HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnn@alpha.aosg.gsf.dec.com (John Nordlinger)
Subject: seeks listing of Nobel prizes for Physics
Keywords: philosphy,physics,nobel prizes
Reply-To: johnn@alpha.aosg.gsf.dec.com (John Nordlinger)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:43:59 GMT



I'm sorry if this is a FAQ (Frequently Asked Question) but I would like
a listing of the last 10 nobel prizes for physics (and chemistry if convienent).  

I'm currently rereading some philosophy and find it entertaining to reread the
pre-socratics and imagine what they might have come up with if they had known
about modern physics like Einstein's discoveries or electro-magnetism or the 
recent incorporation of the weak-force. 

Please forgive any ignorance this posting may reveal, my degree is in Philosophy and my knowledge of Physics is limited to a cursory understanding Feynman's first volume.

thanks, 

John

 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.fusion
From: hsong%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hwal Song)
Subject: neutron transport equation
Date: 27 Jan 93 09:51:19 MST
Organization: University of Utah Computer Science

Hi!
I am not sure this is a right newsgroup to send this question
but I found nowhere to go with this question.
Please understand.

Does anyone know any existing code or well-written book(s)
for solving the neutron transport equation by mutigroup methods
in 2-D and 3-D?

Please send me an email if you do.
Any other related info is welcome, too.

Thank you in advance.       
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Airplanes fly upside-down, how?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78CB4BB9B021C1B@rs13-annex3.sfu.ca>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 05:52:59 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:52:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.184332.1844@kth.se> , myrberger@e.kth.se writes:

>my question is simple this: How can an airplane fly upside-down?
>
>The normal explanation for how airplanes fly is (simplified perhaps):
>
>The wing is formed so the air have a longer way to go on the top, 
>therefore the air moves faster and an upward force is a fact.
>
>But when an airplane flies upside-down, a downward force should appear?
Right?

Right. You have just adequately demonstrated that the explanation you gave
(which is copied by so many textbook authors from other textbook authors)
is entirely inadequate and, one might even say, wrong. Airplanes fly by
climbing up on a virtual pillow of increased air pressure which supports
the
entire weight of the aircraft. That this is so is well known to pilots who
have experienced the greater ease with which this is done by a plane
flying
near the ground. It is the reason waterfowl cover great distances
scarcely 
a wingspan above the surface; it's much easier to fly there, and its much
easier to see that they are constantly climbing onto that "pillow". That
is
a far better qualitative explanation for how an airplane flies than the
"normal" one.

There are many widely disseminated myths in physics textbooks. If I were
an
industrious sort I'd write a decent one, but I'm not. The airplane is used
so often as an example when the Bernoulli effect is introduced. Anyone
want 
to discuss that famous example of *resonance*, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?
Text book writers can't resist putting it in because it's such a neat 
picture, but mostly because it's expected by the ignoranti.

Leigh
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:34:09 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: wwadge@csr.UVic.CA's message of 21 Jan 93 02:50:10 GMT

In article <wwadge.727584610@csr> wwadge@csr.UVic.CA (Bill  Wadge) writes:


>   I was browsing through one of the many 'pop' physics books,
>   where they are describing one of the stock quantum mechanics
>   experiments, and noticed something along the lines of
>
>    .. towards a detector which records every photon ..
>
>   Is this possible? Can one really build a device so sensitive that it will
>   detect 100% reliably every photon that enters it, and never
>   go off by accident?
>
>   Seems unlikely, but then I'm not a physicist ...

First, Bill if you are really interested in this stuff, get yourself an
Electro-Optics Handbook, put out by RCA(Solid State division, Electro
Optics and Devices division. This and your last question are fully
answered there.

What your asking about is the "quantum efficiency" of the detector.
If this is a device that uses a method of converting photon
flux into an electrical current(photo-electric device) if we
ignore noise:

qe = number of charge carriers generated divided by number of photons
generated.

let i be the current
"   e "    " charge
Popt the omptimal power output of the source         
h*nu = energy of the photons(h is Planck's constant)

qe =(i/e)/ (Popt/h*nu)

the parameters here are i and Popt. 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.

Usually  the qe is specified interms of wavelength, and a function
called "responsivity" R = R (lambda).


qe(lambda) = [R(lambda)*h*c]/(e*lambda)

the units of R are [area/power] power is in watts or lumens.
somettimes itis given in [volume/power].


-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
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How to write integrals (was Re: The confusion of tongues (was ...))
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:43:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.727667031
Distribution: usa

kimball@stsci.edu (Timothy Kimball) writes:

>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... :^)

Wow!  I wonder if he ever tried to change the system of coordinates
in a multiple integral.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,alt.pagan,alt.magick,alt.alien.visitors,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
Subject: Re: New University - Call for Faculty and Students
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:35:50 GMT

ppawels@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL  PAWELSKI) writes:
: 
: Colorful, Jack, be careful though, too many of us have too limited of a sense
: of humor: excessive play on this thread may cause people to ignore your 
: thoughts on other threads.
: 
<guffaw>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:51:32 GMT

In article <514@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.175012.23680@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
(Dale Atems) writes:
>> [...]
>> Please explain to me what you find wrong with this picture, and/or
>> why it can't be applied to singlet state photons in an Aspect-
>> type experiment.
>>
>There is nothing wrong with the description you provided for a single
>photon. The reason it does not apply to the singlet state case is that
>all the changes you described can be modeled by the Schrodinger equation.
>They do not represent a change in state of the photon but only describe
>how the wave function evolves in time and space. Because the
>evolution of the wave function as governed by the Schrodinger
>equation is local you cannot use it to model what happens in the
>singlet state case. If you could the relativistic Schrodinger equation
>would not be Lorentz invariant. You would have distant changes in
>polarizer angles instantaneously changing the structure of the physically
>distant wave function.
 
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. In the
simplest case the polarizers and detectors are symmetrically placed
relative to the source and the encounters are simultaneous in the
lab frame; let's consider that case.
 
Now each wavefront interacts only with the *local* polarizer,
transforming the state vector into
 
      |psi> = 2^(-1/2) (cos@ |x,0>|x',0> + sin@ |x,0>|y',+>
                       -sin@ |y,+>|x',0> + cos@ |y,+>|y',+>)
 
using the notation in my last post. The first term emerges from
both polarizers, the second term emerges from the left polarizer
but not the right, etc. No nonlocal interactions, and the joint
detection probability and timing are well-defined.
 
I have no idea if this can be made mathematically rigorous in
the wave equation formalism. I think it is in the spirit of the
QM description and shows that, at least on the conceptual level,
one need not invoke collapse or nonlocal interactions to obtain
the expected probabilities and timing.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: scip2124@nusunix1.nus.sg (MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO)
Subject: Re: female mentors in science
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:52:31 GMT

michael kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu) wrote:

: All this talk about "female science" looks suspiciously similar to 
: other well known distinctions : "Ariahn" vs "Non-Ariahn", "proletarian"
: vs "bourgeous" science....

    Are you a nut?
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: magnet help
Date: 23 Jan 1993 16:39 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <21679@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) writes...
>I'm building something and have some magnetism related questions.  Sorry
>if this is the wrong place, but I couldn't think of anything better.

This is *exactly* the right place.
> 
>Are some metals better at attracting magnets than others?  What kinds
>of magnets are stronger than others?  Where would I get them?

YES! Some metals, like aluminum, would not work at all.  You don't sound
like you want the associated physics lesson, so I won't give it to you.
Suffice it to say that you undoubtedly want to use iron sheets for
your project if you put a premium on (inexpensive) attraction to magnets.
You can get better if you have the bucks, but it's not likely to be worth it.

-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: christos@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: <None>
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:48:50 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Hello there,

	I have a question relating to the solar eclipse.
1. Is the moon rotating around the earth on a single plane so that every
29 days(period of the moon) it comes in between the earth and the sun? That
would mean we have solar eclipse every 29 days at different places of the
earth. If that is the case then we would be able to predict how often different
places of the earth will have a solar eclipse.

	I would appreciate any relevant response.

Thanks,
Feel free to send e-mail to
Internet Address: rsl11@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Gallis' remark on my precognitive intuition.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:16:16 GMT


Mike Gallis >> writes

>>Sarfatti has demonstrated in past posts a gross misunderstanding of
>>quantum mechanics, Feynman path integrals and elementary linear algebra.
>>Do not take his intuition too seriously (at least not without some
>>formal training...)
>
>Tut, tut, Mike - flames!

>>Not at all.  It is an observation that your intuition has been
>>demonstrably unreliable, amoung other things.  The repeated observations
>>in this article that you do not distinguish between state and dynamics
>>point out a clear lack of understanding of the basic principles.
>>It is my opinion that you need to (re)learn quantum mechanics and
>>perhaps even some linear algebra.

Quite the contrary. among some of the precognitive intuitions I had years
before they became realized by others include:

1. gamma ray laser using nuclear transitions back in 1963 at Cornell
discussed it with Bethe.

2. fusion plasma confinement by laser beams 1964. Ron Bullough hired me at
UKAERE Harwell because of it  and I worked as Brueckner's student for
awhile at UCSD.

3. application of Goldstone theorem and spontaneous broken symmetry in
solid state physics (Jahn Teller effect) a paper published with Marshall
Stoneham in Proc. Phys. Soc. London 1967 - work done in 1966 at Harwell.

4. Planck scale black holes (Nature Phys Sci 1971 or 2?) - strong gravity
analog with Regge trajectories - this led to Abdus Salam inviting me to
ICTP Trieste in 1973.

5. Analogy of laser self-trapped filaments with type II superconductivity
published in Physics Letters 1967 which Ray Chiao of Berkeley said was
useful to him and Townes in some experimental work back then.

Others too - but that's enough to make the point.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: 2 of 4 moderators not qualified for sci.phys.research
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:17:20 GMT

In article <C16zu7.5oq@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>I'm for a moderated physics gorup. But looking at the posted CV only
>John Baez is really qualified by formal trainin. Johnson is next best
>but he is an experimentalist and most of stuff is theory. It would be
>good to have a separate experimental conference. Dale Bass dos not even
>have a Ph.D. and his field is not physics but engineering. And the other
>fellow is more a chemist than a physicist.

     Yes, but at least I know how to work *my* spell checker.

     You crack me up, Jack.  But just for you, I promise I'll *never*
     offer to moderate a physics gorup.

                              dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:31:22 GMT

In article <C1GEpL.4H7@well.sf.ca.us> 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.

Do you think they'd pay the rest of us?  Oh yeah, would we have to
be so new-agey to get funding (dunno if it'd be worth it if we would have
to compromise our ideals, ya know).
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Q:  How to de-Gauss a room?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
Summary: leftover field from MRI machine
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C1F4nG.JtK@ms.uky.edu>, bmw@ncc.uky.edu (Brian Whiting) writes...
> 
>Naturally, I feel that an environment such as this is not appropriate
>for my computer lab.  In particular, I fear for the long-term integrity
>of my data on disk and tape.  In addition, there may be a pacemaker hazard
>if the field is strong enough.  Is there any information available on the
>field strength in which it is safe to operate disks?
> 
>Best of all would be to remove the field entirely from the room.  Aside
>from the obvious approaches of raising the room temp above the Curie
>point or placing a strong magnetic in the opposite orientation, is there
>any way to get rid of this field?  Please e-mail me, as I don't normally
>read this group.  If there is enough interest, I will summarize back to 
>the group.

A short-term fix which I have found useful is simply to shield your
computer and/or terminals with iron cages.  It sounds crude, but it works.
I have had to put my VaxStation in the room next to a 1.5 Tesla electromagnet,
and have solved my interference problems in this way.

To actually fix the problem, I suggest trying to identify the magnetized 
structures more precisely.  There may not be all that much magnetic metal
in or around the room.  If you can get hold of a deGaussing coil, which 
uses AC magnetic fields of *decreasing* intensity to bring nearby magnetized
objects to an unmagnetized state, you may be able to target your specific
problem areas and solve your problem.

P.S.  I'm no expert, but I doubt that the stray field can be a pacemaker
hazard.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tjr@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (thomas.j.roberts)
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 03:26:35 GMT

[discussion of quantum efficiency (qe) deleted]

The qe of a detector is HIGHLY energy dependent.
Once you get above the e+e- pair-production threshold (about
1 MeV - that's a gamma ray, MUCH more energetic than visible
light), there are numerous detectors which approach 100% qe.

Tom Roberts	att!ihlpl!tjrob		TJROB@IHLPL.ATT.COM
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 24 Jan 93 02:03:07 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan23.230247.1315@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
>[...] 
> I certainly do not agree that it is logically necessary for a theory
> to regard the violation of the mathematical relationship of Bell's
> inequality as due to information transfer. I agree only that it is a
> reasonable thing to require of a theory. If experiment shows that this
> transfer must be instantaneous, then I am inclined to reject the
> requirement.

First the issues is not just the violation of the mathematical relationship.
It is easy to construct local hidden variables models that violate the
relationship. You have to measure the timing involved i. e. the delay
between when polarizer angles change state and this has an observable
effect, if you want to rule out local hidden variable models.

I am confused by your statement. Eberhard proved that QM makes
predictions that require nonlocal effects or influence. The Relativistic
Schrodinger equation is local and Lorentz invariant. One cannot derive
such effects using that equation. Do you disagree with either of these
statements? If you do not then I think you are forced to the conclusion
that the collapse postulate must be the source of these non local
predictions. The only two laws that describe how the wave function
evolves are the Schrodinger equation and the collapse postulate.

Paul Budnik
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: gravitons
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:47:27 GMT

billb@crpmks.uucp (Bill Bochnik (Info Systems)) writes:

>In article <C1550w.GG9@utdallas.edu> nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani) writes:
>>If light cannot escape a blackhole, how can gravitons escape to pass on
>>the message of blackhole gravity to the rest of the universe?

>'cause gravitons are a THEORY, and therefore can do whatever they like.

For that matter, so are black holes (though astronomers have increasingly
probable candidates).  We should, of course, keep in mind that most of
these statements about black holes rely on the assumption that general
relativity applies in regimes very different from those in which it
has been precisely tested.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: female mentors in science
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A78BE1EBFB011C03@rs1-annex3.sfu.ca>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:53:31 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:53:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.055231.23117@nuscc.nus.sg> MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO,
scip2124@nusunix1.nus.sg writes:
>michael kagalenko (mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu) wrote:
>
>: All this talk about "female science" looks suspiciously similar to 
>: other well known distinctions : "Ariahn" vs "Non-Ariahn", "proletarian"
>: vs "bourgeous" science....
>
>    Are you a nut?

No, he's decidedly not a nut. Michael, though a comparatively young man, 
has made a sagacious observation. 

Do all of your history books start in the "new age"? Do you believe, for
example, that knowledge doubles every five years? 

Think, then post!

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics