Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

How to Become Invisible

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the first-paint-yourself-with-invisible-paint dept.

336

mdm42 writes "Looks like a theoretical physicist at St. Andrews University in Scotland believes that invisibility may be possible. And its not going to be a potion or a cloak, but will come in the form of a device. " Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly than Jessica Alba.

cancel ×

336 comments

hah (-1, Offtopic)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831682)

in b4 crappy nothing to see here joke

Doesn't work (-1, Flamebait)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831690)

Put a webcam in front of you and hold a laptop behind you. Impress your friends as you appear to be "invisible!" This technology has existed for a long time in one form or another, but I simply do not see it becoming practical. If you need to get some place without anyone seeing you, learn how to utilize camo and cover while moving carefully without making too much noise. Don't rely on some super vaporware to save you.

finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831726)

If you need to get some place without anyone seeing you, learn how to utilize camo and cover while moving carefully without making too much noise.

finally all those hours playing Splinter Cell will pay off!

Re:Doesn't work (5, Informative)

andrewman327 (635952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831752)

Old news! Wired [wired.com] ran this story three years ago. The technology isn't any more advanced now than it was then. Military.com [military.com] published an extremely informative guide to invisibility last year. Much better than TFA.

As any HHGTTG fan can tell you... (5, Funny)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832014)

Well, that's because as anyone who's read Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy could tell you, they're doing it wrong. You don't need to turn something invisible, which is a horribly complicated thing and needs lots of energy. You just have to turn it into Somebody Else's Problem, in which case the human brain will just filter it out.

A. Einstien III (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15832033)

I've tried to patent this thing three times. Every time I show it to the patent office, and it disappears, I can't find the off switch and I have to go make another one...

Invisibility already exists on /. (5, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831693)

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

A story on invisibility, and /. tells me there's nothing to see.

The only invisble thing here is the editing (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831807)

these guys are worse than my assistant's ESL english teachers.

A few weeks ago she brought me her "official syllabus" and I found no less than 21 mistakes - and not simple typos, either. Mind you, this is an advanced ESL class. The teacher must have been working for slashdot.

I especially liked the paragraph which warned about checking work before handing it in - 5 mistakes, including a nice too/to swap and messed up posessive apostrophes.

Spelling nazis take note: Way too many guys who buy and sell half-million dollar airplanes as their own personal toys write like third grade drop outs.

Re:The only invisble thing here is the editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831954)

That last sentence needs some commas, or must be split up. It's not clear enough as it is.

To me, clear communication is more important than spelling.

Jessica Alba (1)

zanderredux (564003) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831694)

Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba.
Taco, you've made my day!

Re:Jessica Alba (5, Funny)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831719)

Let's be honest here, whatever you think of her acting skills, making her invisible is ill-advised.

Re:Jessica Alba (5, Funny)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831753)

Let's be honest here, whatever you think of her acting skills, making her invisible is ill-advised.

I can think of a few scenerios involving me, Jessica Alba and an invisibilty device, but none involve making *her* invisible.

Re:Jessica Alba (4, Funny)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832070)

I can think of a few scenerios involving me, Jessica Alba and an invisibilty device, but none involve making *her* invisible.

Uh-oh. Do I detect the beginnings of a new "Natalie Portman" /. meme?

Re:Jessica Alba (1)

sasdrtx (914842) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831996)

Well, at least they didn't invent magical invisible clothing, so she generally ran around naked while invisible. There are some tactile scenarios that would make that not completely ill-advised.

Remember, when Buffy became invisible, she got pretty randy...

Re:Jessica Alba (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832053)

Her suit was invisible in the movie.

Re:Jessica Alba (1)

kent, knower of all (47897) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831738)



Yeah -- Everyone knows that Linda Carter is the only "real" female superhero. :~}

Re:Jessica Alba (5, Funny)

GogglesPisano (199483) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831779)

The only part of Jessica Alba that should be invisible is her clothes.

If you want subtle acting and believable characterization, you can go watch Meryl Streep. In the meantime, I'll be watching Alba with the sound off.

Re:Jessica Alba (1)

LMacG (118321) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832065)

Leaving aside the (obvious) then/than problem, WTF does that sentence even mean?

FORGET THAT SHIT - HOW DO I SHOT WEB (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831696)


Re:FORGET THAT SHIT - HOW DO I SHOT WEB (-1, Offtopic)

Roody Blashes (975889) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831709)

gb2 /b/ idiot

How not to be seen. (5, Funny)

Vengeance (46019) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831700)

This is Mr. E.R. Bradshaw of Napier Court, Black Lion Road London SE5. He can not be seen. Now I am going to ask him to stand up. Mr. Bradshaw will you stand up please

In the distance Mr Bradshaw stands up. There is a loud gunshot as Mr Bradshaw is shot in the stomach. He crumples to the ground

This demonstrates the value of not being seen.

Re:How not to be seen. (1)

shotgunefx (239460) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831712)

LOL, wish I had some mod points+

I thought you just had to say (3, Funny)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831715)

"I'm invisible!" convincingly enough. It worked for Burt in Soap.

Whippersnappers: Look it up.

Bending light is certainly possible (3, Insightful)

PIPBoy3000 (619296) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831724)

All it takes is a suitably large gravity well. Black holes have been doing this since the dawn of time.

But seriously, all the new light bending materials I've been reading about look neat, but seem to be focused on certain wavelengths. Broad spectrum invisibility will likely be pretty tough.

Re:Bending light is certainly possible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831801)

I'd prefer to hear about the possibilities involving Jessica Alba bending.

But what about inside? (2, Interesting)

xtracto (837672) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831813)

But then I presume that the person inside the field would not be able to see a thing, if you were inside the field force you would be inside a black "universe". Interesting uh?

Re:But what about inside? (4, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831925)

Of course, if you bend all light around you, there's no light hitting your eyes. That's BTW also the main fault of the invisibility concept in movies and stories: The people get completely invisible, but they can still see just like normal. But to see like normal, the light has to be fist bent by your eye's lense, and then absorbed by your eye's retina. Which should make at least your eyes visible quite well. Of course that's no problem with magic (magic can override all laws of nature anyway), but it's clearly a problem if the invisibility shall be achieved by a physical effect.

Re:But what about inside? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15832032)

Capture light with a material that can also emit light. Display captured light to occupant, emit light on opposite side congruent with captured light. Probably possible, though very complex.

Re:Bending light is certainly possible (0, Redundant)

harrkev (623093) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831854)

The only catch that I can see if you manage to accomplish this: you would be blind. If all of the photons were routed around your body, none would be left to enter you eyes, so you would not be able to see anything. On the other hand, if you left your eyes uncovered by whatever the magic material is, people woudl be able to see a disembodied pair of eyes from the front, and who-knows-what from the back.

If some magic material were actually invented, it would probably also be detectable by checking for a magnetic or electric field. Of course, sonar would still work great.

Re:Bending light is certainly possible (2, Interesting)

tehgnome (947555) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831860)

We do movie Physics presentations at my school each semester and Fan4 was one of them last semester. The calculations were comical and we showed that for her to possess the needed gravity, she would have more mass than our planet in Alba's frame. Furthermore, she would of been attracting (with gravity) everything around her. As far as Physics, this movie was one of the worst.

This was already announced (0, Redundant)

ggzeama (886517) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831729)

Really. Not the first one.

talking to women (5, Funny)

mdmarkus (522132) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831732)

You mean there's more to invisibility than just talking to women?

Re:talking to women (4, Funny)

GMontag (42283) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831830)

Many of the women I have dated are invisible in mirrors and on film.

Side effect: loss of blood and money.

Re:talking to women (4, Funny)

binkzz (779594) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832004)

I was afraid you were going to say:

"You mean there's more to invisibility than meets the eye?"

But luckily I was wrong.

Holy crap it actually works! (1)

TheRequiem13 (978749) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831733)

I'm standing right behind you.

Finally... (5, Funny)

Bomarrow1 (903375) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831734)

I can look into a mirror...

Invisibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831735)

I think Joanna Dark had this 6 years ago.

true invisibility is impossible (2, Informative)

preppypoof (943414) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831743)

and even if it was possible, we'd be blind while we were invisible. invisible means that there is no light to reflect off of us so that other people can see us. however, if there is no light to reflect off of us, there is no light to reflect off of our eyes, which means we can't see.

Re:true invisibility is impossible (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831806)

true invisibility is impossible

Not really. It can be done and probably will be done some day. It is just not as simple or work the same way bad sci-fi shows portray it.

and even if it was possible, we'd be blind while we were invisible.

Yes, but this is a solvable problem as well. Bend visible wavelengths of light around, but not infrared and wear infrared goggles. Or bend light around everywhere except a pinhole too small to be visible, but which is used to generate a view outside the cloak like a pinhole camera does. Or transmit an image from a small device outside the cloak. The hard part is redirecting the light properly. Once that is solved, the rest is a lesser problem.

Re:true invisibility is impossible (-1, Troll)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831812)

if there is no light to reflect off of us, there is no light to reflect off of our eyes, which means we can't see.

?!? !!???? ????!

We see things by sensing light that bounced off other things; our eyes don't emit or significantly reflect light to make things visible (otherwise, I'd have to light up the entire Grand Canyon every time I wanted to look at it).

Re:true invisibility is impossible (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831871)

Yes, a generally understoof problem. Though allowing a limited amount of light through would generally be enough to see while not destroying the effect. Think one way mirrors some light goes through but do you notice it.

Re:true invisibility is impossible (1)

Sleet01 (122510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831873)

If you've got much light reflecting off your eyes, you've got more serious problems than the effects of invisibility.

Re:true invisibility is impossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831906)

and even if it was possible, we'd be blind while we were invisible. invisible means that there is no light to reflect off of us so that other people can see us. however, if there is no light to reflect off of us, there is no light to reflect off of our eyes, which means we can't see.

Good point, but you assume that people only want to make themselves invisible. How about all those ugly cell phone towers that recently appeared everywhere? Poof, gone! Now you can see the sky and trees again.

Or more sinisterly, maybe you never got a chance to see that missile heading straight for you... some things that have no need for seeing visible light could benifit from not being seen by other things.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831744)

He just described the Predator.

I have my own hypothesis about the future. In the near future, Human kind will be able to build AI and robots. From my research, this will come in the form of a computer I am calling "Skynet." It will be neural net CPU, a learning computer.

However, I must insist we take caution when building this advanced new machines, which I am going to call "Terminators," as at some point they may decided that the human race is the enemy.

I urge you all to write your congresspeople to encourage them to take appropriate measures with this "Skynet" in the future.

I also have some theories about a new computer network, which I have coined "The Matrix." It will be very stylish and include kungfu fighting (like the 70's song by Carl Douglas).

If you have any questions, feel free to give me a jingle in the future (which my future self will be five soon).

-John Titor

Re:Great (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831908)

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you have any other examples of old idea that you can trod out and pretend to make new?

Really invisible? (5, Funny)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831745)

If you replace the water with light then you would not see that there was something present because the light is guided around the person or object.

Sure, who would find a human-sized-walking-lightbulb suspicious? :)

Re:Really invisible? (2, Funny)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831920)

You mean people are actually smart enough to figure that out?

Shit, that means Metal Gear Solid taught me NOTHING...

Predator had it more apt... (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831766)

If a device is made to either redirect light, or detect light in the environment, absorb it and then project light to match it, then there will be some delay necissary in the process, because you can't send out information before you observe it.

Don't know how significant it would be, but that could result in a slight disjointed projection of the area behind you if you were made 'invisible' with such a device, most observable when one moves.

Thus, the more apt movie reference would be Predator.

Ryan Fenton

Re:Predator had it more apt... (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831833)

Yah, that seems resonable.

Perhaps this is a problem with the rock in water analogy but I wonder if it applies to bending light as well. When water flows around a rock, turbulance is created that can be seen from all sides even if you can't see the rock. The further you get from the rock, the less visible the turbulance is. This is true even if the viewer is at or below the plane of the water/air interface. Would a similar principle apply here as well, I wonder?

Re:Predator had it more apt... (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831849)

With modern technology you'd be talking about less that a millisecond delay. It simply wouldn't be noticable to the human eye, though your inner sense might know something is wrong. This would definatly be detectable by a computer though, atleast if the object was moving.

Re:Predator had it more apt... (1)

TommyBear (317561) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831863)

Well the funny thing is that in Predator 2, they actually describe a method of bending light around the suit, which makes the predator invisible... life really does imitate art, or maybe steals from it :)

Re:Predator had it more apt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15832020)

Or maybe the moviemakers just read their science publications...

Re:Predator had it more apt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15832042)

Wow, that is funny. And observant too.
Do you find people avoid you at parties?

Re:Predator had it more apt... (4, Funny)

The Fun Guy (21791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831999)

because you can't send out information before you observe it.

Clearly, you are new [slashdot.org] to Slashdot.

Junk Sci (1)

darkchubs (814225) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831777)

so whens he gonna tackle the superman theory?

unrequited humour (5, Funny)

tezbobobo (879983) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831780)

Yes, they've made 15 prototypes so far. They just can't get past the testing stage. Keep losing them.

Re:unrequited humour - channelling Tommy Cooper... (1)

The Grassy Knoll (112931) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832069)

"I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day but I couldn't find any..."

.

And here I thought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831784)

FTFS: "And its not going to be a potion or a cloak, but will come in the form of a device."

And here I thought that potions and cloaks were also devices.

Who knew?

I'm surprised (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831787)

And all this time I thought invisibility would be done by using a magic potion like in AD&D. I guess I lose that bet.

Mystery Men (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831789)

Mystery Men proves that invisibility exists already, especially if noone (including yourself) is watching.

Heck, most of /. audience is invisible to the opposite sex.

python... (2, Funny)

FrontalLobe (897758) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831798)

I think Monty Python made being invisible unnecessary with their "How not to be seen" skit.
Just don't hide behind a single shrub in the middle of a field...

Space Travel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831800)

Seems like this would be an ideal way to keep that pesky interstellar radiation away from the meaty bits inside of a crunchy spacecraft.

From scotland with love (1)

crodrigu1 (819002) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831818)

I love single malt whiskey and I think our professor does too

Black Ops Specialists Rejoice (1)

Gryle (933382) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831823)

The military and espionage potential is huge. However I assume the forcefield could play havoc with radar, possibly sonar too. So how would one go about detecting invisible men/women? Infrared? Gaurd dogs?

Re:Black Ops Specialists Rejoice (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832075)

Water. Just send a jet of water where you suspect someone might be. If there's indeed someone, it will not cross that space.

No peeping toms though... (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831829)

Keep in mind that by bending light around an object, you're preventing that light from being visible to anyone/anything within the field. Essentially, when you were "cloaked", you'd also be blind.

So, there go the recreational usages of such technology... :)

MadCow.

Light doesn't bend? (1)

Aerri (992738) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831831)

Ok. The extended article compares this theoretical invisiblility to water flowing around a rock. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no physicist), but I thought that light doesn't bend like that. It moves in a straight direction at an incredibly fast speed. So, any device that diverts light would cause it to reflect... meaning that if you looked straight on at an invisible person, you would see images from all around the room. It would be very disorienting and you would know that someone was there. Am I wrong?

Re:Light doesn't bend? (1)

sensei85 (989372) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831997)

Nope, electromagnetic radiation moves in a straight line (at least here on earth). That's why this is new technology. If light bended normally, the world would be a very different place, and it's likely that we would have a very different vision system (if we used EM waves at all. More likely we would have feelers and souped up hearing.)

Bottom line: bending waves is hard, but not impossible. It will probably be many many years before this becomes seamless for the visual spectrum, but RADAR/SONAR are much more feasable, because it doesn't have to be flawless. Noise in RADAR is ignored. Noise in the visual spectrum is seen immediately and focused on. There are some great applications for this technology, but don't go putting a down payment on an invisable force field just yet.

Re:Light doesn't bend? (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832017)

The case is: light does bend occasionally.
Think black holes and massive objects (like the Sun and Earth). They bend light. So, yes, the way to do that is to generate some carefully-controlled gravity distortion field that pulled light from every (important) side of the invisible person, generated some copy of some part of that light (so the invisible person could see something) and deflected, bending, the otherwise "straight" lightrays so they come across as if nothing was there.
The main problem: we can't control gravity at all with our current tech.
We don't even know for sure if gravitons exist AFAICR from my quantum physics class in 1990. (Maybe I need an update. Please?)
Actually, we don't know jack shit about how gravity is transmitted (again, maybe I need an update, and if so, I would welcome it).
We don't know how to generate a "brute" gravity/antigrav field, and we certainly don't know how to generate a "fine-tuned" one (that would distort the light path just the way we liked it).

Philadelphia Experiment? (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831834)

"It is very likely that the demonstration for radar would come first and very soon."

And this experiment will be done with a ship in Philadelphia?

Al Gore already invented this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831842)

He started using his invention immediately after the 2000 election.

Practical Invisibility (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831845)

Invisibility is already possible. The underlying principle behind it is not technological or mystical but sociological. See the works of Ralph Ellison ("Invisible Man"), Kate Clinton ("In Search of the Invisible Lesbian"), and Grant Morrison ("The Invisibles") for more info.

Re:Practical Invisibility (1)

hkgroove (791170) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831965)

No need to read all those books. Just a few clicks on myspace will give you the same information.

Is it just me... (2, Interesting)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831855)

... or does anyone else hope this information would become classified if it ever became a reality? If the technology was ever released (or the specifics and not the actual tech) there could be potential for multi million dollar heists and no one would be able to find out. Heck, the way they're talking, it's ALL light that would be manipulated, meaning there would be absolutely no way to track a person who was using it.

Re:Is it just me... (1)

rahrens (939941) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832050)

I don't know - I'd assume that a simple invisibility device wouldn't affect a person's left behind fingerprints? Or hair for DNA analysis? Criminals are often pretty stupid, even if they appear smart - it's mostly the forgotten detail that trips them up.

An invisibility device might make the actual heist easier through making yourself invisible to say, a surveillance camera, but other clues would still be there. Criminals were caught and put in jail long before security cameras were invented.

So All I Gotta Do... (4, Funny)

mdielmann (514750) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831857)

So all I gotta do is carry a black hole in my pocket. That's gotta suck...

Turbulence? (2, Insightful)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831876)

FTA:

Invisibility is an optical illusion that the object or person is not there. Leonhardt uses the example of water circling around a stone. The water flows in, swirls around the stone and then leaves as if nothing was there.

"If you replace the water with light then you would not see that there was something present because the light is guided around the person or object. You would see the light coming from the scenery behind as if there was nothing in front," he said.

I wonder if this is BadAnalogyGuy [slashdot.org] in disguise? :)

A most people will have actually seen water flowing around a rock in a creek or a stream will attest, the water doesn't just leave as if nothing was there: there's all sorts of turbulence, especially leaving visibile waves on the surface and even a trail of bubbles if there is sufficient flow to cause aeration.

Re:Turbulence? (1)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832073)

water affects other water - light less so. the turbulence is caused by the water impacting itself on the back side of the rock. If this device unbends the light properly on the back side, no distortion.

technology put to good use (1)

Potatomasher (798018) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831882)

"Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba."
I can think of a couple of things involving "invisibility" and "Jessica Alba". The above is not one of them.

Let's hope... (1)

funpet (836434) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831891)

Let's just hope that someday slashdot will use proper English grammar.

blank (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831892)

blank

I think I've heard it before (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831896)

believes that invisibility may be possible

For decades, many science fiction fans around the world have believed invisibility *may* be possible.

CmdrTaco you must be new here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831897)

jessica cannot be invisible even when she is invisible because she is Jessica
dont blame her for not playing it good enough

Just ask the romulans... (1)

break99 (992583) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831909)

Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain -- selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that problem... ST: Balance of terror

And in further news... (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831914)

Scientist thinks commercial fusion energy may be possible in future...

Scientist thinks arresting the aging process may be possible in future...

Scientist thinks space colonies may be possible in future...

Scientist thinks flying cars may be possible in future...

etc. etc. etc.

Grammar Police (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831926)

> ... she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba.

It's 'than' not 'then'.

Re:Grammar Police (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832018)

Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly; then (afterwards, subsequently) Jessica Alba.

I'm OK with this...

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15831934)

Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba.

After the invisble woman is played more convicingly, Jessica Alba does what?

look at me i'm invisible (1)

paughsw (620959) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831937)

look at me i'm invisible

Re:look at me i'm invisible (1)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832036)

You forgot to tick the Post AC checkbox.

Somebody Else's problem (5, Funny)

travalas (853279) | more than 7 years ago | (#15831953)

The technology involved in making anything invisible is so infinitely complex that nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand million, nine hundred and ninety-nine million, nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine times out of a billion it is much simpler and more effective just to take the thing away and do without it. The ultra-famous sciento-magician Effrafax of Wug once bet his life that, given a year, he could render the great megamountain Magramal entirely invisible. Having spent most of the year jiggling around with immense LuxO-Valves and Refracto-Nullifiers and Spectrum-Bypass-O-Matics, he realized, with nine hours to go, that he wasn't going to make it. So, he and his friends, and his friends' friends, and his friends' friends' friends, and his friends' friends' friends' friends, and some rather less good friends of theirs who happened to own a major stellar trucking company, put in what now is widely recognized as being the hardest night's work in history, and, sure enough, on the following day, Magramal was no longer visible. Effrafax lost his bet - and therefore his life - simply because some pedantic adjudicating official noticed (a) that when walking around the area that Magramal ought to be he didn't trip over or break his nose on anything, and (b) a suspicious-looking extra moon. The Somebody Else's Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what's more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people's natural disposition not to see anything they don't want to, weren't expecting, or can't explain. If Effrafax had painted the mountain pink and erected a cheap and simple Somebody Else's Problem field on it, then people would have walked past the mountain, round it, even over it, and simply never have noticed that the thing was there. -Douglas Adams

English please! (1)

totallygeek (263191) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832001)

Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba.


Someone needs remedial English to learn the difference between 'then' and 'than'. While one can understand the sentence, it is incorrectly structured. Better, it would read, "Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's portrayed more convincingly at that time than by Jessica Alba." Or, "Jessica Alba is hot and should never be invisible."

In Case Your Browser Can't Render the Site... (2, Informative)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832019)

...properly. Mine couldn't (Firefox 1.5 on Gentoo Linux). I got a bunch of screwed up CSS or something because there was text on top of text. Here's the story, what little there is of a story:

By Patricia Reaney

LONDON (Reuters) - It's unlikely to occur by swallowing a pill or donning a special cloak, but invisibility could be possible in the not too distant future, according to research published on Monday.

Harry Potter accomplished it with his magic cloak. H.G. Wells' Invisible Man swallowed a substance that made him transparent.

But Dr Ulf Leonhardt, a theoretical physicist at St Andrews University in Scotland, believes the most plausible example is the Invisible Woman, one of the Marvel Comics superheroes in the "Fantastic Four".

"She guides light around her using a force field in this cartoon. This is what could be done in practice," Leonhardt told Reuters in an interview. "That comes closest to what engineers will probably be able to do in the future."

Invisibility is an optical illusion that the object or person is not there. Leonhardt uses the example of water circling around a stone. The water flows in, swirls around the stone and then leaves as if nothing was there.

"If you replace the water with light then you would not see that there was something present because the light is guided around the person or object. You would see the light coming from the scenery behind as if there was nothing in front," he said.

In the research published in the New Journal of Physics, Leonhardt described the physics of theoretical devices that could create invisibility. It is a follow-up paper to an earlier study published in the journal Science.

"What the Invisible Woman does is curve space around herself to bend light. What these devices would do is to mimic that curved space," he said.

Article summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15832024)

From "The Fucking Article":
Although the devices are still theoretical,

End of summary.

another method (1)

ch-chuck (9622) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832027)

Then there's the method used by Ed Bagley Jr. in "Amazon Women on the Moon".

thinks it might maybe be sort of possible (1)

bryan_is_a_kfo (976654) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832029)

if we had a news story for every concept a theoretical physicist was speculating on, we'd have /.!

play? (1)

deft (253558) | more than 7 years ago | (#15832068)

"Let's just hope that when the invisible woman arrives, she's played more convincingly then Jessica Alba"

Lets just hope that when there actually IS an invisible woman, she won't have to 'play' anything...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...