lkcl Member
  • Member since Dec 30th 2017
  • Last Activity:

Posts by lkcl

    i'm sorry, eric, i don't let bullies and censors get away with their actions.

    Your previous reply was moved to the "Clearance Items," as was the one above.

    that constitutes censorship, eric - it's called bullying, and it has consequences. by claiming that you wish to follow the principles of scientific and academic enquiry yet then enacting CENSORSHIP when someone points out logical flaws and cognitive dissonance, that has consequences: it means that your reputation is now completely destroyed.

    now, i do not have any reputation to uphold, and you have crossed the ethical line here which is the "red flag to a bull" for me. you can continue down this route, continuing to enact CENSORSHIP, or you can apologise - publicly - and restore all the comments that you have censored.

    this will go some way towards restoring peoples' trust in you that you have very quickly betrayed, and restoring your standing on this forum.

    Your reply was moved to the "Clearance Items."

    right. so you're now enacting censorship, is that correct? being unable to answer, and having had your inability to logically reason pointed out to you, publicly, you choose to CENSOR?

    you know what the consequences of going down that road, are, don't you.

    i wrote a reply... it appears not to have been posted. i REALLY hope that this was a mistake on my part rather than censorship by LENR.

    If you are not going to support claims you make, you will be ignored, plain and simple. If you do not mind that you are ignored, there is no further issue.

    I encourage you to double-check the neutron-electron mass ratio calculation and determine for yourself whether it falls outside of the CO-DATA value and error bounds; and, if so, to conclude what you will from this detail about the accuracy of Mills's theoretical apparatus.

    let me try to keep it brief (because it took a long time the first time, and the signal-to-noise ratio is being rapidly degraded having to deal with you, eric, and is taking up a lot of my time).

    you are completely misunderstanding my motivation, eric. you are also not answering my questions, which are not rhetorical. this has not gone unnoticed. i have a goal, it is a "third person" desire: the "threat" you raise that "i will be ignored plain and simple" holds a zero weighting in the decision-making matrix by which i make informed assessments.

    the second paragraph: you may be a senior member but that does not exempt you from making cognitively-dissonant assessments. looking at the electron theoretically-derived figures: they're accurate to within current CODATA (12dp). looking at the neutron theoretically derived figures: they're not accurate to within current CODATA. all that we should conclude from this is: the hypothesis about what is going on inside the neutron is wrong. that's all

    however you do not QUALIFY your statement, you make the BLANKET statement that is interpreted as ALL of "Mill's theoretical apparatus" is bogus.

    clearly this is false, and, as a senior member, i am fairly certain that you know it's false.

    so we may logically conclude that, despite you being a senior member you are deliberately out to cause trouble, wasting both my time, your time, and the time of everyone whom you are forcing to read and correct you. the only reason i'm answering rather than hitting "ignore" is because you ought to know better. however if you continue down this path, it's quite likely that you'll be the one that's ignored. given your longer standing on this forum that may hold a much larger weight for you than it would for anyone else, so i leave you to think about that, ok?

    If you are not going to support claims you make, you will be ignored, plain and simple. If you do not mind that you are ignored, there is no further issue.

    I encourage you to double-check the neutron-electron mass ratio calculation and determine for yourself whether it falls outside of the CO-DATA value and error bounds; and, if so, to conclude what you will from this detail about the accuracy of Mills's theoretical apparatus.

    (1) i asked a question. i did not receive a response. allow me to repeat the question. what is my REWARD for aiding and assisting people in their research into Mill's background vis-a-vis "NMR"?

    (2) i have made no claims. please do not put words into my mouth. i have provided people with some background and insight which helped *me* to understand where Mills is coming from.

    also, there is something that you need to understand about me:

    (1) i am not permitted to change other people's belief. i have ethical rules that i am ABSOLUTELY honour-bound to follow, with severe consequences for me should i ignore them. these ethical rules are not up for negotiation, regardless of threats of "consequences".

    (2) a "threat" of "being ignored plain and simple" only works "against" me if i have anything to lose by such a threat. what will i "lose" by quotes being ignored quotes? please provide me with a list so that i can assess the "damage" and make an informed decision.

    regarding your second statement: i notice that you have made a logical reasoning flaw, which i believe falls into the "correlation is not causation" category (or similar) at the very least, you claim that "Because One Hypothesis Is Wrong THE ENTIRE 1700 PAGE DOCUMENT OF WORK MUST BE FLAWED".

    you've been here a while: you're a senior member. you *know* that's horsepoo, so please take a moment to reflect on that, ok? right now, senior member or not, you're severely decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of this thread. as a senior member with a reputation here (i.e. lots of people who respect and follow you), you may not *like* the fact that i am making you aware of that, so, again, i invite you to reflect on that - carefully - before responding further.

    Someone can say, what was source for such-and-such claim you have made about Mills and NMR scans?, and unless it's already been a slog with them and they have demonstrated a refusal to consult sources you have already referred them to, the appropriate response is not to say "could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help?," but instead to provide the sources upon request. Polite production of sources is par for the course in any academic or technical discussion.

    Have you taken a look at Mills's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio? It falls outside of the 2012 CO-DATA experimental value and error.

    i come from a free software background: it is based around collaboration, where each individual's contribution is respected, and every individual's time is treated as valuable (and not to be imposed on to the detriment of the collaboration), whereas the academic ethos is based around the extremely adversarial "guilty until proof is provided" approach. i am *not* going to go there. i have absolutely no desire or need to enter into any "burdensome adversarial style proof", particularly one where there is no "return on investment" for my time.

    if that is not precisely clear: please can you tell me, what do i *GAIN* by entering into and agreeing to the contract offered to me whereby i must "provide proof and evidence of dr mill's contribution to NMR"? please outline to me EXACTLY what i will gain by collaborating in such research?

    i'm absolutely serious. you tell me what i will get in return for doing the work, and i will then be able to make an informed decision as to whether i wish to spend my time pursuing such research.

    if there is anything unreasonable about my expectation to gain from what i choose to spend my time on, please do let me know.

    anyway. second question:

    if mill's calculation for the neutron-electron mass ratio is wrong, yet the electron mass is accurate to 10 to 12 dp, and the mass of the neutron is likewise known to a similar degree, then what conclusion may be drawn about the calculation? it means that mill's hypothesis about what's inside the neutron is wrong, doesn't it? there's nothing wrong with that, that i can see. now, at that point we can begin to speculate *why* the hypothesis has been proven inaccurate, and i have some alternative hypotheses there... but they are so highly speculative (i.e. based on such a long chain of logical reasoning, each step of which is hard to justify as i do not have the mathematical justification... yet) that i am quite reluctant to begin outlining them here.

    The geometry for currents is not a sphere technically the north pole and the south pole is not included but are singular points

    can i just confirm / check, are you working in spherical coordinates (phi, theta) and thus saying that at the north and south pole if you have a magnet you can't do latitude calculations?

    i am slightly confused because i don't believe that mills is *actually* saying that currents are totally undefined / undefinable at the north and south pole in spherical coordinates, it's just that latitude is undefined / undefinable there. you can check that yourself by doing a rotation of the coordinate system by 90 degrees and redoing the maths: now the "north" pole is theta=0, phi=90 and the south pole is theta=0, phi=-90 and those are *definitely* defined.

    or, perhaps an easier way to illustrate the point i am trying to make is: just move to cartesian coordinates, does the point you are trying to make still hold?

    and if so, what significance does it have? each ring (great circle) current would i assume be its own "frame of reference" with its own north and south pole, you'd rotate *that* to create the spherical summation... so... um... why would the sum of those great circle currents be any different?

    sorry if this is unclear.

    It was reasonable for mgspan to have queried you on the sources for the claim about Mills and NMR scans.

    indeed.... and it is reasonable to ask that someone communicate clearly that they are distinguishing themselves from someone who is placing the burden of responsibility for proof sufficient to meet their own chosen belief / acceptability criteria onto someone else as opposed to making it clear that they fully take responsibility for such proof / belief themselves.

    which (thank you mgspan, apologies for referring to you in the 3rd person, now switching to 1st person) you did very well in your second message.

    mgspan: as a reverse-engineer who has had to quite literally look for six to eight WEEKS for a single bit change in amongst literally thousands of network packets that, once found, makes a black-box reverse-engineered piece of software talk to another unknown piece of software where it previously would not, i have a completely different mindset and approach from the average person.

    please allow me to be colloquially clear: i genuinely do not give a flying **** who mills actually is. i don't even care if his hydrino work is accurate or not. there *is* no one thing on which i will "pass judgement". i look at the algorithms, i look at the data, i look HOLISTICALLY at the entire picture, from as many sources as i can possibly get my hands on, and i apply "weighted statistical probability" WITHOUT JUDGEMENT of each piece of data. it's taken literally years for me to do that, i won't bore you with the sheer tedium of the hundreds of papers i had to read.

    if you are unfamiliar with the technique(s) that reverse-engineers apply (it's not exactly a course you can apply for at university), you can look up "Demster Shafer Theory" and "Kolmogorov Complexity", as well as "error bars". Demster Shafer Theory is a generalisation of Bayes Theorem, and allows probabilistic statistical inference to be made based on extremely large sparse data-sets. Kolmogorov Complexity is about entropy, and allows one to assess the "value" of an algorithm.

    by combining all these three i am able to assess a particular mathematical model based on its accuracy, simple, and whether it has independent supporting similarity and/or evidence... *without* actually needing to *actually* understand the *actual* mathematics or anything else.

    using these criteria, Mill's work - just on the algorithm that he developed for the g/2 electron magnetic moment alone, is OFF THE CHARTS.

    *everything* else pales into total insignificance - by several orders of magnitude - and that *includes* the Standard Model due to the insane level of complexity and computational resources needed *and* the 27 "Magic Constants".

    i *genuinely* do not care who he is. he could be named Mr Magic Fluff MacDuffin, he could be someone who was locked up in a loony bin for trying nearly successfully to hijack the moon and drop it into Low-Earth Orbit for all i care. he could be someone who managed to steal Fort Knox and i *don't care* because it's *not relevant to the fact that even just one of the formulae he came up with is accurate to within 12dp* and has a rational mathematical trail / explanation with ZERO postulation behind it.

    have you *any idea* how significant that is? it's... i cannot emphasise enough how amazing a mathematical achievement the electron g/2 factor work truly is. and he did the same thing for the mass of the electron! and the muon! four of science's most accurately-measured experiments and he got them *EXACTLY RIGHT* to within their experimental uncertainty!

    now whether people quotes believe quotes his work into hydrinos or not, that too is again as far as i'm concerned utterly irrelevant! i can't tell you anything about it because i don't care, it's not my primary focus.

    i mentioned his work into NMR because it allowed *me* to understand Mill's motivation from a historical perspective. it was part of *my* trail into the "black box named Mills Work".

    bottom line is: you, yourself, need to choose your own criteria by which you make decisions as to what to spend your time and energy to investigate, and to what purpose. is your life's purpose and reason for being here on this forum to choose whether to *BELIEVE* in Dr Mill's work? is your life's purpose here to CHOOSE whether to spend your time understanding his work? or is your life's purpose here to choose whether to CONTRIBUTE to that work? all of these are very starkly different questions.

    my purpose in being here is something i am very clear about: it is my desire to "see completed" a particle physic theory that has zero postulation and has an exact and precise match for every single known particle to within current experimental uncertainty, and accurately predicts the existence of new ones. Dr Mill's work - nothing to do with Hydrinos in ANY WAY - is the closest that i have been able to find which stands a chance of forming the basis of the theory that i desire to "see completed" (note the very deliberate and very very careful 3rd person emphasis and wording, there).

    along the way i hope to have some very interesting conversations, both here and on other forums across the world.

    As a matter of curiosity, can you provide any citations or references to Dr. Mills' ground-breaking techniques in the field of NMR which are recognized by others? This would add to his credibility in the field of invention and science. Thanks.

    i did a google search - on your behalf - for "R Mills" Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and it came up with a 1997 patent:

    could i ask you, in future, if you could do some searches yourself, and then *if* you do not find anything, say so, and *then* ask for help? this is general good netiquette as it demonstrates a willingness on your part to spend *your* time satisfying *your* need, rather than imposing on someone else to spend *their* time satisfying *your* need. it also helps if you list the exact places (and methods) utilised to do the enquiries, so that the people who may be willing to assist you do not waste their time duplicating the exact same (fruitless) searches.

    Mills model includes two steps. The base currents do not cover the sphere uniformly. Only the folding with the seconds layer OCF gives a uniform distribution that conforms to the spherical harmonics.

    ok so, let me try to get this clear. the photon whizzes around in a circle, and (obviously) its EM field - its electrical current and its magnetic field - change as it does so. the old chesnut "right hand motor rule" says that the current goes out at right-angles to the direction of motion (and keeps going in a straight line round the sphere hence those circles), but, obviously, at any one point of the photon's travel, it's oscillating according to a sine wave, so the current is *different* at any one point on its path across the sphere, hence why what you call "base currents" which go out sideways - let's call them "base current great circles" - are *all different*, is that right?

    and, the "uniform distribution" thing is just a really nice mathematical coincidence where when you add up all those contributing "base current great circles", it just so happens that the MAGNITUDE - not the DIRECTION, the MAGNITUDE - of all those currents HAPPEN to sum to exactly the same amount at all points. does that sound right?

    The non radiation solutions for the torus have been computed long before Mills/Hauss and can be read in the paper Alan linked a while ago.

    gaah! :) forums are *the* absolute worst possible way to track information. the most stunningly insane example of this i have found was a link on peswiki which said, "please refer to this diagram on some random forum page SEVEN HUNDRED AND FIFTY of a ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED page discussion" where each page was 20 messages per page, which should give you some idea of how completely useless forums are except for "momentary discussions".

    think "AOL BBS" gone mental. as if AOL wasn't insane enough as it was, spawning as it did the infamous "metoo posting" meme.

    caaaan i therefore please ask you to send me a link to alan's paper, so that i can put it on the (public) wiki that is being developed to track information?

    otherwise i have to page back through.... hundreds of posts to find out whom alan is, and what paper you're referring to. which i almost certainly will miss. and have to spend another hour searching for it.

    apologies wyttenberg!

    All current vectors of the loops is pointing along the sphere which means that the sum of them also points along the sphere e.g. r*v_i = 0 => r sum_i v_i = sim_i rv_i = 0

    you mean, the sum at *any given point* also points along the sphere, yes? ah wait... let me think it through...

    ok so i was thinking for a minute of a discrete event simulation, delta-x (computers), so you have x1 and x2 as points of a vector, that would fail because summing multiple points like that you would start to wander inwards, for sure. a *continuous* representation i.e. a series of current vectors that are definitely in a plane that touches the sphere at only one point (forgot the 3D version of a tangent, sorry), then *yes*, the sum of such would clearly also point along the sphere, simply because... all vectors are in that plane, there *is* no contribution from any vector which could move them out of that plane.

    what does *not* necessarily hold is that the magnitude of each *individual contribution* is uniform. howeverrrrrr.... it should be possible to take any one point, and go round in a circle from that point and trace back along its vector *back* to the photon that created that current. i bet you that this would result in a really quite simple sum related to the phase / magnitude which would easily allow calculation of the vector in terms of theta (phase).

    All current vectors of the loops is pointing along the sphere which means that the sum of them also points along the sphere e.g. r*v_i = 0 => r sum_i v_i = sim_i rv_i = 0

    *wringing hands* exccelllent muhahahah oo sorry. ok that's what i thought, i just wanted to check.

    ok so let's think this through from an "intuitive" perspective. correct me if any of this is wrong or unclear

    the photon goes round on a great circle, but it goes round in a sine wave at the same time, where the wave magnitude at any two opposing sides (180 degrees apart) is going to be the opposite sign.

    the current flows at *right angles* to wherever the photon happens to be at any one point, transmitting a current (in effect) simultaneously in great-circles-that-happen-to-be-at-right-angles-to-the-photon-travel-path

    this is what gives the "total coverage" of the sphere with the "current density".

    the "jump"... is... i think... that the fact that the photon's travel is a sine wave and that its magnitude is +ve on one side and equal and opposite magnitude *directly* opposite means that the current density *has* to be uniform.

    proving that, though... :)

    If I wrote coinstant current I miss quoted, it should be uniform current density or constant current density, uniform is better e.g. |J(r)| is 1.234... or such, but not the direction.

    i don't think it was you, i was just trying to understand. okay! so! this is probably what all those "eigenvectors" things are about (maybe) - those have to be length 1.0, don't they? so basically the MAGNITUDE is uniform, but the DIRECTION is... anywhere. or, not anywhere, you know what i mean, there's different constraints on that.

    question: does the direction vector of the current have to be pointing along the surface of the sphere or can it point inwards or outwards?

    There has been som discussions about Mills statement about constant current density. To understand this point read Currents

    ok so allow me to try to get this straight. i don't quite follow what's meant by "constant current density", or perhaps it is that i am surprised that people would think that free space is an *UN*constant current density... or perhaps i don't know enough :)

    so the idea is, you have a photon whizzing round on the surface of a sphere (in a circle), and you get... current flowing at right-angles to the travel, *also* along the surface of the sphere, is that correct?

    and what dr mills says is, the current (ampage) is constant over the entire surface of the sphere, is that right? why does he not use the word "uniform"?

    stefan, apologies, i can't find the exact quote, but you were mentioning that you were having difficulty understanding the "relativity change of perspective" at the end of chapter 1, page 113 of the 2016 GUTCP book.

    i found this:…ChargedSphereElectron.pdf

    which interestingly mentions similar mathematicians (heaviside) and has the advantage that it's deliberately written not as a "proof" but as an "educational discourse" with historical references.

    does that help at all?

    Important and interesting points from a  Kazimierz Mroz answer on Quora discussing Mills theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle


    Herman Haus went back to first principles of Maxwell’s electro-magnetic formulas, Einsteins Special Relativity, the Stern-Gerlach experiment among several classical physics based tools, and redid Goedeke’s work regarding radiation in a new way. Haus found that radiation consisted of Fourier components of charge currents. No waves involved. This he was able to use to develop into a real world working model of the electron and from there was able to finish developing the free electron laser into a working device.


    This all could have been considered a one time wonder, if not for the further work along similar lines by one of Haus’ students, Randell Mills. Mills did the exact same work for developing the model of the electron, took that work to Haus for evaluation and got Haus’ evaluation that the work was all correct.

    now _that_ is _fascinating_. and also a really really vital piece of information. his wikipedia page is... brief. so thank you for sharing this, gio06, it's really appreciated.…wer-how-clean-solar-power

    Interesting stuff Re. neodymium mining though... There seems to be some argument made that only China is prepared to take the enviromental hit, hence why they dominate exports.

    they have difficulty regulating the black market, and it's areas of the country that are far enough even from Chinese eyes...

    good find about the solar panel assessment. the thing about silicon (and a solar panel is silicon) is, the doping is *incredibly* toxic. we're talking heavy metals after all, and the volumes of pure water required are.... just... they're staggering. where does the waste water go, do you think? with concentrations of non-reactive heavy metals measured in parts per billion... it doesn't just go into the toxic mushrooms that end up in chinese medicine stores across the world, now, does it?

    we really do have a bit of an environmental problem being caused by our thirst for technology.... am i allowed to make drastic understatements like that on here?

    so please, guys and gals, i'm not going to ask this again: *please stop fighting*. open your minds. stop saying "this theory is bulls*** and i'm not even going to read it because my mind is closed against scientific enquiry". we *haven't got time for that*, okay? we need to rigorously and urgently explore every theory on energy sources that could possibly stand a chance of digging ourselves out of an urgent, urgent oncoming train-wreck ok?

    thanks shane that's really appreciated.

    unfortunately.... if you check the group archives from around... i think it was nov 2016... you will see that last year i did in fact join the yahoo group. what you *won't* see is that the Moderator - a retired physics professor - quite blatantly told me in an extremely aggressive fashion that my posts were of a worse quality than the 15-year-olds he used to teach.

    when i told him that i was quoting from memory from over a year ago (chemical memory not electrical memory, if you are familiar with brain chemistry you'll know what effect that has), was cut off from my research notes as i was in Shenzhen at the time when that DDOS IoT botnet attack was in full swing and my VPN access to the UK was down EIGHTY percent packet loss and maxed out at around 10 to 15 k per second transfer speed (5 minutes to load gmail... in *basic* HTML mode!), his responses, far from becoming accommodating and understanding of the circumstances, became even ruder and even more aggressive.

    in the end i decided that he was just going to remain a complete d*** and that i was wasting my time dealing with - or through - him. thus i am prevented and prohibited from communicating with dr mills in the manner in which you kindly and thoughtfully suggested.

    if that situation has changed, i would love to know. if you happen to be *permitted* to speak on that forum i would be interested to hear his reaction to the fact that the person he is entrusting moderation to is acting instead as a blatant fascist censor. you... may have some difficulty in drawing dr mill's attention to this post, however, as the person acting *as* fascist censor (if they are indeed still in that position) will see your message before Dr Mills even gets a chance to see it....

    ... oopsie :)

    Prof. Bakker has responded to my email which I copy here:

    "This is absolutely right. Photons can be superimposed absolutely if they have the same wavelength (size) and the energy absorbed/emitted by an electron is added/removed from the, one, photon trapped in the orbitsphere.

    this is the fundamental basis on which i have the goal to extend dr mill's work into particle physics. i researched the ways in which superposition can occur in a constructive (non-destructive) fashion and they are really quite specific. it's not enough that they be the same wavelength and energy, there are other conditions as well, for which you have to look up phrases like "phasor", "jones matrices", and "optical vortex knots" and "mobius light", then once you've skim-read the various articles, look up a paper by Castillo from 2008 relating Jones Matrices onto a Poincare Sphere - SU(2) - and using spinors.

    the summary - key - basically is that the phase of the E.M. field of each or any of the photons that you wish to superimpose *must* be at right-angles. then when you add them using phasor or jones matrices mathematics the sum is something that is phase-shifted by a specific (easily-)calculated amount, and the frequency remains at *exactly* the same wavelength as the two contributing photons.

    this insight is one that both Dr Mills *and* the proponents of the Standard Model are entirely missing. Dr Mills because he assumes that the angles of the up and down quarks within a proton are 120 degrees (they're not... they have to be 90 for the superposition to work...) and the Standard Model because they reject all and any possibility of *considering* what a particle actually is.

    if that latter is hard to understand, ask any proponent of the Standard Model the following question: "what is a particle actually made of?" and when they don't properly answer, keep on asking the question until they finally tell you the truth, which is that "they don't know, and the theory doesn't even put forward any hypotheses". this is i think what Dr Mills is referring to when he says that QM, by moving to the frequency domain, consider particles to be mathematical constructs, not actual *things* about which it is easy to logically reason.

    The "ground" state hydrogen atom has 511k eV stored as potential and kinetic energy in the orbiting electron so there is a large reservoir of energy that can be released. At the ground state, the electron is in force balance and the effective central charge is 1. If a photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be fractional (1/n) and it will go to a higher orbit. Conversely, if an energy hole/trapped photon is absorbed, the effective central charge felt by the electron will be integral (n) and it will go to a lower orbit.

    Sorry, don't understand this part. A photon/trapped photon is a standing wave in the electron's orbitsphere. What force is it creating? Maybe you could read Mills' equation for the photon? Chap. 4 in GUTCP.

    apologies for referring to you in the 3rd person, wyttenberg: optiongeek he is still thinking that the photon is (must be) travelling in a straight line. wyttenberg: the photon curves. attracts itself so strongly - or more likely "phase-cancels-itself-out-and-recreates-itself-such-that-it-APPEARS-to-be-curving" - that it is extremely difficult to answer your question without actually quoting the entirety of one of the chapters of Dr Mill's book at you. that's.... just the way that it is, i am afraid.

    to help avoid the stupid stupid "of course photons cannot go in anything other than a straight like what the f*** are you talking about you stupid moron", to understand and accept the concept of "light really can curve" i suggest reading up on the following topics:

    * ido kaminer et al's work on optical tweezers.

    * experiments in the field of optics last year that showed that not only can light be bent but it SLOWS DOWN at the same time

    * waveguide experiments which it has now been shown that "braided light" is um.... slower than... umm.... light. and also fascinatingly *retains information*.

    the work by ido kaminer is particularly important as they deliberately set out to find the mathematical equations that would allow a phased-array (coherent X-Ray multi-beam laser i think they used in the actual experiments) to go in a semi-circle WITHOUT FALLING APART i.e. each "turn" of each part of the beam was by EXACTLY the same amount in each case, such that as they "turned" (actually... phase-cancelled such that the result was the *appearance* of quotes turning quotes) the ENTIRETY of the beam REMAINED TOGETHER. what was even more fascinating than that was that the phase of each component of the beam rotated by HALF the angle through which the beam "turned". which would mean that if such a beam successfully managed a 360 degree revolution, its phase (or specifically the phase of every contributing component) would be 180 degrees compared to the original. meaning that it would take TWO revolutions to get back to the same state.

    ... and what... exactly... does that remind you of? let me give you a hint: it begins with "spin" and ends with "half".... :)