HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Error in NO FTL Signal Proofs exposed.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:43:11 GMT


Trivial, but false, formal proof that quantum connection communication is
impossible.

Nonlocal joint probability that receiver photon b counted in + channel and
twin transmitter photon counted in phi channel is

p(b+|a,phi) = <a,b| |+><+| |phi><phi| |a,b>

where |a,b> is pure pair state.

Local receiver probability is

p(b+) = Integral{p(b+|a,phi) p(phi)d(phi)}

where p(phi) is classical probability density for exclusive noninterfering
alternatives for transmitter photon's detection.

But Integral{|phi><phi|p(phi)d(phi) = 1 by completeness or conservation of
probability.

Therefore,

p(b+) = <a,b| |+><+| |a,b> which will have neither a phi nor theta
dependence when the actual pair state is substituted. In fact this
p(+) = 1/2 period! Therefore, no FTL communication. QED!

However, there is something wrong with this proof.

1) |a,b> can have a parametric dependence on phi so that it is
mathematically incorrect to use the completeness relation in isolation. So
that it does not cancel out of the problem destroying the controllable
nonlocal coherence effect.

That is we have a problem in which we want to compute

Integral{f(phi)g(phi)d(phi)} in which Integral{g(phi)d(phi)} = 1. It does
not follow that Integral{f(phi)g(phi)d(phi)} = f(phi) unless f is not a
function of phi - which it is.  However, if

p(phi) = Dirac delta [phi - phi']

then

p(b+, phi',theta) = <a,b| |+><+| |phi'><'phi| |a,b>

and there is quantum connection signal.  In fact it is

S =p(b+, phi',theta) - p(b-, phi',theta) = sin(2theta)cos(phi')

One can replace the Dirac delta function by a sharply peaked function in
which the uncertainty in phase rms(phi) is small compared to 2pi. in which
case one will get

S = sin(2theta)cos(phi')sinc(rms(phi))
From: matt@physics3.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Date: 10 Nov 92 12:52:25
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: world
	<10NOV199211345007@csa1.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov's message of 10 Nov 1992 11:34 PST

In article <10NOV199211345007@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

> >          d) the solar neutrino 'problem'.  Is it a problem?  Do we believe 
> >     the calculations.  Why do no two experiments seem to tell us the same 
> >     thing?   Is something being left out of the 'standard model' of the 
> >     sun?  How much *is* gallium chloride by the ton?
> 
> You can look up the price of gallium in the CRC.  It's expensive - so much
> so that it delayed these experiments for quite a few years.  The different
> experiments are not, as you seem to imply, inconsistent.

This is something I should have pointed out in my earlier posting
today about solar neutrinos: the different experiments give different
numbers (even when two experiments are measuring the same part of the
neutrino spectrum, they still give different numbers), but the numbers
tend to be statistically consistent with each other---that is, they
fall within each other's one- or two-sigma error bars.

Again: these measurements are very difficult, and have a great many
uncertainties associated with them.  The people who are doing the
measurements know that, and they accordingly report large error
estimates.
--
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!
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:42:28 GMT

I have tried [without much success] to follow the thread on mixing
science and religion. I note that many people argue that the two are
indeed immiscible. I wonder how these people feel about astrology? Many
of us feel that scientists have a moral obligation to speak out against
popular delusions of this kind. Are we mistaken? Should we take the view
that astronomy and astrology don't mix?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gravitation & massless particles (was Re: Some physics questions)
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:07:55 GMT

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

>In article <92Nov3.165317edt.629@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal) writes...

>>This relates to something that's bugged me for ages. In popular
>>accounts, neutrinos are mentioned as one possibility for the "missing
>>mass" needed to close the universe, PROVIDED THEY TURN OUT TO HAVE MASS.
>>This also seems wrong. Regardless of whether they have mass, they 
>>definitely have energy, and that's all that counts, right?

>Yes.  But the neutrinos have so little kinetic energy that even a small
>mass (a fraction of an eV) would dominate the total energy of the 
>cosmic neutrino background, which if I remember correctly, is at even
>lower temperature than the 3K photon background.

Also, the "yes" is not exactly right-- massless particles have a
different stress-energy tensor than massive ones, so their
gravitational effects are different.  A Robertson-Walker universe
filled primarily with EM radiation, for instance, evolves somewhat
differently from one filled primarily with massive stuff.  But this
is a nitpick.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:13 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov5.010054.24588@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> 
>     Internal consistency does not constitute a 'test'.  It is a
>     necessary condition.

Only in a strictly logical sense.  But experience has taught us that 
consistency is, in practice, a very powerful guide in high-energy 
physics.  Chris Lewellyn-Smith (I apologize for the spelling - I never
can get the name right), the new director of CERN, is famous for,
among other things, demonstrating that you can "derive" the Standard
Model from nothing more than trying to build the simplest consistent
theory that includes all the particles we know about - all the wonderful
details of how they interact fall out of the model-building process
as you try to avoid unphysical results (non-unitarity) and inconsistency.

It is widely believed (or perhaps hoped) that the ultimate theory of 
everything will be unique in the sense that it is the only constructible
theory which is mathematically consistent at arbitrary energy.  In a
certain sense, the entire theoretical program of HEP is an attempt to 
construct at least one entirely consistent theory (something that has
*never* been done) of fundamental particles, which we then hope will
be the *only* possible one.

-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
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:46:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <23651@galaxy.ucr.edu> baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>In article <3NOV199212323281@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>It is entirely within the realm of possibility that, for example, some
>>future TOE, which unifies EW, Strong, and Gravitational forces will suggest
>>a reason for the value of the speed of light.
>
>Hmm.  I don't buy this, at least not without further explanation.

Is it true that Hagelin won the Kilby prize by solving
the Unified Field theory?

				--Blair
				  "The Maharishi told me so :-)."
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:53:38 GMT

asimov@nas.nasa.gov (Dan Asimov) writes:
>Yet a third notion is a manifold which happens to be a metric space which
>arose through embedding the manifold in Euclidean space, by measuring the
>distance across the Euclidean space.  Interestingly enough, this is not
>very often considered in math research.

>But as *such*, with the extrinsic metric (the one obtained from the
>distance across R^3), your helix will, of course, *not* embed
>"isometrically" in R^2, which I believe is your point.

That was indeed my point, although from the rest of your message, I
had misunderstood what the manifold really was. However, I had thought
that "embedding" really meant in R^n with the appropriate n-dimensional
Cartesian metric: each point described with the corresponding n-tuple.

The thing I really misunderstood seems to have been the theorem. In my
sense of embedding, is there a known minimum N for which *any* 1-D
manifold will extrinsically embed in R^N?

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

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Organization: Masters student, Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon,  9 Nov 1992 20:55:58 -0500 
From: Brian Allan Zimmerman <bz08+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Wheel

Not being a physicist or mechanical engineer, but an electrical engineer I
have had trouble with a simple problem . . . maybe.  I have asked a few
graduate students in physics, but no luck . . . I guess they weren't sure.

Anyway, the problem. I would like to model a wheel on a suspension for some
control work.  I need to include the effect for a downward force such as
a car frame pressing down, the friction of the ground, rolling resistance
(from compression of pneumatic tire, damping and spring, air resistance, and
anything else which could come of mind.  Assume all information for wheel
is given such as coeff of friction, mass, radius, momemnt of inertia.  I
would like to model this just rolling down a hill with random bumps. This
needs to account for possibility of terminal velocity and such. I have
worked on this for a long time and have no easy solution, as this is not
my field.  If someone could either e-mail me a model and a rough guess on
how to solve or direct me to some other reference which I have not found
which will discuss all of these possibilties, I would appreciate it.

Thanks in advance, Brian

Brian Zimmerman
brian@lexus.ece.cmu.edu
bz08@andrew.cmu.edu
Carnegie-Mellon University
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Circuit Simulation Group
From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Subject: Re: Do Balloons fly?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:43:24 GMT

Personally I think the answer is no - they float.

	Jim
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:41:48 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

matt@physics.berkeley.edu wrote:
> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes about the possibility that we
> are only living in a false vacuum now and that high-energy experiments
> might catalyze a phase transition to the true vacuum:
> I once suggested to Lawrence Hall that it was a truly wonderful
> opportunity for rabble-rousing politics---definitely an argument
> against the SSC that hasn't yet been sufficiently exploited by the
> project's opponents.
> I can just visualize the scene in Waxahachie: thousands of protestors
> chaining themselves to the gates and throwing themselves in front of
> bulldozers, holding up signs that say "Save the universe"!

On the other hand, *this*, about the possibility of breaking the symmetry of
the EM force...

| Someone told me once that a massive photon might not be fatal if the mass
| was low enough.  The range of the electromagnetic interaction would shrink
| from infinity to a length of the order of a metre or so, with no practical
| consequences (?), and there would be a lower frequency limit to the EM spec-
| trum.  Atoms, nervous systems and Usenet would be unharmed; we would simply
| wake up one morning without TV.

...if it can be provoked by human intervention, is about the strongest
argument for continuing fundamental-particle research I have ever seen.  At
last, a decay path for the terrywogon.  Let me know where I can send my $10
to the SSC...

Is it actually the case that the maximum wavelength of real photons must
coincide with the range of interaction of a force mediated by virtual
photons?

-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken)
Subject: Re: Ferromagnetism (was: Compelling Mysteries)
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:02:41 GMT

>columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
>Not a compelling mystery, but I was wondering what the current status is of
>explanations of ferromagnetism from "first principles". I remember reading
>in Feynmann that Ising-model type calculations at the time were giving the
>wrong sign for iron.  However, that was nearly 30 years ago.  What's the
>current scoop?

The ferromagnetism of Fe is mostly caused by the conduction electrons,
not by isolated ions, so the Ising model is not appropriate.  The
failure of the Ising model does not mean that more appropriate models
don't exist.  There is still active research to quantitatively model
the ferromagnetism of the transition metals because they are a hard
case for band structure theories (which is also in part why HiTc
theories are hard).  The reason for this difficulty is the large part
that many-body interactions play.

The $0.05 answer: The fundamental underlying cause of conduction
electron "itinerant" ferromagnetism is the Pauli exclusion principle.
In some sense the exclusion principle causes a repulsive force between
electrons of the same energy and spin.  (This is really an indirect
manifestation of the Coulomb repulsion between like charges.)  The
converse of the preceding statement is that if you have a low-density
electron gas, there is an effective net force aligning the spins.
Thus, a large-lattice-constant metal will have a tendency towards
ferromagnetism.  This is especially true in a degenerate system
because the high density of states at the Fermi level means a big
energetic win for opening up an energy gap.  3d transition metals have
large lattice constants and flat, degenerate d bands => ferromagnets.

-- 
Alison Chaiken 				alison@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] 		or chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov
Look if you like, but you will have to leap.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:25:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.721009553
 <Nov.4.13.31.48.1992.25862@ruhets.rutgers.edu> <4NOV199214241699@csa1.lbl.gov>

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

>Another small thing to keep you up at night:  What if a mechanism analogous
>to electoweak symmetry breaking is eventually going to break the remaining
>electromagnetic symmetry?  As the Universe continues to cool, it might
>reach a point when it freezes out into a state in which the photon has mass.
>(Just like the W and Z have mass right now.) What if the range of the 
>electromagnetic interaction became .01 meters all of a sudden?  My nervous
>system might fail.  Heck - atoms might not be stable.  I'm not sure.

The preprint mentioned earlier by Mary Crone and Marc Sher goes into 
this in some detail.  It was eventually published in AJP-- I don't know
what issue.  (It was Mary's senior research project at William and
Mary; she graduated the same year I did.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson)
Subject: Re: Barbie is Right! (was: Mattel on women)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:38:14 GMT

In article <ulrich02976920924161142@galki.toppoint.de> ulrich@galki.toppoint.de (Ulrich Gall) writes:
>ringo@icad.com (Amy Gorin) writes:
>>
>>
>> "allowance").  Men are not expected to be better than women
>> at math -- if anything, the opposite is true.
>                          --------------------- Why ???
>
>Your posting shows that obviously, this is dependent on the culture the
>men/women live in. In the US and probably even more in Europe, men are
>generally more interested in science than women. Thus, they are
>_on_the_average_ better at math. Not because men are smarter, but because the
>culture these men live in makes them be more interested in science than women.
>
>
>
>
>Ulrich Gall, Seebrooksberg 2, W-2300 Klausdorf, Germany
>Tel.: +49-431-790292, EMail: ulrich@galki.toppoint.de




Men are inherently better at math than women are.  Culture is not a force
unto itself but a reflection of our fundimental nature.
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA ---- ABIAN  replies to  TALBOT
Date: 12 Nov 1992 23:56:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER

MR. ABIAN

  You continually ignore the following question:

  If your A1 holds, then why does time require energy to perpetuate it's
status quo -- i.e. moving forward.  BY YOUR OWN A1 TIME SHOULD RETAIN IT'S
STATUS QUO.  ADDING ENERGY SHOULD **CHANGE** IT'S MOTION FORWARD.

  Until you answer this question, DON'T POST ANYTHING ELSE OR

****GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP****
GO POST IN ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES!!!!

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Solid-state doesn't use QED! (Was Re: Particle Research)
Date: 7 Nov 92 03:44:53 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Nov6.233219.15750@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>Yes, here there seems to be a very nice interplay.  It's one of the few
>things that keeps physicists talking to each other, the mathematical
>analogies between condensed matter physics and field theory.  All sorts
>of tricks, like the ones you mention and also renormalization group
>methods, solitons and instantons, etc., show up in both subjects.
>Here's to the unity of nature!

     I enjoy a bit of good interplay, now and again, myself.  But do you
     not think to a certain extent, that this is the result of the existence of
     the most fashionable tool in our toolbox?

                                dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:44:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>Another small thing to keep you up at night:  What if a mechanism analogous
>to electoweak symmetry breaking is eventually going to break the remaining
>electromagnetic symmetry?  As the Universe continues to cool, it might
>reach a point when it freezes out into a state in which the photon has mass.
>(Just like the W and Z have mass right now.) What if the range of the 
>electromagnetic interaction became .01 meters all of a sudden?  My nervous
>system might fail.  Heck - atoms might not be stable.  I'm not sure.

Uh, if this was going to happen, why wouldn't it have already happened
in some very cold spot?  Like the low temperature lab next door.
Waitaminnit ... [ fwooshh!!!! ]

Seriously, doesn't SSB usually occur when any old spot cools below
the symmetry-restoring temperature?
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Solid-state doesn't use QED! (Was Re: Particle Research)
Date: 8 Nov 92 12:07:04
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<BxA2GC.6yE@wsrcc.com> <1992Nov7.121305.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>
	<BxEuvI.59p@wsrcc.com>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: alison@wsrcc.com's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:47:41 GMT

In article <BxEuvI.59p@wsrcc.com> alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken) writes:

> What is the Anderson-Higgs mechanism?  My very limited understanding
> of the Higgs mechanism is that a new gauge boson (which would be
> called a collective mode in solid-state) is postulated to explain how
> the fundamental particles (which would be the quasiparticles) obtain
> their different mass energies (which would be the effective mass).

When high-energy theorists talk about the Higgs mechanism, what they
mean is somewhat more general than that.  It's just how if a gauge
symmetry is broken spontaneously, then there aren't any Goldstone
bosons, but, instead, the gauge bosons become massive.  (Intuitively:
the modes that would be Goldstons bosons if it were a global symmetry
instead of a gauge symmetry get "eaten" by the gauge bosons, and
become the gauge bosons' longitudinal modes.)

My understanding is that solid-state theorists do indeed work with
models in which this happens.  (e.g., massive photons in
superconductors) It wouldn't surprise me, though, if solid-state
people know it by a different name than the "Higgs mechanism."  It
certainly is a very general concept, and it was independently
discovered by many people.  One book, in fact, refers to it as the
Brout-Englert-Higgs-Guralnik-Hagen-Kibble mechanism!
--
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