HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aw3@ukc.ac.uk (Alan Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: High popularity rating
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:41:03 GMT
Organization: Chemical Laboratory, University of Kent at Canterbury, CT2 7NH, UK

I include a copy of a two-man discussion taking place elsewhere, for your
information. Any comments?

ps. The original article was posted to alt.fan.dale-bass .... this should
make Jan Peter's comments easier to comprehend!!!!

[Original articles follow....]

In article <s0454850.14.0@let.rug.nl> s0454850@let.rug.nl (J.P. Prenger) writes:
>Hey, is there anybody out there?
>
>If so, please tell me, what's this newsgroup about?
>& who the fuck is dale bass?
>
>Jan Peter Prenger
>E-mail: s0454850@let.rug.nl

Try reading sci.physics occasionally! I presume its the same guy, but is
he good enough to merit an entire news group to himself? Only time will tell

Al

ps how long before alt.fan.baez.john.not.joan ?

--
Dr. Alan Wilson        (Approved by Morrissey, the consumer monkey)

" That was MY idea "
================================================================= 
--
Dr. Alan Wilson        (Approved by Morrissey, the consumer monkey)

" That was MY idea "
================================================================= 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: zellner@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: dimensionality of space
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:32:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov06.211115.134895@watson.ibm.com>, lucas@watson.ibm.com (Bruce D. Lucas) writes:
> How do we know space is three-dimensional, or space-time
> four-dimensional?  Is there a simple experiment one can do to
> determine the dimensionality of space or of space-time?

Keplerian orbits of planets around the sun.  They are stable in 2 or 3
dimensions, but I think not in most higher dimensionalities or in things
like 3 + delta dimensions.  Can someone confirm that?

Ben
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:28 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <23651@galaxy.ucr.edu>, baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes...
>In article <3NOV199212323281@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>It is entirely within the realm of possibility that, for example, some
>>future TOE, which unifies EW, Strong, and Gravitational forces will suggest
>>a reason for the value of the speed of light.  As a matter of fact, many 
>>people suspect that an ultimate theory would in fact explain all the 
>>numbers which appear only as parameters in the Standard Model, such as the
>>value of the electronic charge, the various mixing angles, masses, CP-violating
>>phase, etc.  
> 
>Hmm.  I don't buy this, at least not without further explanation.

Fair enough.  Here are a couple of examples from current physics.  In the SM,
the EW mixing angle (a.k.a. the Weinberg angle) is a fundamental parameter.
It must be put in by hand.  But if you derive the SM lagrangian from a 
GUT lagrangian, like SU(5), you find that you *can* derive a value for 
the mixing angle, which falls straight out of the mathematics when you
break SU(5) to SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1).  Probably the best original reason to hold 
out hope for SU(5) GUT was this predication.  Another example is QCD.
The QCD lagrangian is scale-free.  But when you quantize it, you end up
introducing the natural QCD scale of several hundred MeV through the 
regularization process.  Don't ask me for details.  It's complicated, and
I'd have to brush up in some textbooks I haven't opened for a few years.  
Suffice it to say that this is a very nice feature of QCD.  

What other methods there might exist which would allow us to set the
scale for electromagnetism or calculate the particle masses, I cannot
say, of course.  But my claim is not without some historical foundation.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: speedy@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Visiting Res Fellowship
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:42:27 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

Herewith notice of a visiting fellowship that may be of interest
to scientists of various disciplines.  I am sending it to a number
of groups on NETNEWS.  Please bring it to the attention of any
suitable colleagues.  Replies to Dean's secretary at the address 
below - not by e-mail, please! Please indicate where you saw the
advert.

Andrew Speedy
Tutor in Biological Sciences
Christ Church
Oxford

---------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT


CHRIST CHURCH,  Oxford



Dr Lee Visiting Research Fellowships in the Sciences


The college proposes to elect Visiting Fellows, in the Natural
Sciences and Mathematics, for up to nine months in the period
September 1993 to August 1994.

The Fellowships are intended to enable distinguished senior
scholars to pursue their own research as members of the college
community, and they will be expected to reside in Oxford during
the period of tenure.    Fellows must make their own research
arrangements with Oxford laboratories.

Each Fellow will be entitled to free family accommodation, a
study-room in college and free dinners.   Return fares from the
place of residence will be paid for each Fellow and his/her
family.   Limited stipends may also be offered, depending on
individual circumstances.

Further details may be obtained from The Dean's Secretary, Christ
Church, Oxford OX1 1DP, and applications should be received not
later than
12 December 1992.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: ferromagnetism: the QM basis
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:25:47 GMT

In article <Bxn6tn.JK@wsrcc.com> alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken) writes:
>By the way, Dr. Baez, I'm a solid-state experimentalist, not a
>theorist.  I have to be careful because real theorists are watching.

Experimentalist: someone with their facts straight.
Theorist: 	 someone with their arguments straight.

Experimentalists who get their arguments straight can fool a theorist
every time.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:44:05 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1d9tejINNq6p@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.182157.17016@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     I don't think 'truth' is a scientific concept, and 'reality' only
>>     seems so insofar as it is a reflection of experimental results.
>
>"You'll find truth only in mathematics."
>	-Cardinal Borusa, via the Doctor
>
>Science is truth, and truth is science.  They are one and the same.

    According to Webster, definition 4), truth is God.  So God
    is science?

    "Nil sine Numine? "
         -Colorado, via Usenet

                             dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Massive Photons Tomorrow (was Scientists Plan...)
Date: 6 Nov 1992 03:32:00 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <Bx8y2F.3wD@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
>Atoms, nervous systems and Usenet would be unharmed; we would simply
>wake up one morning without TV. 

I once read an article on this possibility, which suggested that we
might also say good-bye to squids, which have nervous systems with
larger intervals between gaps in the myelin sheaths in their nerves.

In article <1992Nov5.221946.4516@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu 
(John C. Baez) writes:
>Hmm, *every* morning I wake up I'm without TV, so that wouldn't bother
>me.  

But what about *radio*? :-)

>Would there be sunshine, though?  

The possibility of ordinary radiation becoming impossible was not
mentioned in the article. I suspect that "the length of interaction of
electromagnetism" mentined here means something like the distance two
static charges can be from each other and still exert appreciable
forces on each other, rather than, say, "electromagnetic waves don't
carry farther than 1 meter". Of course, I haven't worked any of this
out for myself.

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Self charging capacitor
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:13:28 GMT
	<X35eTB5w165w@iowegia.uucp>
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics

In article <foo> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
   zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (ME!) writes:
   > By trying to measure the capacitor, you were probably stuffing charge
   > into it, causing the [voltage] to go up.  The rest of the time,
   > the capacitor just stored the charge, holding its voltage until you tried
   > to measure again.

	   If I read his post correctly, he was measuring voltage 
   using the voltage scale on a digital multimeter (imput impedance 
   of greater than 10 megohm) which would preclude the ability for 
   the meter to charge the capacitor. 

Hmm [shuffles windows around] can't seem to find the orig. post.  For some
reason, I assumed it was an analog meter.  (I have a cheap one from Radio 
Shack...)  I remember that he did mention he was measuring _resistance_ --
but that didn't make much sense (thus the long-winded explanation).  Maybe
I missed something...

I should've mentioned electrolytic effects, though -- and, if the plethora
of well-written, informative posts on the topic had already arrived here,
I'd probably have kept my big mouth shut :-)

BTW, Radio Shak now has a pocket 10M digital multimeter in the ~$20 range!
I suppose I'll have to throw out my old 10k/V cheeseball analog meter...
--
Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire.   DoD#314159; PhD#271828
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA ---- SOME SYNONYM
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:48:17 GMT
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>     

>           To those who ask what do you mean by

>                   TIME HAS INERTIA
>         
> my answer is, I mean 
>                                                       
>                    TIME IS MATTER
> 
>However, TIME HAS INERTIA to some is more acceptable.
>                 
>                                         Alexander ABIAN
>-- 
Could you perhaps define what you mean by inertia?  And what properties does
time have which makes it matter? 

Marc Talbot
Physics Slave, UIUC

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:51:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.000228.14551@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>What about the one-dimensional helix embedded in R^3. Is the helix not a
>1-manifold? Note that if you compact it along its axis you get a circle
>(also a 1-manifold--is this S^1?) embedded in R^2. But a circle is a
>degenerate case of a helix ("stretching" along the axis having vanished)
>and is not in general a helix.

That projecting the helix along its axis yields another manifold (S1)
is something of a coincidence.  If you tilt the projection slightly you
no longer get a manifold, since where the coils intersect is not
homeomorphic to R1.  If you keep tilting until the intersections (and
the cusps) disappear, you get a 1-manifold again, this one
diffeomorphic to the helix itself (and to R1), but now embedded in the
plane.

Up to diffeomorphism the helix in R3 *is* R1.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18707 sci.math:14785
From: ask@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Andrew Stanford Klingler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Covariant vs. Lie Derivative in Gen. Rel.?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 21:40:40 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu



JB:

>
>To repeat: The connection allows you to compare tangent vectors at two
>points of the manifold given only a curve connecting them; the Lie
>derivative requires a whole vector field, to generate a flow that "drags
>tensors along". 
>
The distinction you're making sounds kind of phony; after all one can
define a connection using a vector field or a field of one-forms (I may
be limiting myself to principal fiber bundles here).  It seems like the
flow is just buried in the structure for a connection (in some sense a
connection gets you "more than a flow" - the local family of geodesics
through a point).  Without a connection, you have no way to compare vectors
at two different points, so you have to transport tensors out, then back
to the same point and compare them there.  With a connection, you have
"flow in every direction" (geodesics thru the point) so parallel transport
vectors from a point to any other point and compare them there.  From this
point of view Lie derivatives and covariant derivatives represent the
same geometric thing, I think.  Am I way wrong here?


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Relativity again (was Re: History of AC vs DC Power)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:08:00 GMT

In article <ZOWIE.92Nov11100057@daedalus.stanford.edu>, zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes...
[a good discussion of why we have AC power grids]
>Towards the end, he did get a bit whacked out, though -- `telautomatics' 
>was an idea far ahead of its time, and he didn't have enough nonlinear
>circuit elements to make it work.
>[Then Lee DeForest invented the triode and it was all over...]
>       ^^^^^^^^^^
       //////////  <<= Are you related ? 
>Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire.   DoD#314159; PhD#271828

 Just curious. And I don't want to start another "Where's Joan Baez's
father"-type firestorm (though it was neat to find out she has 
physicists for relatives...)

       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington
From: irw@bharh58.bnr.co.uk (Ian Woollard)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Magnetic Scale Removers
Date: 13 Nov 1992 14:35:23 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd, London Road, Harlow, England.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.131.128.36


My combination boiler managed after some years of use to scale up
completely on the hot water circuit. The water in my area is hard
enough to hammer nails in with, so this isn't at all surprising.

What was somewhat surprising was that my plumber suggested that I fit,
not a water softener (he claimed that this would impede the flow: I
believe this, I don't have a water tank at all) but a plastic cylinder
with a large magnet in it to the cold pipe. The claims he made were
that:

a) it wouldn't stop scale build up completely
b) it wouldn't exactly soften the water
c) that it would cost 50 pounds

The last one I believe; in fact I believe all the above claims, but I
had no reason to think that it is in any way worth fitting: i.e. I
had no reason to believe it makes any difference.

The box for one made no claims like: 30% less scale or anything
else... It did say that you should place it 1 meter or less away from
the protected equipment.

Question: Do these things work, if so how well, and what *physically*
is going on? (For the sake of network bandwidth- postings like: "I've
got one and its *really* *good*" are probably inappropriate, unless
you've done a decent control experiment to prove it ;-)

-Ian.
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NO BIG BANG
Date: 7 Nov 92 12:19:21
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
	<Nov.4.12.10.14.1992.24509@ruhets.rutgers.edu> <83135@ut-emx.uucp>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu's message of 6 Nov 92 10:06:31 GMT

joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes:

> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
> >But also, nobody has found any stars or
> >other objects with absolutely zero metallicity.  This is annoying,
> 
> A related annoying fact is that quasars have metal lines.  Since these
> objects are supposedly some of the oldest objects around, it's quite
> disconcerting to see metal lines in them.

Given the extreme temperature and pressure that is presumed to exist
in a quasar, is it really surprizing that they have metal lines in
their spectra?  Couldn't they fuse lighter elements into metals?  I've
heard quasars described as being the size of our Solar System but
emitting more energy than a galaxy.
--
franl@centerline.com   || Fran Litterio, CenterLine Software R&D
617-498-3255           || 10 Fawcett St, Cambridge, MA, USA 02138-1110
"It's not the thing you fling, it's the fling itself."  -- Chris Stevens
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Isham on decoherence in sqm
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:22:49 GMT


For some background on topics relevant to the great superluminal debate
for the non-experts listening in:
Isham 2. Section 5.5 on "Decoherence" p.84 NATO LECTURES (1992)
"The idea of decoherence ... growing steadily .. an increasing awareness of
the inadequacy of the traditional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
theory, especially the posited dualism between the classical and quantum
worlds, the emphasis on measurement as a primary interpretive category, and
the associated invocation of 'reduction of the state vector' as a
descriptive process that lies outside the deterministic evolution afforded
by the Schrodinger equation.  COnsiderations of this type have been
enhanced by attempts to develop physical devices (e.g. SQUIDS) that are of
macroscopic size but which are nevertheless expected to exhibit genuine
quantum properties.

.... the quantum state of the very early universe could have been
responsible for the large-scale properties of the universe we see around us
today.  But the universe itself is the ultimate closed system, and there
can be no external observer to make measurements.... the notion of state-
vector reduction is an anathema to most people who work in quantum
cosmology.

.... The goal of decoherence is to show that there are many situations in
which the replacement of the pure state" [off-diagonal coherence terms in
the density matrix] "by the mixed state" [no off-diagonal coherence terms]
"can be understood as a viable consequence of the theory itself without the
need to invoke measurement acts as a primary concept.... no actual quantum
system is really isolated:there is always some environment E to which it
couples,,,, the state for the composite system S+E ... is thooroughly
entangled.  However, if one is interested only in the properties of the
system S, the relevant state of the reduced density-matrix .. obtained by
summing (i.e., tracing out) the environment states... if the environment
states are approximately orthogonal ... the system behaves 'as if' a state
reduction has taken place ... This is what is meant by decoherence. p.86

.. the traced-out density matrix satisfies a master equation rather than
being induced by a unitary evolution... the environment 'continuously
measures' the system, and hence gives rise to a continuous process of state
reduction.  This, it is claimed is the reason why Schrodinger's cat is in
fact always seen to be either dead or alive, never a superposition of the
two.  Numerical studies have shown that the reduction of real physical
systems can take place very quickly.  For example, the gas molecules
surrounding a piece of equipment in the laboratory will serve very well,
and even the background 3^oK radiation is sufficient to produced the
desired effect in a very short time: a typical figure for a macroscopic
object is 10^-23 sec,,,     ... The essential requirement is that the
operator concerned should commute with the interaction Hamiltonian
describing the system-environment coupling ..."
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Great Pumpkin Drop
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:48:25 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1dhg2uINNdqa@gap.caltech.edu> stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger) writes:
>palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>
>>It has been a tradition at Caltech to drop a 78 K (that's "kelvins", not
>>"kilograms") pumpkin from the tower of the Millikan Library at midnight on
>>Hallowe'en to smash on the tiles below. I have a reliable report that a flash
>>of light has been seen to accompany the destruction of the pumpkin. I can

Sounds to me like time that we took this pumpkin to those mine shafts that
physicists are so fond of. In this way the flash will sure to be detected.

Strictly speaking, there has to be a flash, but it doesn't have to be very
bright at all.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA     C>G> asks for the gist of FTA
Summary: The gist of Fund. Thm. of ALG.
Keywords: Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:03:11 GMT

Dear Mr. C.G.                             11-11-92

   I have rigorously proved in my posting: 
       
       Message ID: <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>
the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, i.e.,

  THEOREM.  Every nonconstant polynomial over Complex numbers has a root.


  Now, you are asking (by e-mail) for the GIST of the proof, with less
cosmetics.  O.K.
  No cosmetics, except you have to know that the proof will not hold for
polynomials over reals, since:  In Complex Analysis it is true that if a 
function has a derivative then it has derivatives of all orders -this is not 
true in Real Analysis (see my abovementioned posting).  

  PROOF.  Assume on the contrary, and without loss of generality, let
     1 + z + z^2  have no root, i.e.,  1 + z + z^2  never vanishes.
Long divide  1  by  1+z+z^2  in two ways - in descending and ascending 
powers of z,  i.e., 

    1/ (1+z+z^2)  =   1 - z + z^3 - z^4 + z^6 - ...

    1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 
   
The two expressions on the right side of =  must be identical. But 
they are not.  Contradiction.  Hence our assumption is false and the 
Theorem is proved.
    But, I have given the rigorous proof in my abovementioned posting.  
    I hope this will satisfy your craving for the gist.
                                              Alexander  ABIAN             
 

-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)