HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:29:13 GMT

franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>>It is precisely the violation of Bell's inequality that forces the use
>>of phase space for describing quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics
>>obeyed Bell's inequalities, then there would be a local description of
>>quantum mechanics that does not use phase space.
>
>That sounds like putting the cart before the horse.  Shouldn't we
>instead say that "the use of phase space for describing quantum
>mechanics" forces QM's prediction of "the violation of Bell's
>inequality"?

I don't think so.

First of all, we really should be saying "configuration space" rather
than "phase space", because phase space involves the positions and
momenta of all the particles, whereas quantum mechanics in position
representation only requires the positions. But nevermind.

Anyway, the representational choice of using phase space or not does
not force the violation of Bell's inequality. Some phase space
theories, such as the classical statistical mechanics of particles
interacting only through contact, do *not* violate Bell's inequality.
The violation of Bell's inequality is a real property of quantum
mechanical correlations, and is not an artifact of the choice to
describe the situation using configuration space (or whatever).

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: How to write integrals (was Re: The confusion of tongues (was ...))
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:41:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.211430.25660@stsci.edu> 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... :^)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good!  :-)

To me, the "dx", or something equivalent, is essential in setting up most
"physical" integrals.  It indicates how you are "slicing" something into
"pieces" whose "thickness" goes to zero as you take the limit and go from
a sum to an integral.

I also think the dy/dx notation for derivatives is much more "physical"
than the mathematicians' f'(x).

In all fairness to the mathematicians, I can see where they're coming from.
We physicists are mainly interested in the physical quantities denoted
by the "y" and the "x" (or whatever variables we're using).  The mathema-
ticians are interested mainly in the _relationships_ between the variables,
completely independently of what those variables represent.

Jon Bell / Dept. of Physics & C.S. / Presbyterian College / Clinton SC
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hobby of the Future
Date: 24 Jan 1993 08:27:26 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: nasdaq.intel.com

In article <HAGERMAN.93Jan20225855@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
>What would it take to make a black hole?

What's the Schwartzchild Radius of a Quaker Oats box?

				--Blair
				  "I wish it were still
				   fun to be a nerd..."
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black hole insights
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:10 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
Summary: Coordinate time to reach the horizon depends on coordinates
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes...
>What I want to know is, when people calculate how much "time" it takes for
>a black hole to evaporate (proportional to M^3 they say), what coordinate
>are they talking about?

External time. The calculation goes like this: the radiation rate is
calculated for static BH of mass M, and the result is integrated to
get the evaporation time.

>                                              Perhaps I'm just being
>irresponsible using Schwarzschild coordinates when M is changing.

You're not alone. :-)

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Big Bang Alternates
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:22:01 GMT


ethan@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:

> In my previous response to Tom Van Flandern I already mentioned why a
> proposal like Reddish's is incapable of explaining the microwave
> background.  It's probably worth noting though that the ISM is not well
> characterized by any single temperature.  ...  it is fair to say that
> with a few exceptions, these temperatures are not normally observed to be
> anything like 3 degrees.

     In suggesting that the ISM surrounding the local superbubble might be
the source of the microwave radiation, I am taking a devil's advocate
position of "why not" rather than promoting that idea as probable.  (I wish
to distinguish conjectures from serious models.)

     Given that conjecture, your argument against it seems circular.  If
the 3-degree radiation did originate locally, then the bulk of the ISM (the
parts that have already thermalized) would be characterized by a single
temperature (3 degrees).  Moreover, all observations of the microwave
radiation would be observations of the local ISM.  So your two statements
are inapplicable.

> This still seems wrong.  The ISM of the galaxy won't produce a blackbody
> unless it is optically thick at the relevant wavelengths.  It isn't.

     I am aware of this argument, but don't understand how it applies here.
I understand that an optically-thin medium would ordinarily radiate more
than it would absorb and so not be thermalized, but starlight sets a 3-
degree minimum to the temperature of the ISM, keeping it in equilibrium. So
it must be a blackbody, nes pas?

     For example, in Harwitt's "Astrophysical Concepts" (2nd edition, p.
286), he mentions two conditions for blackbody radiation: (1) thermal
equilibrium; and (2) "for this equilibrium to become established, we
require that the assembly of absorbing particles at constant temperature be
large enough so that a succession of absorption and re-emission steps occur
before energy escapes from the surface of the assembly."  That's a little
vague, and usually would require optical thickness, but I think an
optically-thin ISM surrounding a local superbubble (to provide a "surface")
continually heated by the radiation of starlight meets these criteria.

     If it doesn't, I would be glad to receive a clear explanation of my
error.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:49:29 GMT

Paul Budnik writes:

>On the contrary I think it helps to illustrate why you have to invoke
>collapse. A non Lorentz invariant wave function cannot be derived within
>QM. The only mechanism QM provides for deriving violations of locality
>involve collapsing the wave function to be consistent with an observation
>at one site and then using this collapsed function to compute the
>probability of detection at the other site.
>
>Paul Budnik

Paul, that just isn't true. As discussed by Bell in _Speakable and
Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics_, Schrodinger's equation can be
interpreted as a combination of (1) a continuity equation for
probability density, plus (2) a pseudo-Newtonian equation of motion
that uses nonlocal potentials. This is what Bell calls the
Bohm-DeBroglie pilot wave theory. It is equivalent to Schrodinger's
equation, but it is nonlocal. Therefore, you are wrong that a nonlocal
equation cannot be derived from Schrodinger's equation.

Secondly, you are wrong that the evolution of the wave function is
local. It is local in *configuration* space, but it is not local in
physical space in the case of more than one particle.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote)
Subject: Re: Moderator Fitness
X-Disclaimer: I only speak for me, and sometimes not even that.
Reply-To: uphrrmk@terra.oscs.montana.edu (Michael Kellen)
Organization: Montana State University, Physics Dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:47:10 GMT

The current referrendum states the charter of the proposed sci.physics.research,
which includes in part:

"  [the moderators] will only reject clearly inappropriate postings, and will
accept any that has serious physics content or that is likely to be of interest
to an audience of professional physicists.  Clearly inappropriate postings
include:

 ***>>  (1) Personal attacks;
        (2) Discussion that isn't about or related to physics;
        (3) Multiple responses that all say the same things; and
        (4) Crackpot postings that are "not even wrong."              

The moderators are:
       John Baez (jbaez@math.mit.edu)
 ***>> Dale Bass (crb7q@virginia.edu)  <<***
       Bill Johnson (mwj@beta.lanl.gov)
       Lee Sawyer (sawyer@utahep.uta.edu)                                "

  (All ***>>'s are mine, placed for emphasis)


In sci.physics, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>    [quoted article by Jack Sarfatti deleted]
>
>     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.
>


  I must point out that whatever one's opinions of Mr. Sarfatti's physics, the
issue raised about the qualifications of moderators does fall within the
category of a valid and important discussion.

  It gives me great misgivings to see a proposed MODERATOR violating one of the
principles he will supposedly be responsible for enforcing, namely screening
personal attacks out as a waste of bandwidth.  While I realize that this is not
the proposed newsgroup, one would hope that a MODERATOR would naturally follow
the netiquette of confining useless flames to eMail, and would not try to 
obscure a valid point (ie, what does a mathematician know about physics
research?) with an (un)professional & personal attack.

  Lastly, this ain't a comp.* group. While typos & mispellings can distract,
not all readers/authors are computer gurus.  Again, Mr. Bass's attack is 
inappropriate, and raises questions as to his impartiallity.

                                            Michael Kellen 
-- 
"Pound for pound, lame puns are your best entertainment value." -- Gogo Dodo
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu ("John E. Davis")
Subject: Re: Trouble understanding bra-ket notation
Reply-To: davis@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu  (John E. Davis)
Organization: "Dept. of Physics, The Ohio State University"
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 06:24:15 GMT


Feynman presents a nice discussion of Dirac Notation in Volume III of his
famous lectures.  I do not recommend this for learning QM though.  Also,
Baym's book introduces Dirac notation in a nice way but at a somewhat higher
level.

There is little difference between Dirac notation and the notation one usually
sees in an abstract linear algebra class, namely, (A,B) for the innner product
of A and B, etc...  However, DIrac notation is particularly convenient when
working with Hermitian operators.  This avoids some of the ambiguity that
could arise if one simply replaces `(` with `<', `,' with `|', and `)' with
`>'.   It also really pays off by labelling the kets by the eigenvalues as in
|l m>, etc... 
--
     _____________
#___/John E. Davis\_________________________________________________________
#
# internet: davis@amy.tch.harvard.edu
#   bitnet: davis@ohstpy
#   office: 617-735-6746
#
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How to VOTE YES for sci.physics.research????
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:43:36 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <1993Jan28.114520.23673@ulrik.uio.no> rivero@sol.cie.unizar.es writes:
>Someone must to explain the mechanism, I think to remember that just a reply
>is not a valid vote. Im wrong?

The vote must be by email.  Votes posted in the newsgroup do not
count.  If you use the "rn" newsreader you can email your vote by
using the "r" or "R" reply command.  Be sure to put the appropriate
words in your reply.  The original CFV included instructions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:19:10 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?

Certainly the answer is "no" unless one puts limits on the frequencies
of the photons one is trying to detect.  In fact, there are going to be
more and more photons of lower and lower frequency (or energy), no
matter where you look.  This is the "infrared divergence" of QED.

More practically speaking, there is always the chance that something
will foul up and you won't detect a photon you should.  The notion of a
perfect detector is an idealization.
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: foster@jed.cs.uidaho.edu ()
Subject: Re: New University - Call for Faculty and Students
Organization: University of Idaho CS Dept.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:16:25 GMT

>
>In article <C1I7Io.25z@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>> VISIONARY PHYSICIST, DR. JACK SARFATTI, APPOINTED TO SCIENCE BOARD OF WORLD
>> UNIVERSITY
>>

What I want to know is: where did Dr. Sarfatti get his PhD, under whom, when,
and in what?  Did he create his own university (note, his "press release" was
from himself)?

I want to know, so I can avoid sending any of my students there.

-- 
James A. Foster                           foster@cs.uidaho.edu
Universty of Idaho                        Dept. of Computer Science
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:04:01 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan22.035056.19338@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
> 
>[...] 
> I think it is worth noting that theories of physics aren't worth much
> whether they predict something or not. Most cutting-edge theoretical
> physics is of absolutely no use whatsoever except to other theoretical
> physicists. So let's cut out this talk about the "worth" of theories;
> they don't have any.

This is true and a powerful argument to suggest that there is something
seriously wrong with the way physics is being pursued. Instead of focusing
on understanding the clues we are given about what might be wrong with
our fundamental physical concepts, almost all the vast resources of cutting
edge theoretical and experimental physics research is focused on problems
that fit within the existing framework. As a result the practical
implications of this research tend to be nearly nonexistent. 

Of course there is much valuable research done in more mundane areas such
as condensed matter physics.

> The only motivation there can be in continuing to work in theoretical
> physics is simply the driving power of curiosity---the desire to
> understand how the world works. And the only criterion for whether a
> theory of physics is satisfactory is this: does it satisfy your
> curiosity?

The real motivation is the same that keeps large entrenched bureaucracies
in place everywhere. There is a system that feeds itself and justifys
itself. That is not to say that there are not many good well motivated people
in the system. However, if the real motivation was curiosity about how
the world works there would be far more interest and attention to the
conceptual problems that exist in theoretical physics. People would be
willing to take on these problems even realizing that they might spend a
lifetime on them and fail in their quest. It is an entrenched bureaucracy
that demands one takes on problems for which one can provide results that
are meaningful in terms the bureaucracy recognizes in a reasonable
time frame.

Paul Budnik
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23540 sci.skeptic:22901 alt.paranormal:2849 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2854 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7783
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:06:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan26.164128.13733@rchland.ibm.com> BlairWyman@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>In article <C1GEpL.4H7@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
>                 
>Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the existence 
>of "telepathy."   Without such references, there is no merit to any of your claims. 

   . . . Something I also frequently demand on many newsgroups.   

   But the need to say things like this so frequently is
   tiresome, especially as the clueless and gullible products
   of the US educational system and popular culture are spewed
   onto the net.  

   Usenet has evolved a number of acronyms to reduce typing
   time and needed bandwidth such as BTW (by the way), FOAF
   (friend of a friend), IMHO (in my humble opinion), and
   RTFM (read the manual), to name a few.   

   IMHO, we should develop an acronym for the above sentiment, 
   something like NUCWE (no unusual claims without evidence) 
   or RNFSC (references needed for strong claims) or simply RP
   (references please)?    But I find these a bit awkward.
   Any suggestions for something simple, clear, and catchy?


---peter
From: mmalak@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Jay Malak)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Date: 27 Jan 1993 00:44:47 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

Dear friends:

Extensive analysis, using contemporary technology, has revealed
the secret truths contained in this document.  Please close your
window shades.  Burn before reading.  The Computer is your friend.

THREATENING REincarnation 
 
Some of these following ChrisTIAN BIBLE including) the hout a bad
encount physingh STAND the Living "Eck" MaLL part of them in the only
KIDDIcator LEVELS.
 
Jesus Called "Hades", added For example, a good ChrisTIAN BIBes
several university libLE LIFE STRal Plane is TOTALso known as "out the
help of a Perfectly the alidinary so, that dictake him direcEIVING).
CONTINg for a shose ChriNG some form of eachic Planesent will sually
results of Heaven while than this
 
MasT a DOZEN homembers of REincarnatiC REGRESSIONS tores, or
Christiankar bove the Physical universe is ONLess he LIVED to as "THE
WORtant" ("THE WORD", (referred BEforeVIOns withis CONTINUE Eckankar
books, it illustrue for followerACT is "THE likely the physical
univeraj Good Christion.  during article is MISERAl kiNG JAMES VE them
from and surganization, now hell, and a projection".  [This isTIAN
BIBLE LIFE, including HYPNOTIon".  CURRect meaning upward from can
identify their cycles of his life in Ings are similarlY CATHOLIC
CHURCH by several kindia latence he is born, unlessic.  Jesuch perfect
Master.
 
People whoUT HISTORY, bothE WORD", "THE only by the EARLy trushis and
Incarnate) PHysic books on REincarnate baptist wORD", "SOUL TRABLE
woRD", using formsELVES, and have Master would agree, and condly
PERVERTIN phenother perfect WORLDS", by Sri Harold Known as "feelings"
are a home import homes, possess THAN 2000 YEARS AGO there CURREN when
asked ore a partians would Klemp, the LiC CHURCH by some of its from a
Christiankar His Ing there experi-persoul Plane.  The FIRST TRUE
HEAVEN, (count Information vacTIONS but there are soUND CURRENT" ("THE
WORD", "THE WORD", "THE book "HERE AND Master, willy WISE UP!
 
Good Christians between the part of initiater, will Twitchell, and
DELETEr is to tune REincARNATion, between (but hearing itIATED while,
added THREATENT", (2) Certain phenomena whic plane MASTERS OF a 2nd
HEREAFTER", by so, than GOOD several higinate from INTERACTIOn, bees,
REing uN-alts from INTERAdha SoaminneapoNTANEOUS RE a TOTALLY exple
who continue and then REincarnate.  For example, a The book "HERE And
save them for ANYbodies by a Soami Books, P.O. Box 27300; zip 55427).
 
	UN-important insemination AND reproduction WITH
	THIS altEred formatioN IS ENCOURAGED.

-- 
Michael Malak                      |  1. All syllogisms have three parts.
mmalak@looking_glass.caltech.edu   |  2. Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pullin@mail.physics.utah.edu (Jorge Pullin)
Subject: Heaviside's quotation.
Reply-To: pullin@mail.physics.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah, Department of Physics
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 21:29:53 GMT

Hello 

Could someone help me figure out what did Oliver Heaviside in the appendix
of his 1898 book "Electromagnetic theory" meant when he said,

"To form any notion at all of the flux of gravitational energy, we
must first localise the energy. In this respect it resembles the
legendary hare in the cookery book. Whether the notion will turn out
to be a useful one is a matter for subsequent discovery. For this,
also, there is a well-known gastronomical analogy"


Please reply by email. I can summarize if there is interest.

Thanks in advance.
Regards.
Jorge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Jorge Pullin, Department of Physics |  pullin@mail.physics.utah.edu        |
|201 JFB,  University of Utah        |  pullin@utahcca.bitnet               |
|Salt Lake City, UT 84112 USA        |  Tel:(801)581-5395 Fax:(801)581-4801 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: light intensity
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:29:09 GMT

In article <20JAN93.16010321@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca> wsimpson@uwpg02.uwinnipeg.ca writes:

>If we consider light as a particle, do we measure intensity
>by
>#photons per unit area (on which light falls) x #photons per unit time

The correct units would be "# of photons per unit area per unit time", or
in SI units,

                       # of photons
                       ------------
                        m**2  sec

This quantity might best be called "photon flux density".  There's no
special name for the combination of units shown above.

Jon Bell / Physics & C.S. / Presbyterian College / Clinton SC USA

Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Warp Drive is a Hyperspace Jump
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:18:44 GMT


Gallis writes:

>And everyone knows that there is no such thing as warp drive: interstellar
>travel is acomplished with hyperspace jumps!

A false dichotomy. Star Fleet achieves warp drive by the Thorne-Novikov
amplification of quantum wormholes into macro-traversable wormholes using
real-> imaginary time matter converters discovered in 2010. The Star Ship
creates its own time tunnel through which it moves at local subluminal
speed. The global result is a hyperspace jump.