Transhumanist

NEW OPTICS TECHNOLOGY PROMISES MANIFOLD SPINOFFS

Well, if you've been following optics technologies or the subject of invisibility, here's a story that you should find intriguing:

GRIN Plasmonics

Note the uses implied by Luneberg lenses, i.e., lenses that can focus light from any direction equally efficiently, and Eaton lenses, i.e., lenses that can bend light 90 degrees coming from any direction.  These techniques are part of a whole new science called "transformation optics," which actually warps a physical space-time through which light travels in order to bend light.

In case you didn't notice, that means, quite literally, that scientists are now engineering the fabric of space-time locally, on the laboratory bench, something that I have consistently maintained in my books that they have been doing...since World War Two. Now, however, it is out in the open, and not subject to the constraints and walls of classification.

The uses of such technologies for invisibility technologies, for optical computing and a host of other applications, is almost limitless... as is their potential origin in black projects... but we know the names of those black projects already, for while their technological basis might have been very different from transformation optics, nonetheless the conceptual basis - local engineering of space itself - remains the same.

11 thoughts on “NEW OPTICS TECHNOLOGY PROMISES MANIFOLD SPINOFFS”

  1. My questions are threefold. (1) Where would the hardware be to engineer such laboratory experiments with? (2) Where would the tools be to perform such work? (i.e. CAD programs, etc.) (3) where would the engineers be who understand such engineering theories?

    As far as research goes, without engineerable hardware, how does one go about engineering such devices? Any available hardware with which engineers at the system integrators will design with will be based upon conventional electromagnetic theory.

    I’ve read most of your books so I’m very familiar with your work Joseph.

    1. My guess is, and it’s only a guess, is that the laboratories – Los Alamos, Sandia, and similar foreign institutions, Marconi in Britain, Siemens in Germany, Mitsubishi in Japan and so on – are the places you’re going to find this. But these effects can be engineered with off the shelf components, as the work of John Hutchison evidences. THe programs are another matter entirely and that is an aspect of all of this I have NOT investigated. As for the engineers, I suspect, strongly, that there are engineers who understand it, in fact, I am doing a “paper” on this precise subject for the members’ only area once we get it ready to go.

    2. There are some big problems with how completely “off the shelf” technology is understood–for example a magnet, also even a how electricity is conducted by a wire.

  2. Actually, no there weren’t two experiments for that 1887 paper and that paper is what is cited. At the end of the paper M and M propose a further experiment that they did not pursue. You can read the original 1887 paper–not some text book summary–there should be a link from Wikipedia. It does not take advanced math to come to a conclusion of something like 6 KPS of ether wind. And that number was really close to the low end of the prediction.

    In the 20th century, Miller and Sagnac both confirmed motion in the ether–so too Silvertooth much later.

    However none of this means that text book summaries of the 1887 paper are correct.

  3. Maybe the best approach to design, and what might be tried out if it
    is being done, assuming they aren’t going for the old Maxwell unedited
    version as a base of equations, is not to work on theory, except the
    most vague general non mathematical, but to tinker around until
    something WORKS and figure the equations later that best explain
    it.

  4. Joseph, where is the hardware beyond detectors, lasers (for the fiber) and the fiber? As an EE working for one of the defense outfits, what are you going to design with? The defense outfits aren’t interested in manufacturing individual parts so you are stuck with what third party suppliers have available. Moreover, what’s the great benefit of creating an optical computer when there are fpga’s for low volume, asics for high volume, etc. in terms of computing power. I’m not sure what you buy migrating to optics if it is even feasible when they are rather bulky, are very expensive relative to their electronic counterparts, and are really only beneficial in high bandwith link type situations.

    I suppose I just don’t see what you are getting at here. It sounds like an entirely new field but where has all of the R&D been done for this new field? If it’s already been done in “black areas”, then at some point it must migrate to high volume areas or else the company has no interest in it. They make their money on volume, not prototypes. If these are in fact presently on lab benches in prototypes, then where did the hardware come from to begin with? The Boeings/Lockheeds are nothing but systems integrators so who would they be getting this “magical” hardware from? From optical specifications to third parties who know even less about this hardware than they do?

    I’m rather curious on your take in this regard. Engineers can’t design anything without understanding the fundamentals (i.e. equations) and when it comes to scalar weapons theory, there is an dearth of information in this regard much less hardware with which to work on a lab bench.

    1. I am not sure what you question is… The research has been outlined in innumerable papers and studies, beginning with ET Whittaker in 1903 and continuing from there. Perhaps I misunderstand you question?

      1. I’d also point out that the 1887 Michelson and Morely paper says exactly the opposite of what almost all text books on physics claim.

        1. I think there were two Michelson Morely experiments, one
          of which was presupposing stuff and takin the measurement
          at the wrong angle or direction, and produced what the textbooks
          say, the other was more ambiguous. there was a third
          experiment by someone else, which had the opposite
          conclusion and used a different direction to measure in.

        2. My understanding of the Michelson-Morely experiments did not disprove the general notion of an “aether”, only that the aether was not physical in nature.

Comments are closed.