I looked for something like that when the Italian demonstration first got passed around, but couldn't find anything. I will retort by saying that it is indeed not "bullshit" after a first pass-through, this paper agrees with what I explained, however, this paper explains that it is not necessarily a new phenomena, but rather a special case. Thanks for the article though, I'll look at this more closely when I get a chance. But for clarification, what claim is the load of bullshit?
Nope, its more than just polarization. The OAM (or whatever they're calling this) is a physical property of a ray of light transmission, and it manifests itself by spreading the energy out spatially away from the 'center.' You can "de-OAM" the transmission by spatial movement of your receiving array, so it is computationally less complex. However, it is _highly_ directional, and I have yet to see a decent analysis that involves multipath or other scattering interference. This is a mode of light that is not commonly discussed in E&M courses, but is a real property. These modes are orthogonal (for integer periods of a carrier cycle) -- much like QAM, but there are many modes (where most articles start getting the infinite or unlimited ideas) as opposed to 2 for QAM. It is a somewhat interesting experiment, indeed not hokum, but it remains to see how practical or what application areas this could be useful for.
This guy's stance is crazy. Even if the earth is 6000 old, but the universe is created with apparent age, the ideas of evolution remain equally true as they were since they match all possible observations. It is not weakened at all.
So even though we can't measure the sound of the voice that created the universe 6000 years ago, but can measure the cosmic black-body radiation that is consistent with the big-bang theory, they are still equally valid ideas whereas the elf assumption is not valid because we can measure the ball on its parabolic curve and not the elves muscle strength?? With regard to your statement that evolution is circumstantial because we cannot measure it right now: We can, however, see bones, DNA showing biodiversity over time. We can see mutations occurring in the lab and organisms evolving new traits that previous generations did not have. These are current measurements we can take today. We can predict that mutations from previous generations occur, and that these accumulate over time from our observations and confirm this on small-scale in the laboratory. This is far from circumstantial.
And who's to say the world isn't only 5 seconds old, formed with all appearances of it being old including all "memories?" That is equally plausible, but both ideas are useless and (sorry, but I can't help say this) insane to believe. Both ideas do not offer any mechanism for how the world appears as it currently does, and even assuming they were absolutely true, it would make no difference -- If all evidence points to the mechanism of evolution to bring about diverse speciation in this planet, and a big bang starting the universe 14 million years ago, and these are able to explain the universe we see today as well as provide predictions about how it will be in the future, then it would not matter if all this data was "faked" 6000 years ago, or 5 seconds ago, we should still hold to these theories (old-universe) as true since they would not be violated. The 6000 year old earth/universe theory should not be treated with anything other than pity and the response is patient education (not yelling, calling names, or most of the other responses). The scientific method has changed over the years - for many branches, we can not setup a controlled experiment to setup a hypothesis. We can only take data, and analyze it. (Ecology, star formation, development of flight in dinosaurs, and others.) This does not make unfalsifiable ideas equal to all other ideas.
In your time as President of the US, will the US military presence be increased and expanded globally or will expect to see a decrease in deployed armed forces?