Talk:Invisibility

Invisibility without cloaking

Hi, we would like to propose a new section (Invisibility without cloaking). Our research group discovered a new physical phenomenon that allows the direct fabrication of invisible structures and invisible photonic circuits. It has been recently published with Nature in Light: Science & Applications. Prior to our work, theoretical and experimental results that show advances in the field of invisibility use cloaking technologies, as reported in the first section of the wikipedia Invisibility article titled "Practical efforts". We suggest to add the following paragraph in the new section "Invisibility without cloaking":

In 2020, a new physical phenomenon related to the electronic resonance of laser processed materials was discovered. Using the new phenomenon, researchers from Laval University, Canada, have fabricated invisible photonic circuits. They discovered that the structure of a material can be modified to be usable for frequencies operating photonic devices and sensors, for example, while the structural modification becomes invisible for frequencies detectable by the eye. More precisely, they found that the positive refractive index (RI) change induced by the electronic resonance variation can exactly compensate the negative RI change induced by a structural expansion (both caused by the laser-induced modification), resulting in a zero RI change for certain colors, enabling invisibility.

Jllheureux (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Need for separate article

Does this REALLY need it's own article? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Dante Alighieri 11:36 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

At the very least grant me that we need an article on invisibility with this article contained as a subordinate paragraph? Dante Alighieri 12:13 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Agreed. --Anon.

Very well. Patrick 12:25 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Speculation

Um, can we please back up speculations about real invisibility devices with facts and sources? --Eloquence 12:27 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)

Text moved from article

Moving here because it is speculative:

An alternative for true transparency, also fictional but perhaps a little closer to realizability, is a system of sensors and displays on the outside of the cloak etc. such that light arriving at a sensor from a particular direction is reproduced at the other side of the body, at the corresponding position, and emitted onward in the same direction. For an observer this would be equivalent to transparency.

Covering the head with the same 'clothing' this would also allow the head to become invisible, while the invisible person can still see (retinas absorbing light would conflict with true transparency). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eloquence (talk • contribs) 13:12, 2 December 2002 (UTC)

It's part of sci-fi in the same way that magic potions are part of fantasy. -Martin

Then cite specific examples. --Eloquence

Deleted the following because (a) it's a dictionary definition and (b) it's untrue:

Invisibility is used colloquially (though inaccurately) to mean camouflaged or well-hidden. For example The paras are so well trained that they can remain invisible until they are within twenty feet of the target.

I say it's untrue because of the word inaccurately. If someone's camouflaged so well that you can't see him, then he is invisible. Heron

Could the image from CNN's site be used under 'fair use'? Nikola 04:36 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The entire "Invisibility in physics" section is poorly written and requires cleanup or deletion. To describe something as a potentail cause of invisability and then saying that "unfortunately, this would not make it invisable" is both clumsy and confusing.

I agree. In fact, I have two points to make:

• The sections "Physics" and "Technology" seem to have significant overlap, and also points that shouldn't be there. Suggest division into two sections: "Invisibility in Physics/Technology" and "Invisibility in Fiction", as the only real-world "cloaking" device that exists has been made by physicists (and some electrical engineers), and it is going to remain this way for the forseeable future.
• Something whose escape velocity exceeds the speed of light (e.g. a black hole) appears black. Most people would argue that it therefore isn't invisible (and indeed it doesn't really satisfy the definition on the page). Rlfb 17:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The entire article badly mixes up fiction with fact and requires a serious going over.

About misinformation occasionally added to page

This page is one subject to baseless edits and possible vandalism. Some old revisions often added sourceless misinformation to the top section, sometimes even removing the top section entirely, such as this edit, this one, or even this one. I think that this may need to be addressed at some point in the future. Not only this, but since this information seems to be consistent, it may either be a single lone sock puppeteer or it may be multiple editors getting information from a single, unreliable source and failing to cite it. 99.15.82.90 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

The picture of the empty rocking chair is cute, but does it really add anything? On the other hand, I doubt we can find a better image of invisibility (an oxymoron!) so maybe it should stay... —Keenan Pepper 06:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• LOL at the rocking chair caption. Wiki doesn't usually have jokes like that, but this one's good :) and not exactly "wrong". Although speaking of images of invisibility, we might add the famous picture of the Invisible Pink Unicorn? —EatMyShortz 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Well I could find a different image such as this invisible horse in a meadow, but yeah, I agree the image is an accurate portrayal of the effects of invisibility. --TexasDex 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• I vote to keep the image, it's amusing and actually does do the job of giving a visual image of invisibility (as opposed to transparent or whatever). Thumbs up.Markeer 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• The image is funny, but ridiculous. Perhaps we could get a fair use image of one of the many films/tv shows where theyve shown someone "invisible". the old gag of the hat and glasses without the face would be good. Also see the german article where they have many images and are looking more at the scientific aspects of it -- Astrokey44|talk 09:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The new image is still in German. I suggest removing it until it is translated. —Keenan Pepper 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove it please. It's ridiculous and shammy. --Mkeroppi 17:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, three people above said they liked the invisible girl. Image:UNSIBA-5 Unsichtbarkeit mit Spiegeln.jpg isn't exactly serious either (what the heck are those little creatures?), and it has the added drawback of not being in the right language. —Keenan Pepper 17:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

At least that showed the mechanism in question. It should be removed once it's translated. The "invisible" girl does not contribute to the context of the article, or at least some blurb/explanation has to be written to expand the definition. Right now, it's confusing. I'd agree to using films/tv caps, but not something "made up" made up. --Mkeroppi 17:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

i find the image of the invisible girl very offensive as she's not wearing any clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.64.195 (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed once it's translated. I don't follow you. The invisible girl is already removed. Why translate the diagram only to remove it? —Keenan Pepper 17:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

invisibility of nonexistent things

I added this section. It overlaps with invisibility in fiction, but it's different because invisible fern seeds, for example, were not intentionally fictitious. This section is about how invisibility is used to help explain a supposedly true thing rather than to describe an intentionally fictitious thing. Jonathan Tweet 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates or not?

Consider these two bullet points:

• [A] A recent breakthrough (2006) at Imperial College London has shown that invisibility is possible by using specifically patterened crystals made up of nanoscale boxes that hold electrons. When light hits these crystals, it becomes entangled within the boxes, causing the object to become transparent.

• [B] Although it has been shown that making opaque objects perfectly invisible ("non-scattering scatterers") is impossible, 2006 theoretical work predicts that the imperfections need not be serious, and metamaterials may make real-life "cloaking devices" practical. The technique is suspected to be applied to radio waves within five years, and eventually visible light is a possibility.

Do these refer to the same research or not? They're both from 2006, and they both involve people from Imperial College London. I think the first is simply a hyped-up pop-sci version of the second, but I can't be sure because http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/exhibit.asp?tip=1&id=4659 doesn't cite any papers. —Keenan Pepper 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not the same researcher(s), and they seem to be describing different phenomena. • Bullet point [A] summarizes The Royal Society web article "Invisibility at the flick of a switch", (undated despite the WP reference), which is signed by Profs. Frogley and Phillips of Imperial College, plus Profs. Dynes, Beck, and Faist of U's elsewhere. • Bullet point [B] is an amalgam of four research conclusions from Nachman, et al, 1988; Wolf, et al, 1993; Pendry, et al, 2006; and Leonhardt, et al, 2006. Cho appears to be a popular science abstract writer citing Pendry, et al, 2006, and Leonhardt, et al, 2006. Of the four original research citations, only J. B. Pendry is with Imperial College London, and Pendry's coauthors are at Duke U. of North Carolina.

Making no judgements about the scientists or the value of their underlying science, the "Invisibility at the flick of a switch" article is nearly incomprehensible as popular science writing. No invisibility switch or any kind of switching is ever mentioned. As educated readers are likely to understood it, "entangled" light boxes sounds like a nano hall of mirrors. If the light never exited, it would presumably have the same effect of blackness as absorption. The interaction of light with normal "wave patterns of the electrons" was not in texts that I've casually read, so the interaction of light with canceled electron waves remains unexplained to me by the contrast and compare method. • Worse yet, the article illogically segues to the "fundamental physical effect creating the transparency" as a data storage application that potentially could stop and store light — yet another equivalent to absorption blackness. • IMHO, bullet point [A] should be either deleted along with its poorly sourced reference, or rewritten to reflect ambiguity about an interesting concept in a new field — with its numbered source reference to include a popsci caution. Milo 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that. Also, I think I found the real paper on which the Royal Society article is based: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1561070 I'm trying to wade through it, but I have a feeling I need a few more years of physics courses just to understand the basics... —Keenan Pepper 06:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Examples in fiction

Someone has tagged the "Examples in fiction" section as needing cleanup, and rightly so. We cannot include every movie and video game that features invisibility, even though everyone sure wants to highlight their favorite movie/game and add it. The list would become (and in my opinion already is) ridiculously long. (And it's still missing NetHack!) I'm tempted to remove the whole list with just some brief section on how often the invisibility theme appears in fiction, listing few selected examples, such as The Invisible Man. What other examples do you think should be included and what should be left out? --ZeroOne 11:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Ring of Gyges, The Invisible Man, and maybe a few others, but ditch the rest. If too many people whine, we can make a separate article Invisibility in fiction or whatever. —Keenan Pepper 02:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I appeal to save this mythic fiction list by spawning a standard list article, "List of Invisibility Examples in Fiction". A list article is Wikipedia guide approved for just this situation. Under that heading the present 38 or so will not be overlong, and fascinated list readers can peruse and continue adding their favorites to it without its bulk annoying the main article readers. In the main article you could draw up a list of firsts in invisibility fiction: first ancient myth, first printed book, first movie, etc., then link to the complete list of examples article. Firsts are brief and don't provoke much debate. • Why spawn an invisibility fiction list article? It's popular with readers as well as an academically important myth. Human fascination with the fictional desire for invisibility could be rooted in evolutionary biology traceable to our primitive sea ancestors. To be invisible (enough), is to not be eaten and so continue reproducing in the usual pleasant way. :) Invisibility is a fiction of mythic status even greater than wealth devices like the Touch of Gold — in comic books there is Invisible Woman, but no Midas Man. Milo 04:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

List of invisibility examples in fiction does sound like a good solution. --ZeroOne 23:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

H.G. Wells' story is notable for its impact on science fiction and popular culture, and a tally of how many times it has been adapted to film is notable in connection. However, beyond that, a list is necessary. Star Trek has had several stories about personal cloaking devices or invisibility through other methods, and brought "cloaking device" into popular parlance. It too would be notable, and might merit a link to a section in the Star Trek articles that mentions invisibility.

I consider Quake notable, because in multiplayer mode, a player using the Ring of Shadows artifact is invisible except for his eyeballs. The eyeballs are red on the backside. This is an unusual depiction of invisibility; I have not seen it done elsewhere. --205.201.141.146 19:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

no cloning theorem ??

"According to the laws of physics as presently understood, an invisible person would necessarily be blind, no matter how their invisibility were achieved. In order to see light, it must be absorbed by the retina, but in order for a person to be invisible, the body must not absorb light. In fact, according to the no cloning theorem of quantum mechanics, they could not even make a copy of the photons so they could see one copy and allow the other copy to pass through or around them."

But of course you can make a copy of the photons if you don't care about their quantum state. You'll achieve a great deal of invisibility if you just clone them any old way because the human eye is not all that polarization sensitive. Of course the no cloning theorem says that the person can be detected by some polarization tricks then, but without of those devices... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dheerav2 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Question about sight while invisible

"On the other hand, a practical invisibility method need not allow light of all frequencies to pass all the time, so there may be ways around this limitation."

If we did allow, say, ultraviolet light through, could we have a computer interpret the colors it sees in ultraviolet, into the colors seen in visible light? Could ultraviolet light pass through the invisibility cloak designed by Imperial College London? The website for the invisibility cloak is... http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-10-2006-8-24-5?newsid=2812 09:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudo-Invisibilty

How do people feel about adding something to do with fictional pseudo-invisibility effects such as the Somebody Else's Problem field and the idea that Terry Prachett's Death cannot be seen by most people since they don't want to. Cmdr Adeon 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Any Way?

Is there any way to become invisible?

Not yet, although there are new technologies that are approaching it. For example:

• http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2006/10/cloakdemo.html - Scientists make an "invisibility cloak" that affects radio waves
• http://theblogjoint.com/2006/07/03/invisibility-cloaks-video/ and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/2777111.stm - Japanese scientists create a form of Optical Camoflogue.

So we're not at true invisibility yet, but these are inventions that are showing it might be at least possible eventually. In addition, some of these inventions have interesting real life applications -- for example, making an invisible "window" inside a cement wall, allowing people to look outside without compromising security or (in the case of something like a CA Room) environmental settings, or creating an "invisibility cloak" that reflects radiation. KiTA (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Magic in physics

Yes, a cloak, but it is now 3-D unlike before, just 2-D. So, I added this as sub-section instead of just a paragraph. It is the very first discovery.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Light-slowing material?

I have heard from a friend of mine who read a physics article on invisibility that a material (I guess it would be more of a metamaterial) exists that greatly slows light, so you would see it, but not where it really is. I haven't had the chance to read the article, and even tough I hope to find it soon, I guess if anyone knew more about this, would be interesting to mention it here, altough it might not be considered to be actual invisibility since you would see the object eventually (depending on the degree of "lag" the slowing of light would cause, which I ignore). Also, I guess when the object became illuminated, it would take a while for it to appear, since light reflecting from it would take longer to reach the eye than the rest of the light reflecting from other objects. So, if anyone has true knowledge of this, it would be nice to see it posted on wikipedia. Uberflaven (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This wiki is a joke. The german language Invisibility wiki is packed with science and interesting things... but this English language one is silly and short and has more info about fictional nonsense and magic and "sight while invisible", which is just mental masturbation. It might as well be talking about who would win in a fight, Superman or Mighty Mouse. "In fact theoretically the cloaking system could be manufactured to completely bend all visible light around it leaving him 100% invisible to species that only perceive visible light. However, this also may be the result of the species keeping a fair advantage, as Predators are known to be honorable warriors." Come on... is this for real? This belongs in a Predator fan site, not on wikipedia. We need to just translate the German language Invisibility wiki and use that. Simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.148.73 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Link to Philadelphia Experiment?

should the article do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.210.110 (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invisibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080816035413/http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20080811/scientists_turn_fiction_into_reality_closer_to_make_objects_invisible-id-1032139.html to http://www.themoneytimes.com/articles/20080811/scientists_turn_fiction_into_reality_closer_to_make_objects_invisible-id-1032139.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127094253/https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/science11.html to https://webspace.utexas.edu/cokerwr/www/index.html/science11.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Invisibility Phenomenon

Research Dr. Martha Gurban. Her work with creating the invisibility phenomenon was amazing. Urqueenrae (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Dld

Bkzndb 2405:205:C92F:C81B:0:0:395:E8B0 (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"🫥" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 🫥 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 11#🫥 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)