HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alexp@sci.kun.nl (Alex Priem)
Subject: Re: Functional minimization with constraints
Keywords: conjugate gradient, quasi-Newton, Newton Raphson
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:27:36 GMT

In <1466@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.010623.27893@leland.Stanford.EDU> edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy) writes:
>>Does anyone know of a good reference work for problems involving
>>functional minimization with non-linear constraints? 

>Check Gill Murray and Wright's _Practical Optimization_, L. E. Scales
>_Linear and Nonlinear Optimization_. Both have decision charts for selecting
>methods. Fancy methods are best used off the shelf rather than programming
>them yourself, unless you inform yourself very carefully and have some
>peculiar requirement.

>For a more theoretical book, I suggest Avriel's book the title of which
>escapes me at the moment.

Better yet, try 'Numerical Recipes'. 

>Later,
>Andrew Mullhaupt

Greetings, ALeX
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: elvis@netcom.com ('kEvin')
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:57:32 GMT

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>To be more specific, I'm interesting in hearing from you if

>	(b) You have a specific suggestion in mind for fixing it (I'd be
>	    especially happy if you could tell me exactly how you would
>	    like the wording in the charter to be changed); and

I don't like the wording of the selection criteria. Instead, I would
suggest:

     The moderators will ensure that all articles relate to
     physics, and that discussions do not repeat themselves.

And just that; nothing else is really needed.

This gets around the problem of crackpot posting, since they usually just
repeat themselves, and will present a much broader range of acceptable
material. (In keeping with the proposed moderators' intentions, I believe.)

Also, I really favor sci.physics.moderated over sci.physics.research,
since the topics will not be restricted to research, and that name
might come in handy if people wish to form a very selective group
restricted to research.


kEvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: vejcik@daq (Steve Vejcik)
Subject: sci.physics.research
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 10:28:22 EST
Organization: Physics Dept., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Summary: Whats the story? 
Distribution: usa

Hi,
    What happened with the formation of sci.physics.research?

                                 S
From: gbshaw@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (Bert Shaw)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Speed of neutrinos
Date: 12 Jan 93 04:54:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: pdxgate.6691
Organization: /etc/organization

Please note: This may be a foolish question, but it's not a naive one.  I 
have years of experience in theoretical physics, though not particle physics.

Q: Is it really well-established that the propagation velocity of the neutrino
is the speed of light?

The reason for the question is this.  I believe that in the early days of the 
development of the theory of relativistic effects there was considerable 
disagreement about the *interpretation* of the relativistic transformation 
equations.  Lorentz and others felt that the effects were due to coupling of 
matter with the EM field: eg, the increase in "mass" at increased velocity was 
because energy used in accelerating a particle mostly got dumped into the 
EM field, not increased velocity.  Einstein and others held that since all 
matter was made up of charged elements, the effect was universal, and it was 
simpler and just as accurate to look at the transformations as strictly 
geometric.  Obviously, Einstein's view won out.

Neutrons, since they still have non-zero moments and do couple directly to the 
EM field, don't effect that argument.  For neutrinos, or any other purely 
uncharged particles, the two views might not be equivalent.

My thought is just that the simplest version of the "EM coupling" view is: the 
relativistic equations should involve a quantity c which is the smallest 
propagation velocity of the fields to which the matter is coupled.  For almost 
everything, that is the em field, and the "regular" c.  For neutrinos, at least,
 it might be a different velocity.

-- This is *not* a question about whether neutrinos could be tachyons.  Those
   are a different kind of beast entirely.

Comments, positive or negative, are welcome.  I would be just as happy to know 
why this is a foolish question as to know about experimental tests.


bert shaw
bert shaw	gbshaw@rigel.cs.pdx.edu <or>  70431.3014@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:36:32
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1993Jan8.171134.29230@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
	<1993Jan8.212715.21449@galois.mit.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of Fri, 8 Jan 93 21:27:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.212715.21449@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

> In article <1993Jan8.171134.29230@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> andre@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Andre Roberge) writes:
> >Presuming that people criticising the proposed panel of moderators are
> >in favour of creating sci.physics.research, why not try to proceed as
> >fast as possible to create such a group, give a chance to the proposed 
> >moderators to prove their worth as such and see what happen?...
> 
> I think we are proceeding as fast as possible.  Presumably Austern will
> call for a vote any minute now.

Within the week, probably, but most likely not "any minute."

The guidelines for creating a newsgroup specify a minimum length of
time for a discussion period before a vote on newsgroup creation is
taken; however, they don't specify a maximum.  The clear intent is
that all important issues should be discussed and, to the extent
possible, resolved, before the vote.

The discussion was quiet for a while, but it has become much more
animated in the last couple of days.  In my opinion, it would be
premature to take a vote quite yet: there are still some questions
that haven't been fully threshed out yet.  I hope that we can achieve
something close enough to a consensus so that I can send out an
official call for votes some time next week.

[Oh, and for people who are getting frustrated with how long this
whole process is taking, all I can do is apologize.  The newsgroup
creation process was deliberately made slow and cumbersome.]

--
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: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: an expanding universe
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:05:34 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
[ merciless deletions ]
>The Hubble law that we all know and love,  [ cz = Hr ]

>is actually the low z limit of a more complicated expression ...
> ...  The coefficient of the quadratic term
>(which we expect to be the next term of importance as we go to higher z)
>you can essentially think of as involving the time-derivative of the
>Hubble "constant".  By measuring the redshift of distant objects, as well
>as their distance (NOT by using the Hubble law, but by some independant
>method), and then by curve-fitting, one can ostensibly find the coefficient,
>thus the time-derivative of the Hubble constant.  ...

The coefficient is generally known as q_0, pronounced "q-nought."

>However, the sad truth is that it is very very difficult to get independant
>distance estimates for galaxies at that high redshift.  The error bars ...

This is a very gentle way of putting it ... For a long time the Great
and Glorious Project of extragalactic astronomy was extending the Hubble
diagram (distance versus redshift) far enough to measure the deviation
from a straight line, which would give the value of q_0 (and Omega_0,
since Omega_0 = 2 q_0 ; thus q_0 = 1/2 is the critical value for a "flat"
universe).  This effort has fallen victim to a host of difficulties, most
notably luminosity evolution of what were once thought to be "standard
candles."

You can imagine that at this point, when astronomers have not settled even 
on a value of H_0 (first term in the series), there is no hope of 
determining q_0 directly via the Hubble diagram method.  Current
investigations tend to attempt to measure the curvature of space
(essentially, Omega_0) through a variety of methods (I'm told that
supernova-counting is supposedly the one that will ultimately settle it.)

This failure is no tragedy, though, because there are all sorts of
fun things going on in extragalactic astronomy that were not foreseen:
large-scale structure, large-scale motions, etc.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: More of the Big Bang Argument
Date: 11 Jan 93 23:39:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:

>I presume you are referring to the paper by Tom Broadhurst,
>Richard Ellis, David Koo, and Alex Szalay, "Large-scale distribution
>of galaxies at the Galactic poles," Nature v343, 22 Feb 1990.

...

>There is more that I can say about this result in the context of
>CDM, but it's not relevant to this conversation.  More if anybody
>cares (probably not).

Sure, I'm interested - considerably more interested than in debating
anything (Big Bang, GR, etc.) with Tom, who is smart enough to successfully
snipe at details, and the debate probably cannot be profitably settled.

Anyway, I am interested in the possible ramifications of Broadhurst
et al.  Something I find particularly disturbing is the supposed
periodicity of their result (purely aside from the problems arising
from really large-scale structure).  A friend of mine at Wisconsin
heard a talk in which the speaker claimed that their result was an
artifact of the way they binned their data, but he doesn't remember
who gave it, and I haven't seen any paper that says that.  Personally,
I hear that finding periodicity from a power-spectrum analysis
is dangerous, but ...  So, let's talk physics, not debate the Big Bang
endlessly.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - GOEDEL's THEOREMS - att: Dr.PRATT, Mc CULLOUGH
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 03:13:27 GMT

shouldn't this have gone to sci.math instead?

I doubt anyone will respond to the substance of this article, as it is not in 
the purview of sci.physics.

Terry
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Einstein on future causes.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: y
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:59:38 GMT


Yes, I stand corrected- Einstein did believe in future cause in a certain
sense - though not in spacelike action (he began to change in mind before he
died). His position was not quite consistent perhaps since spacelike action
implies future cause.
From: rsf1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Robert S. Fritzius)
Subject: Future causes NOT
Keywords: advanced potentials, Ritz, Einstein
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:18:52 GMT

Reference <BzyExK.KxF@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)

In paragraph 5 of Jack Sarfatti's Feynman 42 QED... post, there is the
statement:

>Forbidding future causes really violates special relativity -
>though Einstin of course forbade future cause...

It appears that Jack got this a bit out of kilter.

There's an article in Physics Essays (vol 3, No. 4, 1990) titled "The
Ritz-Einstein Agreement to Disagree" which is about a battle dealing with
Einstein's steadfast defense of future cause (advanced potentials) in the
face of Ritz's onslaught for a new kind of electrodynamics and
thermodynamics in which only retarded effects (past cause) exist.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (.)
Subject: Re: two point masses in an expanding universe
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 05:34:48 GMT

rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO) writes:
: 
: 	This is a simple question that bothers me a lot:
: 
: Imagine there are two (point) masses separated by a finite distance in an 
: expanding universe. The distance between the two masses increases       
  Correct. 								            
                 							   
  and so

: does their (relative) velocities,                                  
No. Their relative velocity is zero, and remains zero. In an expanding
universe, the distances increase, but there is no motion.   
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 11:40:49 GMT

From article <MATT.93Jan10010325@physics2.berkeley.edu>, by matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern):
> Does anybody out there feel strongly about the name one way or the
> other?  If not, I'll keep it as is.

I have no real objection to the name sci.physics.research.  I do, however,
have mild objections to retaining sci.physics as is.  How about renaming
sci.physics to sci.physics.misc at the same time?  This would give you

    sci.physics.fusion
    sci.physics.misc
    sci.physics.research

all at the same level in the hierarchy.

--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall  (chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (MAWENZI lieutenant of Kibo)
Subject: FAQ-fodder
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 04:33:02 GMT

tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
: Another question from a non-physicist.
: 
: I frequently read that cosmologists debate whether the
: universe has infinite size.  If the Big Bang started
: at a definite time in the past, and has since expanded
: at a finite speed, how can it be infinite?  What am
: I missing?
: 
: -dennis turner
: tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il
Think of it this way. Consider pythagoras' theorem for 3D space: it
involves an expression of the form x^2+y^2+z^2. This is for an infinite
space. Now replace this expression in pythagoras' theorem by the
following:  t^2 [x^2+y^2+z^2] where t is time, and t>0. Then you have a
universe which is expanding, but which is still  *infinitely large* for
all times t. The distance between any two given points tends to zero as t
tends to zero, but for any value of t one can always find two points
separated by an arbitrarily large distance. The "big bang" corresponds to 
 t=0, but notice that t=0 is not part of this model because we have t>0
with strict inequality. 						  
 To summarise: this  example shows that the mere fact that the Universe is
of finite age does not allow us to conclude either that it is of finite
spatial extent or that it had a beginning.				  
 									  
 ps I am not proposing that the above be included in the FAQ, only that
something of the sort be included: this really is a FAQ.
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - GOEDEL's THEOREMS - att: Dr.PRATT, Mc CULLOUGH
Date: 12 Jan 93 05:00:05 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:
: 
: I don't know any way of proving Godel's Theorem that doesn't require quite
: a bit of technical muchking around. (Or else a lot of non-rigorous handwaving,
: of course; but one can prove anything given sufficient willingness to wave
: one's hands.)
                    Please prove this.
From: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl (Toon Moene)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question on Mechanics Books
Date: 9 Jan 93 00:10:25 GMT
Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

In article <CHUCK.93Jan8111553@stratus.drexel.edu>  
chuck@stratus.drexel.edu (Wombozni Klik) writes:
> 
> I have both Marion (1st editon) and Goldstein (which I bought but
> haven't used officially in a class). The book my prof used was Landau
> and Lifshitz, a very thin book that I like a lot and has helped me
> quite a bit. My instructor used this, telling us that "Goldstein puts
> him to sleep", but near the end of the term covered some stuff from
> the back of Goldstein without telling us...

:-) But if you really want to get woken up ... Use V.I. Arnol'ds  
Mathematical methods of Classical Mechanics. I've bought the book almost 9  
years ago, and still, every time I open it, I read something new,  
something I didn't understand before. Of course - as the title suggests -,  
it's highly biased towards the *mathematical* side of classical mechanics.

--
Toon Moene (toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl)
Kantershof 269, 1104 GN  Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel.: + 31 20 6982029; Fax: + 31 20 6003411
No Disclaimers; a NeXT at home protects against this occupational hazard.
From: preddy@comphy.physics.orst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics Incomplete
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:02:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: gaia.1ikj50INNgc6
Reply-To: preddy@comphy.UUCP ()
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research, NY
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.orst.edu

> [...]

>> Not in cases where you have to use the assumption that 
>> the wave function changes instantaneously when an 
>> observation is made. There is nothing remotely 
>> resembling this in classical theory.

> [...]

>> I can be completely certain that you cannot reproduce the 
>> predictions of quantum mechanics using any current physical 
>> theory if you do not also use the assumption that the wave 
>> function changes instantaneously when an observation is
>> made.  There is no other nonlocal law in all of contemporary
>> physics and thus there is no other way to get a prediction
>> that Bell's inequality is violated. This assumption will not
>> be found in any classical theory. In the near future I
>> suspect it will not be found in any accepted physical 
>> theory. I think my proof will be a first step in getting 
>> the `ghosts and goblins' of action at a distance out 
>> of contemporary physics.

As Feynman says, in "QED:  The Strange Theory of Light and
Matter": 

"...It is to be emphasized that no matter how many arrows we
draw, add, or multiply, our objective is to calculate a _single
final arrow for the event_.  Mistakes are often made by physics
students at first because they do not keep this important point
in mind.  They work for so long analyzing events involving a
single photon that they begin to think that the arrow is
somehow associated with the photon.  But these are probability
amplitudes, that give, when squared, the _probability_ of a
complete event.  (Keeping this principle in mind should help
the student avoid being confused by things such as the
'reduction of the wave packet' and similar magic)."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Re: Sarfatti Forteana
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:59:26 GMT


Since several people have responded to this, it is really off the topic
of physics, but at the moment we are drowning in a flood of posts on how
to do posts etc. - let me point out that all you linguists did not read what
the man said. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he restricted his
observation to the Hebrew language - and did not include physics terminology
which is totally irrelevant.

The man's point was that Tsarfatti or rather Tsarf being the reverse of
fransT (he said n not voiced in Hebrew - probably T should not be there?)
is the only case it has happened in Hebrew - even though Hebrew is read in
the opposite direction etc. The point is that

SARF in Hebrew means France and is opposite sequence to FRA(N)S and that
this is unique in Hebrew language - he then compared it to by reversal
of time sequence of cause and effect.

so that mho for ohm is funny but not germaine except to shmos.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: John Cramer's "Twistor"
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 02:58:15 GMT



A great Sci-Fi book---the best hard core I've ever read.

Cramer overcomes the major hurdle to producing an interesting
solitary physicist-centered plot: how can a single physicist 
do anything outrageously interesting in the real world (i.e not
just a cool theory). The problem is, wild real world effects are
all the require high energy densities (e.g. making black holes,
exotic particles, traveling near c, etc), and so its impossible for some 
guy just tinkering in his lab to make some earthshattering discovery.
You need massive equipment and budgets, you would think.

But Cramer gets the idea that rather than a high energy density
(compression), a complicated rotation---which has little energy cost---links
our universe with shadow matter univeres. So, you lab tinkerer is
back in business as a protagonist. The science is all
well done, and the surrounding story is 
exciting as well---too much, in fact; I was up all night reading it!


Check it out!

PS: As an added personal bonus, the story is set at U of Washington,
Seattle, where I got my undergraduate physics & math degrees. In fact,
Cramer even taught one of the lectures I had in Phys 123. I knew
his daughter as well---she was in my math classes. It was cool to read
a sci-fi story set right where you lived and worked.

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: boswell@well.sf.ca.us (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Re: DO PHYSICS DON'T TALK ABOUT MODERATING IT!
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: EDGE
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:49:26 GMT

In article <C0IznA.8p7@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti) wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

I think that the first order of business is to do a count of all the
mediocre crack postings throughout the group. One would think that that
is the reason, and a good one, for spinning off a moderated group. It
is an S/N thing. No one one the proposed moderators committee will,
I am sure, block any original physics. It is to be hoped, however, that
we shall not have to scan through endless self-promoting screeds
trying to pass themselves off as "original".

That's the point of the Net. Someplace for everyone to ride their hobby
horse.