HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an938@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (George II Lenzer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


	Well, those aren't quite the answers I had in mind.
But thanks anyway.  Tons-o-laffs>  @ @
				    ^
				  #   #
				   ###

	The course I'm doing the paper for is called: Science
and Religion.  The texts are the Dancing Wu-Li Masters and
Religions of Man.  It is a non-science majors course and therefore
treats this subject with a broad view.  I was hoping that someone
here had info on Mr. Hawking's personal view of Science and
Religion.  

					I am not a Trekkie,
					George II Lenzer

			P.S.
		No offence to Trekkies!
		They are an admirable bunch.

-- 
"I'll let you in on a little secret.
	The whole universe is totally INSANE!!!!"
						Mr. Natural

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (?)
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:43:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.180132.2769@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>     In as much as the religious beliefs are not falsifiable, they are 
>     not science.

Mu.  Adopting the familiar persona of net gadfly, let me point out that
this seems to be a highly condensed syllogism:

	Unfalsifiable beliefs are not science
	Religious beliefs are unfalsifiable
	----
	Religious beliefs are not science

(It's called Barbara, if I remember aright.)

Now, I'll grant the major premise immediately; I think we all agree
that Popper makes a convincing case for it in his Logic of Scientific
Discovery (aka Logik der Forschung).

But what about the minor premise?  Are all religious beliefs unfalsifiable?


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: OQ (Open Question) on particles
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:07:52
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: world
	<MATT.92Oct13104824@physics16.berkeley.edu>
	<1bhp8oINNqh1@overload.lbl.gov>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: produit@lblcdf.lbl.gov's message of 14 Oct 1992 18:35:04 GMT

In article <1bhp8oINNqh1@overload.lbl.gov> produit@lblcdf.lbl.gov () writes:

> Your definition of a particle as something you can see in a bubble
> chamber would mean that all "particles" of charge 0 wont be
> particles.

All depends on what you mean by "see."  I think that in the bubble
chamber photo shown in Figure 4.3 of Cahn and Goldhaber (for example),
you can see a couple of neutral particles quite beautifully!

Incidentally, although this "definition" of mine was a bit of a
wisecrack, I did mean something slightly serious: while we're going
around making sophisticated mathematical definitions of particles, we
ought to remember that particles are the things that experimental
particle physicists study in the lab.  If our definitions are too far
removed from experiment, then we probably shouldn't be too surprised
when we discover that they aren't as clear and unambiguous as we
thought they were.
--
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: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Visual Effects of Relativistic Speed
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:45:15 GMT

William John M. Christie writes:
 > Perhaps the best simulation of this (or what it would probably look like)
 > was shown in one of the Cosmos series.  One of the old episodes had an
 > update of what it would look like to travel through a crystal lattice at
 > normal velocities and then the appearance as you traveled through at near
 > light speeds.  It appeared that approaching the lattice it would seem to
 > 'open up' upon you and swallow you.  As you moved through the squares
 > (that would normally just increase in size as you approached them) they
 > warped into circles as you went through them.  Exitting the lattice you
 > could see the edges of it at the corners of your screen, bent into the
 > centre until as you moved farther away they too left your vision.  I don't
 > do it justice it here but if it was as accurate a visualization as
 > possible it was certainly mind-boggling.
 > 
 > Will Christie
 > 
 > -- 
 > ==========================================================================
 >   Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
 >   is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
 > ==========================================================================

What would you see in your rear view mirror if you are travelling at
near light speed?

Gordon.
____

Gordon Joly      Phone  +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703      FAX  +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.Joly@cs.ucl.ac.uk        UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION
Summary: A Mystery Science Theatre 3000 crossover
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:23:35 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1bjdd2INN3g5@gap.caltech.edu> chiriu@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Edwin Ichiriu) writes:
>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>        PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
>
>>  Also, to get rid of the many million years of inexorable, relentless, per-
>>sistent, and unyielding meteorological  and epidemic disasters, calamities
>>and catastrophes which continually plague the human species , we must
>>       
>>        ALTER THE TILT (AND IF NECESSARY THE ORBIT) OF THE EARTH.
>
>>   Also, I like my statement below which follows Darwin's statement:    
>
>
>>      THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION, OR THE
>>      PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>>                                             C. DARWIN  (1859)
>>      
>>     
>>      THE FUTURE OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF RATIONAL ALTERATION OF COSMOS,        
>>      OR THE PRESERVATION OF INTELLIGENT RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.
>>                                              A. ABIAN  (1992)  
>
>Yeah.  Just remind me never to send my kids to Iowa State.

I am reminded of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 episode in which
Joel, the interplanetary janitor says, "Iowa State, the high school
after high school."  Apologies to all the other IA Staters out there.
	Jason
	Ono-Sendai R&D
From: winer@husc10.harvard.edu (Adam Winer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: What is a wood-duck
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:26:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc10.winer.719000806

rusin@mp.cs.niu.edu (David Rusin) writes:

>In article <1992Oct13.191914.90326@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> kevin@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>>What is a wood-duck?
>>Ans: In many amusement parks, there are stalls where you pay money to take

>wood = crazy. Does no one read Chaucer anymore?
>(OK, so I use slightly out of date language. Methinks it behooves me to get
>more hip ere I be thought antediluvian).

I'm sure it's not pertinent, but the Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) is a North
American species of waterfowl.  Rather beautiful.
-- 
Adam Winer		| The number you have reached is imaginary.
WINER@HARVARD.EDU	| Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and
                        | try again.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: A proof that QM is an incomplete theory
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:56:03 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In trying to understand how one might do an effective test of Bell's
inequality, I have come up with a simple proof that there is an experimentally
measurable parameter of a QM system about which QM makes no predictions.
Perhaps there is a flaw in my logic or my understanding of what QM says.
If not measuring this parameter may be of considerable interest.

The difficulty in testing Bell's inequality is in insuring that the
correlated events have a space-like separation. These events are
the changing of polarizer angles and the detections affected by these
changes. The problem is in knowing when a particle traverses a polarizer.
One cannot control this. If one detects the particle at the polarizer
QM no longer predicts that Bell's inequality is violated. An experiment
that should work could be set up as follows. One changes the polarizer
angles between states of maximum joint detections and minimum joint
detections and measures the time delay between these changes and their
affects. What does quantum mechanics predict about these delays?

These delays will have a probability distribution. In part this
distribution will come from the lack of synchronization between the
emission of photon pairs and the changing of polarizer angles.
The critical question concerns the minimum delay on this distribution.

It is important to understand the difference between this question and
one about how the QM wave-function propagates changes. For example, in
a double slit experiment, if we suddenly close one slit QM is clear about
what happens. The wave-function propagates as a classical wave traveling
at the velocity of light. We only need to solve the wave equation to get
an accurate picture of how the probability distribution of detections
changes with time.

The passage of a photon through a polarizer is different then the passage
of the associated wave-function through the polarizer. It is an all
or nothing event like the detection of a particle. The relevant question
is not when does the wave-function pass through the polarizer, but when does
the particle pass through it. QM is not only silent on where a particle is
between detections. It forbids us from making assumptions about this.
Yet this is the question we need to answer to calculate the distribution
of these delays. Thus there is an experimentally measurable
parameter of a QM system that QM does not predict a value for.
QM is an incomplete theory.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tordm@vand (Tord G.M. Malmgren)
Subject: Re: CRACKED!
Reply-To: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Stockholm -- Sweden
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:16:56 GMT

In article <HAGERMAN.92Oct14233802@rx7.ece.cmu.edu>, hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:

>I see, for example,
>that the "CRACKPOT INDEX" makes NO MENTION of SPELLING, which is, of
>course, due to the fact that INTILECTUALS CANT SPELL.

 ONCE I had a lab-report CHECKED, and the dude WROTE something that would
translate into English as "REELY" meaning "really" -- good spelling!
But I'm SURE he does NOT go around COMPLAINING about HOW PEOPLE SPELL...
In FACT, plans are to PUT SWEDISH reading and writing INTO UNIVERSITY
studies of Mathematics and Physics in Sweden!

>Himself, have TRANSCENDED REALITY to achieve an ALTERNATING RESONANCE
>such as that used by TESLA to communicate with BEING FROM VENUS.  In
>his famous COLORADO EXPERIMENTS (the results of which were SUPRESSED
>by the NSF), TESLA demonstrated that RADIO ENERGY generated by SUPER
>ALTERNATOR actually travels FASTER than the SPEED OF LIGHT; this fact,
>also DENIGHED by "scientists" (even though used by EINSTEIN in his
>infamous PHILADELPHIA STORY EXPERIMENTS), clearly shows that NEWTON,
>while almost as well educated as me, was FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG about his
>CALCULUS OF MOTION.  Any reader of LARRY NIVEN will tell you this.

 didn't TESLA FRY his DOG with HIS MACHINES to see if the dog would
TRAVEL at LIGHTSPEED ??
NEWTON WAS good at what he DID WHEN he LIVED! NOW he's HISTORY just as
MOZART or BEETHOVEN!

(so, if I write "WE have PROVEN there NOT to BE MORE than SIX QUARKS
and OF COURSE their ANTI-RESPECTIVES!" that'd make me a REAL crackpot, right??
lots of CAPITAL words there!) :-)




---------------+--------------------------------
 Tord Malmgren | InterNet: TordM@VanA.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my OWN,
               | BITNet  : TordM@SESUF51        | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
 Department of Physics, University of Stockholm
From: davids@spira.bri.hp.com (david sixsmith (contractor))
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:38:02 GMT
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
Newsgroups: sci.physics
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

RING, DAVID WAYNE (dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu) wrote:
: 
: I think sci.physics.relativity is a good idea. I would also like to
: see 'sci.physics.ftl'.
                   ~~~
: 

Is that meant to be FuTiLe ?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Sixsmith                       |  Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim, etc.    |
| Bristol, England                    |                                        |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tvaughan@buphyk.bu.edu (Timothy Vaughan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Field strength of earth magnetic field
Date: 13 Oct 92 13:43:39 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department

According to Halliday and Resnick, the magnetic field of the earth can be
represented to a good approximation by a dipole with \mu = 8 x 10^22 J/T.

There is also an example in which the magnetic field at Tuscon is calculated
to be about 0.5 Gauss.

At any point on the earth, the field can vary alot from the dipole
approximation.
-- 
Tim Vaughan                           "Back off, man.  I'm a scientist."
                                           -Bill Murray as Peter Venkman
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 04:45:40 GMT

In article <MATT.92Oct15103913@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>A pure state is represented by a density matrix
>rho where Tr(rho^2) = 1.

Ack!  I misread this perfectly true statement.  Well, I hope my
additional remarks turned on a few more souls to the beauty of density
matrices.  Sorry.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: eb11@quads.uchicago.edu (Ernest Barreto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 17 Oct 92 02:49:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct17.024904.3837
Reply-To: eb11@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1bmv5eINNo03@stanley.cis.Brown.EDU> burton@cfm.brown.edu (Joshua W. Burton) writes:

>
>I don't know the answer to this question, but I have in mind a remarkable
>example:  J. H. Christenson not only shared the Nobel (with his advisor among
>others) for the discovery of CP violation in the neutral kaon system, but
>actually collected the prize before his degree was conferred.  If you want
>to try this at home, I recommend that you make a shattering experimental
>discovery that is easy to reproduce and is clearly important even in the
>absence of a theoretical explanation.  Don't think it's happened since 1964.
>


I thought that particular prize went to Jim Cronin and Val Fitch?

E
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New book on Feynman available
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:49:13
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<4720052@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: leongaw@hpcc01.corp.hp.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:26:36 GMT

The New York Times Sunday magazine published an except.  Pretty bad, if you
ask me-- windy passages on the mystery of genius (no new insights, though),
precious little on Feynman's life, and nothing on his scientific work
except a smattering of technical phrases without explanation.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: frisinv@alleg.edu
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:02:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.001959.4312@sierra.com> ande@sierra.com (Ande  
Rychter) writes:
> In 25108 George II Lenzer asks:
> 
> > Has anyone heard anything about Hawking as of late?  I need to get 
> > info on him for a paper relating religion and physics.
> > If anyone can provide information, especially on that topic, it
> > would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Religion and physics are two opposites.  The effect of physics on  
religion
> is that of water on fire.  (The effect of religion on physics is the  
same.) -AR

Am I the only one who finds this to be a damn foolish statement. Religion  
and physics have nothing to do with each other. When folks try to mix  
them, we get nasty results. Look at the middle ages in Europe.

Vincent Frisina
Student of Physics
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 22:38:09 GMT

In article <Bw0MH4.9t5@news.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.031922.12518@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>
>>>  I still maintain that:
>>>    
>>>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>>>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>>>
>>>                                         Alexander ABIAN    
>>
>>Yes, you have said this repeatedly.  We understand now that you believe
>>this and always will no matter what anyone says.  You are your own
>>theory's best example.  Congratulations.
>>
>>
>      So are you also my theory's best example.  You are trying to
> maintain the status-quo of your beliefs, theories and your 
> righteousness.
>      In fact you are trying to impose your views on others. So do I.

I agree that I'm trying to impose my views on others, and I agree that I
have a tendency to maintain my views even if someone else proclaims his
repeatedly in large capital letters, but I am well-known to change my
views when actual *evidence* for alternate views is provided.  Your idea
is not utterly silly.  In fact, it goes back to Artistotle, with a major
overhaul provided by Newtonian physics; there is a concept called
"inertia" well-known to physicists which extracts much of the
*predictive* part of your theory.  However, "explaining" atomic bomb
explosions as a spectacularly misguided attempt on the part of the bomb
to preserve the status quo is not only not physics (since it makes no
quantitative predictions), it's also amusing.  Why doesn't the bomb just
sit there if it wants to take it easy?  Or is this the "reaction to
provocation" part?  I.e., maybe your theory just says "Things will either
stay the same - or they won't!!"  This is an example of why physicists
aren't content with "explanations" but demand predictions - one can
explain anything in any of dozens of ways, which gets boring mighty fast.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: What does QM predict about *when* a photon traverses a polarizer?
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:02:20 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

The difficulty in testing Bell's inequality is in insuring that the
correlated events have a space-like separation. These events are
the changing of polarizer angles and the detections affected by these
changes. The problem is in knowing when a particle traverses a polarizer.
One cannot control this. If one detects the particle at the polarizer
QM no longer predicts that Bell's inequality is violated. An experiment
that should work could be set up as follows. One changes the polarizer
angles between states of maximum joint detections and minimum joint
detections and measures the distribution of the time delays between
these changes and their affects. What does quantum mechanics predict
about this distribution?

QM makes a prediction about when a photon will be detected at the
polarizer. The value of the QM wave function at the polarizer is well
defined. But we are not detecting the particle at the polarizer. We
are detecting it only after it has traversed the polarizer.
I do not believe QM makes a clear prediction here. The particle must
traverse the polarizer before it is detected and after it is emitted.
QM cannot impose any additional constraints on this time without making
assumptions about where the particle is between detections. This is
not allowed in QM.

Thus it seems that Einstein was right all along. There are experimentally
detectable parameters of a quantum mechanical system that quantum mechanics
does not predict. Quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. I am a bit
perplexed by this argument. It is so simple, that I cannot see what could
be wrong with it. On the other hand it is so simple I am surprised it has
not occurred to others. Any suggestions?

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Stephen W. Hawking?
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.163759.29856@alex.com> jon@alex.com (Jonathan Heitler)
writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.174200.2276@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>|>     'Dancing Wu-Li Masters' is a horrible thing to be visited upon
>|>     defenseless non-science majors.
>
>Oh. If that is so, what advice, concerning what to read, would you give to
those of
>us who know enough to know that we are interested, but don't know enough to
know that
>we are being mislead? (Preferably a book that doesn't use words longer than
2.5
>syllables).

I hesitate to put it on the same page as the above-cited atrocity, but QED by
Richard 
Feynman is a superb book with lots of quantum weirdness presented competently
and with 
a sense of awe and reverence.

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics