Shared publicly  - 
I think I love this article mostly for its use of the term "spatio-temporal cloaking," which sounds really freaking awesome and sci-fi, but is pretty mundane from a scientific perspective. :) Still, the research into hiding objects via light lensing (which is different than gravitational lensing, before anyone brings that up) is always an intriguing science.
Soldiers could one day conduct covert operations in complete secrecy, now that Pentagon-backed physicists have figured out how to mask entir...
Joel Stephan's profile photojohn smith's profile photoDy Jones's profile photoAlan Henry's profile photo
I still don't understand it fully, but it sounds awesome. ;)
Sounds kind of unethical to me. Pretty fascinating though.
simple -take light in send it out the other side your in the gap..its fundamental and simple they are just hyping it up for some reason for entertainment value-what is cool they say they have lenses that change the speed of light but later they just say they change the frequency-in turn means it probably hogwash and its just a idea-no matter how cool it sounds
Amazing, just imagine what it will be like in 50 years.
It does sound pretty cool +Daniel James , and +Dy Jones - I think the ramifications will really be useful in information systems more than anything else. I really could wax on about the implications for communication here, but it'd get boring! The article plays it up as a way to obscure physical events from observation, but that's significantly more complicated than an easier-and more immediately useful-application. +Joseph Blanchard - you have a point, but I think you're oversimplifying the experiment. If it were as you said, they would be duplicating signal just by bouncing light around some lenses and executing an experiment in the gap. That's not at all what they did. In reality, they managed to obscure a specific transmission of information from observation not just in the frame of reference along the path of the light, but in all other reference frames so in effect the event didn't take place. That's a nontrivial result. Finally, +Richard Erickson - yes, it's definitely sad we haven't been back, but there has been a lot of science since then that's equally exciting! I hope we go back soon too, but don't discount the great work people are doing right now. :)
Add a comment...