News Article:
Invisibility Cloak "Feasible Now"
Original Scientific Paper:
Broadband Invisibility by Non-Euclidean Cloaking
Summary of the news article.
1) What specific claim(s) does the news article make about the study? That is, what did the news article say was discovered? For each claim, indicate if the original paper actually makes that claim.
The news article claims that Leonhardt’s study contains a theoretical calculation of how an invisibility cloak can be formed based on light-bending properties. The article also asserts that invisibility cloaks are now feasible because earlier cloaking models only worked for one color at a time, while Leonhardt’s proposal is a multicolor cloak. The journal article does discuss the light-bending properties of curved, non-Euclidean spaces that could make invisibility possible in a wide range of the spectrum. However, the journal article does not mention whether the cloaking device would be feasible now or whether more time is needed to perfect the design.
2) Most technical papers have a "Conclusions" section (often labeled as such). Find this section. Are the items which the original authors highlighted as conclusions of their study discussed in the news article? Indicate "yes" or "no", giving your evidence.
The journal article concludes that if non-Euclidean space, which is inherently curved, were curved in specific ways, then invisibility could be achieved. According to Leonhardt, if the cloaking device had changes made to the optical properties of its material, then the cloaking mechanism could be designed into any shape. The news article does not talk about non-Euclidean space, yet it does mention that the cloaks would not be simple spheres or cylinders. The news article does not really talk about the possible shapes of the cloak, but it points out that the cloak must be larger than the object it is hiding, which could pose a problem for something like an airplane.
3) Most technical papers will describe the uncertainty around their conclusions and discoveries, often discussed in a section labeled "Discussion." Does the original paper describe the degree of confidence the scientists have in their discoveries? If so, describe this, and indicate whether or not the news article also discusses the degree of uncertainty.
The journal article describes a few imperfections, such as the fact that perfect invisibility is impractical. Leonhardt states that by studying the phase changes of light rays, the presence of the cloaking mechanism could be revealed. The study also states that as the size of the object to be hidden increases, the strength of the optics of the material must increase as well, which could pose a problem when trying to cloak very large objects. The news article, at one point, states that Leonhardt did not want to estimate when an invisibility cloak would be fully achievable, but then later quotes Leonhardt as saying invisibility cloaks are now feasible, which seems to be an inconsistency. The news article does mention that the cloak is still imperfect, and it also briefly talks about the phases of light changes that might cause imperfect invisibility. The news article notes that a large object, such as an airplane, would be difficult to hide, yet it does not discuss the optics of the material of the cloak.
4) It is the job of the news reporter to make whatever item they are reporting on relevant to some larger issue or set of issues; in contrast, a technical paper is often much more focused and may not deal with broader implications of the work. Do you find examples of the reporter discussing "broader implications" not present in the original paper? If so, describe them. Additionally, if so, indicate whether you (as a reader) can see that this broader implication actually does follow from the conclusions of the study.
The broader implications discussed in the news article actually include the idea that the invisibility technology could make objects more visible instead of less visible. The reporter claims that some of the light-bending properties that could generate the invisibility cloak could also be used in reverse, which would be useful in making better bicycle reflectors or better radar beacons for satellites. The original article does not talk about these possibilities that would result from reversing the invisibility-causing light-bending properties.
5) In some technical paper the original scientists might describes previous contradictory work of previous research (often in the "Introduction"), which they presumably consider their new work has overturned. If so, does the news article reflect that this study has resulted in the rejection of a previous hypothesis?
Leonhardt makes the distinction between previous studies, which used transformation optics that applied to flat, Euclidean space, and his study, which uses the concepts of non-Euclidean, curved space. The news article does not really address this information, but rather talks about the fact that previous studies only worked for a single wavelength of light, whereas Leonhardt’s study has come up with the guidelines for an imperfect multicolor cloak.
6) Journalists very often couch science news items as "debates between equal sides", even if the weight of the evidence is not equal. Does the news article discuss alternative hypotheses that are not mentioned in the original paper? If so, does the news article give a measure of what degree of evidential support exists for either of the alternative models?
The news article does not really offer alternative hypotheses, it only talks about the possibilities that would arise from reversing the light-bending properties discussed in the journal article. So, instead of making invisibility cloaks, this could result in better radar beacons for satellites, as well as sharper transmission of communications from cell phones and wi-fi servers in computers.