HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Are there any WIMP's out there?
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:09:05 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 <RLEE.92Aug12120701@watneys.med.utah.edu>, rlee@watneys.med.utah.edu (Rich Lee) writes...
> 
>Any response to this post will serve to prove their existence.

I predict that not a single one will respond.  They don't have the GUTs.

-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: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Superbashing (was Re: SARFATTI LECTURES ON SUPER PHYSICS #1)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:42:34 GMT

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

[..]

>The SSC is designed to investigate the Higgs sector. Supersymmetry is
>often mentioned because it is revolutionary, and seems to be relevant
>at the same energies.

More explicitely: At the SSC *OR* higher energies. The same applies for the
Higgs particles.
--
 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
From: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Snarfy's Equation
Keywords: mathcheck equation
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 19:03:22 PDT
Reply-To: snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us


     In case anyone is wondering when  the  show's  going  to  start  ,  I'm
    putting some final touches on a IBM basic program which gives a detailed
    analysis  of  the  effects of violating Ohm's Law,Kirchoff's Law, or the
    laws of conservation of mass & energy, in order to reconcile one's ideas
    that C = the maximum speed  of  signal  transfer  using  ordinary  radio
    components.  (I  know  that's  a mouthfull but I'm confident you hotshot
    scientists will `get my drift'.) Anyway,in  the  process  of  doing  the
    above,  I had to come up with what I believe to be an original equation.
    Now ,if it's not original,that's OK ,but I'll post it here so if  anyone
    doesn't like it ,they can complain NOW.


                     R=6.826*(D^-2)

                 Where R = Ohms per 1000ft
                 and   D = Diameter of round copper conductor in mm.


      Here  are  some  data  points from a table in Radio Amateur's Handbook
    (1985) to help those who wish to check this out:

            If  D=            then R =

             .202              167.3
             .511               26.17
             .912                8.21
            1.828                2.042
            4.115                 .4028

     Stay in resonance ..(I mean stay tuned, more to come).

    Snarfy    (Jim Ostrowski (..netcom!cruzio!snarfy) 8/18/92 7pm PST
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: any equations that can help determine ice melting rate?
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:15:32 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

xie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Yan-bo Xie) writes:
>> 
>> i am looking for some type of equation that help me
>> determine the rate of ice melting. for example,i

[A lot about collissions between air and ice deleted]

You totally neglected the influence of radiation !! If a piece of ice lies
in a room at 20^o C, it will certainly melt slower than when the same
piece lies in the sunlight. To calculate this, the albedo of the ice
should be known. As the Voyager pictures from the moons of Neptune showed
us, this can be very important.

******************************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   * 
******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   * 
*     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   * 
*     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: wma6617@rigel.tamu.edu (ASHE, WILLIAM MONROE)
Subject: looking for out of print manuals
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: manometer, vacuum  
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:17:00 GMT

We have lost our operators manual for it.  If anyone out there in net land has
a manual, or any information on it. I would be deeply indebited to you.
	the apparatus is: Pace Wiancko digital manometer model# 1
			  Pace Wiancko corp. (division of the Whittaker corp.)
			  N Hollywood Ca.
Thanks in advance
Bill Ashe
Stored Ion Lab
Department of Physics
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas, USA
ph# 409-845-7861
fax# 409-845-2590  
Xref: sparky sci.physics:12804 sci.math:10237
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Symmetries, groups, and categories
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:38:14 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

That was awesome.  Where do you find the time to post such things?  

-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
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ORTHODOX SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:10:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

>Don't be fooled
>by the all-caps (note to Robert Scott: on Usenet people will
>read your posts more carefully and take you more seriously if
>you use lower case).

Maybe he's using an Apple II+ as a terminal?

Extra question: suppose physics was dilation invariant.  What
conserved quantity would be associated with this symmetry
(in the Noether's theorem manner, i.e. translation invariance
<=> momentum conservation).  This is not a trick question, I don't
know the answer.  I would guess, though, that lengths would become
dimensionless, for whatever that's worth.
From: dasu@sscux1.ssc.gov (Sridhara Dasu)
Subject: Re: TOP-quark reactions and mass limit question
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:18:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.094507.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
Path: sunova!convex!darwin.sura.net!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!ajk.tele.fi!funic!nokia.fi!tnclus.tele.nokia.fi!hporopudas
   From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
   Newsgroups: sci.physics
   Date: 21 Aug 92 07:45:07 GMT
   Sender: usenet@noknic.nokia.fi (USENET at noknic)
   Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
   Lines: 34
   Nntp-Posting-Host: tne02.tele.nokia.fi


    Hi !

      I red just about mass limit of top quark in:

	Particle Data Group, 1992.
	Review of Particle Properties.
	Physical Review D, Volume 45, Part 2, 1 June 1992.

      There was said that t-quark mass > 91 GeV and this assumes that t quark
						       +
      would decay with 100% branching ratio as t -> b W  rather than to other
			    +
      modes such as t -> b H  . Whithout this assumption the mass limit is
	m > 55 GeV. Standard Model analyses of precision experiments on the
      the electroweak interactions suggest a mass between 110 and 190 GeV with
	m < 200 GeV at 95% CL.


      As an amateur physicist I would like to ask is any of the following
      reactions possible. ?
		     +
	   t -> b + e  + nu_e

		      +
	   t -> b + my + nu_my

		       +
	   t -> b + tau + nu_tau

      And if these are possible, then would these affect the limit
      mentioned first ( > 91 GeV ). ?

		   Hannu.

The primary interaction is t -> b W+
The reactions you listed are
W+ -> e + nu_e
   -> mu + nu_mu
   -> tau + nu_tau
All those reactions are included in the
CDF limit.
		- Sridhara
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Subject?
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:24:13 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <FeosPB2w176w@west.darkside.com> Chris Colvin writes:
>Jesus Saves
  Not on my salary he doesn't.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sea waves
Keywords: waves
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:29:45 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

In article <boudouvi.714144870@theseas> boudouvi@ntua.gr (Andreas Boudouvis) writes:
>A summer-time question:
>Why the crests of sea waves are white (esop. when the waves 
>break at the seashore?)

1.  They aren't white, they're clear!

2.  Okay, if they really are white (i.e., if you really see
white and not clear), it's "foam," or bubbles of air mixed
into the water by churning as the water begins to tumble
turbulently.

				--Blair
				  "Now tell us how surfing works."
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Volume occupation (was Re: Vector Bosons?)
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:36:19 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>The exclusion principle comes into play, in the collapse of massive
>stars, for example, only at the point where EM is neutralized by inverse
>beta-decay driven by the massive pressure.  Then only neutrons are left,
>at least in the core, supported only by the degeneracy pressure.  Before
>that point, it is the electromagnetic repulsion of protons and electrons
>which is responsible for the size of stars and their tendency not to
>collapse when cold.

No. Electron degeneracy can come in before inverse beta decay. This is
what holds up white dwarf stars (and low-mass red giant cores), even
down to T=0 for the wd's. Inverse beta decay is what makes wd's unstable
(by lowering the adiabatic gamma beow 4/3) at a point called "neutron
drip", when the pressure of free neutrons becomes important. For the
low-density regime (below about 4e11 g/cc) electron pressure is either
simply due to average velocities, or degeneracy when the Fermi energy
reaches the temperature (due to the high density). Degenerate electrons
become relativistic near 1e7 g/cc. Electrostatic repulsion does not 
enter since the plasma is neutral.

See: Shapiro and Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars
(Wiley, 1983), esp ch 2.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:40:40 -0400 
From: "Arun K. Gupta" <ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Volume Occupation



Matter is stable and has a volume and binding energy that is linear in
N, the number of atoms because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The
following citation contains the proofs of that and many other interesting
things. The above result is very explicitly stated. If I understood the
notation correctly, then matter in which we are free to place the nuclei
in the energetically most favorable positions (i.e. no symmetry restrictions
on nuclei wave functions) and in which the electrons were bosons, would
have a volume in the ground state that went like 1/N !!!!!!
Author       LIEB, Elliott H.
             Contributors:  Thirring, Walter E., 1927-
Title        The STABILITY of MATTER : from atoms to stars : selecta of
             Elliott H. LIEB / edited by W. Thirring ; with a preface by F.
             Dyson.
Publisher    Berlin ; New York : Springer-Verlag, c1991.

*********
arun gupta
ag3L@andrew.cmu.edu
From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Entropy
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:59:37 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


My gratitude for the responses to my query re entropy both here and
email.

The problem is that standard texts DO NOT provide a very good
explaination of the equivalance between the Carnot and the statistical
derivations of entropy.  If any is given at all it is limited to the
idea that because for two systems S=S1+S2 and W=W1xW2 thus the only
function which can connect S & W is the ln ie S=klnW.  This is not
very satisfying to me nor my students.  It is indeed likely that  I
have missed a good illucidation somewhere and I will check out 
PWAtkins as has been suggested.  

There seem to be TWO Reif's.  I don't think that my Reif does the
deed.  Can Yan-bo Xie be more specific as to which Reif s/he refers.
And can someone PLEASE give difinitive titles and publishers to the
two Reif's, which are sometimes refered to as Big Reif and Little
Reif.

This will help a lot.  Thanks.   Jim Green
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name:  James M. Green                         )*(     
Email: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net                (***)         "The Lord may be
Smail: Stockton State College NAMS          )*(*)*(       subtle, but
       Pomona, NJ  08240-9988              (* (*) *)           he is not mean."
ICBM:  39.49333 N  74.53083 W               )*(*)*(               
FAX:   609/652-4958                          (***)               A. Einstein
Voice: 609/652-4558                           )*(     
_______________________________________________|_______________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: the nature of exclusion
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:08:48 GMT

we all know that fermions satisfy the exclusion
priciple, which rules out their being in the same state. 

But what is the operational nature of this exclusion?
That is, if I take two fermions and try to put them in the
same state, what stops me?

Presumably there would be some "resisting force", but on the
other hand, none of the four forces seem to come into play.
I've heard it called statistical repulsion, which is a nice way to
avoid discussing what is going on.

I realize the exclusion is reflected in the symetries of the 
wave function, but I feel like I could try and force the wave
function out of this particular type of symmetry, and I wonder what prevents
me from actually doing it.



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@nevanlinna.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: the nature of exclusion
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 22:51:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.021152.23111@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Ok, but one would like to understand this in physical, causal 
>terms if possible. I mean, yes there is that _relation_, but can
>we go one step further and develop a casual chain of the form
>
>exclusion principle -> "statistical repulsion" -> more energy in ground
>state as it is spatially compressed.
>
>and actually understand the physical mechanism of the stat repulsion?
>Maybe not, but it would sure be nice if one could have an intuition
>about it, rather than just accepting it.

Well, I feel I have an intuition for it, but unfortunately one can't yet
download intuitions to the net.  My main point is that you should not
try to visualize the exclusion principle as a "force" because then one
wastes time wondering how one could defeat it, which one can't!  Better
to imagine lots of energy levels and think about how when it's cold the
fermions will fall into the lowest energy levels, subject to the
restriction that there can only be one per state.  As one squeezes a
box full of cold fermions the energy levels go up, so if one does this
adiabatically the fermions will stay in the "same" state as its energy
level goes up, causing the energy of the whole system to go up.  

I suppose you will say this is not the sort of intuition you want.  Sigh.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Weak interactions, biology and the SSC
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:50:49 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 <1992Aug13.121304.5717@pollux.lu.se>, magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes...
> 
>So where does the SSC enter? Well, the argument is that to understand
>the possible chemical effects, we ought to understand the weak
>interaction better than today. The SSC will explore the high-energy
>behaviour of he weak interaction in ways impossible today (for
>example, one would liek to observe the four-Z-vertex). 

I hate to spoil an otherwise completely ridiculous argument for supporting
the SSC, but there is no 4-Z vertex in the SM.  Electroweak gauge bosons
have 4-boson vertices to be sure - but only ones in which all four bosons
are different.  Similarly for the 3-boson verticies.  There are some 
totally antisymmetric tensors which pop up in the field-strength tensor
of every non-abelian gauge theory which guarantees this.

-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: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: BLACKHOLES IN THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:16:51 GMT

franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>Of course, you assume that the hole approaches a pre-existing Earth.
>Perhaps the Earth (and planets and moons and maybe even the Sun)
>condensed around pre-existing miniature black holes.  Currently, such
>condensation is attributed to random fluctuations in the density of
>the cloud of gas and dust that the Solar System formed out of.

The problem with this would be the same as that for the outdated idea
that planets formed by gravitational contraction: if it were so, how
do you get rid of all the excess H and He? Actually, the one that killed
this was the discovery that planetary noble gas inventories (Ne, Xe,
etc) are very different from those on the sun in terms of relative
isotope (different masses with the same element) abundances. You would
have the same problem starting with a black hole. Planets most likely
formed by coagulation of grains. Problem with computations as yet is that
the stickiness of grains in likely protoplanetary environments (pressure
of order 1 millibar, temperature a few hundred degrees K) is not very
well understood. Lab work goes on, and the most recent results appear in
places like the Icarus journal.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Weak interactions, biology and the SSC
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:13:04 GMT


Since it has been mentioned several times in the ongoing SSC
debate/flamewar in this newsgroup, I thought I'd just summarize one
possible (very hypothetical) way the SSC results could be important to
biologists: 

It is a well-known fact that most biological molecules not only have a
distinct "handedness" (asymmetry under mirror reflection), but also
that all living organisms share the same handedness (all proteins are
built exclusively of the L-forms of amino acids, for example).

It is also a well-known fact that the electromagnetic force
responsible for chemical reactions is parity invariant, i.e. it
don't distinguish between left and right. (it should be pointed out
that this means it has no *intrinsic* handedness - of course an
asymmetric molecule can distinguish between left and right, but then
it's due to the spatial asymmetry of the molecule and not to any
fundamental reasons).


This is normally explained by the fact that all life has a common
ancestor that by pure chance happened to have a certain handedness.
However, why did all "right-handed" life in that case become extinct?

A recent attempt to explain this is the following:

The elctromagnetic force is not the only one acting on molecules.
There is also the weak force, which is - as the name says - extremely
weak. Up to now it has been treated as totally negligible in chemistry.

However, the weak force *does* distinguish between left and right. If,
for example, the nucleus of an atom interacts with an electron by
exchanging a Z boson, the process has different probabilites depending
on the direction of the electron's spin. This could, in principle,
give atoms a very weak handedness. The idea is that this handedness of
atoms would make reactions involving, say, L-amino acids (very)
slightly more favourable than those involving R-amino acids. This
would over geological time scales give "left-handed" life an advantage
over right-handed life.



So where does the SSC enter? Well, the argument is that to understand
the possible chemical effects, we ought to understand the weak
interaction better than today. The SSC will explore the high-energy
behaviour of he weak interaction in ways impossible today (for
example, one would liek to observe the four-Z-vertex). 

However, whether this has any relevance to chemistry and biology is
doubtful in the extreme - the influence of weak interactions on atomic
physics and possibly chemistry would of course be a low-energy
phenomenon, and as far as we know, the low-energy behaviour of the
weak interaction is well understood from earlier experiments.

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q