HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why do protons outnumber antiprotons?
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:47:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Keywords: electron positron proton antiproton subatomic particle theory GUT unified

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>	This explanation hinges on whether (1) is really true.  There is no
>baryon-number (B) violation in the Standard Model by itself.  

Is this actually the case?  I thought that the term in the electroweak
theory corresponding to the one with the theta parameter in QCD,
which results from triangle anomalies and/or the superposition of
topological vacua, produces baryon-number violation if you go from
one winding number of vacuum to another, say by thermal fluctuations
at high temperature.  I just saw a paper about this by Shlaposhnikov (sp?)
in a volume of proceedings about lattice gauge theory... I can ask the
person who had the book where it is if you want more details.  It
didn't look like GUT considerations were involved, but I might have
misread the paper.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: E=mc2?
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:23:59 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Aug31.094157.17751@u.washington.edu> mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane) writes:
|>(Mike Gross) writes:
|>>But nuclear weapons _do_ turn matter into energy.
|>
|>Moreover, even chemical reactions convert matter into energy, the
|>difference in mass corresponding to the lost energy in the chemical
|>bonds.

Of course, it's reasonably easy to measure the mass-difference in
nuclear reactions.  I don't know of any measurements of
mass-differences due to chemical reactions.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: The Big Bang and the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM.
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:34:08 GMT



If the Schro\"dinger's Cat argument is a good thought experiment in
the school of thought that suggests (that in Quantum Mechanics) "there
is nothing without QM observation, by which we mean the collapse of
the wavefunction", then in The First Three Minutes of the Universe
after the Big Bang, were all the particles (or superstrings or
spacetime-ons) busy observing each other?

If not, how did the Universe arrive (after the initial singularity) is
any state at all, let alone its initial state?

____

Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:19:01 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)

In article <mcirvin.715196487@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8 (Mcirvin) writes:
>They certainly weren't a big deal in the ways they have often been
>made out to be.  QM and relativity are radical ideas, and radically
>at odds with our intuition about the world;  [...]

Not my intuition.

Which brings us to an important point that is often forgotten.  Most
people's `common sense' is at odds with classical physics anyway--
consider heavy boots and cartoons.  Galileo and Newton were as radical
in their day as Planck and Einstein are in ours.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Subject: What is de Broglie radiation and de Broglie wavelength?
Organization: Texas A&M University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:13:02 GMT

  What is the de Brogile wavelength? Does de Brogile radiation exsist?
 
 
========================================================================
The truth may hurt, but lies hurt more.  | My opinions are mine and mine
The difference between left-wing incomp- | alone. I speak for myself and
etance and right-wing incompetance is    | no-one else.
the difference between cat #$!& and dog  |______________________________
#$!&. Reply to N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu.        Bill and Opus in '92!!
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:51:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: fs7.1992Sep4.075109.3197
Distribution: na
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University

In article <26070@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1865afINN3gt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes...
>> 
>>This posting was made to the following newsgroups:  sci.environment
>>sci.astro and sci.physics on Sept 2, 1992.
>>The posting was deleted from all three newsgroup.
>
>I read it yesterday.  Maybe you have a problem with your news server? 
>
>>Isn't this an unmoderated group?
>
>Can't you tell?  
>
>>Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually
>>generate sufficient debris to create a dense Debris Belt
>>and prevent further launchings.
>
>This is hard to believe.  Space is a very big place, even the measly space
>which defines reasonable satellite orbits.  NASA has studied the problem, and I 
>am not under the impression that they are overly concerned.  Do you have any
>real information about exactly when, extrapolating future expected launch
>capacity, this will really become a major problem? 

And yet, I remember from the days of the Cold War and Star Wars, discussions
of a low-tech satellite-killer in which the Russians might launch a load
of gravel into backwards orbit (the opposite direction that most [all?]
satellites orbit) which would destroy a satellite, and that debris
would help rip-up the next and so on and so on ...  I don't remember whether
this was to destroy communications or spy satellites.  Was this method
only for geostationary orbit?  Or to sweep other portions of the sky, too?
And couldn't accidental/careless debris (even though it is orbiting in the
same direction as the satellites), given enough time, have a similar effect?

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Subject: Re: Inertial drive?
Organization: NEC America, Inc. Irving, Texas
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:03:45 GMT

In article <0fhS02Go20x701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> drp40@cd.amdahl.com writes:
> An office mate recently mentioned ...  "inertial drive" ... an enclosed
> device with some sort of motor and geared arrangement which would ...
> [convert] rotational inertia into "linear" (??) inertia.
> Sounds pretty bizarre.  Anyone have any details on this?

This is a hoary old idea that pops up with remarkable frequency among
young aspiring scientists and engineers, usually when they are in elementary
school or sometimes high school.  Robert Goddard is perhaps the most famous
example.  He came up with a back-and-forth "reciprocating" version of such
a drive, as well as the idea of a rigid sheet-metal helium "balloon," while
still in elementary school.  A true experimentalist, he built models of both.
Both flew equally well.

A biography about Goddard that I read many years ago mentioned that Goddard
later encountered many aspiring young scientists and engineers who kept
coming up with variants of the same idea.  I recall once seeing an ad that
would have cost the poor kid who ran it about $70 to plug his version of
the idea (based on a chain of spinning ball-bearings with a gap kept on
one side).  It really is nicely perennial concept, although a bit of a
disappointment as they discover one way or another why it does not work.

For whatever it's worth, yes, I was one example of a young kid who came
up with a version the idea and really thought I had something interesting
for a while.  Mine used rotating, telescoping tubes that were pulled in
on one side as they were spun around, and were allowed to to extend to
full length on the other side.  By high school I had figured out why it
could not work, saving me the embarassment of actually trying to build one.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Organization: pet/cyclotron
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 13:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.103336.25461@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu
(Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <2697@news.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi)
writes:
>> 
>> 
>> >What this has to do with QM is not clear to me. [B. Merriman]
>> 
>>         The basic issues of epistemology, etc., that are raised
>> by most of the Eastern schools of philosophy and answered very
>> differently from most logical positivist Western schools are exactly
>> the kinds of issues raised by QM, particularly when you consider
>> the measurement problem.  That is to say, if you've already gone
>> into these issues in the context of Eastern philosophy, you will have
>> a head start in trying to understand the philosophical problems
>> associated with quantum measurement. 
>
>That sounds good on paper. However, I must then ask: given their
>conceptual headstart, why was QM developed in the west, not the east?
>
The development of QM is an intellectual endeavor quite distinct from the
consideration of its philosophical ramifications. Now matter how divergent two
physicists views may be on interpretation of QM, they will agree on how to
perform the calculations. QM as a tool in physics is indeed a western
invention, but this has no bearing on whether western philosophy is better able
to handle the epistemic issues QM raises.

Understanding philosophy of physics is not a prerequisite for doing physics.
For the physicist, the philosophical issues serve more to enhance the
intellectual rewards of his work than to advance the science (though
occasionally consideration of philosophical issues may help redirect scientific
efforts in a more productive direction).

>Perhaps the very same philosophical precepts that you  say
>'favor' the eastern mind also discourage them from devolping
>detailed scientific theories of nature.


Interestingly enough, history suggests that philosophical and cultural
differences have played a role in the divergent paths of science in the east
and in the west. Magnetic phenomena were fairly well understood and studied in
China long before western scientists began to study magnetism. Philosophical
prejudices against "action at a distance" may have been one factor that
hampered western study of magnetism at a time when Chinese scientists,
unhindered by this piece of intellectual baggage, were acquiring a
comparatively advanced understanding of magnetic materials. Conversely, the
comparatively greater Western economic dependence on trade can be said to have
advanced quantitative study of nature, enabling western science to make truly
revolutionary advances over the past few centuries. All this is the gist of
what I learned from Joseph Needham's monumental series of books on the
development of science in China.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: yongbai@physics.su.OZ.AU (Yongbai Yin)
Subject: Re: Electrons in the body
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:03:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.122949.10900@relay.nswc.navy.mil> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet) writes:
>Could anyone give me a rough estimate of the percent of mass of a human
>body which is made of electrons?  Not important, just curious.
>
>No ideas, no thoughts, no observations, no disclaimer

	The number is equal to one's weight divided by the mass of two protons,
just approximate.
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: BAROMETERS (was Re: Subject?)
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:07:59 GMT

In article <ZOWIE.92Sep1122151@daedalus.stanford.edu>
zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>*Everyone* should read at least one economics text.  No exceptions.

How 'bout those among us who have robust relevant prejudices which require no
reinforcement?

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Impure Mathematics
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:48:31 GMT

matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:

[parodying an enraged objection to an item of humor that the
 previous poster considered offensive]
 
> I suppose the poster of this bit of feminist garbage is sitting at her
>terminal [etc] WE ARE NOT AMUSED. So-called "self-righteous" postings
>that denigrate other branches of the genus "homo" are NEVER in good
>taste. [etc] I have spent too many years trying to avoid the
>homo-sapiens mentality evident "by" this poster.

I'm probably going to be flamed unmercifully for this, but I
would like to put in *one* kind word for the people who posted
the original objections, with an eye toward something actually
having to do with physics.  (I've edited the Newsgroups: line.)

The piece in question is the sort of thing that gets circulated
endlessly in photocopied form.  Its use of mathematical innuendo
is clever, but I can understand why someone would hit the ceiling
upon reading it, and I don't consider their outrage beyond 
the range of reasonable reactions.

(Here's the part you're going to flame me for.  Apologies in
advance.  I'm trying hard not to make this sound PC or 
patronizing.  I will probably fail miserably.)

Physics and mathematics are fields in which the vast majority
of the participants are still male.  It's natural that some
of the humor generated in such fields will deal with subjects
that many women don't consider a valid outlet for humor.  The
intent of "Impure Mathematics" was doubtless not to denigrate
women, advocate rape, or objectify anybody; it was just to 
write something recognizably risque using mathematical jargon.
But when the storyline is a smirking description of what is
clearly a female being raped, the joke seems exclusionary to
women at best, and the effect is of something internal to a
kind of mens' club.  In a field that women still report
difficulty breaking into, that is a frustrating message.
 
As is my wont, I've already gone on far too long.  Yes, it
was only a joke, but we shouldn't jump on people because they
were offended by a joke.  We show more tolerance daily toward
total crackpots. 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:07:46 GMT

In article <MCGLK.92Aug25023447@bike.rad.washington.edu> mcglk@bike.rad.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes:
>If they've managed to develop antigrav generators by 2026 AD, you could suspend
>the thing there using some gargantuan power source (perhaps a power-collecting
>satellite in geosync orbit, or a fusion reactor, or something).  Propellants
>would just run out too fast.  Then you'd have to spend an inordinate amount of

Considering the application, I think we could make it
float, ascend, descend, and do aerobatic maneuvers
worthy of dragonflies if we could only harness the
mandibular power of loudmouthed Chicagoan poker players
on vacation.

				--Blair
				  "Guess where I went this weekend..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:51:59 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Concern over radon levels?
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <geavdWa00WBNQ4_29l@andrew.cmu.edu> jw54+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jonathan Wickert) writes:
>
>
>I'm in the process of buying a house in southwestern Pennsylvania.  As
>part of the home inspection, I had a radon test done by one of these
>companies that does radon testing for a living.  It involved placing two
>canisters in the basement, and one in the living room.  The canisters
>are removed after 3 days of exposure, and then sent to a central state
>licensed lab.
>
>The test revealed levels of 4.2, 5.5, and 7.6 picocuries/liter in the
>areas tested.  According to guidelines established by the EPA and the
>Center for Disease Control, a continuous exposure of 4 pCi/l is used as
>a guideline to indicate when some corrective action should be taken.
>
>My questions are
>
>1.  Are these levels sufficently high to be of concern?
>2.  How common is it to have such radon levels in this geographical area?
>
 
1. 4 pCi/litre roughly equivalent to about a 1600 mrem/yr lung dose or a
   200 mrem/yr whole body dose (effective dose equivalent).  So, in a
   sense, the answer to your question would be a qualified "yes".  

   The risk for several populations of miners exposed to high
   concentrations of radon (really the radon daughters) appeared to be 
   significant when cumulative exposure exceeds 100 WLM (4 pCi/l= 1
   WLM).
 
   However, if you don't smoke and don't live in the basement full-time,
   your risk shouldn't vary much from national averages.

   An EPA survey of 17 states listed a low of 1.6 pCi/l in Arizona to a
   high of 7.0 pCi/l in North Dakota.  Just to confuse things, a quick
   look at national lung cancer mortality statistics for the last 40 years 
   shows that:

        U.S. mortality (whites):      33.3 per 100,000 per year
        Arizona:                      34.9
        North Dakota:                 21.0

   What this probably indicates is that the effects of the radon are not
   significant compared to other factors.  Lifestyle choices may have
   the biggest effect.  These data should not be interpreted to mean
   that there is a "benefit" from higher radon exposures.

For more detail, read the BEIR IV report, "Health Risks of Radon and
Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters", NRC (1988).  

Most of the above-listed info is from rough notes or memory.  If you
want specific lung cancer mortality data, I can provide it.

russ@pmafire.inel.gov
    
  
 
        


   
 
  

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Subject: Re: Impure Mathematics
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<1992Aug27.132141.8004@sei.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:11:30 GMT

firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:

> suzanne@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Suzanne Barrett) writes:
> 
> >... So-called "cute" postings that denigrate other 
> >races, the opposite sex, are NEVER in good taste.
> 
> and concludes with:
> 
> >Suzanne who has spent far to many years trying to avoid the Neanderthal 
> >mentality evident by this poster. 
> 
> Priceless, absolutely priceless.  Don't you love it when these
> Cro-Magnon prigs fall flat on their neotenous faces?

You are being too literal.  The meaning of a word evolves (no pun
intended) with the common usage of that word.  In late 20th-century
English, "neanderthal" is first and foremost an adjective meaning
(roughly) uneducated or primitive or violent.  Its original meaning
has become secondary (in common usage).  Similarly the word "race" has
come to refer to the minor variations of human appearance that are
characterized by skin color, facial and body structure, and even
social parameters such as language and religion.  These days, the word
"race" is not commonly used to refer to "the race of Neanderthals" or
"the race of Cro-Magnons", and is almost never used to refer to
non-human species.

Suzanne wrote what she meant, and her ideas were adequately
communicated.  Please respond to her at the level of her ideas, not at
the level of the mechanics of her prose.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio                               
uunet!centerline!franl || CenterLine Software R&D                     
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
From: raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Rotating Bucket of Water in a Gravitation Field
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:50:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

wdb3926@zeus.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL) writes:
: Anyone ever proved that the surface of water in a bucket rotating
: in a gravitational field is a paraboloid? 
: I remember seeing this problem worked out is some text, but I can't seem to
: relocated it.  I seem to remember using Bernoulli's Equation....but
: the form of Bernoulli's Equation that I have seen is not gereralized
: to rotational motion.
: If you could point me to a text or remind me how to solve it that 
: would be great.
: 
: Thanks,
: Dan

Using cylindrical coordinates r and z and angular velocity omega.

slope of water surface = (centripetal acceleration)/(gravitational acceleration)

d z / d r = omega * omega * r / g

therefore

z = omega * omega * r * r / (2 g) + constant term

which is a parabola.
-- 
Eugen Raicu
raicu@netcom.com
From: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: C. R. BASS
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:28:14 GMT
Reply-To: hdgarner@acs.harding.edu
Organization: Harding University

GENERATORS???????????

PLEASE EXPLAIN

HDGARNER
HU
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:23:30 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

I missed the start of this thread.

Did someone read "Lilith" by 
	Robert (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) Pirsig?

In a philosophy book disguised as a novel, Robert Pirsig tries to
show how science has a morality.  He calls it the "metaphysics of
quality."  The world is made of two principles, the dynamic and the
static.  The dynamic is unknowable, mystic, etc.  When science
explains something it passes from dynamic to static.  Morality 
comes in since it is wrong to try to hold back the dynamic using
the static.

Biology is a dynamic pattern built upon the static patterns of 
physics.  Biological man is the static pattern upon
which social man is dynamic, but social man is the static pattern
for intellectually dynamic man which is where the threshold is
located currently.  

Lots more in the book. It's very readable.  Believable?? 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jboyce@cco.caltech.edu (Jack K. Boyce)
Subject: Re: Rotating Bucket of Water in a Gravitation Field
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:40:13 GMT

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>In an earlier article, wdb3926@zeus.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL) writes:
>   Anyone ever proved that the surface of water in a bucket rotating
>   in a gravitational field is a paraboloid? 

>   I remember seeing this problem worked out is some text, but I can't seem to
>   relocated it.  I seem to remember using Bernoulli's Equation....but
>   the form of Bernoulli's Equation that I have seen is not gereralized
>   to rotational motion.

>A better way to do it is [am I giving this away?] to transform into a
>better reference frame where there isn't any motion; since this will
>be a non-inertial frame, there'll be fictitious forces in it that (in
>general) vary with position.
>
>From there, you can use variational techniques (see _The_Feynman_Lectures_,
>II-19, p. 3 for a description) to find the shape of the surface.


You don't really need variational methods to solve this one.  Just make
sure that the potential energy everywhere on the surface is constant.
In the rotating frame there is a centrifugal force (w^2)r acting outward,
giving a "potential" of -0.5(w^2)(r^2).  So mgh-0.5(w^2)(r^2) = constant,
and you're done.

Gee, I hope this wasn't someone's homework problem...

Jack
jboyce@physics.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sex