LOL

Thank you.
I got it.
That seems to be a common thing, i:e: to write about a possibility as fact way before it can be implemented. Otherwise the atmosphere would be filled with flying cars.
Thanks for the understandable examples.
One never stops learning.

As to whether she would approve or not, I would say that she would, if asked about it, answer the same as I would, "That is not an important thing in a person's life. It is just something a person might do and neither adds or subtracts from another person's life any more than a writer considering writing about a person brushing his teeth or putting on a particular pair of shoes. It is of no real importance to any but the one doing it. Making something of the small likes and dislikes that others have is sheer busybody nonsense."

Ahhhh, but it makes for great press and marketing for Dublin U. .. or wherever.

Herb - I am an IT guy. I can tell you, without understanding diddly about Planck's constant, that the author is indeed 'full of it'. As Steven-Wells pointed out, discoveries in science are often years from practical implementation into everyday life. Take, e.g., the Human Genome Project; at the turn of the century this was supposed to give us the end of cancer within 5 years time. Hasn't happened yet,.. and it looks like the cures for cancer will be hardly genetically designed, rather instigating one's own defenses to better serve oneself---i.e., teaching white cells to better attack cancerous cells.

The notion that this will make fiber-optic transmission faster is akin to saying ramjet technology will get one from NY to Tokyo in 20 minutes. On paper, yes. Practically, however, ... No. A classic misconception I battle everyday in the lay world of IT is the perception that 'fiber-optic' cable is faster at data transmission than classic copper wire is. Simply stating that electro-magnetic pulses travel at the same speeds is not enough to convince the common office manager intent on spending 2~4x the price for 'fiber-optic' cabling simply because it works with light-waves..!!

In the SAN (Storage Area Network) industry mainly, marketers have done a swell job selling such a misconception to their uneducated consumers.

Back to the topic at hand, another reason why one will not see improvement in fiber optic networks anytime soon - the timing of data processing is based on conventional components---crystals, capacitors, resistors, transistors, XAND gates, etc.---which can only run as fast as conventional electro-magnetic pulses travel. Those components will ALL need re-engineering to handle signals at faster than light speeds, if what they say is even possible in current fiber-optic cabling. I.e., you can't sail any faster than the slowest boat in the fleet.

Anyway, Steven-Wells nailed it when he correctly pointed out that the author has no more than a 5th-grader's understanding of science... which may be an insult to many 5th graders.

Are you saying then, that the "discovery" in the article is not a discovery at all? If that's true, then what's the fuss about? I understand Plank's constant because of my readings on quantum physics and the explanations given in a non math way. But between the article and your post, I am confused. Please simplify your conclusion so that an ex photographer/musician/editor like me can understand it.

thanks for the details in language I can understand, Steven! +1

The technology was called dense-wave division multiplexing when I was at Cisco many years ago. A large number, say 64, of precisely tuned lasers, each with its own specific frequency, send data into a fiber. In the frequency domain, the 64 different data streams are all orthogonal; that is, they do not interact with each other. So at the other end of the fiber (or at selective taps along the way) the many different multiplexed data streams are divided (extracted). Thus, each single fiber can do the work of many dozens. When you run out of capacity, instead of digging up 100 miles of fiber bundles to add some more, you add some more laser frequencies at each end.

This is a long way from a science wonder, some of which do exist fortunately. I AM a science guy, and the article was clearly written by someone who doesn’t know more about science than a fifth grader.
“Until now, light has been seen as a fixed constant. Literally, your ability to see light is based on Planck’s constant and angular momentum, a number that is a multiple based on Planck’s mathematical equation which measures a beam of light.”
Drivel. Time for the author to open Max Planck’s The Theory of Heat Radiation and run away screaming from its immense mathematical rigor. Some simple equations eventually rule; for example:
E=h×nu and E=h-bar×omega.
For light (a photon), its energy is Planck’s constant times its frequency, or alternatively, it’s energy is Planck’s constant divided by two×pi times its angular momentum. (Hard to show with the limited font here.)
Yes, Planck’s constant is important: h=6.626×10^-34 joule-seconds, and h-bar, Planck’s constant divided by two pi, is the universe’s natural line width of conjugate properties; such as position and momentum, or energy and time.
But so what?! Half-h-bar angular momentum isn’t going to magically and instantly translate into better fiber optic communication. Just like knowing that E=mc² doesn’t magically turn into a practical fusion reactor running on deuterium and tritium from seawater.

isn't it wonderful how people discover stuff when
they're free to do it? . it's such fun watching and
enjoying the results ... just keep 'em free!!! -- j
.

hey, I got a present -- she's still asleep in there! -- j
.

My problem is the first line in the last paragraph.

"The discovery is still in ITS INFANCY....". They haven't even shown that this is a new form of light yet. This is similar to the claims of cold fusion. Before you can claim new discoveries you need to demonstrate through peer reveiw that your new information is true. This is because scientists are human and are succeptible to conformation bias.

I'm not a science guy. I don't always know how a scientific wonder works, but I appreciate that it does, and marvel at observing it doing so. What amazes me is not only the probing of the big questions such as the nature of light or the big bang, but also of the myriad of minutia being discovered every week, it seems, along with new and interesting ways of application. Any one telling me that they're bored should have their ticket to the human race punched.

SP spun off SPRINT (which stood for Southern Pacific Railroad's INTernal comm network, not anything international) years before SP merged into Union Pacific. GTE owned SPRINT for a while, but they too spun it off before GTE merged into Verizon.

I'm surprised that SPRINT is still around, given how most of the other long distance carriers (MCI, WorldCom, Qwest) either collapsed or merged into regional dial-tone providers. Ma Bell has been replaced by a Big Three who still mostly don't compete with each other, because the government limits them to separate areas. Clearly antitrust, like other regulatory efforts, has been captured by the companies it was supposedly created to regulate. I'm sure their lobbyists designed and paid for that result.

Could this have figured into the design of John Galt's unique cloaking device?

To be realistic it is not a new form of light. It is light with a rotation value different from what theory predicted was possible.

Good point. But, remember, according to George Carlin, there is no present either.

Since the future does not exist yet, how can it be changed?