Blueprint for Invisibility
be well, be love.
blueprint for invisibility
our recent publication in science explores a new electromagnetic design approach. invisibility is possible, but...
the science fact and fiction of invisibility
there is undeniably a link between science fact and the ideas that emerge in science fiction and fantasy. science fiction authors are inspired by actual scientific and technological discoveries, but allow themselves the freedom to project the possible future course of these discoveries and their potential impact on society, perhaps remaining only weakly tethered to the facts. and, when faced with obstacles presented by the realities of actual technology, authors of fiction can break free from the tethers entirely, inventing completely imaginary technologies to move their storyline forward. however, the most skilled practitioners of the genre create compelling stories by having the fictional technology maintain some connection to either existing or at least projected technologies.
scientists, in turn, often derive inspiration from the imaginative possibilities that exist in fictional worlds, but are constrained to follow the laws of nature that apply in this world. the inventions in fictional worlds seldom transition to the real world,--at least not in the way they are first imagined. but it does happen. jules verne wrote about space ships and submarines before either were demonstrated. planet colonization and terraforming, space elevators and "bionic" replacement limbs are science fiction concepts that have not yet fully materialized into reality, but that are taken seriously by researchers and are very active research topics. the idea of semi-intelligent servant robots, once restricted entirely to the realm of fiction, is now actively being pursued by both academic and corporate researchers. already, we can buy roombas and robovacs to tidy up around the house!
forgot to include this link;
electromagnetic analysis of cylindrical invisibility cloaks and the mirage effect
frédéric zolla, sébastien guenneau, andré nicolet, and j. b. pendry
optics letters, vol. 32, issue 9, pp. 1069-1071
we present a finite-element analysis of a diffraction problem involving a coated cylinder enabling the electromagnetic cloaking of a lossy object with sharp wedges located within its core. the coating consists of a heterogeneous anisotropic material deduced from a geometrical transformation as first proposed by pendry [science 312, 1780 (2006)]. we analyze the electromagnetic response of the cloak in the presence of an electric line source in p polarization and a loop of magnetic current in s polarization. we find that the electromagnetic field radiated by such a source located a fraction of a wavelength from the cloak is perturbed by less than 1%. when the source lies in the coating, it seems to radiate from a shifted location.
© 2007 optical society of america
the real test begins when they figure out if the amount of energy which can be harvested is remotely comparable to the energy needed to create the radio frequencies which catalyze the process... if not, then it's just a toy
my impression is that since he put his hand in the way without any adverse affect, that it isn't just hydrogen and oxygen dissociating - its also sodium from the salt. the test tube water didn't seem to be boiling. it may be that there's some gas at the surface formed that is flammable, like sodium hydroxide.
to me this seems futility as compared with psychic phenomena,
to me things like remote sensing seem a superior form of cloaking.
another low cost approach seems using the lack of light at night.
The Structure of Number
more from justin and "must" reads...
be well, be love.
the structure of number
here at treeincarnation.com, we've been exploring and developing a new science which moves us closer to a grand unified theory (gut) , and which subtly differs from the current scientific goal for a gut.
the gut is the attempt to unify the four fundamental forces of physics, that is: gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction. all well and good, but a truly unified theory would not be a theory of everything. after all, as soon as you define what looks to be everything, something new and unexpected inevitably crops up.
it recently occurred to me that what modern science is actually looking for, is the explanation for all 'things.' now, there are two ways of approaching such a dilemma. if you take the modern scientific approach, you set out to define all 'things' through intense study of all of the possible parts. but, there's an alternative to defining everything. that alternative would be to first examine what is not a thing.
unknown to me, this is where our experiments with number have been leading us. our study has been revealing number itself to be more than just a descriptive device or tag for mere counting of objects. number has it's own geometry, and by it's very nature is reflecting the archetypal patterns of the natural world. this is opening up a new scientific approach, which instead of assuming either physical substance or it's lack to be the 'ground state' of reality, takes number to be the prime reality. number is the metaphysical language of reality, which by it's very nature explains all that is physically manifest and unmanifest. this metaphysical aspect is beyond that which can be physically defined, it is beyond the category of 'thing-ness'.
it has been commented that, all thought, by definition is metaphysical, because thought is beyond that which is physically observable. but ironically, not only is metaphysical thinking that which allows such ideas to even exist, but furthermore our entire experience is nothing but metaphysical.
it seems to me that many areas of modern science have forgotten their own roots, because at heart they are all rooted in metaphysics. in fact, one of the greatest figures in modern science: isaac newton, was highly influenced by alchemy and other spiritual teachings. he was inspired to develop his laws of motion from the study of metaphysical teachings.
our experiments with number are likewise a metaphysics, as we are drawing on a diverse range of scientific traditions to broaden our horizons. these explorations, however subjective or objective, are a science in their own right.
there has been a lot of progress over the past few months, and now we have three articles exploring the structure and function of number. although these articles are documenting the progress of a new science, it's still hard to say with certainty where this new science is going. besides it being an exploration of meaning and truth, it seems that the process of discovery has been directing itself and by simply exploring this new territory we find many useful insights.
naturally, much of this early work will need updating and reevaluation as we continue to explore. finding any weak areas of theory will be an important opportunity. after all, if we are never wrong, how an we expect to learn what constitutes a truth.
justin lawless ~ may 28, 2007
in the past few years, i've learned how to make soap with vegetable oils and sodium hydroxide. during this learning experience, i read that sodium hydroxide is made by electricity through seawater, and that a by-product is chlorine gas.
considering that gentleman's work with the flaming salt water, wouldn't he notice something like chlorine gas?
just a thought...
i saw the videos, and wonder how it actually works.
but too often our western logical, left-brained society always wants a scientific answer.
i hope the work he's done comes out to be more than just a toy.
in reading the work on "zero", one word came to mind: "singularity".
maybe in some context, part of the study of one, is such a study...
this invention resembles stan meyer's methode of splitting water using a new form of electrolysis:
explanation of stan's process:
stan used high frequency pulses (20 khz).
this new discovery may be an other variation of stan's technique.
the question is if this new device produces over unity (more energy out than in).
unfortenately stan is no longer among us, since he was murdered for his invention.
-1 = 1 too..... not really :)
this was pleasantly synchronistic with some of my own explorations until the 0^2 = 2 part. he is right to consider the shape he mentions as it is also the vector space which most perfectly describes the intersection of four planes such that the angles at intersection are most uniform etc. more interestingly, the shape is fundamentally comprised of tetrahedral elements/summetries (as well as octahedral). even more interestingly, the shape is directly related to a star tetrahedron if i remember correctly from some research two years ago. i spent days inspiredly constructing graphs and assembling paper models of this topic because it so entrenched my imagination.
i want to avoid resorting to definitions to explain why his approach to concluding that 0^2 = 2 troubles me. and it may simply be that i don't understand his logic which may in fact be sound.
1 = sqrt(1) = sqrt((-1)(-1)) = i * i = i^2 = (sqrt(-1))^2 = -1
also seems logically sound and has a similarly troubling conclusion.. except that a definition about imaginary numbers (i) solves the potential paradox.
i'm confused why he alters the frequency formula (which is a trivial alteration since it doesn't actuallly change anything when 0 is plugged in) yet leaves the 2 alone, which is not trivial, and actually has profound importance in such an equation. in the end it lead him to a paradox. my suspicion which i don't plan to research more fully (since i'm not too fond of topopogy, nor will i have much time available since i'm preparing to head to africa with the peace corps to... teach math of all things) is that there is a definition which he overlooked and which lead him to conclude that which he does.
as for the relation this may have to topologies of singularities, one can easily discover the beauty of singularities by using zero (without involving any funky and unnecessary paradoxes). imagine unity being divided into zero pieces. it dosn't matter which unity you discuss -- which shape or ideal one -- the process of dividing it into zero pieces is a singularity and expresses just how fantastic these things are. as a hint, the limit as x approaches zero (from the right) of 1/x (unity divided into x pieces) is... you guessed it... infinite. just as interesting is that the same limit but from the left is negative infinity. so by travelling an infinitessimal distance form the left to the right, near zero, over such a singularity, involves traversing infinite distances up and down. this is the nature of a singularity.
and as a secondary puzzle to ponder (you'll never tire of pondering the above singularity if you like numbers), you may want to consider what 0^0 (zero to the zero power) looks like... or various other applications which involve zero. the simple truth is that when handling zero and the infinite, as a professor once stated, your intuition can easily deceive you (and i don't mean to suggest that your intuition is wrong, but to imply that the subject is inherently full of confusion).
one of my conclusions, which is still being calculated in my head as i write this, and as i layed awake in bed a few weeks ago, is that of all the numbers in existence, three concepts of number have the most profound relationship -- the extent of which may be... infinite -- and those "numbers" are 0, 1, and infinity.
here's another fun one.. infinity + infinity = infinity^infinity = infinity + 1 = infinity - 1 = infinity .... think about it
in any case, before i go to bed (cause i'm getting deleriously tired) i'd like to mention that the article "light eye" posted about the mathematical universe hypothesis is quite possibly the most fundamentally insightful piece that can be read if you're pondering the importance of "number" or mathematics in general to the universe and existence.
Tags for this Thread