Close
Articles

Hidden in Plain Sight: How Metamaterials Are Making Invisibility a Reality

December 16, 2024

The power of invisibility is one that I have always found to be fascinating, there are many things you could do if you were invisible. The idea of being able to bring this power to life is mind-boggling. The second post of this series will cover invisibility and how scientists are taking us one step closer to being unseen. Superheroes and popular characters like Violet Parr, Harry Potter, and Randall Boggs were capable of invisibility through their unique methods. Things like natural-born powers, invisibility capes, and monster abilities, are methods that are not capable of being replicated by science… at least not yet. The method we will cover here boils down to the basics of how we see things, the way our eyes perceive light. Scientists are playing around with light bending and optics to make objects “disappear”.

How Do We See?

To understand invisibility, we must first understand what it means for us to see an object. The process of seeing begins with light. When you see an object, what you are seeing is the light reflecting off that object and entering into your eyes. To make an object invisible, this fundamental interaction with light must be altered. More specifically, the light rays would need to be bent or diverted around/away from the object, preventing them from reaching the eyes and therefore making it unperceivable to the eyes (Lo, 2018).

Metamaterials

Scientists are creating metamaterials, which are “artificial materials with the ability to control physical phenomena” (Lo, 2018). With these materials, scientists can control and manipulate light rays, helping create invisibility. This process, known as light bending, is a key component in invisibility cloaks. This is further explained by scientists who state, “Metamaterials are composites designed to have a negative index of refraction, which imparts the extraordinary capability to bend light away from or around an object made from or coated with the material” (“Metamaterials Bend Light to New Levels,” 2023b).  Despite the challenges in scaling these technologies, the progress in metamaterial research could revolutionize how we interact with the physical world and lead to advancements in various scientific fields.

Challenges

There are two main challenges when trying to reach full invisibility, size and range. Unfortunately, the invisibility effect isn’t as broad as one might hope. Researchers have only managed to develop metamaterials that function with a single wavelength of light, corresponding to just one color. This means the material can create invisibility in controlled settings with a single light color, but not in natural environments where multiple colors of light are present. While these invisibility cloaks are a remarkable breakthrough, they aren’t perfected for the stealth needed in real-world conditions, limiting them to certain factors. Another challenge is the size of objects. Bigger items are more difficult to manage, and current metamaterials aren’t capable of hiding something as large as the human body. While scientists are optimistic that new ideas and designs will help tackle this problem, it will likely be some time before we can reach the point of making humans fully “disappear” (Lo, 2018).

Real-World Applications

Although there are many challenges in the journey to invisibility, there are highly beneficial theoretical uses for this ability that make it all the more exciting to achieve. According to researchers, “the Rochester Cloak, for instance, could one day allow surgeons to see through their hands, preventing their hands from blocking their view of what they’re operating on” (Lo, 2018). This use could change science and the way we view healthcare completely. There are many motivations for perfecting the invisibility cloak as it could help so many in the long run.

Conclusion

Though complete invisibility remains a dream and goal for most of us, it is hard to ignore the remarkable progress scientists have made in controlling light to achieve partial invisibility. The innovation of metamaterials and spectral cloaking is bringing us closer to a future where invisibility will leave the realm of fiction and enter into reality. Although the methods are limited, they are the first steps to becoming like the superheroes we see on our screens. If this is what scientists have created so far, I cannot wait to find out what else the future holds for us.

 

 

References

Lo, A. (2018). Hidden From Plain Sight: Can Science Create Real-Life Invisibility? – Science Communication Club. Utoronto.ca. https://scc.sa.utoronto.ca/content/hidden-from-plain-sight-invisibility/

Metamaterials Bend Light To New Levels. (2023). Chemical & Engineering News, 86(33). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07247)

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

Articles
The Clock Within: Neurospora crassa
Articles
Music & Emotions: A Series (Part 1 – Scary/Fear)
Articles, vintage science
The von Neumann Architecture
Articles, today i learned (til)
Mandai Bird Paradise: Asia’s Biggest Aviary Sanctuary

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.