Eric, thanks for posting the link to the original article, and thanks also to the others who responded to my post. Since nobody complained about the subject, I guess I can make these comments before the thread gets to be too long and too OT.
I did get one private email from a list member who felt I was a non-technical person writing about things way beyond my education. Just in case a lot of readers may feel the same way, let me explain to the list. I felt that the startling claims of the article would make for a more interesting conversation topic than some other discussions on the reflector. I related the gist of the article without personally trying to either support or debunk the content. I have a PhD in Physics as well as a Masters in Engineering from long ago, but I would not take myself so seriously as to spend the effort to try to arrive at a personal evaluation of a subject that the active researchers (pro as well as con) spent many hours on. Without the intent of supporting or disproving the claimed results, and after reading the comments (but none of the original work), I make these basic observations: * Radio waves differ from light only by frequency, and are composed of photons if light is understood as composed of photons. * Photons have linear momentum although they don't have any rest mass. They also have two kinds of angular momentum, Spin Angular Momentum (SAM, with only two possible measured values), and Orbital Angular Momentum (OAM, which can have many). * The claim was not just that you can have two independent communications (as possible by means of circular polarization), but more than two. * The claim of multiple levels of angular momentum tells us that it is about OAM and not SAM. The abstract of the debunking research (thanks Sverre for posting) explicitly refers to OAM. * "Debunking" can have multiple meanings. Sometimes it can mean that the information in question is garbage. Sometimes it merely means that the information is not as new as claimed. In this case, the debunking might be of the second type (although I am not deeply enough in the issue to say it is). * Once one goes deep enough in physics, one finds that the "laws of nature" are just "models" that intend to mimic reality, and they are not reality itself. It may turn out that the claims made in this case bring nothing to our understanding, but there is not unusual in science to have situations where two theories explain the same phenomena in very different ways, and where neither theory can be pronounced "incorrect". 73, Erik K7TV -----Original Message----- From: elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net [mailto:elecraft-boun...@mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of erehm Sent: Friday, May 04, 2012 1:40 PM To: elecraft@mailman.qth.net Subject: Re: [Elecraft] OT: Distinguishable angular momentum in radio photons? Better yet, it's available free on-line: http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/a-new-twist-on-radio-waves /eric, kj7ae -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/OT-Distinguishable-angular-momentum-in- radio-photons-tp7525974p7528611.html Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:Elecraft@mailman.qth.net This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
