HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen)
Subject: Re: Origin of universe as quantum fluctuation?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:38:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.042507.9442@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:

! I didn't know that the Universe "started". Presumably this statement
! means that there are some particles such that, when you trace their
! worldlines back, you find that their proper times are defined on a
! closed interval. How do you know this? This is certainly directly
! contrary to the singularity theorems of GR, which clearly imply that the
! Universe never "started". :)

A religious person might claim that 'God' created the universe by
creating the first big quantum fluctuation. This could have happened
by hitting with a mighty hammer, for example. Sounds as good a solution
as any other that I've heard. Certainly we will not be able to obtain
any information about what happened before the 'big bang', if it
indeed happened.
--
...............................................................................
Ari Huttunen 
...............................................................................
From: ejlund@coos.dartmouth.edu (Eric J. Lund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: math for physics
Date: 15 Aug 92 23:55:34 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

If all you need is a reference on special functions, try Abramowitz and
Stegun, "Handbook of Mathematical Functions", published originally by the
National Bureau of Standards and available in paperback from Dover. No
exercises, but if you ever need a numerical value, look here.

Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics", is a good reference for Legendre
polynomials, spherical harmonics, and Bessel functions of integer order.

Eric Lund
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Typo corrections "sinx" on FTL signal eqs.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:59:45 GMT


Typo correction on missing sinx factors:

Thus, the initial pair state |a,b> of equation (1) becomes

|a,b> = [|e>|E> + |o>|O>]cosx 2^-1/2  + [|e>|O> - |o>|E>]sinx 2^-1/2

-> |a,b>' = [|e> {e^i(phi+m)2^-1/2|I> +  e^i(phi+m+b)2^-1/2 |II>}  +

|o>{e^ib 2^-1/2|I> + 2^-1/2 |II>}]cosx 2^-1/2 +

[|e>{e^ib 2^-1/2|I> + 2^-1/2 |II>}

- |o>{e^i(phi+m)2^-1/2|I> + e^i(phi+m+b)2^-1/2 |II>}]sinx 2^-1/2

= |e>|I>[e^i(phi+m)cosx + e^ib sinx]/2 + |e>|II>[e^i(phi+m+b)cosx +

sinx]/2

+ |o>|I>[e^ib cosx - e^i(phi+m)sinx]/2

+ |o>|II>[cosx - e^i(phi+m+b)sinx]/2    (8)

Therefore, at the receiver

p(e) = |[e^i(phi+m)cosx + e^ib sinx]/2|^2

     + |[e^i(phi+m+b)cosx + sinx]/2|^2


= [1 + sin2x cos(phi+m)cosb]/2  (9a)

p(o) = |[e^ib cosx - e^i(phi+m)sinx]/2|^2

     + |[cosx - sinx e^i(phi+m+b)]/2|^2

= [1 - sin2x cos(phi+m)cosb]/2  (9b)

So that the locally observable probabilities to measure the receiver
photon polarization eigenvalues are conserved and we get the connection
communication equation

p(e) - p(o) = sin2x cos(phi+m)cosb  (6)

This is the complete solution so we can see what happens at the
transmitter

p(I)=|[e^i(phi+m)cosx+e^ib sinx]/2|^2 +|[e^ib cosx-e^i(phi+m)sinx]/2|^2

= 1/2

Similarly p(II) = 1/2 so that probability is conserved on the
transmitter side and there is no trace of the coherent phase parameters
phi,m and b as we would expect for ordinary light on the same apparatus!
The coherent phase parameters have teleported to the other receiver
side.

It only remains to check that the total transformation |a,b> -> |a.b>'
in equation (8) in pair space is unitary. I leave that as a homework
problem! The evolution is obviously unitary on physical grounds because
the local probabilities are conserved on each side of the apparatus!

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: SU(5) GUT (was Re: Superbashing ...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:32:00 GMT

matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes...
>Dave, please tell us what happened to flipped SU[5]. [By the way, is
>flipped SU[5] really U[5]?] What is the current position re SO[10] and
>E6? Thanks. Brett McInnes.

I'm checking my sources. Be back with a report later.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: $99 True RMS meter
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:55:40 GMT
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <8400012@trsvax>, pauls@trsvax.tandy.com writes...
> 
>Radio Shack is now selling a True RMS voltmeter for only $99. It is a
>"benchtop" type, but uses batteries. It also measures frequency (to 4 MHz),
>You can't beat the price, either. Check it out!

This kind of blatant advertizing is both against USENET rules and quite 
offensive.  I recommend that people go out of their way *not* to buy
this item.  The people at Tandy should have more respect for us than
to behave in this way.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@euclid.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Order-of-Magnitude problems
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:47:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.162216.9332@amhux2.amherst.edu> jkwatson@amhux1.amherst.edu (John K. Watson '92) writes:
>Rob Salgado (sal7@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>:         In trying to improve my physical intuition, I've been doing lots
>: of Order-Of-Magnitude (Back-Of-The-Envelope) problems.  
>: ...but I'm stumped by the following:
>:  
>:         Use the uncertainty principle to compute how long an ordinary
>:         lead pencil can be balanced upside down on its point.
>:                                                 [QM: Das/Melissinos p. 53]
>: Any ideas?

Guess the length L and mass m of a pencil. Suppose the top is an angle theta
away from the vertical, and suppose it is falling over at some angular 
velocity v.    Then it will fall over and hit the table at some time
t(theta, v).  I leave it to someone else to work out an an approximation
to this function t(theta,v) that is okay for small theta and v.  The
real answer will probably involve elliptic integrals, since they show up
in the formula for the period of a pendulum, but I think one should be
able to get a good-enough answer without resorting to these.  Okay, now
minimize t(theta,v) subject to the constraint  

m theta v L = hbar

This constraint comes from the uncertainty principle: one can't know the
angle theta and the angular momentum m v L to accuracy better than hbar.
Of course the angular momentum is not exactly m v L but that's close
enough for this sort of thing.
From: pauls@trsvax.tandy.com
Date: 20 Aug 92 09:50 CDT
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Sorry sorry sorry
Message-ID: <8400013@trsvax>
Nf-ID: #N:trsvax:8400013:000:556
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!pauls    Aug 20 09:50:00 1992


1) Ge.. I'm sorry all your ARROGANT non-engineers are so touchy. Maybe its
the fact Gov. Bill might take your pork away in Texas.

2) My post wasn't an ad.

3) If I've done some unspeakable horrible tabu sensitive thing (apparantly
scott chase has gone nuclear (pun!)) I'm sorry. See..I am used to posting
into areas like rec.audio and rec.music.synth where 99% of the posts are
"ads" just like mine was. ie hey this new synthesizer just came out, here
are the specs, here is the price, check it out. That was my ONLY intention.

sorry sorry sorry sorry.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: moorthy@ferrari.cs.rpi.edu (Moorthy)
Subject: High Energy Physics Phenomenology
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:10:54 GMT


I am not a regular reader of this newsgroup. I would like to
know the electronic mailing lists/ archival sources for
the process:
$K_{L} --> \pi \mu \nu \gamma.$

Please send me an email. If there is sufficient interest,
I will post the summary.

Thanks in advance.

Krishnamoorthy
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Tours of Fermi Lab
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:27:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division

In article <1992Aug10.133052.6476@ll.mit.edu>, eaustin@ll.mit.edu (Eric J. Austin) writes:
> 
> I hate to break in on this important debate on the appropriateness of the
> prefix "super" in physics, but I will be visiting the Chicago area in 
> mid-October (Friday, October 16, to be exact) and I would like to see
> Fermi Lab. I have been told that there are regularly scheduled tours,
> would some kind soul please tell me when and how long they are so I can
> plan to be there in time.
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
>  Eric J. Austin                       EMAIL: eaustin@ll.mit.edu


For tour info/reservations, call: 708-840-3351

 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Originator: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Reply-To: ryba@ll.mit.edu (Marty Ryba)
Organization: Group 101, MIT Lincoln Lab.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 19:00:55 GMT


In article <10200@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>, hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Harold F Lillywhite) writes:
|> Or eggs.  Unless the membrane is pierced they can build up a lot of
|> internal pressure.  The same probably applies to any food with a
|> reasonably impervious layer on the outside.  The quick heating of a
|> microwave oven can turn it into a potential bomb which can explode 
|> when some poor soul cuts it or pokes it with a fork.

   This reminds me of a scary/funny-but-true story --

My college roommate was a wealthy Indian who, like most Indian men of his
social class, knew absolutely nothing about cooking.  He proceeded to
microwave an egg.  When he removed it from the oven, it was too hot, so
he dipped it in a glass of water.  BOOM!!  There was egg *everywhere*,
including the ceiling!  Fortunately, he was wearing his contact lenses,
because a bit of eggshell found his eye and destroyed the contact lens.
He would have suffered major cornea damage otherwise.

-- 
Dr. Marty Ryba             |	Generation X:
Group 101 - Radars 'R Us   |
MIT Lincoln Laboratory     |  Too young to be cynical,
ryba@ll.mit.edu            |		too old to be optimistic.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Subject: Re: A "preferred reference frame"
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:08:31 GMT

hinson@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu (Jason W. Hinson) writes:

>The following is a science fictional excursion discussing the possiblity
>of space-time having a preferred frame of reference without violating
>relativity.  My request is that someone tell me how we know that it cannot
>be true.

>Perhaps space-time is something like what was beleived to be the ether.
>However, this medium of wave propagation would have the strange property
>that an electromagnetic wave moving through it would be seen by all 
>inertial observers as having a speed c. This would take into account
>at least the effects of special relativity.

>If the above were not an impossiblity, then space time could have a 
>particular fram of reference.  Then one could fictionally warp that
>space time to send a message/traveler to another point in space faster
>than light could reach that point.  Then, the message/traveler would
>have the time/space line of the preferred reference frame no matter who
>is observing the message/traveler. So there would be no problem with
>causality violations (I bleive).

>That last comment promps another question:  Is it true (as I think it
>is) that if there were some prefered reference frame, then we could
>travel from A to B faster than light without violating causality?
>For example, assume we can send messages faster than light; however
>everyone (and everything) agrees not to send or recieve such messages
>unless he/she/it is stationary relative to.. say... the Earth.
>Could there still be a violation of causality?
>(to make it easier, assume that we could send the message instantaniously;
>however, since no one would send or recieve the messages unless he is
>not moving relative to the earth, instantaniously would, in effect, always
>mean "in the reference frame of Earth.")

>Thanks for any input
>-Jay
I don't know about causality etc. but in this sense there is a 
universal frame of reference for velocities: any observer can measure 
his/her velocity WRT the cosmic microwave background radiation. As far
as I know, though, this has no physical significance.
Cliff Bettis
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:02:40 GMT
Subject: Simple QED question
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics


Hello sci.physics,

I was reading Feyman's QED and came across the diagram which
shows one photon splitting into an electron and a positron.
Then I started thinking (silly me...), what if I transform
coordinates to the center of mass of the two fermions? Well
then, here there is no momentum for the two fermions. So then, 
how could the photon have any momentum in this frame? No 
momentum for the photon implies no energy for the photon.

photon            fermion

E = hf            E^2 = m0^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
p = h/lambda	  p^2 = m^2 ( Vx^2 + Vy^2 + Vz^2 )
c = f lambda
p = hf/c = E/c

In the new frame

p(electron) + p(positron) = 0 -> p(photon) = 0 -> E(photon) = 0
E(electron) + E(positron) > 0 -> E(photon) > 0 ???

This contradicts conservation of energy and momentum. What gives?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino     c/o Hewlett Packard Co.        I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com    1501 Page Mill Rd. Bldg. 5M    Buy low, sell high
415-857-7526      Palo Alto, CA 94304            Does a DC photon exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: Symmetries, groups, and categories
Organization: National University of Singapore
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:48:52 GMT

I agree, keep it up, JB!
BUT I was very disppointed to see you talking about "general covariance"
as the symmetry of GR. Come on, you know perfectly well that [for
example] Maxwellian electrodynamics in Minkowski space is "generally
covariant". It has absolutely nothing to do with GR. A realistic GR
spacetime has no symmetries. I suggest that you banish "general
covariance" from your mind. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: UNITARITY WITHOUT UNITARITY
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:53:23 GMT

In article <Bt0rJ4.AHn@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
)
)UNITARITY WITHOUT UNITARITY
)
)IN SUPERLUMINAL QUANTUM CONNECTION COMMUNICATION
)
)by Jack Sarfatti
)
)It is shown that the cosine of the difference between the reflection and
)transmission phase shifts of a beam splitter need not vanish for
)resonant thicknesses of the glass plate tuned to the phase shift of an
)optical impurity. This removes the last objection of Aephraim Steinberg
)to my gedankenexperiment for faster than light and backwards in time
)communication on the quantum connection.

I feel more comfortable with Maxwell's equations than QM.  However,
if you just look at the input and output energies of a 50/50 beam splitter,
you will quickly realize there *must* be a 90 degree phase shift between
the two output beams simply to conserve energy.

(For a 50/50 beam splitter, the square of the electric field vector on
each output path must be 1/2 the input square - IE the value of the electric
field vector must be sqrt(2),  .707 of the input (EIN) as the 'transmission'
probability is related to the square of the electric field).

At the output point, the total electric field ETOT must equal the vector sum
EOUT1 + EOUT2. and the total energy will be (EOUT1 + EOUT2)^2.  The only way
to conserve energy is to have the angle 90 degrees.  In this case
(EOUT1 + EOUT2) = EIN.

Measuring the electric fields in the air outside the 'black box' of the
phase splitter eliminates any concerns about the possibly non-homogeneous
or complex nature of the 'black box' as far as Maxwell's equations are
concerned.  It doesn't matter what goes on inside.  They're going to be nice
and simple TEM waves once they get out of the box and in the air.

If the 'black box' doesn't conserve energy, it's going to act like a
measurement & collapse the wave function.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:12784 sci.astro:8909 sci.philosophy.tech:2961
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #91 (8/12)
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:02:21 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Summary: First posting of PNUP to sci.physics
Keywords: physics news interesting banana
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug14.193326.19268@midway.uchicago.edu>, revu@ellis.uchicago.edu (Sendhil Revuluri) writes...
>**********************************************************************
> 
>In response to the requests for "real" physics information, I am going
>to post this and future "Physics News Updates" distributed by AIP
>Public Information's Phillip Schewe to sci.physics.  (Sorry for the
>delay; it took me this long to get permission, etc.)  For those who
>want to receive PNUPs via email, mail pfs2@aip.org with your address
>and you will be added to the distribution list.
> 

Yeah!  The new PNUP is here!  The new PNUP is here!  Thanks Sendhil.

-Scott 
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: happy@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Rusty Soots)
Subject: Help!  Need Help Doing Video Segment!
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program, NCSU, Raleigh
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:10:55 GMT

  For my materials in science labs course, we have to film segments
outside of a classroom to demonstrate a particular concept or principle.
I have contemplated using a pool table to demonstrate kinectic energy and
friction principles as such.  Can anyone suggest additional principles
that might be illustrated through use of a pool table or even a better
idea for a (less than 10 min.) video segment.  Any help would be greatly
appreciated!!  Please e-mail me, rather than tie up this newsgroup.


						overworked and overschooled,

????????????????
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:09:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.024327.22167@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:

>I'll take on both of you. I bet that supersymmetry will be discovered in
>the same year in which category theory becomes popular among
>physicists.

So in 1992 ? [Look at John's post]
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Cosmology with point masses
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 17:57:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.122004.19299@nuscc.nus.sg> scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef) writes:

>A more realistic solution h of Einstein's G(g) = d
>for a grid would be some perturbation of g which has
>Schwarzschild-bumps around the grid-points. But 
>these bumps do not interest me; I want to know
>about the mutual behaviour of the grid-points. And
>this behaviour is described by g. (which satisfies G(g) = 0).


Hmm.  Sounds dubious.  I advise folks to look in Misner Thorne and
Wheeler's Gravitation, which discuss a universe that is completely empty
and roughly spherical except for 12 black holes arranged at the faces of
a regular dodecahedron.  The book even has a cute picture of such a
space.  I believe Wheeler wrote a paper on this and showed that the
universe's expansion WOULD slow down due to the presence of the "point
masses" (really, singularities).  It would be an extreme bummer otherwise.
From: moe@rainier.lib.washington.edu (Joe Shippert)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The dangers in microwaved food...
Date: 21 Aug 92 19:42:17 GMT
Organization: University of Washington Libraries, Seattle

In article <20821@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com> mstemper@ems.cdc.com writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.200552.12599@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, david@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Bernath) writes:
>|> 
>|> >>In article <1992Aug20.015531.7842@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>|> >>there are serious health risks in eating.
>|> >
>|> >There are serious health risks.
>|> 
>|> Health is a serious risk.
>
>Risk is healthy.
>

Whoh, this is getting pretty existential.

-- 
==============================================================================
moe@u.washington.edu
If you can't talk about it, point to it.
From: mcgrew@skid.ps.uci.edu (Clark McGrew)
Subject: Re: SU(5) GUT (was Re: Superbashing ...)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Organization: Univ. of Calif. Irvine -- Physics, Neutrino Group
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:11:12 GMT

dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:

>phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes...
>>>Non-SUSY SU(5) predicts 10^30 years.
>> 
>>>SUSY SU(5) predicts the same process to take 10^34 years. But there are
>>>other decay modes which bring tau_p down to around 10^32. Also I think
>>>the 10^32 experimental limit is mode dependent. I know that extra higgses
>>>or generations ruin the proton lifetime, so it must be getting close.

Minimal-SUSY SU(5) does predict that 10^30<tau(p->e+pi0)<10^34 years,
but it has problems because extra Higgs are introduced leading to
decay modes such as nucleon goes to lepton and strange quark.  While
life time predictions are difficult for these modes due to "dimension
five operators" (Don't ask me why, I'm just quoting review papers, see
the literature if you're really interested), the predicted lifetimes
are around tau(Nuc->Lep K)<10^30 years.  This is ruled out by both the
IMB-1 and Kamioka and will be further constrained by new IMB-3 data.
There are several fixes for SUSY such as the flipped-SU(5) model which
predict pdk limits that are not ruled out yet.

When SuperKamiokande starts collecting data around 1996 it match the
entire exposure of Kamiokande and IMB within about a year.  If the
proton lifetime predictions are right and there is not a problem with
the atmospheric neutrino background (two big if's) the pdk may just be
observable.  

Clark McGrew                          Internet: mcgrew@skid.ps.uci.edu
Univ of Calif, Irvine                 DECnet:   psroot::mcgrew
--
Clark McGrew                          Internet: mcgrew@skid.ps.uci.edu
Univ of Calif, Irvine                 DECnet:   psroot::mcgrew
Newsgroups: sci.physics