HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Subject: Sonofusion
Reply-To: Dieter Britz <BRITZ@kemi.aau.dk>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:44:07 GMT


I am in a bit of a hurry, and don't want to take the time to chase the
quote from Terry's postings. But Terry, you mention temperatures of 100000K
inside a cavitating bubble, and that this just might give you a bit of fusion.
Well, on the back of an envelope, I do the E = kT bit, and get pretty close
to 10 eV for that temperature. If I remember correctly, you need some keV
for anything to happen, so you might still need some miracles to get fusion
from this mechanism, fascinating though the phenomenon itself may be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Britz alias britz@kemi.aau.dk
Kemisk Institut, Aarhus Universitet, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Subject: Various
Reply-To: DROEGE@fnald.fnal.gov
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 22:27:33 GMT

Thanks to Mitchell Swartz for correcting my use of radiated.  Going back to 
the early criticism of P&F, it was stated that fof them to have seen the 
quantity of heat claimed, they would have absorbed enough neutrons to 
"radiate".  So perhaps my use was correct after all. 

Kent Jones worries about getting "radiated" while body surfing.  Sorry to 
inform you Kent, but you do get irradiated while at the beach.  By IR and
visible light and UV, and cosmic rays, to name only a few sources.  But not
by fusion produced by collapsing bubbles unless Terry has hit on something and
you swim in D2O or T2O, which I hope (at least T2O) are relatively scarce at
your beach.

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan)
Subject: Falling thru a voltage gradient
Originator: logajan@ns
Organization: Network Systems Corporation
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 05:17:49 GMT

I have a question.  Given a very large conductive flat surface, say a circular
plane of copper sheeting one mile in circumference, and charged with a finite
number of electrons (X coulombs), we know that the voltage gradient will
drop off very slowly with distance for points along the axial center of the
plane.

Suppose we deposit a free electron one millimeter above the surface of the
plane, on the axial center line.  It should be repelled upward away from the
electrons distributed on the surface.  Being close to some electrons
distributed near the axial center, the "test" electron should undergo strong
repulsive forces, yet as it moves away, the voltage gradient hardly changes,
since the gradient represents the vector sum of all unbalanced charges on
the entire surface of the plane, and the vector sum changes significantly
only when the "test" electron moves significantly farther away from *ALL* the
surface charges. (i.e. the "test" electron movement from 1mm to 10 meters
is an increase in distance of a factor of 10,000 for electrons on the axial
line, but only 60 mm farther from the electrons 800 meters away on the
plane's edge, or an increase of only a factor of 1/10,000th.)

Don't we then have enormous electron acceleration (or at least force) without
seeing commensurate change in the local field strength?   Why am I confused
by this?

-- 
- John Logajan MS010, Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
- logajan@network.com, 612-424-4888, Fax 612-424-2853
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Sonoluminescence - certain knowledge?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:52:10 GMT

In article <1ipr33INNkem@network.ucsd.edu> mbk@hamilton (Matt Kennel) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>:      No, it is not a small jump.  There are clearly shock phenomena
>:      that involve ionization and dissociation, that upon species
>:      recombination can emit light.  To then postulate nuclear excitation
>:      from this is not a small leap at all, and the weak links are 
>:      basically nonexistent links.  
>: 
>:      As far as the photons, they appear to be locallized at the
>:      center of the bubble in 'stable cavitation'.  This would make sense
>:      if there were a strong shock-dissociation-recombination chain
>:      of events inside the vapour bubble.
>
>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.

    You've got me.  The most recent work I've seen is in PRL of
    28 December, received in September.  There seems to be no mention of
    polarization.  One of the difficult things about such 
    a measurement would seem to be the fact that the light comes
    through a shock and a phase discontinuity of currently unknown
    detailed properties.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Lost in the mail?
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:47:52 GMT

In article <930110201809_72240.1256_EHL45-1@CompuServe.COM> Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:
: 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.

It's amazing the positive feedback loop that can arise when two hyperbolists
start conversing...

Larry Wall
lwall@netlabs.com
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:22:20 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan11.031733.1730@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
[Discussion of Stern-Gerlach type experiment deleted.]

> > In article <483@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> 
> Eberhard's point is the setting at one site affects the probability
> distribution at the other site. The experiment you sited is slightly different
> then the photon experiment Eberhard was talking about. You detect all particles
> and sort them by spin direction. Thus you do not have a literal 'knob'.
> However it still must be true that the observation made at one site of
> each particle affected the observations made at the other site. It does
> not matter in which direction this influence flows but it must flow in
> at least one direction or you cannot get a violation of Bell's inequality.
> The polarizer/photon experiment exactly conforms to the situation
> Eberhard describes. It is the one he uses in his analysis.
> 

I should have added that you need a knob or some controllable parameter
to prove that Bell's inequality is violated. It is not enought to show
that the mathematical relationship is violated since this relationship
is only predicted to hold if the relevant events are space-like separated.
The relevant events are *not* the correlated observations. It is
easy using local processes to generate space-like separated events
that violate this relationship. The relevant events are a *change* in
an experimental parameter and detections that are effected by that
change. Thus the experiment you described is not an effective test of
Bell's inequality.

Paul Budnik

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 13:34:48 GMT

I don't have any problem with the creation of a new group, and I have
no problem with the proposed panel of moderators. However, in my
opinion, it would be much better if the new group were defined by the
subject matter, rather than the quality, of the articles. If the
criterion for an article being accepted into sci.physics.research is
simply that it be good physics, that would imply that sci.physics is
the newsgroup for bad physics.

I think it is pretty ridiculous for people to say that they don't read
sci.physics because the signal to noise ratio is too low. Most News
reading programs have features that allow you to scan the subject
lines to decide which articles are worth reading. In almost all cases
of articles that are unfit for sci.physics.research, it is possible to
make such a judgement from the subject line alone (in my experience).

Daryl McCullough
(Not a Physicist, but some of my best friends are)
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY







Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: DO PHYSICS DON'T TALK ABOUT MODERATING IT!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 08:01:57 GMT


Will some one do a statistical analysis of all the mediocre hack level
academic apparatchuk committee blather about moderating the conference
without any real idea - and many of these same pundits only make snide
ad-hominums when any one tries to present an original physics thought.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: valdes+@CS.CMU.EDU (Raul Valdes-Perez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: lists of (un-)observed reactions?
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:14:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0rKL4.46.1
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

Can someone tell me where to find a list (preferably on-line)
of all the elementary-particle reactions that have been observed,
plus those that have never been?  Failing that, could someone
estimate the number of reactions in each case?

-- 
Raul E. Valdes-Perez		    valdes@cs.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University	    (412) 268-7127
From: wwadge@csr.UVic.CA (Bill  Wadge)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: The Big Bang Never Happened
Date: 6 Jan 93 19:53:05 GMT
Organization: University of Victoria

That's the title of a book I just read by Eric J. Lerner.

He sets out to refute the Big Bang theory and what he sees as the
ideological basis for it.

He favours the cosmological theories of H. Alfven (based on plasma
physics).

The book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?

If the book has already been discussed in the group, sorry, I'm
relatively new - is there an archive?

Bill Wadge       wwadge@csr.uvic.ca
University of Victoria
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: Newton's birthday
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 02:26:19 GMT

In article <gsJVwB2w165w@netlink.cts.com> bigbro@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Sullivan) writes:

> When is Issac Newton's birthday?  I have heard from some people its 
> 12-25, and from others its today (1-4) does anyone here know for sure?

Both. The calendar changed. He was born on the date that was then called
the 25th of December, and is now called the 4th of January. If my memory
is correct, anyway.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22163 news.groups:25069 sci.misc:1946
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:14:42 GMT
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu

There hasn't been very much discussion about sci.physics.research
lately, but most of the comments seem to have been positive, so I will
probably post a CFV in a week or two.  First, though, we need a little
bit more detail on who the moderators will be, and what the guidelines
for posting will be.  

In a day or two, I'll be posting a set of guidelines for articles
submitted to sci.physics.research, but first, here's the proposed
panel of moderators.
       John Baez    (jbaez@math.mit.edu)
       Dale Bass    (crb7q@virginia.edu)
       Bill Johnson (mwj@beta.lanl.gov)
       Lee Sawyer   (sawyer@utahep.uta.edu)
If one moderator has to quit, the others will choose a replacement.

The intent is that this panel be reasonably diverse in terms of
research interests; each of these people wrote up a "microCV" that
tells a bit about their background and what they do.
 
----------------------------------------
John C. Baez
BA mathematics Princeton U. 1982
PhD mathematics MIT 1986
Associate Prof. Dept. of Math. U. C. Riverside
Constructive quantum field theory, nonlinear wave equations, and
    the relationship of knot theory to quantum gravity
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Cameron 'dale' Bass
B.S. Aerospace Engineering, UVa
Graduate Research Assistant, University of Virginia;  
    Ph.D. expected early 1993 in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering;  
Research interests: fluid dynamics, electromagnetism, acoustics
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
Bill Johnson
Staff member [project leader] at Los Alamos National Laboratory;
Ph.D., nuclear chemistry, Univ. of Rochester, 1979; 
Research interests: basic and applied nuclear physics, nuclear safeguards
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------
H. Lee Sawyer, Jr
B.S. Northeast Louisiana University (1985)
Ph.D. Florida State University (1991)
Experimental high energy physicist (we haven't perfected them yet...)    
Member of the E711, ALEPH, D0, and SDC experimental collaborations.      
----------------------------------------
--
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: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Yet Another Preposterous Post
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:48:24 GMT

paul@mtnmath.uucp says:

> Consider a singlet state photon pair that was emitted from a distant
> galaxy.  The photon paired with this has been traveling in the
> opposite direction for billions of years. QM predicts that these two
> are still connected. If you detect one photon in this pair by
> looking at the night sky with polarizing sun glasses you will
> instantly impose a constraint on the polarization of the other
> photon billions of light years away according to existing theory. To
> me such a prediction requires extraordinary justification.

"Requires" is pretty strong, and invites a reactionary response.  But
that's why sci.physics is so much fun, right?

Here's the chain of thought that I think leads to posts about collapse
being real.  "QM is a good theory, but it has a flaw (it includes the
concept of instantaneous collapse, which is cause for concern).  But
rather than consider it a flaw, what happens if we make it a postulate
and explore the implications?  That's what Einstein did with the speed
of light, right?"  The first step is easy, and leads to posts.  The
second step is hard; perhaps beyond most readers of sci.physics, but
surely not beyond the experts.  So what do the experts say?  If I have
understood the discussion, instantaneous collapse does *not* imply the
ability for ftl communication of information, so there is no violation
of relativity.  (Is this related to discussion about the difficulty in
defining/measuring delays?)  What other implications are of interest?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Pyrophoric Iron
From: kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 16:51:04 PST
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

There are three large rooms, as large as you'd like, at respectively
0%, 50%, 100% humidity. On the ceiling of each in an airtight
box is 1kg of pyrophoric iron, i.e. iron dust. Each box swiftly
opens. Describe in detail what occurs. There is a bonus room of
pure oxygen. All pressures are at sea level to begin with. You
may vary the pressure and begin anew once you've clean up after
the explosions.

--                    
INTERNET:  kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!kfree
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pete_leaback@cix.compulink.co.uk (Peter Leaback)
Subject: Unit of space-time.
Reply-To: pete_leaback@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:23:00 +0000



From my singularly unmathematical book on relativity (Bertrand Russell's
"ABC of Relativity"), I can't make up my mind as to what the unit of an 
interval is.

From the definitions of space-like and time-like interval, it reads as
M and S respectively. From looking at the right angle triangle descriptions
of interval, the space-like and time-like intervals are both M. Is it that
1 S is interchangeable with 3x10^-6 M ?  
 
M/S or MS don't seem appropriate either.

Thanks,
                                       
       Pete Leaback.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Summary: Killfile described, but why? 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:17:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.190054.25683@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>I have said nothing about the credentials of the gentlemen who have
>volunteered to moderate the proposed group; indeed I approve of them all
>(from what I know) and I suppose any one of them will be a possible route
>into the group. I did notice that only one of the four has an advanced
>degree in physics, an oddity which, I suspect, is unparalleled on
>editorial boards of the print medium. I think that is an admirable
>departure from tradition, given the publication "clubs" which we all know
>exist in rags like PRL.

Shouldn't you have prefaced that last sentence with a sarcasm alert?  Leigh
is right; my Ph.D. is in nuclear *chemistry*, not physics, not that there's much
difference.  (When I was doing publishable stuff rather than the arms-control
bureaucracy I do now :-|, it was normally published in PhysRevC, etc., rather
than in chemistry journals.)

>I'd like to see one more credential, however, before I lend my
>unquestioning support to these estimable gentlemen. I'd like each to
>publish his killfile (if he has one). 

Well, I will describe it -- names of two individuals that I won't specify,
subjects QM and religion with various wildcards, "Time Has Inertia" -- but
I fail to see the value in this exercise.  A killfile exists to help the
user wade through stuff that isn't interesting to him/her, not as a judgement
of what is worth putting in a newsgroup.  For example, my avoidance of QM stems
from the dual recognition that most QM discussions don't contribute anything
useful to me (since they're rather far from what I do for a living) and that I
generally wouldn't contribute anything useful to them (since I'm not a
particular expert and there are some actual experts around).  Yet there are
undoubtedly postings on quantum mechanics that *would* meet the criteria for
inclusion in sci.physics.research, as John Baez has pointed out, although I
suspect that those would be in a minority of the current QM postings.

Leigh, what did you have in mind with this request?

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22404 news.groups:25263 sci.misc:1990
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 9 Jan 1993 21:10:12 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1993Jan8.160818.19578@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In short, the reason for sci.physics.research is similar
>to why physics conferences are not usually held in bus
>stations.

I'm sorry, I've been in the S.F. Marriott, and I'd have
to disagree with you.

>(I am not saying that
>sci.physics.research will be equivalent to a physics conference, nor
>that sci.physics is a bus station.  Just that a certain amount of
>filtering can make for discussions that are more interesting to to
>experts in a subject.)

Have you ever noticed that "experts in a subject" don't
even read the net because no matter how good it gets (and
it gets pretty good in places) it's not worth their time?

>As for your proposed trial test of sci.physics.research moderators, I
>will leave it to Matt Austern, who is leading this effort, to decide
>what he thinks.  It'd be fine by me.  I expect that there'll be a
>certain amount of conferring among moderators at first to work out
>sensible standards, by the way.

Just as long as you're included...

				--Blair
				  "Where's your hagiography? Hmm?"
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22111 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2697 alt.conspiracy:13721 sci.skeptic:22015 alt.paranormal:2757 alt.alien.visitors:9588
From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: POP! FIZZZ.... PSI WARS!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 09:45:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


I saw the Wall Street Journal article also. What I thought was of
particular interest was the part about science fiction writer Janet 
Morris and "retired" CIA covert ops specialist Ray Clines (an associate
of Theodore Shackley for those familiar with THAT name) collaborating
on a book about the military applications of mind technology. Do you
Jack, or does anybody else here have any further info on what this
"odd couple" has been up to?

-Steve Crocker
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re:range of em force
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:40:16 GMT


The standard argument illustrated by, for example,

A virtual particle with mass, m, and energy, E, can exist for a time,
h/E.  In this time it can travel no more than a distance of c*h/E.  But
E's minimum value is m*c^2, so no virtual photons can be at a distance
of more than about h/(m*c) from the source.

    Richard M. Mathews

is not logically consistent because a virtual particle is not on the mass
shell so it does not obey E^2 = p^2 + m^2 , therefore one cannot use
v = dE/dp for group speed. In particular a virtual photon can be spacelike
outside the classical light cone so that you cannot say it moves at c.