HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:03:46
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1993Jan4.022335.25485@news.media.mit.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: minsky@media.mit.edu's message of Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:23:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.022335.25485@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

> >Clearly, the ones that comprise our bodies must be much smaller than
> >ourselves, but why are there no other elementary particles that are
> >the size of, say, a baseball?
> 
> Well, the common hadrons are smallish, but low energy photons can be
> as big as you like.

This is, unfortunately, a confusion of two different senses of what
"the size of a particle" means.

The first is: quantum-mechanically, we can describe the position of a
particle by a wave function.  We could, then, say that the size of the
particle is the size of the wave packet that describes its position.

The second meaning is a somewhat more intrinsic one: when we write a
wave function for a particle, are we writing about the spatial
distribution of a point object, or an extended object?  One way to
understand this distinction is to think about interactions; an
interaction between point particles is local, but an interaction
between extended objects (e.g., protons) involves points separated by
spacelike intervals.

When particle physicists talk about the sizes of particles, they
usually have the second idea in mind, just because it is more
intrinsic; after all, you can write an arbitrarily large wave packet
for any particle. 

And as far as we can tell today, photons do appear to be point
particles.  (As do the other gauge bosons, the gluon, W, and Z.)
--
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: re: Baez's attack on me.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:25:36 GMT


Someone sent me the following e-mail

(I just read Mr. Baez' comments about how most of your posts would not be
accepted in the proposed moderated physics newsgroups if he had his way.)
I have not been able to find the Baez post alluded to. Is Baez showing
fascist tendencies?

I am absolutely amazed at how I scare some people or upset them with
deviant speculations usually done with humor and a little bit tongue
in cheek.

I was exposed to  the teaching styles of some great physicists like
Feynman, Bethe, Morrison, BOndi, Burbidge,Gold, Teller,Salam, and
others - I even got a funny letter from Feynman in 1967 addressed to
"The Great Sarfatti" I think thAT Greg Benford may still have a copy.
I feel like Gulliver among the Lilliputians with some of the flames
and insults that some of the more insecure among us feel compelled to
express both publically and privately. But I also acknowledge the many
private e-mail messages of support and encouragement. This moderation
crap is fascist censorship - it is easy for us to censor what we don't
want to read as individuals - for example, I have killed "time has
inertia" "abian" etc. I don't care if Baez et-al kills "sarfatti" it's his
loss not mine.
From: bhides@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Sandhiprakas J Bhide)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: What are the conditions for Mass <-> Energy conversion
Date: 26 Dec 92 05:43:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

I am very interested to know the following:

As per the Special Theory of Relativity (1905), E = m*c**2, which
means the energy and mass are the same thing, i.e. two different
expressions for the same thing.  Some people measure it by grams,
while some measure it by Joules.

Now, if it is indeed true, why is that sunrays or for that matter
any other energy such as heat does not by itself convert into mass?
That is while I am shaving in front of the mirror, why is that the
light emnating from the lamp does not get converted into mass?

Similarly, why is that the keyboard I am typing on does not decide
to convert itself into energy (by itself - after all they are the
two different expressions for the same thing...).

What conditions must be fulfilled for the conversion to occur from
one form to the other? To avoid any complications, let us assume that
the universe consists of one Hydrogen atom and the rest is space.

This is a serious question, so please answer it in detail.  I appreciate
your responses in advance.

Regards: Sandhiprakash Bhide

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re:TEXAS/PASCOS
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:53:33 GMT


I don't see how anything I said would imply OMEGA > 1 - I was referring to
the quantum cosmology talk in which he said eternal inflation wrong -
universe must have a beginning though probably no end etc. I thought that's
what I said. I encourage some of you who attended to give some detialed
accounts especially on the quantum cosmology and culture and cosmos talks.
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: An Alternative Physical Model for SR
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:17:56 GMT
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: tigelaar@epcot.spdc.ti.com's message of 28 Dec 92 16:30:45 GMT

tigelaar@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Howard Tigelaar) writes:

> Proposed model: The stationary observer sees the event when the
> moving observer is next to him, but the moving observer does not
> see the event.

SR deals with every kind of event, not just the observation of a
photon.  Suppose the "event" is the collision of the moving observer
with the stationary observer, then how can one of them "see the event"
while the other does not?
--
franl@centerline.com         "So what we've decided to do is set you up in
uunet!centerline!franl        Cicely, situated in an area that we Alaskans
617-498-3255 (USA)            refer to as The Alaskan Riviera."

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQCNAisQJSUAAAED/jbCQchSwFG7IFKkrCQ6QKLxB0LVbP6co87karNBb88ur1+S
FK82JT9mNlWKvP4HHFEI1kLKk0PAvd0nez/mQIriAMUT2pfOnIAtdqtpddgQseZZ
7BY2vMiorjG7pe6e11Q+UIQcvqsY3Bl89YBgqrydWm8UWMy2qXeXQmAScOodAAUR
tC9GcmFuY2lzIFAuIExpdHRlcmlvLCBKci4gPGZyYW5sQGNlbnRlcmxpbmUuY29t
Pg==
=6hNb
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Why does sticky tape glow?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:13:52 GMT



I noticed that effect thirty years ago when masking tape first became popular.

It is a light blue hue, I believe.  The closest color to it that I ever saw
in nature is the glow of seawater when agitated.  The wake of a ship
is a long street of the stuff, as are the waves breaking on the beach.  It
takes dark clear nights with not much moonlight to really see and appreciate
it.  Mechanical agitation seems to be the triggering phenomenon.

Back to the tape, the extension of the tape adhesive elastomer evokes the 
emission.  Said emission area is limited to the locale of extending elastomer, 
about 1 to 3 mm in legth and the entire width of the tape (e.g. 3/4" wide for 
3/4" tape.  It seems to have no persistence, since it stops as soon as you stop
pulling the tape from the roll.

More recently, acoustical luminescence has been widely studied.  This is where,
when a cavitating bubble collapses, a sharp pulse of light is emitted.  The
emission duration is SHORT; 50 picoseconds or less.  All measurements of decay
time to date have been totally limited by the transit time of the
photodetector. I suspect this phenomenon is closely linked to laser emission,
as it takes place in solid stae on a molecular of perhaps atomic level with 
perhaps some polarization attributes.

Photochemists out there should really take off on this one; 
flames (pun) invited....

Ang. C.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re:moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:15:50 GMT


Baez writes:
"How much leeway should a moderator have?  I would not mind *myself*
deciding when a debate has gone stale, but that's only because I have
such good judgement.  :-)  If we have several moderators, and one
rejects a post, is the poster going to submit it to another "nicer"
moderator?  For example, I would be inclined to reject almost all of
Sarfatti's postings (sorry, Jack), even though some contain discussions
of accepted physics, just in the name of attempting to create a forum
where more professional physicists might be willing to post.

I guess I would feel comfortable having several moderators with
good taste and considerable freedom to run things, who would be loose enough
to
keep the newsgroup FUN and strict enough to kick off *most* postings
with low physics content and all postings with blatant misinformation,
flames,
and stuff that smells too strongly of crackpottery.

For example:
1) No Abian, ever.
2) Sarfatti only if cleans up his act.
3) Discrete physics only if there are very concrete proposals.
4) Interpretation of QM only if there is something NEW to say (e.g. the
stuff Weiss mentions below).
5) Data about the SSC, but no policy disputes.
6) Nothing about religion, pro or con, at all.
                                                    "

The only fair thing to do is for me to moderate Baez and for Baez to
moderate me - if we are going to moderate at all. I suppose my review of
Feynman's classic papers is not acceptable????

I formally volunteer to be a moderator  - I have a Ph.D. under Fred
Cummings at UCR in 1969, MS UCSD physics 1967 BA Cornell 60 - all degrees
in physics.

Baez is definitely representing an extreme view - if Baez moderates it
will all be Baez I predict! I agree with his 6, 5,4 mo on2 and I would
change 1 by removing "ever".
From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Question 6
Date: 3 Jan 93 00:47:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.




 
Qustion 6:
 
If a Bunsen burner is used to melt an iceberg, the internal energy
of the iceberg (now water) increases, U = mLf (plus perhaps U = mcdT).
But the mass of the berg (now water) has also increased, E = mc2!
That is to say that mass and energy are the same thing, ie both the
mass and energy increase.
 
On the other hand, if a positron and an electron collide (say while
traveling slow), the mass goes to zero and the energy increases,
E = hbarnu.
 
I don't understand this!
 
Well, you say, in the case of the anihilation, the mass-energy doesn't
change.  Why, yes that is true, it does look like mass is "converted"
to energy and mass-energy is conserved, but in the case of the iceberg
BOTH the mass AND the energy increase by the SAME amount of heat, that
done to the berg by the burner, and mass energy is NOT conserved!
 
Comments??
 
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year,   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                           )*(     
_______________________________________________|_______________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: fagan@coombs.anu.edu.au (Michael Fagan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: what motivates abian
Date: 25 Dec 92 13:08:45 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2



	Every day old Abian would walk out to the middle of his front paddock
and stand there for hours on end.

	His neighbour, worried that the old bloke might be starting to go a
bit senile, decided to pay him a visit and check that everything was all right.

	"Abian," he said, "every day for the past few weeks I've seen you
standing out in the middle of your front paddock, Is there a problem?" 

	"No, mate, no worries," Abian replied. "I'm trying to win the
Nobel Prize, that's all."

	"The Nobel Prize?" queried the neighbour. "How the hell do you
reckon you can win the Nobel Prize?"

	"Ah, well" said Abian. "I heard all about it on the radio, see. They
said that to win the Nobel Prize you had to be out standing in your field."



;+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
;|               "If there's artificial intelligence,                |
;|       then there's bound to be some artificial stupidity."        |
;|                                                                   |
;| #include <std-disclaimer>   "Psionics is all in the mind!"        |
;|     fagan@coombs.anu.edu.au                               ,--_|\  |
;|                                                          /      \ |
;| Michael Fagan Jnr.                                       \_.--_*/ |
;| Australian National University                                 v  |
;+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

Xref: sparky sci.physics:21863 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2646 alt.paranormal:2719 sci.skeptic:21813
From: rice@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (James Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
Subject: This Group (was Re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus)
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:56:02
Organization: Knowledge Systems Lab, Stanford University
	<1992Dec29.182709.19996@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<1992Dec29.200450.12894@rhrk.uni-kl.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpp-ipc-2.stanford.edu
In-reply-to: kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de's message of Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.200450.12894@rhrk.uni-kl.de> kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:

   In article <1992Dec29.182709.19996@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

   I think you should all set your internal alarm clocks at the phrase "this
   group".  I mean, every time I read those two words I automatically look
   at the
   Newsgroups line:

   Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic

I couldn't agree more.  Mind you, to me the most frustrating of
all are the snotty total noise messages that say ~"I'm sick of
the poor s/n ration on \em{this group} so you won't see me again"




Rice
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: bubble in container
Date: 28 Dec 92 16:50:49 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <Bzs9I4.IqG@utdallas.edu> nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani) writes:
>There's this inexpandible container which is completely full of water but
>for a small bubble at the bottom. If the bubble rises to the top, does the
>pressure on the sides of the container change?
>
>Sushil
>
Yes,

When the bubble rises to the top and releases it's gas, the pressure increases.
This is the same as the "shaken pop can" problem...

dks.
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spin-2 ===> Attractive Force ??
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:08 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <92350.133819CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> , CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>Why are spin-2 "exchange particles" supposed to imply attractive---rather
>than EITHER attractive or repulsive, as with electromagnetism---forces? In
>other words, why can't spin-2 "exchange particles" represent repulsive
>forces?

I don't have a simple answer for you.  But I can tell you that the 
theorem is more general - even-spin exchange bosons are only attractive,
while odd-spin exchange bosons can mediate attractive forces as well.
Another example is the residual strong interaction - the spin-0 pion
mediates an attractive component, but a spin-1 particle (such as the rho)
is required to get the repulsive hard core.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a simple proof of this theorem.  I have to
dig through some of my old notes to see what I can come up with.  However,
I will need some time, since I still have more than 500 old sci.physics 
postings to wade through.  

-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.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Comments
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:10:43 GMT

First thanks to Tom Kunich who was the source for the possibility of gain
change of the thermoelectric devices.  It really helps to get warnings about
devices, so when the problem comes it does not cause so much wasted effort.  

Tom, the thermoelectric material in the devices I use are "a quaternary alloy
of bismuth, tellurium, selenium, and antimony with small amounts of suitable
dopents. carefully processed to produce an oriented polycrystalline ingot 
with superior anisotropic thermoelectric properties.  (from mfgrs literature)

I know the material is fragile.  I have broken a number of the units.  The 
crystal pieces can almost be crushed between the fingers.  The crystals are 
mounted between two metalized ceramic plates.  The materials are selected 
based on a figure of merit, where thermal conductivity is bad and electrical 
conductivity is good.  In the 60's when all the work was done, the figure of 
merit for discovered materials was going up like the memory capactiy curve.
Had it continued for another year or two, we would all be getting our power
from such devices today.  But it just stopped.  I think there is no theoritical
reason why better materials can not be found.  But there have been no good 
new materials since the 60's, I believe. 

Since they are such a desirable way to pump heat, we will just solve the 
mechanical problems by operation at constant temperature.  

Thanks to John Logajan for reminding me of the "killer" experiment for the 
Nickel cells.  It was the cell & recombiner in the calorimeter versis the 
same physical configuration with the recombiner outside the calorimeter and 
the correction taken.  So if the mercury bubbler killed the reaction why 
didn't it kill it when it was outside the calorimeter the same length of 
tubing away?

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: RE: Postmortem analysis of Tom's cells
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:22:16 GMT


Originally-From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)

>transported by the electrolytes that include Pt, Cu, Zn, S.  These
>were not minor concentrations, and the source of Cu, Zn was from a
>brass connector  that made contact with the electrolyte. In the other
>active cathode (Takahashi style) we saw Pt, Cu, Fe, Zn.  This cell had
>an inactive stainless steel part submerged in the solution. To me, it
>is some what amazing that stainless steel which is pretty inert and
>fairly resistive to chemical attacks, becomes apparent in our analysis
>even though its not suppose to be an active electrolysis participant.
>It was only in contact with the electrolyte, and yet we see deposits Fe
>on the Pd cathode. Tom mentioned to me that stainless should have Ni in it.
>It I recall it could also have Vanadium too.  If it does, these weren't
>apparent in our analysis. It may be that that the electrolytic etching of

Good on you, Chuck, for doing this analysis. Let me comment on one aspect of
this. Jed Rothwell has been talking about ultrapurity that electrochemists
always insist upon and I have minimised this. Reading the above, I think he
may be right, after all. It's all a matter of where you set your levels. It
amazes me that someone doing a long-term electrolysis in an aggressive medium
would allow brass to contact the electrolyte, or stainless steel. "Stainless
steel" certainly does corrode. I recently read that we get most of our
chromium from the stainless steel kitchen ware we use these days. Even Pt
corrodes to some extent in cnf cells, hence its presence on the Pd after a
time. Brass - well, it just dissolves, if we are talking about traces.

If you think that acid cleaning, the use of triple distilled water, avoidance
of rubber or plastics or oil films or hardware store solvents is ultrapurity,
then Jed is right. For an electrochemist, all these things are routine in
most experiments except maybe large-scale industrial work. For us, ultrapurity
is another world beyond all that elementary stuff, where you might use a
clean room with very little dust in the air, and expensive "suprapure" reagents
(very expensive, pro analysi is not good enough) and worry about metals
leaching out of glass, or organics in the air. This level is not, I believe,
standard in cold fusion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: heterostructure conjecture
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:59:31 GMT

I notice that several CNF workers in electrolysis, particle-beam, and
gas-loaded experiments, claim 'anomolous' results in conjunction with a
surface layer on the hydrided metal.  I also note that many experiments
claim a correlation between 'anomalies' and dynamic perturbations of
the system.  I toss out the following conjecture:
  The boundary of the base metal (e.g. Pd) with the surface layer
(e.g. Al, electrolytically deposited) forms a mechanically weak
heterostructure.  During dynamic stimulation (current cycling, 
temperature change) dislocations readily form and move at this
interface.  This gives rise to transient perturbations in the electron
density & E-field reminiscent of fracto-fusion.  Highly mobile p or d
nuclei in the base metal lattice are accelerated to high enough energy
(during the transient) to generate nuclear interactions.
  I realize that this covers only half the twin miracle of CNF: 'how do
you get nuclear interactions?'.  No comment on the other half: 'where
are the high-energy products?'.  But the recent data I saw from beam
experiments _did_ have high-energy products, so those experiments, at
least, need only half a miracle.
  Merry Christmas   Chuck
-------------------------


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Subject: New book: Hydrogen in Metals
Reply-To: Chuck Harrison <73770.1337@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:59:24 GMT

I quote verbatim from the recent Springer newsletter:
Y. Fukai, Chuo Univ, Tokyo, Japan
_The Metal-Hydrogen System_
Basic Bulk Properties
Emphasizing the physics of underlying properties, this book provides a
coherent description of the basic bulk properties of the metal-hydrogen
system including phase relations over ranges of pressure, temperature, 
and composition (pure metal to hydrogen), site preference, 
quantum-mechanical states, and motion of interstitial hydrogen atoms.
1992/approx 396pp., 217illus., 48 tabs.
Hardcover/$98.00/ISBN 0-387-55637-0
Springer Series in Materials Science, Vol. 21

I'm afraid it's a bit steep for me, but if you want it, call Springer
at 800 777 4643.