard to see that it was there.

Re:MIT (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24555407)

Fibre optics would only work in one direction.

Apparently Not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555491)

I seem to recall seeing something as well.

If you saw something, it wasn't much of a proof of concept, was it?

INB4 (-1, Troll)

Hackerlish (1308763) | about 6 years ago | (#24554985)

Yes. Invisibility will greatly aid us in the fight against Cancer...

Re:INB4 (1, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 6 years ago | (#24555161)

Oh, sweet Jesus - what if cancer gets this technology and can hide from us?

And, even more off-topic... it's a damn good thing that Bin Laden didn't have this technology or we would have never found him.

War Application (3, Interesting)

s31523 (926314) | about 6 years ago | (#24555005)

An obvious use will be from a military aspect. I wonder about how this technology will be received by various insurgents in our numerous war campaigns. Imagine a small troop deployment vanishing and reappearing in front of a goat-herder turned freedom fighter. I don't know if he would cut-n-run or stand fast to fight the "demons"...

Re:War Application (5, Informative)

IceMonkiesForSenate (1316211) | about 6 years ago | (#24555103)

I don't really see many applications for war unless they can allow the person underneath the cloak to see. That's one of the drawbacks to being invisible, since light goes around the cloak no light reaches the invisible person's eyes, and thus the person cannot see. However, I could see someone under fire activating the cloak, and just laying low for a while

Re:War Application (2, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | about 6 years ago | (#24555293)

I really hope that our wars aren't fought like Crysis in the future. The self-destruct feature probably makes sense for military use (and the idea of jumping fifty feet is pretty awesome), but I'd rather not deal with the frozen aliens.

Re:War Application (4, Interesting)

Swizec (978239) | about 6 years ago | (#24555367)

Depending on what wavelengths of light it works on you could still see out with IR goggles or some other fancy gizmo like perhaps radar.

Re:War Application (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 6 years ago | (#24555747)

You won't need anything so fancy to see their footprints or tire tracks.

Re:War Application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555797)

Yep, I'd bet simple sonar,radar or sound wave device, such as found in some cameras, etc. would probably detect the 'invisible' object, etc. If the device only bends visible wavelengths (i.e. 400 to 700 nanometers), anything else would still 'see' the object.

Re:War Application (1)

sskagent (1170913) | about 6 years ago | (#24555523)

This could be used on buildings. The building could use another uncloaked building with cameras on it, or even satellite footage, for an outside view. Good way to hide missile silos.

Re:War Application (2, Interesting)

Redfeather (1033680) | about 6 years ago | (#24555873)

Funny, I went to architecture as well - but non-military. Imagine an architect's delight when he can suddenly make completely invisible all kinds of inaccessible, support-bearing structures. Floating houses, anyone? Shore up the leaning tower permanently?

Re:War Application (1)

kd5zex (1030436) | about 6 years ago | (#24555569)

Until someone steps on said low layer...

I disagree... (1)

Joseph Hayes (982018) | about 6 years ago | (#24555401)

...on the contrary my good man. This is what most of us have dreamed of since we were 13, and I intend to use it for just that purpose!

Re:I disagree... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24555429)

What exactly do you have against goats, their herders, and freedom fighters (whether rightly or wrongly called such)?

Re:I disagree... (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | about 6 years ago | (#24555439)

Maybe you developed late. When I was 13, if I could have turned invisible, I would have gone straight to the girls' locker room.

Nature's Abstract (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 6 years ago | (#24555011)

"the world's two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, are expected to report the results this week."

You can find the Nature abstract here [] . And if you have a subscription, you can read the full research and see the data they collected from experiments.

According to the Ars Technica article on this [] , the Science link will be here [] .

There seems to be a few more papers and articles on this but if you're interested you can search for optical metamaterials with negative refractive indexes.

really? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555015)

if i can't see it, i can believe it

enage cloaking device (5, Interesting)

dellcom (1213558) | about 6 years ago | (#24555029)

"His cloak is perfect... no tachyon emissions, no residual antiprotons." on a serious note, would this not be vulnerable to infra-red cameras?

Re:enage cloaking device (5, Interesting)

daveatneowindotnet (1309197) | about 6 years ago | (#24555181)

Considering TFA says they are bending light to achieve this, I don't see why infrared light would not be effected the same a visual light. What I find to be really interesting is what this could allow us to do with non-visual light (microwaves, radio, etc.)

Re:enage cloaking device (4, Insightful)

icegreentea (974342) | about 6 years ago | (#24555241)

Well, the body radiates heat. Even if your suit could bend those, its going to end up heating up to skin temperature. Once that happens, its all over. It can bend IR where ever it wants, but since IR from a human body is relativity uniform to begin with (and you don't need detail to see a human figure heat blur on a IR sensor), you're still going to get a human shaped object on your IR sensors.

Re:enage cloaking device (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | about 6 years ago | (#24555481)

Then you could just use some kind of thermal insulation. At least it would take longer for it to heat up. Or carry ice with you :p.

Re:enage cloaking device (1)

icegreentea (974342) | about 6 years ago | (#24555865)

Well, insulation will rapidly cause the person wearing it to pass out. and possibly die.

Re:enage cloaking device (2, Interesting)

dellcom (1213558) | about 6 years ago | (#24555263)

If the material is 'bending the light' around the object then the IR would be bent with it, however if the object the material is covering is generating heat, then the cloak material would absorb that heat and emit it as IR radiation. From what the article says I do not see how it can cloak that.

Re:enage cloaking device (3, Informative)

bmajik (96670) | about 6 years ago | (#24555847)

I had to look up Snell's law quick, which doesn't mention wavelength as being a factor (I thought that the refective effects might vary according to wavelength), but then i noticed this at the bottom:

In many wave-propagation media, wave velocity changes with frequency or wavelength of the waves; this is true of light propagation in most transparent substances other than a vacuum. These media are called dispersive. The result is that the angles determined by Snell's law also depend on frequency or wavelength, so that a ray of mixed wavelengths, such as white light, will spread or disperse. Such dispersion of light in glass or water underlies the origin of rainbows, in which different wavelengths appear as different colors.

In optical instruments, dispersion leads to chromatic aberration, a color-dependent blurring that sometimes is the resolution-limiting effect. This was especially true in refracting telescopes, before the invention of achromatic objective lenses.'s_law [] []

I would guess that any optical camoflauge technique has a function of input wavelength vs. camoflauge effectiveness, and that wavelenghths sufficiently on either side of "visible" would likely fall off of the effectiveness plateau.

Re:enage cloaking device (3, Interesting)

KenRH (265139) | about 6 years ago | (#24555375)

would this not be vulnerable to infra-red cameras?

First we need to rembeer that light, infra-red, ultra violet and radar (among others) are just different wavelengths of electromagnetic waves. So the prisiple is the same but one "cloack" technology may be effective for some wavelengts but not others.

I'm just going to call it all emw for now.

To be invisible one need to take care of four things.

1. Not reflecting any emw from any emw-source to the sensor/observer.
2. Not to emit any emw to the sensor/observer
3. Not create a shadow in the emw emitded by the backgroud against the sensor/observer
4. Not create a shadow in the emw emitded towards a surface in a way changing the emw the surface reflects/emits towards the sensor/observer

So to ansver your question to be efective against infra-red cameras the technology must be effective guiding emw around in the infrared spectrum and one must somehow hide ones own infrared signature

Re:enage cloaking device (1)

dellcom (1213558) | about 6 years ago | (#24555505)

ok number 2 on your list is exactly what i am referring too. And IMO that would be the biggest challenge to effectively hide. Most likely insulation could be used, but again there would have a to be a way to vent that heat. But this technology is still a big leap and would provide invaluable protection on a battlefield, or for police. Now if this can "cloak" IR energy then this could be used for insulation for fire fighters or any object that needs protection from heat..

Old "news". Nothing to see here.... (5, Insightful)

gardyloo (512791) | about 6 years ago | (#24555041)

This was posted in Pharyngula yesterday. The usual prescient commenters noted that nowhere on the researchers' pages was there active speculation about an "invisibility cloak", and it was probably just some reporters going wacky over the possibilities. []

Re:Old "news". Nothing to see here.... (3, Informative)

icegreentea (974342) | about 6 years ago | (#24555187)

One day isn't that bad. I wouldn't call it old. Also, previous developments on meta materials (see the Microwave ones), have pretty much been accepted as a possible first step towards cloaks. The Scientific America article has one of the researchers saying:

"We are not actually cloaking anything," Valentine said in a telephone interview. "I don't think we have to worry about invisible people walking around any time soon. To be honest, we are just at the beginning of doing anything like that."

So, while they aren't saying 'this will become an invisibility cloak', to say that there is no active speculation about applying visible light metamaterials as a cloak is wrong. Article also ends with comment on how these would make superior lens for microscopes.

Re:Old "news". Nothing to see here.... (1)

gardyloo (512791) | about 6 years ago | (#24555457)

You're right -- I was too hyperbolic in my skepticism. I'm just tired of the wild speculations, just about every year since Pendry et. al started up Veselago's prognotication in earnest using metamaterials. The press has a field day several times a year, and the scientists either haven't said anything serious about cloaking technology, or they're feeding the speculation just for fun. It's been done to death.

Re:Old "news". Nothing to see here.... (1)

hubie (108345) | about 6 years ago | (#24555785)

There probably isn't much speculation amongst the scientists and engineers about applying it as an invisibility cloak (at least outside of the context of free publicity and pitching for Congressional pork money) because it most likely would not be effective, at least in the sense most of the breathless SF fanboys around here think. I don't think that you'll be able to construct something that can bend a continuous spectrum, such as sunlight. Single frequencies, sure. The Nature abstract mentions a "broad spectral range," but I have to get on a computer that has access to the article to see what they are talking about. Let's say it works in the red region, you'll still see your object well in the blue.

There are also a lot of optical effect issues with using a flexible material that is draped around an object resulting in curved surfaces. This wouldn't make anything disappear, even if the material worked over all wavelengths, because you'd end up with something that looked real funky depending on the environment in which it was located.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be useful camouflage applications, but we're not talking about the kind of thing Frodo goes around wearing.

Cloak of Invisibility (1, Funny)

egyptiankarim (765774) | about 6 years ago | (#24555055)

Now if they could only find away to modify the HP of my Intimidating Shout... :)

Re:Cloak of Invisibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555113)

Stop screaming like a girl

Re:Cloak of Invisibility (1)

Lyrael (1196443) | about 6 years ago | (#24555397)

Modify the health of your fear? o.O

Look over there, a cloaked eye-catching headline (5, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 6 years ago | (#24555083)

This story has popped up here and there in the press today, but when I actually RTFA the actual breakthrough is negative refractive index materials, in the visible spectrum.
The application is not invisible tanks and infantry, but microscopy.

See here for photoshopped image that enhances the misleading headline []

Re:Look over there, a cloaked eye-catching headlin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555395)

That's not actually photoshopped, its for a different technology where they can project "3D" images onto a surface and it will appear to be far away. Lots of tiny glass beads and whatnot. If i drape you in that stuff and take a projector and project a car onto you, if there is the same car behind you, you will be camoflaged. The only downside is that you need all of these projectors and whatnot to project a background image.
Think Solid Snakes octocamo meets a movie theater.

Re:Look over there, a cloaked eye-catching headlin (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | about 6 years ago | (#24555775)

Regardless of whether what you described is possible, I guarantee that picture was photoshopped. It's a very rudimentary job: just do an edge-detect on the picture of the guy and then layer it over the background picture with the correct layer mode (additive, I'm thinking).

Oh, and the New York Times' cover would have been so much cooler if they'd used this technology [] .

Re:Look over there, a cloaked eye-catching headlin (1)

Fungus King (860489) | about 6 years ago | (#24555521)

RTFA again - it's somewhat misleading, they've only said that the work brings cloaking from visible light 'a step closer'.

As far as I'm aware the only working material they've actually managed to create with these properties only has 'negative refraction' in the microwave region. I imagine cloaking in the visible region is still a long way off.

Also, I would entirely expect the military to be thoroughly interested in cloaking technology, perhaps not for tanks and infantry but being able to cloak things like surface-to-air missile launchers so the enemy can't see them from satellite imaging might be of interest (though it may be the case that these materials won't cloak from infrared as well).

Take that Filch! (1)

gooseupfront (1120847) | about 6 years ago | (#24555089)

Now all we need to do is grab an epaper display and set up a quick Marauders Map script, and then we can go anywhere we want at Hogwarts!

Imagine... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555193)

Women getting their hands on this thing, using it, and going 'does this make me look fat?'. Oh, where will it end!? *gack*

POIDH (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555247)

Pics or it didn't happen

News Flash! (2, Funny)

lolwhat (1282234) | about 6 years ago | (#24555275)

We live it 3 dimensions.So who cares if they can cloak 2d objects. lol

Re:News Flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555435)

String theory much?

Re:News Flash! (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | about 6 years ago | (#24555471)

Thanks, no one thought of that. The Nobel prize is on its way.

Re:News Flash! (1)

trongey (21550) | about 6 years ago | (#24555841)

Really. All you have to do to hide a 2d object is keep the edge pointed at the observer. Well, the very thin ones anyway. I don't know how well that would work with a thick one.

Woot! (4, Funny)

g0dsp33d (849253) | about 6 years ago | (#24555289)

Sign me up for a blessed +5 waterproof one.

Oh lord (0, Redundant)

ale_ryu (1102077) | about 6 years ago | (#24555339)

Professor Snape won't be too happy to hear this :P

I can't find it (1)

iXiXi (659985) | about 6 years ago | (#24555377)

I wanted to cloak and go sneak into a movie.. but I have been looking for the dang thing for hours. Can't remember where I left it. Didn't match my shoes anyway. Can I get a faux fur one?

I dunno about this claim. (5, Funny)

jitterman (987991) | about 6 years ago | (#24555393)

I mean, I can see right through it.

Treaty of Algeron (1)

thepacketmaster (574632) | about 6 years ago | (#24555419)

Thank goodness we're too soon for the Treaty of Algeron, so we can develop all the cloaking technology we want. Take that, Romulans!

very thin 2D object (2, Funny)

Evildonald (983517) | about 6 years ago | (#24555475)

Aren't ALL 2 dimensional objects very thin? In fact, wouldn't they have a 0 thickness?

Any use as solar shielding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555477)

I'm wondering if this stuff might be of any use in space, as a kind of solar shield...

I realize it might not do much against the various forms of particle radiation, but against purely electro-magnetic radiation? Would it have any advantages over existing materials used for this purpose?

WTF is a thin two-dimensional object? (1)

Spinlock_1977 (777598) | about 6 years ago | (#24555485)

"thin two-dimensional objects" - hmmm. My oxymoron detector is going off!

Re:WTF is a thin two-dimensional object? (1)

BlackCobra43 (596714) | about 6 years ago | (#24555581)

I think you mean your pleonasm detector. There's nothing impossible about thin 2d - it's pretty much the ultimate expression of thin!

Re:WTF is a thin two-dimensional object? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555623)

I think a *very* thin two dimensional object would be a line (segment).

I can see the use for one of these (3, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | about 6 years ago | (#24555501)

To get my laptop past US customs without having it 'confiscated'...

Seriously though - how long do you think until any tech like this is restricted to military use only ? If you actually do achieve human-level visible-spectrum invisibility (even if you have to move very slowly to avoid being caught by reflection shifts and such and have to avoid anybody with IR) - it will be banned for civilian use like a shot. The people who want it for 'hunting purposes' will kick up a fuss but we couldn't take the risk of an invisible man sneaking into the white house and farting on the president's desk now could we ?

Okay... I tried to become serious but I failed... let's try this again:
Considering the real security implications of true invisibility from the naked eye - do you think it will be banned/restricted ? Do you think it SHOULD be banned or restricted ?

Not quite (0)

inviolet (797804) | about 6 years ago | (#24555513)

This technology could make an invisible cloak, not an invisibility cloak. You could see right through the cloak, at the person wearing it.

A true invisibility cloak must gather every incident photon and then re-emit it out the other side of the cloak as if it had passed through the wearer. That would require a highly magical system of fiberoptic cables (currently impossible), or else require measuring both the velocity and position of each photon (forever possible).

It would also have to do something with all the photons being emitted by the wearer, particularly the infrared photons (heat rays).

Invisibility cloak (5, Funny)

MouseR (3264) | about 6 years ago | (#24555519)

I'll believe it when I see it.

New world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555559)

Ummm does anyone else see privacy as an issue? Government and new porn sites popping up.

Ethical implications (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555573)

Scientists are not allowed to publish the same discovery in two different scientific journals. It seems that they will publisdh their findinmgs almost simultaneously both in Science and Nature. It seems to be unethical.

Crap (1, Redundant)

proxy318 (944196) | about 6 years ago | (#24555627)

Now where did I put that invisibility cloak? I know I set it down around here someplace...

First - talk about "Dup, dup, dup, Dup of Earl... (0, Redundant)

mmell (832646) | about 6 years ago | (#24555669)

Old stuff. The technology is still limited to microwaves in a narrow bandwidth.

Second, when did they ever experiment with two-dimensional objects? For that matter, where did they get two-dimensional objects? I'd thought our Universe rated N=3 for calculations involving Hilbert space (Calabi-Yau space)?

Actually it was invented several months ago... (4, Funny)

jpellino (202698) | about 6 years ago | (#24555753)

now they just can't find the blasted thing.

A step closer (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 6 years ago | (#24555815)

...out of how many?

Perhaps it's grant renewal time...


Scientists Closer To Invisibility Cloak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24555837)

how do they know???

Dyson sphere? (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | about 6 years ago | (#24555853)

Now we know where all that matter is...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>