Author |
Topic: Invisibility (Read 327 times) |
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender: 
Posts: 13730
|
 |
Re: Invisibility
« Reply #1 on: Oct 31st, 2006, 3:36pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
As I recall it only works somewhat for microwaves at the moment. But it's hardly perfect cloaking, how much it can be improved is a bit of a question (light moving through the 'cloak' would be slower then the light around it. So with the right frequency modulation you should be able to see it, even if the cloak works otherwise perfectly.)
And of course there's a serious question about whether it would work on anything other than a stationary object. Even aside from exhaust fumes, heat, airholes etc.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 31st, 2006, 3:36pm by towr » |
 IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Uberpuzzler
Sorry Goose, it's time to buzz a tower.
Gender:
Posts: 1672
|
|
Re: Invisibility
« Reply #2 on: Oct 31st, 2006, 5:00pm » |
Quote Modify
|
You're right, of course. It only works for radio waves right now and only in two dimensions, but the people behind it believe they can extend the technology to some parts of the visible spectrum. While I too wondered about whether it could be applied to a moving object, I think that so long as the object is moving at speed significantly less than the speed of light, it should still work relatively well. This is absolute conjecture, but it seems plausible.
|
| « Last Edit: Oct 31st, 2006, 6:20pm by Whiskey Tango Foxtrot » |
IP Logged |
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print