HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Sarfatti Forteana
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:38:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

re: units of conductance

of course, now that we use SI units, the unit of conductance is the "mho"
pronounced "siemens".  (Although I usually pronounce it "one over ohms")
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22144 sci.electronics:22063
From: rgarito@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Robert Garito)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Lasers/collimated light in RGB? (full repost)
Date: 6 Jan 93 05:36:22 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics

Modulation Techniques:

Often the scanning is done via mirrors sitting upon a voice coil
(often like that of a Hard Drive Head Actuator).  Another method
of scanning is via a high-speed stepper motor with a six-sided
(hexagonal) mirror attached.  If you look at the angle of incidence
of the beam as the motor spins the hexagon of mirrors, you will
notice that the beam will scan in a straight line.  Move it
fast enough and it will look like a solid line.   The same technology
is used in Laser Printers.  Now, with two hexagonal mirrors, you can
get both x and y coordinates.  Just synchronize the motors with a
computer alone with a fast shutter of some sort (possibly using
LCD technology) and you can draw pictures, etc....

Robert Garito
President, MicroLAN Technologies
rgarito@reef.cis.ufl.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: chuck@stratus.drexel.edu (Wombozni Klik)
Subject: Re: Thank God for the Internet
Organization: Drexel University Department of Physics
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:41:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: stratus.physics.drexel.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu


I've heard that song quite a few times in the last month and a half...
They play it on a kids radio show on my favorite alternative station.
If you think the lyrics are amusing, you should hear the music!

Chuck
--
Chuck Browne                            | Frisbeetarianism: The belief that  
Drexel University Department of Physics | when you die, your soul goes up
chuck@nimbus.physics.drexel.edu         | on the roof and gets stuck.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: DO PHYSICS DON'T TALK ABOUT MODERATING IT!
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:55:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Will some one do a statistical analysis of all the mediocre hack level
>academic apparatchuk committee blather about moderating the conference
>without any real idea - and many of these same pundits only make snide
>ad-hominums when any one tries to present an original physics thought.

OK, I've had it.  Most of the people who have been discussing the
establishment of sci.physics.research as an adjunct to sci.physics
are also the ones who patiently provide answers to novice questions,
even ones where the answer is easy to look up, who try to explain
what their research is about, who are resisting bailing out of the group
in the hopes that we *can* achieve a reasonable signal to noise ratio,
rather than simply abandoning the newsgroup to windy mutterings.

Jack, most of us have spent considerable time dealing with you and
genuinely attempting to understand what you were saying.  For you to
turn around and complain about "blather" is biting the hand that feeds.
Your idea of "original physics" seems only to include wholly non-standard
physics.  For your information all "research" is supposed to be original -
while much is not, some is.  Which is more original, research or discuusing
special relativity or the EPR paradox for the umpteenth time?

Jon Noring, you too have soaked up a fair amount of well-meaning people's 
time in the past.  Your objections to a sci.physics.research center
on the idea that so-called orthodox physicists will censor all that their
narrow minds cannot comprehend.  This may, in fact, be true (begging the
question of whether any research is really completely orthodox).  I remind
you that sci.physics and alt.sci.physics.new-theories will still exist.
The problem is that too many people post their brilliant ideas to sci.physics
without trying to figure out how they could be wrong.

I would feel terrible if someone were to prevent you or Jack Sarfatti or
Abian from posting unorthodox ideas to Usenet - but I won't feel terrible
if I don't have to read it unless it's been carefully worked out, not just
slapped onto my screen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: knots and stat.mech.
Keywords: invariant polynomials, partition functions, knots
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 21:06:16 GMT

In article <1ilhod$d4r@agate.berkeley.edu> srihari@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu (Srihari Keshavamurthy) writes:
>I have a question for the experts out there. I understand that the
>q-state potts model's partition function is a knot invariant. My
>question is that given a say 2d lattice model, is it possible that
>the corresponding partition function can always be identified with
>some knot invariant?

I answered this one on sci.physics already - are we suffering from a
time lag?  To repeat, the partition function for the q-state Potts model
is NOT a knot invariant; it's related to the 3-variable Kauffman
bracket, but not to the 1-variable specialization of the Kauffman
bracket that is a knot invariant.

>Another question is that if you are describing
>a knotted system like say DNA or some such physical system then does the
>indep. variable in the knot polynomial correspond to some physical
>parameter? While I am at it, what is the best reference to learn
>about quantum groups without a heavy emphasis on the mathematical
>aspects, apart from the "Baez articles" of course :). Thanks.    

The "Baez articles" are about the worst way to learn about quantum groups
since I don't think I ever got around to defining quantum groups!!
For quantum groups I would try:

Quantum groups and non-commutative geometry / Yu. I. Manin.
Montreal, QC, Canada : Centre de recherches mathematiques, Universite de
Montreal, [1988?] 

Drinfeld, V.: Quantum groups, {\sl Proc.\ Int.\
Cong.\ Math.\ }(1986), 798-820

and for some connections with physics and loads of references,

Majid, S.: Quasitriangular Hopf algebras and Yang-Baxter
equations, {\sl Int.\ Jour.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A} {\bf 5} (1990), 1-91.

Vijanathi Chari and Andrew Pressley are writing a very good book on
quantum groups, but it'll be a while before this gets published.
From: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Hypergraphs in (Software) Engineering and other areas.
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:11:33 GMT


I am trying to survey the application of hypergraphs to science and
engineering, in particular software engineering. Hypergraphs as
defined in Berge's book.

I am aware of

%A S. L. Lauritzen
%A D. J. Spiegelhalter
%T Local Computations with Probabilities on Graphical Structures and
their Application to Expert Systems
%J Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B
%V 50
%N 2
%D 1988
%P 157-224

which uses some (hyper-)graph theory (cliques), but is mainly
concerned with the probability theory.

Please reply directly to me, if possible.

____

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
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: geodesic motion from the einstein equation
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 21:56:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.072620.17110@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes) writes:
>
>
>Long ago I remember being told that Einstein, Infeld and Hoffman had
>succeeded in deriving the geodesic equation for the motion of a free
>particle from the *vacuum* Einstein equation. I seem also to recall a
>rather snide remark about this work in Pais' biography, and I think I have
>seen more recent references to it which apparently implied that EIH had in
>fact got it wrong. Can anyone tell me the current thinking on this business?

Guillemin and Sternberg got all excited about this work of Einstein,
Infeld and Hoffman while I was at MIT, and made it rigorous and
generalized the heck out of it.  I don't remember it very well but I
wouldn't quite call it a derivation of the geodesic equation for the
motion of a free particle from the vacuum Einstein equation.  Sternberg
said you can get all the "passive" equations of physics from some
gloriously simple principle.  Alas, I can't immediately dig up a
reference to this, but a search under Guillemin and/or Sternberg > 1982
should get you what you want.


Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
From: mccoy@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Mccoy)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:58:35 GMT

In article <MATT.93Jan8104409@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <C0ICzs.36o@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:
>
>> I don't see anyone here representing the Condensed Matter Physics community,
>> either theoretical or experimental.  Is this by design, or did no Solid
>> State people volunteer?
>
>There have been some volunteers more recently, after I posted this
>list with the proposed panel of moderators.  My feeling is that at
>this point things are far enough along that it's probably better to
>stick with the panel we have, instead of expanding it.

This may be a good idea for the immediate future (at least as far as
creating the group), but is probably something that should be addressed as
soon as possible if the group passes.  It might make some sense to deal
with any substantive problems with the composition of the "review board" in
a timely manner...

jim
-- 
Jim McCoy          |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
j-mccoy@nwu.edu    |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
mccoy@ils.nwu.edu  |  finger mccoy@ils.nwu.edu for public key

Xref: sparky sci.physics:22419 news.groups:25274 sci.misc:1995
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:39:01 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1ingd7INNctm@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

> >>Hopefully this
> >>will help jumpstart it.  Complex structures is one nice topic.  I also
> >>want to talk about Crane and Yetter's amazing new paper on 4-dimensional
> >>topological quantum field theories.  
> >
> >The best argument for the creation of s.p.r yet!
> 
> Oh, goody.
> 
> Sycophantic hysteria.
> 
> I try never to make direct allusions to the life and times
> of Adolf Hitler unless Ted Kaldis or Jack Schmidling are
> listening, no matter the provocation, and I won't break
> that rule here, but I'm sorely tempted (and they just
> might be...).
> 
> Let's just say that this is the sort of intellectual
> dishonesty that results in pronouncements that certain
> regions of philosophy are off-limits to exploration of
> a certain kind.

Pardon me, but what on earth are you on about?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Important unresolved issues!
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:03:40 GMT
	<COLUMBUS.93Jan11100318@strident.think.com>
	<BCR.93Jan12002118@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<1993Jan12.082756.21119@risky.ecs.umass.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: trodrigu@spock.ecs.umass.edu's message of Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:27:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.082756.21119@risky.ecs.umass.edu> trodrigu@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Tao R or Stephen L) writes:

> In order to decide if I should worry about the "not even wrong" clause,
> I would be interested to know if any of the following topics are "not
> even wrong", based on content as described:
> 
> 1) A theoretical claim that time will run backward near the end of the
>    life of the universe.
> 2) The initial 'cold fusion' announcement.
> 3) A claim that 'red shift' appears to be quantized, and that this calls
>    into question the prominent theories about the age of the universe.
> 4) A claim that the energy of a vacuum should be presumed to be zero
>    unless proven otherwise.

I can't speak for the moderators, but I would think that all of these
topics would probably be acceptable.

#2 certainly isn't "not even wrong": it was wrong, plain and simple!
Similarly, #3 is an experimental observation that is either right or
wrong (I don't know which, and I doubt if anyone really knows for
certain), but certainly is interesting, and worthy of discussion.

#1 is a bit speculative for my tastes, but real physicists do work on
that subject, and there are some reasonable mathematical discussions
of the subject.  If I were moderating, I'd be careful of articles on
this subject, and I wouldn't accept them unless there were genuine
physical arguments, but I would accept well-written articles making
this claim.

Similarly, #4 would be fine if there were real arguments given for
that claim.  (e.g., experimental bounds on the cosmological constant.)
Again, this is an area of active research.  

The intent of the "not even wrong" phrase is not to cut off
discussions on any subject that is an area of active physics research;
rather, the intent is that to filter out articles that just consist of
a string of jargon, without really discussing science.  Dale's example
("muons decay because of their desire to be free") is the perfect
example of the sort of post that will not be accepted.

This wording isn't perfect, but neither I nor the moderators could
think of anything better, and I think it's probably good enough.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Important unresolved issues!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:19:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.082756.21119@risky.ecs.umass.edu> trodrigu@spock.ecs.umass.edu (Tao R or Stephen L) writes:
>In order to decide if I should worry about the "not even wrong" clause,
>I would be interested to know if any of the following topics are "not
>even wrong", based on content as described:
> 
>1) A theoretical claim that time will run backward near the end of the
>   life of the universe.
>2) The initial 'cold fusion' announcement.
>3) A claim that 'red shift' appears to be quantized, and that this calls
>   into question the prominent theories about the age of the universe.
>4) A claim that the energy of a vacuum should be presumed to be zero
>   unless proven otherwise.

     All of these are (or were at one time) active areas of 
     theoretical/experimental research.  So, if appropriate articles
     are submitted, I see no reason a priori that they shouldn't be acceptable.
     I hope, though, we can keep the content somewhat above the simple
     statements above.  More meat on the bone is to be urged.
     In this vein, I don't necessarily think postings like 'I hear time runs 
     backward at the end of the universe;  Wadda y'all think?' are
     to be encouraged.  More definition, more thought, more cogent 
     observations, more theory, more meat.

     However, if one claims that some universal red shift is
     caused by the vibes of one's cat 'Ralph' then ...

                            dale bass



-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 22:34:45 GMT


Sean Merritt writes:

>As I stated before I object to one memeber of the panel. Now I find that
>after the discussion I also don't have much confidence in Baez to
>perform as a "filter" if articles in sum are to be considered as
>ensembles of indistinguishable particles. Nevertheless I feel that he
>and Dale may have some "constructive ineterference" efffect and 
>all my objections may be for nought.(see below)

Could you provide a more specific and less metaphorical explanation of
why you no longer have confidence in my abilities as a filter?
Certainly if a majority of people think I'm being unduly harsh on
articles about interpretation of QM, I will gladly recant (as I mentioned).
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: jokes
Date: 6 Jan 1993 12:03 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In case you haven't seen these few cute jokes recently published in New 
Scientist, I am reprinting them here (from memory, not verbatim) without
permission, for your amusement.

(1)
Q:  Why did the physicist fall out of the tree?
A:  He was dead.
Q:  Why did the second physicist fall out of the tree?
A:  He was stapled to the first physicist.
Q:  Why did the third physicist fall out of the tree?
A:  Peer pressure.

(2) Two sodium atoms are walking along the street, when all of a sudden,
the first one says to the second one, "Darn, I just lost an electron!."
The second one asks, "Are you sure?" to which the first replies, "I'm
positive."

(3) Three statisticians are duck hunting.  A duck passes overhead, and
the first one takes a shot and misses, about a yard to the left.  The
second one fires, but misses about a yard to the right.  "We got him!"
shouted the third.

I repost here, for those few who missed it, the joke I think was the
best of those posted here in 1992.

Three guys are playing cards.  The first is a doctor, and says, "You
know, I think that a wife is much better than a mistress.  You don't have
to worry about sexually transmitted diseases in a monogamous relationship."
The second is a lawyer.  He says, "You're wrong.  A mistress is much 
better than a wife.  When your relationship gets stale, you just leave.
No alimony, nasty court battles, etc."  The third man is a physicist, and
he says, "You're both mistaken.  A mistress *and* a wife is best - because,
when your wife thinks you're with your mistress... and your mistress thinks
you're with your wife...  You can do more physics!

-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: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Wavelets & Coherent States ?
Keywords: wavelets, frames, coherent states
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:54:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1993Jan7.021947.25511@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>      and dilation equations.  I believe that 'Wavelets and Their
>      Applications' has some relevant articles explicitly pointing
>      out the connections between coherent states representations and
>      wavelets, but I cannot seem to find the book in the mess.

     That's 'Wavelets and Their Applications', Ruskai \etal eds (Jones
     and Bartlett (1992) p. 303 a quick scan finds 'Wavelets and Quantum 
     Mechanics' by Paul and Seip.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22316 news.groups:25188 sci.misc:1968
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:44:09 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu's message of Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:52:39 GMT

In article <C0ICzs.36o@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder) writes:

> I don't see anyone here representing the Condensed Matter Physics community,
> either theoretical or experimental.  Is this by design, or did no Solid
> State people volunteer?

No volunteers when I posted the initial call for volunteers; I even
tried to solicit a condensed matter volunteer by email.

There have been some volunteers more recently, after I posted this
list with the proposed panel of moderators.  My feeling is that at
this point things are far enough along that it's probably better to
stick with the panel we have, instead of expanding it.

It may be necessary to add more people in the future, or, for that
matter, to replace a moderator who has to quit.  If that does become
necessary, I certainly agree that a condensed matter physicist (or a
many-body person) would be a good addition.  For that matter, so would
someone from the astrophysics community---another notable omission on
the panel.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: addendum: re: sci.physics.research
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:39:12 GMT


Ph.D under Fred Cummings at UCR (1969).