| May. 26th, 2006 @ 11:46 am Who wants an invisibility cloak?!?!?!?!?! |
|---|
I found this news article in today's Chicago Sun Times... I thought that all you Harry Potter fanatics out there would find it a bit interesting.
News Creating invisible cloak isn't so out of sight
May 26, 2006
BY ANDREW BRIDGES
WASHINGTON -- The key to creating a Harry Potter-like invisibility cloak lies in man-made materials unlike any in nature or the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, researchers say.
They're laying out a blueprint for turning science fiction into reality.
''Is it science fiction? Well, it's theory and that already is not science fiction. It's theoretically possible to do all these Harry Potter things, but what's standing in the way is our engineering capabilities,'' said John Pendry, a physicist at the Imperial College London. Details of the study, which Pendry co-wrote, appear in Thursday's online edition of the journal Science.
Pendry and his co-authors also propose using metamaterials because they can be tuned to bend electromagnetic radiation -- radio waves and visible light, for example -- in any direction.
A cloak made of those materials, with a structure designed down to the submicroscopic scale, would neither reflect light nor cast a shadow.
Instead light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation would strike the cloak and simply flow around it, continuing on as if it never bumped up against an obstacle. That would give an onlooker the apparent ability to peer right through the cloak, with everything tucked inside concealed from view.
Such a cloak does not exist, but early versions that could mask microwaves and other forms of electromagnetic radiation could be as close as 18 months away, Pendry said. He said the study was ''an invitation to come and play with these new ideas.''
While Harry Potter could wear his cloak to skulk around Hogwarts, a real-world version probably would not be something just to be thrown on, Pendry said.
''To be realistic, it's going to be fairly thick. Cloak is a misnomer. 'Shield' might be more appropriate,'' he said. |