Speaking of misquotes....

[Duper]

In light of "that other thread", I wanted to post this.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/celebr ... erican.htm

This was going around work and I found it hard to believe. But like that other quote, unless you went looking for it BEING a fake, you aren't going to find otherwise. ...because it went viral.

And that's why I'm posting. Not to discuss Canada's more famous misfit (and shared by us now.)

It seems that when something like this goes viral, all other data gets buried and becomes VERY difficult to wade through. It can take hours trying to defeat the Boolean. What do you think? should search engines adjust for that? I'm not overly fond of Google's "trying to help" by tailoring my searches based on past events and the like. And then there's how the post the top links are presented.

It's most about (it seems) you're being sold info as if you were walking through a carnival where you do all the throwing games and everyone is yelling at you to spend money on their booth more than walking into a library.

Am I expecting too much?

Thoughts?

And if you guys up North have any real input on Justin and what's awaiting him, that would be fine too... I guess.

[flip]

I've found Google great but you have to ask very specific questions. You have to already have an idea of what your looking for and then phrase it in such a way to beat the search.

[Duper]

but That's part of my point flip. with modern algorithms, Why should it still be that difficult. That hasn't changed over the last 15 years.

[vision]

...I found it hard to believe. But like that other quote, unless you went looking for it BEING a fake, you aren't going to find otherwise. Am I expecting too much?

You answered your own question. If you find something hard to believe then look for evidence. You should be skeptical of everything and judge everything you read with a critical eye. In fact, you should always be ready to accept contrary evidence to things you find easy to believe. Of course, it takes practice determining what is "good evidence."

Don't rely on Google. Learn better search techniques (it's a skill that requires creativity with language). Turn off all personal filters and/or use search engines that don't personalize results. Use search engines based in other countries. All these things will help.

[flip]

I know exactly what your talking about. It's become harder and harder to wade through the extremism to find legitimate, cutting edge science. That's why you almost have to already know what your looking for, and then try to phrase it in a way you think it would be answered. It's like the ability to twist electromagnetic energy into a vortex of light. That is amazing and interesting as hell, but 99% of the hits your gonna have to wade through is people just making 'conspiracy' claims, with no actual knowledge of how it could actually be done. It's not as easy as it was say 5-10 years ago.

[Jeff250]

This is the one for science.

[flip]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... 1&as_sdtp=

Bookmarked!

Optical trapping is an increasingly important technique for controlling and probing matter at length scales ranging from nanometers to millimeters. This paper describes methods for creating large numbers of high-quality optical traps in arbitrary three-dimensional configurations and for dynamically reconfiguring them under computer control. In addition to forming conventional optical tweezers, these methods also can sculpt the wavefront of each trap individually, allowing for mixed arrays of traps based on different modes of light, including optical vortices, axial line traps, optical bottles and optical rotators. The ability to establish large numbers of individually structured optical traps and to move them independently in three dimensions promises exciting new opportunities for research, engineering, diagnostics, and manufacturing at mesoscopic lengthscales.

Mesoscopic physics is a sub-discipline of condensed matter physics which deals with materials of an intermediate length scale. The scale of such materials can be described as being between the size of a quantity of atoms (such as a molecule) and of materials measuring micrometres.

LOL! Just kidding, just kidding

[flip]

Polarized light is a phenomenon familiar to anyone with a pair of polaroid sunglasses. Optical components that change the nature of the polarization from linear to circular are common in any undergraduate laboratory. Probably only physicists know that circularly polarized light carries with it an angular momentum that results from the spin of individual photons. Few physicists realize, however, that a light beam can also carry orbital angular momentum associated not with photon spin but with helical wavefronts. Beams of this type have been studied only over the last decade. In many instances orbital angular momentum behaves in a similar way to spin. But this is not always so: orbital angular momentum has its own distinctive properties and its own distinctive optical components. This article outlines the general behaviour of such beams; how they can be used to rotate microscopic particles; how they interact with nonlinear materials; the role they play in atom-light interactions and how the rotation of such beams results in a measurable frequency shift.

Thanks Jeff, sincerely, I have looked far and wide for that one source I found describing how you could do this by firing one electromagnetic beam into a dual polarized beam and cause an optical vortex. It has been frustrating as hell to say the least.

[Jeff250]

Oh no, what I have done!

[callmeslick]

What, indeed?

[flip]

Heh, well for one, you have pigeon-holed general relativity