HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: Ansatz (as used in mathematical physics)
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7762B2737011C25@rs18-annex3.sfu.ca>
X-Xxdate: Sun, 10 Jan 93 03:36:07 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:34:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.025132.18641@EE.Stanford.EDU> Anthony E. Siegman,
siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU writes:
>   I've seen the term Ansatz used (in English) to describe the
>mathematical structure that is set up to analyse a physics problem or
>solve a mathematical physics problem; but none of several English
>dictionaries I've check contain this term, nor do my Deutsch-English
>dictionaries give much clue to this usage.  Can anyone quote any
>authoritative references on this particular usage?

The word, when used in English in the context of physics, means
"assumption". You may, if you wish, cite me (private communication).

Leigh
From: rabson@oxford.ac.uk (David Rabson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: *.research request: limit number of articles per day
Date: 9 Jan 93 15:36:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, UK
Originator: rabson@black

I should like to suggest that the moderated, research-oriented newsgroup
should have a limit on the number of articles posted each day.  Twelve seems
like a good number; it can be raised later if the moderators deem it
helpful.

David Rabson
Theoretical Physics, Oxford
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:32:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.174635.20821@ulrik.uio.no> jarleb@medusa.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann) writes:
>
>Just a thought, quite a few agree that there is too few research level
>postings, but how many researchers are aware of usenet news ?
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...rest of the stuff deleted...]

Being of the Condensed Matter Experimentalist bent, I also read 
sci.materials.  I think that is a good example of how a research-
oriented newsgroup can work.  It has fewer articles, but I find
most of them interesting and informative.  It also seems to lack
crackpots, big egos, personal insults, long-running arguments,
and other such clutter.  [And please, spare me any snide remarks
about materials scientists being dull, uninspired engineers; while
physicists are philosopher intellectuals.]

I am in favor of the moderated newsgroup, whether it is called
sci.physics.research, sci.physics.mainstream, or whatever.
There will still be sci.physics and alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
for those who feel that the moderated group is too confining.
And for those who worry about "censorship", I would point out
that all ideas in physics are NOT equally valid.  They are
"censored" by having to agree with existing experimental data,
and to reduce to existing physical laws in the regimes where they
are known to work.  

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
From: st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TOP in TIME
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:29:39 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I'm not a CDF member, but am resident currently at Fermilab.
From what I have heard, CDF has shown these events, but not claimed for
sure that they are top.

Background to the decay mode as mentioned is fairly low.  Two W's and two
b jets in the same event is a pretty good signal for top which can't be
faked.  Other decay modes where the W decays to quarks (jets) have much
more background, but are more common.

Steve Timm
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (MAWENZI lieutenant of Kibo)
Subject: Re: infinite universe
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:16:50 GMT

dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes:
: On this very non-rigourous (even symplistic) level, there can be no boundary to
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^                            
  This is my favourite neologism for 1993 so far.
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: two point masses in an expanding universe
Organization: Rational
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:03:28 GMT

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:


>No.  At a given point in time in an expanding Universe, objects further
>apart move faster with respect to one another.  But over time, the
>relative velocity, due to the Hubble expansion, of two objects *decreases*
>due to the self-gravitation of the objects in the Universe slowing 
>the expansion.

Is there experimental evidence for this? For example, the density of
distant galaxies should be greater than nearby ones (as I believe has
been verified), and the change of density with distance should
reflect the gravitational attraction. (In other words d2D/dx2>0)

However, I should think estimating densities at large distances is
difficult enough, and the errors in that and the evolution of galaxy
forms over time, would make measuring the second derivative quite difficult.
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: temporally undecided states (was: hidden variables)
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:00:32 GMT

In article <468@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.043326.8858@asl.dl.nec.com>, terry@aslss01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>] In article <465@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>] 
>] > take a sufficiently skeptical viewpoint towards these issues...  If my proof
>] > that quantum mechanics is incomplete is correct, and I'm reasonably certain
>] > it is, it is simple result that many people could have come up with had they
>] > just been a bit more skeptical.
>] 
>] Ah.  Yes.  Quite right.  (Proof??)
>
>I have posted the proof before. It is not complicated.

Would you be willing to post it again for the benefit of those of us
who missed it the first time?  Usenet articles disappear quickly on
most news servers (3 days is about max here).

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22259 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2708
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Wavelets, coherent states and complex spacetimes.
Date: 7 Jan 1993 23:15:31 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

Jack, I hope these aren't LIBRARY books you're highlighting
like this.

				--Blair
				  "Give a hoot!  Don't pollute!"
				  -Woodsy Owl
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Simple Universe Question
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:21:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.726859260

gbshaw@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Bert Shaw) writes:

><re "Simple Universe" with only a particle and an anti-particle>

>As I recall, there's no way to have an electron-positron annhilation without a 
>third body to carry off some momentum & energy.  (Can't balance all conserved
>quantities without it.)  Isn't that right?

That's right if you want *one* photon at the end of the day-- it can't
happen unless there's some other body to interact with.  An electron and
a positron can annihilate into two or more photons in free space, however.

-- 
Matt McIrvin         I read Usenet just for the	tab damage!
==== =======         = ==== ====== ==== === === === ======= 
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22498 sci.math:17980
From: ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Ansatz (as used in mathematical physics)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:36:59 GMT
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Reply-To: ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de

An "Ansatz" is a starting point for solving a problem.  A classical
example would be the solution of the ODE

x'' + ax' + bx = 0

using the Ansatz

x = C1 * exp(C2*t)

In other words, an Ansatz is something you plug in and see if it works.
-- 
Thomas Koenig, ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet
The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic
diagram.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Responses to Dale Bass
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:46:04 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.214902.837@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>
>P.S. --	Dale, I know you from the other group.  You've made some great
>	observations and suggestions, but I am worried that this could
>	be turning into one of your infamous ping-pong matches.  Could
>	we maybe tone it down a bit after this exchange?  Feel free to
>	get your response to this one in, but my next one is liable to
>	be a lot shorter (up to and including zero bytes!)
>
>	I look forward to being blasted by you again in the near future.

     'Ping pong' is over.  I was interested in nothing more
     than explaining to you certain difficulties in what you were saying.

     Have a good time with it.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Status #7 Cell 4A3
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:11:37 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

> DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov writes:
>
> ...
> temperature range we are operating with the shell servo off and floating.
> A
> curious observation is that we are more sensitive to the outside air
> temperature than to the room temperature.  So while the room temperature is
> relatively constant, the calorimeter "sees" the outside through the dewar,
> 1
> 1/2" of foam, a (now) floating aluminum radiation shield, 1 1/2" foam, 10'
> of
> air, and an R19 house wall or R30 roof.


        Is is possible that your apparatus is not directly "seeing" the
outside temperature, but seeing the effect of cold weather on the power
supply to your house.  Cold outside temperatures will result in greater power
draws by people using electrical heating, and may give altered line voltages
and possibly increased line transients as kilowatt sized units in neighboring
houses switch on and off under thermostatic control.  Is there any part of
the apparatus which is not operated of highly regulated, filtered power?


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Subject: Re: Reply to Jed Rothwell/E=Mc2
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 14:17:38 GMT

Steve Jones provides a sober counterpoint to Jed Rothwell's emotive
postings.  Yes, I take Dr. Jones more seriously than the
sometimes overwrought Rothwell, but Jed does make some good points.
Sometimes I wish Jed didn't end every sentence with an implied 15
exclamation points, but he is perhaps the best wordsmith in this
group and I enjoy his posts.  Keep it up, both of you.

The one problem I have with Dr. Jones' post is a quote from Huizenga:

>"ROOM TEMPERATURE NUCLEAR FUSION WITHOUT COMMENSURATE AMOUNTS OF FUSION
>PRODUCTS IS A DELUSION AND QUALIFIES AS PATHOLOGICAL SCIENCE."

I think this is an extreme statement.  In fact, if Jed was a non-believer
he would have said this first. ;-)  Of course, if one defines fusion in
terms of current theory and calls anything else a non-fusion nuclear process,
then the statement stands.  If there is anything to CF, it may
very well be some special case undreamed of by our Horatio imaginations.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be some "intermediate" nuclear
process residing somewhere between chemistry and fusion.

					me
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Lost in the mail?
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:30 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Frank Close says:

"You posted, on behalf of Gene Mallove your colleague, a statement in early
1992 claiming that I had deliberately ignored in Too Hot To Handle important
positive data on neutrons that would have damaged my thesis, and that had
been sent to me by Dr. Worledge of EPRI prior to my book. This is utterly
false, as anyone can confirm by calling Worledge."

I called Dave Worledge last week, but he was not there. He must be out of
town. He told Gene he sent a lot stuff to you. Maybe it got lost in the mail.
Why don't you call him and ask for another copy? I gather that part of it
described the work of Howard Menlove, of Los Alamos. Menlove did not make it
into the index of THTH.

Perhaps the material was lost in the mail, but that is not really the issue.
The issue is that you very deliberately ignore things. Even now, you are
deliberately ignoring everything we know about chemistry, calorimetry,
thermodynamics, conservation of energy, the scientific method, and the roles
of experimental evidence versus theory.

- Jed


Distribution:
  >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:57:10 GMT

Hi folks,

In article <1ipr33INNkem@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton
(Matt Kennel) writes:

> When I went to the UCLA lab a few months ago, Prof Putterman said that
> the light appeared to have a overall macroscopic polarization pattern,
> which you would not expect from independent atomic recombinations, but
> rather pointing towards some overall collective phenomenon.
>
> I don't know what more recent experimental results say.

I would be extremely interested in hearing more about this polarization data.
In particular I would be curious whether they could be reconciled with some
kind of directed radial asymmetry during emission.

Another set of possible symmetries that I would find even more interesting
would be patterns that could be reconciled with any of the major regular
solids -- e.g., octahedral, cubic, or dodecahedral -- or near-regular solids
such as a 7-point bipyrimid.

.....

Your conversation with Dr. Putterman about "simple" things is well taken.
Odd how carpet sparks and even the accumulation of static on a balloon seem
largely to have fallen between the cracks when it comes to details of how they
work, especially at the atomic scale.  (And what about triboluminescence?)

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Was sononluminescence _already_ solved, or not?
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:58:33 GMT


Hi folks,

OK, can someone address the timing issue here?  When exactly does the effect
of sonoluminescence occur during the cavitation cycle?  How well is that
timing really known (and by what methods)? 


From reference list Steven Jones provided I have this short quote:

> D.F. Gaitan, L.A. Crum, C.C. Church, R.A. Roy,
> "Sonoluminescence and bubble dynamics for a single, stable, cavitation
> bubble," J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 91(6): 3166 (June 1992)
> 
>   "High-amplitude radial pulsations of a single gas bubble in several 
> glycerine and water mixtures have been observed in an acoustic stationary
> wave system at acoustic pressure amplitudes on the order of 150 kPa (1.5
> atm) at 21-25 kHz.  Sonoluminescence (SL), a phenomenon generally attributed
> to the high temperatures generated during the collapse of cavitation bubbles,
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> was observed as short light pulses occurring once every acoustic period." 
>
>   "Despite the extensive amount of research done on both acoustic cavitation
> and SL, many important questions relating to the nature and dynamics of
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> these phenomena remain unanswered."
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


From Dale Bass in <1993Jan5.180115.17549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> I have:

>  ... in stable cavitation in acoustical fields, the sonoluminescence occurs
> shortly after the bubble reaches maximum radius (i.e. just as the bubble
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> starts its inward cycle.  Keep in mind that in stable sonoluminescence,
> the bubble itself does not completely collapse.).  This implies that the
> sonoluminescence is mediated by a strong shock in the vapor itself (See
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Barber and Putterman PRL: 69:3839 (1992) among others), ...


Sooo... Am I trying vainly to solve a pretty-much-fully-understood problem?

If it's rock solid that the luminescent pulse occurs in the central void just
as the surface of the a vapor-filled bubble twitches inward, then what's to
solve?  It would indeed have to be a vapor-filled bubble (not void), and it
would indeed _have_ to be a shock wave, not a surface implosion.

So again, has sonoluminiscence _already_ been solved, or not?


				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Subject: Cheap energy investments
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:40:41 GMT

To: >INTERNET:fusion@zorch.sf-bay.org

This is a dicey area because when a commodity gets too cheap, overall
industry profits fall. The old-line leaders suffer a lot, and the johnnie-
come-lately's also get hit. We have seen this during the past few years in
the computer business. If the world market for energy is two trillion dollars
(?), 15 years after CF it might collapse into only 10 billion, and a decade
later, the total cost of fuel worldwide will be zero dollars. (That is fuel,
not equipment). After 2020, selling energy will be exactly like trying to
sell ice to eskimos.

Energy intensive products like aluminum will drop in price, which will
initially help ALCOA, but after a while, the overall market will be
saturated, the competition will grow, and ALCOA will suffer for the same
reason the microcomputer hurt IBM. A company that makes airplanes out of
aluminum might do better.


Randy Burns writes:

"...after some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses
of oil (i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response
to cheaper energy prices."

I think this is incorrect. I have talked to oil experts, and I gather that if
CF works, and the cost of energy drops by a factor of, say, 100000, chemists
would quickly find ways to synthesize hydrocarbons on site, from local
sources of hydrogen and carbon (sources like air). This would be the reverse
of burning gasoline, and it would require enormous amounts of energy, but
that would not make the slightest bit of difference. The reasons they would
manufacture oil on site are: 1. It is far safer than shipping the stuff
around; 2. It is easier; 3. It provides 'just-in-time' inventory so that you
do not need large explosive stocks sitting around; 4. The quality of the
synthetic product would be much better than the natural product, there would
be fewer impurities; 5. It would pollute less than oil refining.

As soon as people wake up and realize that CF real, the price of oil, natural
gas, and uranium will collapse, never to recover. The price will be
discounted to reflect the future drop in use; there will no need to hoard
current stock, or explore for additional supplies.

- Jed

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: The problems with theories
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 23:03:33 GMT

Jon Webb is bothered that all the different CNF experimenter seem to have 
different theories about what is going on.  And so says "There is very little
reason to think that all of the experiments derive their excess heat form the
same basic source."

Consider the theories of Gorg.  In the early days, Gorg looked up in the sky 
and saw a brilliant ball of light.  Gorg attributed the light to the all 
powerful sun godd.  Later he saw flashes of light in the stormy sky and 
attributed the flashes to the god Thor.  Then he looked out into the woods
on a quiet evening and attributed the light flashes to the spirits of the
departed.  Sometimes he would pet his cat on a dry evening and would see 
light flashes and feel pin pricks.  Obviously the work of daemons.  Many
thousands of years later, Gorg put a filament in an evacuated bulb, and said
"I have invented an electric light".

So over the years, Gorg had a lot of different theories.  But except for 
cat petting and thunderstorms, Gorg's experiments were pretty repeatable.
What CNF needs is a repeatable experiment, any repeatable experiment.  Jed
Rothwell thinks we have one in Ni H2O.  I am not so sure.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Wedge-Out #2
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:12:10 GMT

Hi again,

A diagram that may help explain why I used the "wedge-out" terminology:

                              + 
           "fast" wedge ---->+ +    "slow"
                             + +     wedge       +
                            +   +             + +
                            + | +    /     +   +
                           +  |  +  v   +   / + <---- "fast" wedge
                           +  V  +   +    /  +
             Void Surface ----------,_  L   +
                                      \_   +
                             Void       \_
                           Interior       \ Void Surface

Not very easy to read (or draw) in ASCII, but the basic idea is that an
inward spherical collapse will develop "slow wedge" regions n which the
wedge tip points inwards toward the center of collapse, and "fast wedge"
regions whose bases will form the interior of the collapsing void.

Both types will be moving inward, but I'm suggesting that slow wedges will
be undergoing deceleration as the void collapses, while the fast wedges
will be undergoing acceleration.  The fast wedges will also become smaller
and thinner as collapse continues, giving up fluid on their exteriors to
the surounding (decelerating) slow wedges.

It's a bit easier to see why I chose the "wedge out" terminology when looking
at this larger scale flow pattern.  I'm proposing that this sort of thing
can extend all the way down to individual molecules if the pressure/vacuum
bondary is sharp enough.  (It was the easier-to-draw molecule-level case
that I diagrammed in the UC draft.)

Comments are welcome. (Any non-equilibrium fluid flow experts out there?)

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,misc.invest
Subject: What are wise investments if one thinks energy will get cheaper?
Date: 6 Jan 93 00:59:05 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA


The more I read the news in sci.physics.fusion, the more that I tend
to think that _somebody_(my own favorite horses in this race are some
of the small companies working on hot fusion) will come up with a 
dramatically improved energy source sometime in the next 30 years.

What investment strategies can folks suggest that would benefit 
from events that dramatically decrease the costs of energy. 
My ideal investment would be somethink like selling electrity futures
-deliverable in some long horizon-short. Now, to the best of my knowledge
there are no "pure" energy futures  Oil futures would come close, but 
oil is used for lots of other things besides just producing energy, though
I'd expect oil and coal prices to both drop rather dramatically  after
some breakthrough in energy technology unless the non-energy uses of oil
(i.e. making plastics and fabrics) expanded dramatically in response to
cheaper energy prices.


Thanks for your suggestions. Followups to misc.invest.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion