HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:05:36 -0500 
From: "Robert J. Knapp" <rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - INDRA SINHA's REMARKS

> On Judgment day, I, Abian will put on trial (among other things)
>  the Newtonian, Einsteinian, Planckian, Bohrian, Schroedingerian, 
>  Heisenbergian, Paulian,etc creations and   *their* (whomever
>   Mr. Sinha was addressing) names will not be  up there along those 
>   names since  *they* have created absolutely nothing having any 
>   content worth judging!  *they* have produced only noise, kicks,
 >  and supercilious idiotical little gestapo-type organization
 >  to have control over some idiots and use any intimidating,
 >  almost terroristic tactics to uphold *their* contentless pathetic
>   authority and suffocate any opposing voices and ideas.
   

And sir, when is judgement day?

If you are implying that it is the day when all the energy in the universe
has been sucked up to propel time forward(I don't accept this), how
will you be able to judge us, since there is no available energy?

Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:13:26 GMT

>In article <1993Jan25.055132.12040@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
(Dale Atems) writes:
>][...]
>] Well, here is a rather half-baked proposal based on what I said
>] earlier. Let the left and right kets in the singlet state vector
>] be in the internal spaces of *distant* wavefronts. I have in mind
>] wavefronts corresponding to distinct photons; thus they are emitted
>] simultaneously in opposite directions. As each wavefront encounters
>] a polarizer, expand its kets in a basis aligned with that polarizer.
>] The encounters need not be simultaneous, but the result is that the
>] relative angle @ in the formula
>]
>]       |psi> = 2^(-1/2) (cos@ |x>|x'> + sin@ |x>|y'>
>]                        -sin@ |y>|x'> + cos@ |y>|y'>)
>]
>] is the angle between the polarizers at the time the two encounters
>] occur in a reference frame in which they are simultaneous.
>
>This is an explicitly nonlocal wave function that cannot be
>derived within QM. The amplitude of `psi' is a function of `@' which
>is the angle between two spatially separated polarizers. Changing either
>polarizer instantaneously changes the amplitude of a distant wave function.
>Such a wave function cannot be Lorentz invariant and cannot be derived
>from the relativistic Shrodinger equation.
 
Sorry, I don't follow your objection. This wave function isn't
dependent on the relative angle, explicitly or otherwise. I can expand
the polarization kets in any basis I choose. I choose to expand each
ket in a basis aligned with the polarizer the "attached" wavefront
encounters. This is to separate out the term that gets absorbed from
the one that goes through. The relative angle comes from applying that
expansion separately to the kets attached to distant wavefronts.
 
The wave function itself is unaffected by changing the transmission
angle of a polarizer, except that it affects the component absorbed
when a wavefront encounters it -- exactly as in the one-photon case.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Feynmann lectures on Physics
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:57:56 GMT
Organization: Curtin University of Technology

In article <1993Jan23.025208.10027@wam.umd.edu>, sjayanna@wam.umd.edu (Sanjeev Jayanna) writes:
>     Does anyone know if there is an independent problems manual to 
> the FEYNMANN LECTURES ON PHYSICS, and if there is could you send me
> information on how to obtain it.
> 

See recent discussion in misc.books.technical. I am also interested in this,
as the last posted info in m.b.t was 'out of print' for the problem books.
If so, I would be interested in second hand, BUT please not the .au in the
address before replying...

~Paul
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:21:38 GMT
	<Jan.22.17.39.48.1993.8101@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu's message of 22 Jan 93 22:39:48 GMT

In article <Jan.22.17.39.48.1993.8101@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:



   merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
   >What your asking about is the "quantum efficiency" of the detector.

   >  ... It is easy to see that you
   >can't hope to get 100% qe, infact real devices seldom do better
   >than 25%. I think the best photomultipliers are something less
   >than this. If you consider quantum noise or S/N it just lowers
   >the qe more. Although it is much more mathematically complicated.

#   Quantum efficiency of any detector is strongly dependent on the
#   incident waveband - but it can get pretty high, at certain wavelengths:
#   P. Lena's _Observational Astrophysics_ has a graph (p.172) which
#   shows a thinned CCD achieving 80% quantum efficiency in the range 
#   450-800 nm, which is why people sometimes say CCD's detect practically
#   every photon (in the waveband!).  Thinning the CCD has its own problems ...

You erased, as others who poited this out, where I specified detectors
that exploit the the photo-electric effect. I don't know enough
about Charged Coupled Devices, do they use the photo-electric effect?

Does anyone know a manufacturer of CCD's, I should like to get a
databook. Also what are the costs as compared to a photo-voltaic
cell?

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu ("John E. Davis")
Subject: Re: 2 of 4 moderators not qualified for sci.phys.research
Reply-To: davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu  (John E. Davis)
Organization: "Dept. of Physics, The Ohio State University"
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:34:41 GMT


I personally think that it is a good idea to have people from other fields
help moderate the group.  We physicists tend to think that we know it all and
in reality we do not.  We could learn a thing or two from people in other
fields.  I think Feynman expressed this best in Chapter one of Volume I in his
lectures on physics.  You should read it sometime.


--
     _____________
#___/John E. Davis\_________________________________________________________
#
# internet: davis@amy.tch.harvard.edu
#   bitnet: davis@ohstpy
#   office: 617-735-6746
#
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: adawal@scorch.apana.org.au (Adam Walsh)
Subject: Super-Strings
Organization: Craggenmoore public Unix system , Newcastle , Oz
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:56:12 GMT

Pardon My ignorance but what is a Super String?

ciao!

-:: Walsh ::-

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: New Physics - New Age White Paper
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:11:18 GMT


Subject: Re: New Physics,Healing & Paranormal 2 "White Paper"
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Adobe Systems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:45:50 GMT

In article <C1H5D6.6Jr@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
wri

tes:
>
>Continuing part 2 of my paid for "intelligence analysis" on the impact
                         ^^^^^^^^

Does this mean you'll have funds to do some of those experiments you
haven't been able to afford?

--
Bill Tyler      wtyler@adobe.com

No Bill it does not mean that. The experiments will cost in the hundreds of
thousands. I am simply being paid for my time to write a 30 page paper in
two weeks. Of course that may lead to other things - and it may not.

Again I repeast, to those of you who do not get enraged by what they do
not think is "respectable" - I am willing to include other people's
comments with their names in order to be as objective as possible. I
am not simply pushing my own hobby horse. The people who will read my
paper are financially very powerful and are ready to invest large amounts
of money in new technical ventures. Those who I cite will be in a better
position for future grants than those not mentioned. Being cited does not
mean you will get a grant etc. but it certainly can't hurt. And for
those negative rude fellows who think I am lying - I don't give a damn
what you think!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Wavelets 22: more on coherent and squeezed states
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:15:53 GMT


22. Consider the 3D Weyl-Heisenberg group space W1 for the 1D harmonic
oscillator. The Lie algebra w1 has basis {-iX, -iP, -iI}. The canonical
Glauber coherent states of the linear oscillator are eigenvectors |z> of
the non-Hermitian (photon annihilation/creation) operator

A = X + iP    (206)

The Lie algebra w1 is real and must be complexified with a tensor product
of it with the complex plane C.

w*1 = w1xC = w1 + iw1   (207)

Relation of coherent states to the windowed Fourier transforms:

Recall

h(p,x) = e^ipX e^-ixP h  (208)

where h is the window function.

In general if commutator [B,C] commutes with both B and C, the Baker-
Campbell-Hausdorff (BCH) formula (important in Feynman's QED) reduces to

e^B e^C = e^[B,C]/2 e^(B+C)     (209)

[ipX,-ixP] = ipxI    (210)

h(p,x) = e^ipx/2 e^i(pX - xP) h        (210)

X = (A* + A)/2,  -iP = (A* - A)/2    (211 a&b)

z = x - ip  (212)

h(p,x) = e^ipx/2 e^{z*A* - zA}/2 h     (213)

Let B = z*A*/2, C = -zA/2

BCH implies

h(p,x) = e^(ipx/2 - |z|^2/4) e^z*A*/2 e^-zA/2  (214)

Use the Gaussian basic window

h(x') = Ne^-x'^2/2  (215a)

N = (2pi)^-1/4      (215b)

h(x') = |0>         (215c)

in which z = 0. The basic Gaussian window corresponds to the coherent
quantum state centered at the origin of the classical phase space of the
radiation oscillator.

Ah = 0          (216a)

e^-zA/2 h = h   (217b)

h(p,x) = e^(ipx/2 - |z|^2/4) e^z*A*/2 h  (218)

|z> =  e^z*A*/2 |0>  (219)

because A|0> = 0 and [A,A*] = 2I

A|z> = z|z>  (220)

The coherent state |z> is a shifted Gaussian centered at z = x + ip in
classical phase space plane - its domain of effective area h (for
significant probability like electron clouds in chemistry) is radially
symmetric (circle) about the point z. The domain of a squeezed state is not
radially symmetric.

The relation of the window translate in phase space to the coherent state
is

h(p,x) => e^(ipx/2 - |z|^2/4) |z>   (221)

|h(p,x)><h(p,x)| = e^-|z|^2/4 |z><z|   (222)

Note that the window translate h(p,x) is a unitary shift of basic window h,
but the operator e^z*A*/2 which shifts |0> to |z> is not unitary.

to be continued
From: sunadg@vccnw13.its.rpi.edu (Gary Toshio Sunada)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:57:42 GMT
Reply-To: sunadg@rpi.edu
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.



At the risk of turning this into an alt.religion discussion (dons
flameproof gear) I would like to say that Jesus didn't think of Himself
as one of a series of "Masters".  Why?  Look at what He said:

John 8:58 -- "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was
  born, I Am!" (I Am: Yahweh -- I have existed eternally)

John 14:6 -- Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.
  No one comes to the Father except through Me.  If you really knew Me,
  you would know My Father as well.  From now on, you do know Him and have
  seen Him."

Isaiah says in chapter 43 that God is the only God; there was none 
before Him and there will be none after Him.  You even specifically
dismissed John 3:16.  You can't take the other, convenient parts of the
Bible and reject the rest.  It's all one truth.  For those of you who think
it's either completely false or just corrupted, look again.  I did; there's
one truth, established by God, that tells of our future beyond this world,
and whether you want to believe in it or not, God will judge you just the
same.  If you want to know the truth, talk to Him...it's called praying.

--
Gary Sunada
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Home made monopoles
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:36:03 GMT

John.Brawley@p1.f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (John Brawley) writes:

>This mean you cannot make one of these no matter what?  (of -course-
>that's what you mean....  It just seems like it ought to work, say, if
>you provided serrated (as in rabbeted) perimeter edges...  You mean
>that no matter how tight you make the seams, the field would "leak"
>through the (say, nanometer wide) join line?  What would happen to
>the sphere _if_, say, you managed to get a perfect join (theoretically
>speaking)?  Would the field "leak" through somwhere else?  Metal
>fatigue and shatter? What? What?

One or the other.  The idea was essentially to make a spherical
shell out of magnetic dipoles.  In the limit of an infinitely
rigid sphere and infinitely robust dipoles, pushing the hemispheres
together would take an infinite amount of energy; the force you
need diverges as the edges get closer.  A real hemisphere is only
finitely strong and is made of stuff whose magnetic dipoles will
reorient if the energy difference is large enough.  So at some
point, either a hemisphere will break or the field will leak
through the surface (probably the latter, I'd guess).

As long as the magnetic field obeys Maxwell's equations, the thing
can't be constructed at all.
 
(I'd thought on this idea several
>years ago...  I wanted to make a "floating ball" that sat in a
>concave all-(south or north) "dish" shaped field (no problem), and
>had all the outside of the sphere the same polarity.  I wasn't
>trying to make a monopole, just a neat thing with earth's geographical
>features painted on it.  Floating like that, tiny breezes ought to
>trun it.  Now here you come poking terrible holes in my neat little
>floating globe idea!  Gad.  <grin>  Tell me:  what if I drilled tiny
>holes all over it?  Would that allow me to have, say 95% of the outer
>surface all one polarity, with the other polarity's flux lines all
>bunched together in the holes, like they do in a ring magnet?

I think there are actually proofs to the effect that you can't stably
levitate something this way with permanent magnets alone.  You may have
seen a gadget sold in science-toy stores which has a levitating
spindle; one end of the spindle bumps up against a mirror, and that
stabilizing mirror is what makes the whole thing possible.  Without
it the spindle couldn't be stable.
 
The right way to do this would be to make the floating ball out of an
ordinary permanent magnet, and levitate it above a slab of high-
temperature superconductor in a pool of liquid nitrogen!
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: integrity and competence of moderators
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:00:45
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<1993Jan21.205441.558@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:54:41 GMT

In article <C1807M.DGq@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti) writes: 

   I doubt that men of the stature of Yakir Aharonov, Steven Weinberg etc.
   would allow themsevles to be moderated by the present slate of moderators.
   If the whole point is to get men of that stature to contribute, then
   you must have a prestigious set of moderators. As it is the present fact
   is that the moderated conference will be a power trip for Bass et-al.


You mean I've missed posts by Yakir Aharonov and Steven Weinberg to the
current unmoderated newgroup?  Please repost them, if you've saved copies.

Xref: sparky sci.physics:23398 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2816 sci.skeptic:22804 alt.conspiracy:14583 alt.alien.visitors:10159
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black hole insights
Date: 23 Jan 93 03:12:21 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 22 Jan 93 21:45:54 GMT

In article <mcirvin.727739154@husc.harvard.edu> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:


   bbowen@megatest.com (Bruce Bowen) writes:

   (in a very nice summary of some black-hole physics)

   >For a massive object, what horizon are you talking about?  The horizon
   >of the original black hole, or the horizon of the black hole + object?

   An excellent point.  The horizon of a black hole, as some have
   pointed out, comes out to meet a massive object that falls into it.
   In this discussion I've usually been idealizing infalling objects
   as massless test particles.

Which raises the interesting question of how you are to
receive a signal from a massless test particle falling in!

To recap: anything carrying mass-energy falling into a black
hole will be enveloped by an extended horizon in a finite
time to a stationary observer at infinity.

eg. Schwarzschild black hole mass M, consider pressure free
mass m falling in spherically symmetrically in the
rest frame of the hole. The mass reaches finite radius R+r
in finite time as measured by stationary-observer-at-infinity
but if r/R < m/M there is now a new horizon extending past the
object.

As an exercise for the student, generalise to Kerr holes and
non-symmetric infall ;-)
For those with true ambition, demonstrate above either
without reference to the Hoop conjecture, or prove the
Hoop conjecture :-) (and _please_ send me a preprint!)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: The confusion of tongues 
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:28:53 GMT

Michael Weiss asks:

On the topic of mathematicians' vs. physicists' notation, does anyone know
why most mathematicians will write an integral as shown below on the left
(unless they omit the dummy variable x entirely), whereas physicists prefer
the form on the right?

         /                       /
         |  f(x) dx              | dx f(x)
         /                       /

With the left-hand form, the integral sign and the dx act as delimiters.
With the right hand form, the combination of integral sign with dx stands
for a linear operator.  Neither interpretation seems to favor one side of
the cultural divide.

-----
I have noticed this too and have always thought it was because
physicists write more nasty multiple integrals.  For these, it is nice
to be able to see the dx in front so you can tell right away what
you are integrating with respect to, before plunging into the thick of
the integrand itself.
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Group representation
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:19 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

andre@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Andre Roberge) writes...
>My problem arises when dealing with representations that are not
>square matrices.  For example, in particle physics, one puts fundamental
>fermions in the "15" representation, etc., which I have seen written
>as a column vector.  ****How does such a representation satisfy the group
>multiplication rule?****  Is it still truly a representation, or
>is this a misuse of the word? 

It is in fact a misuse of the word. The representation is actually
the 15x15 matrices which act on the vector when you want to make a
transformation.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why does the moon keep the same face t
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:40:20 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: scn1.jpl.nasa.gov

   The moon does not have to have any deformity in shape to wind up with one
side always facing the Earth. The moon is locked as it is by tidal forces,
caused by the fact that the moon is not a point. Even if the Earth and the
moon were perfect spheres, the moon would eventually wind up as it is now.
   There is a transfer of angular momentum, through tidal interactions, from the
Earth to the moon. This makes the moon move away from the Earth, and the Earth
slow down it's daily spin rate. Eventually, the now 24 hour day on Earth will
be rather longer, and the moon will be gone.
   I have been told that in fact the moon will recede to a maximum distance, and
then move back in towards the Earth, but I don't believe it.

                       Tim Thompson
                       JPL Div 32 Science Computing Network.


Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 21:50:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.132621.16572@lin.foa.se> eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2) writes:
>>sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>>I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
>>influential European corporation. If you want to make
>>corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
>>to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
>>names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
>>translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
>>read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
>>nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
>>multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
>>major role with major funding.
>
>>This is no joke! I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>>and that something new-age is needed.

Man, I missed this the first time!  Are you sprouting delusions of
grandeur on us like Abian, Jack?  Typical signs - remarks like "I have
been getting millions of adulatory email messages concerning my theories
- it's just you folks who *post* who keep knocking my ideas"... "I am
being paid a significant amount of money by a top-secret multinational
corporation to post lots of articles to many newsgroups," "Every article
I write is going to translated into Swahili and broadcast live on Kenyan
television during prime time", etc..

Please, please tell us you're joking and haven't flipped out!  Or give
us a scintilla of evidence for your story!  Surely it can't be all that
hush-hush if they're gonna start broadcasting your stuff worldwide.
Tell us which channel to tune to!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kimball@stsci.edu (Timothy Kimball)
Subject: Re: How to write integrals (was Re: The confusion of tongues (was ...))
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:14:30 GMT

Emory F. Bunn (ted@physics1) wrote:
: 
: I think that the reason I usually put the dx at the end is that that's
: the way it was in my first calculus textbook...

One of my first calculus teachers tried to get us to
drop the dx completely, on the grounds that the integral symbol
served as an operator on a function,
and the x in dx was just a dummy index of integration.
No one listened to him, though... :^)

--

/* tdk -- Opinions are mine, not my employer's. */