We’re Getting Really Close to Making a Superpower Reality

Ever want to be invisible? It could happen soon in America, unless Canada beats us to it.

National Journal
Ben Terris
See more stories about...
Ben Terris
Nov. 18, 2013, 6 a.m.

The greatest hy­po­thet­ic­al ques­tion of all time may be one step closer to be­ing an­swer­able. No, no one has yet in­ven­ted a horse-sized duck or a thou­sand duck-sized horses. I’m talk­ing about the greatest hy­po­thet­ic­al ques­tion: flight or in­vis­ib­il­ity?

Ex­per­i­en­cing something ap­proach­ing hu­man flight has long been pos­sible. For a price, any­one can leap out of a plane with a para­chute, and jet­packs can make up the dif­fer­ence. As for the second, more elu­sive part of the equa­tion? Re­search­ers from Texas and Toronto say they have in­ven­ted two dif­fer­ent types of in­vis­ib­il­ity cloaks. For now, these devices only make things seem to dis­ap­pear on wavelengths un­detect­able to the hu­man eye, but re­search­ers on both products say a full-scale in­vis­ib­il­ity cloak is no longer just an im­possible dream.

While the al­lure of the power of in­vis­ib­il­ity goes back at least as far as H.G. Wells’ The In­vis­ible Man — if not Greek myth­o­logy — it first be­came a sci­entif­ic real­ity in 2006. That year, re­search­ers at Duke Uni­versity had cre­ated a cloak­ing device that could make tiny, two-di­men­sion­al ob­jects ap­pear in­vis­ible to mi­crowaves.

But this cloak, and oth­ers like it, were a far cry from any­thing you’d read about in a Harry Pot­ter book or see in a Star Trek epis­ode (*re­quired ref­er­ences in any art­icle about in­vis­ib­il­ity cloaks*). One of the ma­jor prob­lems, ac­cord­ing to a new pa­per from Dr. An­drea Alú from the Uni­versity of Texas (Aus­tin), is that while it makes ob­jects in­vis­ible in one fre­quency, it ac­tu­ally makes them more vis­ible un­der an­oth­er fre­quency. An ob­ject made in­vis­ible in red light, for ex­ample, would be even more vis­ible in blue light.

But Alú says he has in­ven­ted a new type of device that fixes that prob­lem. Like the cloaks of yore, Alú’s new design uses meta-ma­ter­i­als (syn­thet­ic tex­tiles with prop­er­ties not found in nature) that can bend light around an ob­ject and make it look like it’s not there. But, by adding an elec­tron­ic source like a bat­ter to the cloak (mak­ing the cloak “act­ive” as op­posed to “pass­ive”), Alú says he can make ob­jects trans­par­ent at “all angles and over all broad band­widths.”

Nat­ur­ally, a lot of the fund­ing for this re­search comes from the De­fense De­part­ment: Want an air­plane or a tank to be in­vis­ible to radar? This is the type of device for you. But it’s not just the mil­it­ary that is in­ter­ested. Alú says a good chunk of fund­ing comes from wire­less pro­viders. Be­cause if a build­ing is in the way of your wire­less sig­nal, mak­ing it in­vis­ible might be a bet­ter al­tern­at­ive than knock­ing it down.

Alú says he ex­pects to have a ver­sion of this device built with­in the next couple of years.

Why the hurry? Maybe it’s so we can get one be­fore Canada does. Re­search­ers at the Uni­versity of Toronto seem to be neck and neck with the U.S.

In a re­cent pa­per pub­lished in the Phys­ic­al Re­view X, Toronto pro­fess­or George Eleftheri­ades and his stu­dent Mi­chael Selvanay­agam de­scribe a device made up of a series of an­ten­nae that can ra­di­ate light and ra­dio waves away from the ob­ject it sur­rounds. But these re­search­ers have done more than just write about such a device; they’ve jury-rigged one up us­ing Styro­foam, mask­ing tape, and 12 an­ten­nae. It cost un­der $2,000 and has been nick­named “the act­ive cloak ma­chine.”

It es­sen­tially works like this: Say you shine a beam of ra­dio waves at an ob­ject. When the waves hit the ob­ject, they will bounce back. But if you sur­round the ob­ject with an­ten­nae that bounce back the op­pos­ite ra­dio waves, it will seem as if the ob­ject is not there.

When asked who might be in­ter­ested in such a device, Eleftheri­ades stuttered a bit.

“The mil­it­ary is the most ob­vi­ous,” he said. “We have been ap­proached”¦. I shouldn’t say too much about that.”

As for wheth­er this could ever be ap­plied to mak­ing someone or something in­vis­ible to the hu­man eye, Eleftheri­ades says there’s no reas­on it couldn’t scale up, it would just need the right kind of an­tenna (ones that don’t yet ex­ist).

So, what do re­search­ers have to say about the age-old ques­tion of which would be cool­er, flight or in­vis­ib­il­ity?

“I think be­com­ing in­vis­ible,” said Eleftheri­ades. “Be­cause this ex­per­i­ence, no hu­man has had it be­fore. Maybe we can­not fly on our own, but we know how it feels to fly.”

And des­pite their friendly com­pet­i­tion on the sub­ject, Alú can agree with his col­league on this.

“I would choose in­vis­ib­il­ity,” Alú said. “Fly­ing is easi­er to achieve in oth­er ways, and I know ex­actly how hard it is to achieve in­vis­ib­il­ity.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4569) }}

What We're Following See More »
Trump Finance Guru Has History of Contributing to Dems
1 minutes ago

"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.

Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
16 hours ago

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
18 hours ago

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Sen. Murphy: Trump Shouldn’t Get Classified Briefigs
18 hours ago
Romney to Skip Convention
19 hours ago

An aide to Mitt Romney confirmed to the Washington Post that the 2102 GOP nominee will not attend the Republican convention this year. He joins the two living Republican presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, as well as 2008 nominee John McCain in skipping the event. Even among living Republican nominees, that leaves only Bob Dole who could conceivably show up. Dole did say in January that he'd prefer Trump to Ted Cruz, but his age (92) could keep him from attending.