HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:40 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Nov.16.14.05.56.1992.18657@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes...
> 
>Etc.  Scott, don't you imagine this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the old
>confusion over "relativistic mass" versus "rest mass"?  Bondi probably
>said that mass is conserved, meaning relativistic mass, which is just a
>statement of conservation of energy less a factor of c squared.  Rest
>mass isn't conserved.

No, I think it's more than that.  I can't remember the details (which
is why I tried to find the reference that the original poster quoted),
but we've been through this Bondi thing sometime in the past.  It may even
have been the same poster.  The bottom line, if I remember correctly, was 
that Bondi didn't know his arse from his elbow, and had a complete 
misunderstanding of SR, and mass-energy equivalence in particular.  There
are no peer-reviewed papers on his work so far as I can tell.  I think
that he is the European equivalent of these guys who "publish" abstracts in
the APS bulletins and then reference themselves from year to year.  He has
found himself an advocate, a la McElwaine and Larson, in this guy, who,
so far as I can tell, understands neither conventional physics nor 
even what Bondi has to say about it.  You will notice that he has
so far refused to do more than tell us all to look it up.  He is incapable
of explaining it himself.

-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: sl3nf@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Summer Research Programs for Undergraduates
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:27:00 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Nov14.041708.5708@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
> In article <1e16ckINNh6c@wupost.wustl.edu> oser@fermi.wustl.edu (Scott Oser) writes:
>>
>>Can people recommend summer research programs in physics for undergraduates, 
>>as well as addresses to which I may write for applications?  Thanks.
>>
>>-Scott Oser
>>oser@fermi.wustl.edu
> 
> 
> Me too!  If there is enough interest, I would like to see a post
> somewhat similar to the grad program list I saw crop up here a
> few weeks ago.
> 
	Since that seems to be what everyone is thinking about (to some extent)
at the moment, how about a temporary newsgroup???

		Ron.
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Detecting crackpots - for laymen?
Date: 23 Nov 1992 11:08 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1541700008@gn.apc.org>, antennae@gn.apc.org writes...
> 
>Dear Scott, please don't say things like "technipions".  English *is*
>something I know about (I have made my living from writing ever since
>leaving Cambridge in the mid seventies).  If you really want to reach
>laymen, it might be a good idea to translate as much physics as you
>can into simple lay language.  

I'm sorry Indra.  I appreciate your frustration - I was a neophyte at one
time myself.  But, in fairness, it is very difficult to explain everything
in layman's terms.  That's why scientific jargon evolves in the first place.
It really wasn't worth taking the time to explain about technicolor just
so I could make a little joke.  But since you asked... Technicolor refers
to a class of hypothetical extensions of the Standard Model.  Recent data 
from CERN suggest that these models are *not* correct.  They postulate
a new fundamental interaction analogous to the strong interaction (QCD color
force) and a new spectrum of particles bound by this force.  The lightest
such particle is the technipion.  Such models do not need a Higgs to 
solve the mass problem, which (I am no expert) I believe is the main
reason why anyone is interested in them.

-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: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ufo evidence VS. CARL SAGAN
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:04:20 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

(Thomas Mc Neill) writes:
>How come these ufo's always crash in the STATES on RANCHES in the middle of
>NOWHERE and in easy reach of the US MILITARY.

BECAUSE most of the land area of the US is RANCHES in the middle of NOWHERE 
in easy reach of a US MILITARY facility?

That's why we built the INTERSTATE Highway System - so that MILITARY
SECURITY could QUCKLY speed to the sites of UFO CRASHES.  EISENHOWER
was a SPACE ALIEN.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hadron jets
Date: 18 Nov 1992 10:19 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
Keywords: hard scattering
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <rsf1.722031249@Ra.MsState.Edu>, rsf1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Robert S. Fritzius) writes...
>The following propuzzle is inspired by the Jacob and Landshoff article,
>"The Inner Structure of the Proton," Scientific American, March 1980.
> 
>Suppose our job is to slam 30 GeV protons head-on into other 30 GeV
>protons, but every now and then a nitrogen or an oxygen nucleus happens
>to drift right into the path of one of the kamikaze protons.  KaBam!
> 
>Might we not expect to see a shower of hadrons, spawned by the rude 
>and violent dismantling of that hapless nucleus?  If so, can we
>easily discriminate that shower from those brought about by the
>desired proton-proton collisions?

Most certainly.  And the proton-nucleus collisions which you record may
very well be more interesting than that p-p physics you were doing!  Well,
at least in my humble opinion...

It is *very* easy to experimentally discriminate p-p and p-A collisions
in your detector.  You just calculate the center of momentum of all 
the particles you detect.  Even if you have finite efficiency, this will
give you a clear enough measure of the mass of the colliding system that
you can easily remove p-A background from p-p data.  This is especially
true in the collider-mode collisions you describe, because the p-p 
center of mass is at rest in the lab, while the p-A center of mass is
far forward in the lab.  

In addition, you can often cut on total multiplicity.  The target fragmentation
products from the shattered nucleus are a clear signature for a p-A 
reaction.  You can think of it as a proton boring a hole though the nucleus.
There is some interaction volume, but there is also a significant 
non-participating volume of nucleons from the nucleus.  This highly 
unstable remaining mass breaks apart into a shower of fragments with a 
net momentum of roughly zero in the rest frame of the nucleus, i.e., the
lab.  These fragments are totally absent in a p-p collision.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Kill command - how to undo it?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:28:58 GMT


I experimented killing "abian". It works but the cure may be worse than the
desease. There are so many "abian" postings that it takes quite a while to
kill the posts before being able to read what's left -wasting money. How
do I undo the command. Please use my e-mail to reply. Thanks.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:05:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
:>>> ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts) writes...
:
:>>(And if you think that, say, positron-electron annihilation is an example of
:>>the destruction of mass, then think again.)
:
:>Sure.  What would *you* call it?  Where do *you* think the mass goes?
:
:>>It wouldn't surprise me if American Universities were turfing out copies of
:>>J. Phys. A! I only included the reference in case people doubted the
:>>authenticity of my claim - I hadn't thought people would go to the trouble
:>>of looking it up. 

Etc.  Scott, don't you imagine this whole tempest-in-a-teapot is the old
confusion over "relativistic mass" versus "rest mass"?  Bondi probably
said that mass is conserved, meaning relativistic mass, which is just a
statement of conservation of energy less a factor of c squared.  Rest
mass isn't conserved.

To the original poster, it's all very easy to blame your problems on
the nasty, horrible, mediocre American university system.  Especially when
you're writing from Britain, where the universities are all gleaming
castles-on-a-hill, which are so well funded that they actually lure
American faculty away!!!  (Sorry to be mean, but motes in the eye and
all that)
From: antennae@gn.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Detecting crackpots - for laymen?
Date: 21 Nov 92 22:41:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:1992Nov17.231944.13221@meteor.wi:-450683850:gn:1541700007:000:395
Nf-From: gn.UUCP!antennae    Nov 21 22:41:00 1992



Thanks for the long and interesting reply to my original posting.

I see that a mathematician has taken up the cudgels on behalf of
Prof Abian on the vexed question of whether 1/(z + 2z + 3z^2) is
unequal to 1/(3z^2 + 2z + z) - I'm not sure that I've remembered
this correctly - and asserts that Abian is in fact correct.

Someone should certainly have the courage to accept his wager.

Indra
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Quantum paradox? Local Hamiltonian dynamics contradicts linear operators in Hilbert space.
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:13:06 GMT

In article <By58u2.96p@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>Noe suppose we put an instrument in the path of the |1> ket but not the |2>
>ket. The action of the instrument should be represented by a local unitary
>operator U. But that operator only acts locally on |1> and not on |2> - yet
>|1> and |2> are an orthonormal basis spanning same vector space.

Wrong, I think.  Isn't this just another version of Renninger's experiment?
And the answer, surely, is the same: if there are only two alternatives,
then the failure to detect one implies the other is true.  In the collapse
picture, the superposition collapses onto |1> if there is a detection, and
onto |2> if there is no detection.  So, while the macroscopic detector may
be local, the evolution of the coupled system is non-local, and there is
no paradox.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: James Gleick's famous physicist bashing in GENIUS.
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:27:44 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: I haven't read the Gell-Mann stuff yet - but J Robert Oppenheimer does not
: fare too well also. He is accused of making lots of sloppy errors most of
: the time in his computations - sort of like me! Is that because I was
: trained by two of his grad students Phil Morrison and David Bohm?

		No.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: davidm@questor.Rational.COM (David Moore)
Subject: Re: Electric Power Transmission
Organization: Rational
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:39:29 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>The way I vaguely remember things from college, the phase of a generator
>with respect to the 'grid' determined the direction and amount of power
>flow.  The generator and grid were modelled as being connected together
>by some inductance.

>In one phase direction, the generator contributed power to the grid.  In
>the opposite phase, the generator *took* power from the grid (and acted as
>a motor).

Fortunately, if the generator is lagging, it generates less power and catches
up, while if it is leading it generates more power and slows down. This allows
multiple sets to be brought in-line in the power grid. 

To bring a new set on line, you have to spin up the new unit to almost the
same speed as the network and drop it online when the unit and the machine
are in phase. EE (power) students get to practice this at school. 

Dropping the new unit online too far out of phase will cause sufficient
current to flow to drop circuit breakers, which is not the desired result.
Some years ago, someone did this on the network back where I come from and
took down half the state; it had a real interesting effect on the lights in
the few seconds before the network collapsed, with the power being delivered
with a beat frequency of perhaps 1 Hertz.

Tying together big areas, like the US, must get real interesting (impossible?). 
At 60 Hz, one wavelength is 5000 Kilometres, so the US is roughly a 
wavelength across.  Can anyone tell us what is the largest AC network 
that has ever been set up.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Detecting crackpots - for laymen?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 06:41:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.231944.13221@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>I call your attention to his "proof" that 1/(1 + z + z^2)
>is unequal to 1/(z^2 + z + 1), for instance. 

If there's something wrong with Abian's proof of the FTA, it isn't
that.  He had supposed (a case of) the FTA was false in order to arrive
at a contradiction.  That 1/(1 + z + z^2) is unequal to 1/(z^2 + z + 1)
was that contradiction.

My only complaint with the proof is that it used a lemma I hadn't
seen.  I'm assuming this lemma conceals the bulk of the real proof, but
that's just a layman's guess.  Anyone know for sure?
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why is "Physics Today" so expensive? (Are there student discounts?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:00:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


 ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington) writes:
>I looked into subscribing to Physics Today and I was
>shocked that the price was something like $125 for a monthly.  I get
>Science for $47 and it is a weekly!

That price is probably for library subscriptions, it doesn't even cost
adult members that much.  The APS even offers "first year free" 
memberships to students; there's a special form, ask your department
secretary.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:30:17 GMT

In article <MATT.92Nov17124108@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>Note that there are other interpretations (e.g., the "many worlds"
>interpretation) which are equivalent mathematically.

Who has a particularly short proof of this?  (There is a 14-line proof
of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra on p.426 of last May's
Am.Math.Monthly.  Is the above significantly harder? :-)
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hancu@crim.ca (Marius Hancu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Talented young man seeks PhD in PHYSICS
Summary: Talented man seeks advisor and financial aid for PhD
Date: 22 Nov 92 09:03:22 GMT
Organization: CRIM

Hi, everyone:

I have a friend, an extremely talented young man, interested in pursuing a
PhD in physics at one of the top universities in Europe or North
America.

I am placing this ad for him, as he is too modest to do it himself.

His name is GEORGE-MIHAI DOBRE. Presently, he is in the last year of
his BSc in physics at U of Kent at Canteburry in UK.

He is in the top 5% of the class, and has had many distinctions. Very
nice and well-educated,  he is a very reliable person and a dedicated
student.

I would very much appreciate if any of you could help in him finding a
very good advisor/prof he should approach for a challenging research work
and of course for financial support. He is not choosy about the field.
Please provide e-mail addresses for speed.

His e-mail address is 

mm@ukc.ac.uk

(he is using somebody's else's account, thus please indicate in the
subject: For G. Dobre).


PLEASE RESPOND TO HIM DIRECTLY AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS, NOT TO ME.

====
Thank you for your time

Marius
-- 
Marius Hancu, Parallel Architectures Group 
Centre de Recherche Informatique de Montreal (CRIM)
3744, Jean-Brillant, Bureau 500, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1P1, Canada 
phone: (514) 340-5907, fax: 514-340-5777, email: hancu@crim.ca
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Address needed for SPS  ( was: Physics Today student rate)
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:24:56 GMT

I inquired about getting Physics Today for cheaper than the ~$125
mentioned in the subscription information, and the readers of s.p.
directed me to APS or SPS.  Well, APS does have student
discounts, and students actually can join free for the first year,
but this offer is only good for graduate students.  I am merely an
undergraduate, and therefore don't qualify.

So, is SPS different from APS?  Perhaps they can get me a deal...
How can I contact them?  They aren't listed in information(DC&NY), as far
as I can tell.  Thanks in advance...

					Matt Harrington

-- 
---------------------------------
Matthew B. Harrington
mbharrington@ucsd.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Abian and the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:15:52 GMT

dacosta@prl.philips.nl (Paulo da Costa 42147) writes:

>In <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander
>Abian) writes:
>>(3)   1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)  =  (1/k) z^(-n) + ........
>> 
>>But (3) shows that  0  is an essential isolated singularity of 
>>                   
>>                    1/(kz^n + ...+ bz + a)
>> 
>>contradicting (2).  Hence our assumption is false and the Theorem is
>>proved.

>This step fails miserably. Reality check: You must have a<>0 (otherwise
>your polynomial would have a root at z=0, contrary to your assumption).
>In this case, the inverse of the polynomial at z=0 is just 1/a.  Your
>talk of "essential isolated singularity" is total crap, the function is
>even CONTINUOUS there (i.e., your expansion under (3) is plain wrong --
>"long division" is not what you did there).

Look, I am certainly not going to defend Abian's physics, but when it
comes to algebra and complex analysis, he knows what he is talking
about, and you don't. The fact that f(0) = 1/a does *not* prove that 0
is not an essential singularity at 0. For example, consider the
function:

    f(z) = z sin(1/z) (for z nonzero)
    f(0) = 0

f has an essential singularity at 0, and it is also equal to 0 there.
To say that f has an essential singularity at a point z is a statement
about what happens to f in the *neighborhood* of the point, not *at*
the point.

>> PS.  I know all the standard proofs e.g., by Liouville's Thm.
>>       But no proof is as gorgeous as the above. [...]

>That's because those are right, the above is wrong.

>What a crackpot.

I don't like to call people crackpots; I prefer simply to call them
mistaken. In my opinion, Abian is mistaken about physics, and you
are mistaken about complex analysis.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY






Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Flying fast enough and becoming a black hole
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:28:02 GMT

In article <SRCTRAN.92Nov19111841@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
Aharonian) writes:
>   I just finished reading a science fiction (actually with an Islamic
>setting, a rarity in the field), which had as one of the main points of
>the story that if you built a spaceship and continually accelerated,
>eventually you relativistic mass, for the size of the spaceship, would
>be large enough to cause collapse into a blackhole.  Not being good with
>keeping track of boosts, I wonder if in a large enough universe, with
>enough energy, if this is possible or meaningful. And if so, what do you
>feel in the rest frame of the spaceship when collapse occurs?
>
>It's the first time I ever seen this scenario suggested in a sci or sci-fi
>book, and it seems an interesting one to explore.

Of course it's based upon an absurdity - that a black hole could be observed as
such in one inertial frame and not in another, at the same time. (The phrase
"at the same time" is appropriate here, since the spacecraft is at one place.)
A black hole forms if the *proper* mass and radius are critical.

"Black holiness" is a relativistically invariant quantity, if a binary one.

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics,talk.bizarre
From: jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll)
Subject: Re: Short Shamefull Physics
Originator: jcarroll@ferris
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:23:20 CST


In article <1992Nov19.015926.4572@nmsu.edu>, sabbott@nmsu.edu (SDA) writes:
> 
> Mark Joseph Delano <md4y+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> >   There was a standing wave in my orange juice this morning.
> >
> >   I counted the nodes.
> 
> thats what you get for drinking out of waveguides, dielectric
> properties of orange juice notwithstanding . . .
> 
> speaking of waveguide, what would happen if you made a moebius
> waveguide and excited a standing wave in it?

I presume you mean a Klein bottle waveguide. A waveguide in the
shape of a Moebius strip would be topologically equivalent to a
toroidal cavity, and would resonate in pretty much the same way.

There are practical difficulties associated with building a WG
in the shape of a Klein bottle.

jkc (count the nodes on *this*...)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re:  TIME HAS INERTIA - THE ENVIOUS REACTION OF TALBOT
Keywords: TIME HAS INERTIA,  i.e., TIME IS MATTER
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:17:06 GMT

In article <abian.721860217@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>(A2)   TIME HAS INERTIA, i.e., TIME IS MATTER  and that some energy
						         ^^^^
How much ?  Some is a little bit vague.

>       is irretrievably spent by Cosmos to move TIME forward. Thus,
>       in particular, the Principle of Conservation of Energy must be
>       rejected. 

For small scales (in laboratories) CoE seems to be doing fine.  For the
whole cosmos, your guess is as good as anyone's; there's plenty of debate
about whether the universe is closed or open.  About, TIME.  If there
were no observers, who is to measure it ?  It is pretty much a bookeeping
device invented by humans.  What type of TIME did you have in mind ?
Anyway, according to the Hubble law space (and time ?) is expanding ...
moving forward if you will.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math