HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Wavelets, coherent states etc. 5
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 02:53:28 GMT


5.Kaiser presents "generalizations of the concepts of basis (HM),
reciprocal basis (HM*), Kronecker delta (K(m,m') and metric tensor
(g(m,m')) to the infinite-dimensional case where, in addition, the
requirement of linear independence is dropped. The point is that the all-
important reconstruction formula, which allows us to express any vector as
a linear combination of the frame vectors, survives under the additional
restriction that the consistency condition be obeyed. The useful concepts
of orthogonal and orthonormal frames generalize to tight frames and frames
with A = B = 1 (i.e. G = AI and B^-1I <=G^-1 <=A^-1I ) respectively. We
will call frames with A=B =1 'normal'. Thus normal frames are resolutions
of unity." p.25

* Quantum connection communication may require non-normal frames.
** This formalism may allow us to think of variably-curved Hilbert space in
a non-standard quantum mechanics. Standard quantum mechanics has a "flat"
Hilbert space. Curvature in the Hilbert space probably violates the
superposition principle - it is non-linear related to measurement -
entropy?  Curvature in spacetime is gravitation and mass. What is curvature
in Hilbert space?  Perhaps curvature is not the right term. In fiber bundle
theory the em-weak& strong forces are "curvatures" in the sense of parallel
transports around closed loops in the fibers. But this us a little
different. I visualize that gmk depends on location of point on fiber so
that "nonlinear" may be better term than "curvature" in this context. This
is half-baked.

g(m,m') = <m|G|m'>  (22)

note

|k> = Integral[du(m)|m>K(m,k)]     (23)

where the "frame vectors" |m> are in general not linearly independent.
There is a general "consistency condition"

g(m) = Integral[du(m')K(m,m')g(m')   (24)

recall

K(m,m') = <m|G^-1|m'>    (20)

(which also corrects a misprint in the orginal eq 20 in lecture 4)

Recall also that T is map from Hilbert space to pre-"complex spacetime" M
and

G = T*T = Integral[du(m)|m><m|]                  (25)

If the frame is "tight" G is proportional to the unit matrix.

If

g = Tf   (26)

f = G^-1Gf = G^-1T*(Tf) = G^-1T*g       (27)

S = G^-1T*        (28)

is a left inverse of T

There is also a distinction between upper and lower indices ("reciprocal
frames") like contravariant and covariant indices in relativity connected
by G^-1 . I'll modify notation now since this gets important. It is
important in the "unitary resolutions of unity in terms of pairs of
reciprocal frames with the bra covariant and the ket is contravariant in
the ket-bra outer product (or vice-versa) integrated over the measure du(m)
to get unit operator I when the resolution exists.

I'll call contravariant index ^m and covariant m so that

Integral[du(m)|^m><m| = Integral[du(m)|m><^m| = I    (29)

|^m> = G^-1|m>   (30)

If M is countable   Integral[du(m)...] replaced by sum S


|k> = Sm[|^m><m|k>   (31)

gmk = <m|k> = <^m|G|k>   (32)
to be continued
From: jarleb@athena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Reply-To: jarleb@athena.uio.no (Jarle Brinchmann)
Organization: Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:25:18 GMT


In article <1993Jan8.055103.9860@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes) writes:
|>Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
|>From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
|>Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
|>
|>Incidentally, I hope that it is possible to ensure that the new group goes
|>out to all sites receiving sci.physics. For example, I cannot get
|>sci.math.research here.
|>
That's only because your news-adm. hasn't provided it for your site.
Just ask about getting it and it will surely pop up. (Some sites has
a policy that groups as alt.sex hiearchy and such shall not be available)
but sci.* groups are always welcome (I hope :-)

				Jarle.



      ---------------------------------------
       Internet: jarleb@medusa.uio.no         
       or        Jarle.Brinchmann@astro.uio.no
      ---------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel)
Subject: Re: Recent article on QM in AJP
Keywords: QM, correspondence principle, Arnol'd cat
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Toronto
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:06:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.081559.11949@netcom.com> marki@netcom.com
(Mark N. Iverson) writes:
>Well, just feel like stirring the orthodox pot a bit..... ;-)
>
>Thought the following article might be of interest to the net/physics
>crowd... I only copied the abstract, and any typos are mine...
>
>     "Does quantum mechanics obey the correspondence principle?
>      Is it complete?"
>
>      Joseph Ford and Giorgio Mantica
>
>      Am. J. Phys. 60 (12), December 1992
[Abstract deleted]
>I do believe I feel the "winds of change" a blowin'...

     I'm sorry to disapoint you, but Prof. Brumer and Josh Wilkie of
this department have just shown that the usual quantization of the
cat map (which Ford et al. have used) has important flaws.  If you do
it right (and Brumer and Wilkie show how, using the Wigner formalism),
the correspondence principle is not violated.  For more information,
email either pbrumer@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca or
jwilkie@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca.  I don't have references and I am not
qualified to discuss this matter in any great detail.

				Marc R. Roussel
                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22352 news.groups:25225 sci.misc:1979 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2715
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: Okay, it's not the inverse sprinkler problem...
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:07:56 GMT

Mark Schnitzius writes:
> At first it seems that "hitting the clutch" would be the
> proper answer, so your car would provide the least resistance
> to the oncoming car.  But consider -- shouldn't your goal
> be to reduce the sudden acceleration that you will be 
> experiencing?  If that's the case, then maybe hitting the
> brake would be the correct answer.

It might be, if your car was incompressable.  In fact, most of
your injuries would probably stem from deformation of the car, and
subquent crush injuries and rupture of the gas tank and fire/explosion.
You did't give enough information to answer the question: is the car in
question a Volvo or a Pinto?

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gravity & Rubber Sheet Analogy Problem
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:38:39
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
	<Jan.11.21.40.04.1993.10394@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
	<mcirvin.726858610@husc.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 12 Jan 93 17:10:10 GMT

Someone writes:

   >>In almost all explanations of gravity as warped space, the analogy
   >>used is two-dimensional.  A mass deforms a "rubber sheet", causing
   >>a depression in the two dimensional space . ...

Matt McIrvin replies:

   Which really leads to the thing that frustrates me about the rubber-
   sheet analogy:  it completely ignores the most important contribution
   to gravitational attraction, which is the curvature you see when moving
   in the *time* direction.

Which brings up the basic problem with using Minkowski diagrams for
visualizing relativity--- the geometry of spacetime is fundamentally
different from Euclidean geometry, in that we are comparing an indefinite
with a definite metric.  That means that any naive appeals to ordinary
geometric intuition are bound to mislead.  The "locally shortest path"
definition of geodesic is almost ingrained in our muscles--- who doesn't
think of stretching a string taut in the surface?

There is no perfect solution, but an alternative diagrammatic model has
been developed by Epstein, in his book "Relativity Visualized".  First we
drop down to one spatial dimension, as usual.  Then Epstein rewrites the
formula ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 as ds^2 + dx^2 = dt^2, which looks just like
Pythagoras' formula.  (Actually Epstein doesn't tell you in so many words
that this is what he's doing--- but it is.)  Now we have the problem that
the exact differential dt^2 is "on the wrong side of the formula", compared
to dx^2 + dy^2 = ds^2, so we can't set up a one-one correspondence between
spacetime points and points of the Epstein diagram.  Still and all, Epstein
gets a lot of milage out of his diagram.  Once you get used to the unusual
approach, it's very enlightening-- for certain kinds of problems.

His treatment of general relativity is in one way the high point of the
book.  The Newtonian limit emerges the way one wants (the "curvature of
time with respect to space" that Matt was talking about), and some other
phenomena come out naturally (e.g., check out his version of the "bullet
and photon through the center of the earth").

On the other hand, Epstein's diagrams for the case of curved spacetime
don't give the right curvature tensor (if I've done my calculations
correctly), so they have at best qualitative value.  (For flat spacetime,
his diagrams are exact.)

I once posted a fairly extensive discussion of Epstein's book, but I now
think that such a visual work (chock full of figures) can't really be
"projected" into the ASCII medium of usenet.  I recommend it to
those who like popular treatments of relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: research-level only?
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:41:50 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.93Jan8153122@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>
>Do the proposed moderators for sci.physics.research regard research-level
>questions only as appropriate, or is any "real physics" suitable, so long
>as it is not in the FAQ?

     Real physics is suitable, though 'any' may be too strong a qualifier. 
     After the sci.physics discussion earlier, a consensus arose along
     the lines of Matt's original posting.  The feeling was that the
     barrier not be 'research' quality postings, but 
     'serious' postings about physics.  This was reflected in the charter
     (along with the inclusion of various other information-type
     things).

[examples deleted]

     All of your examples seem to me to have elements (and postings)
     that would be suitable if posted to the proposed group.   The proposed
     group is not to be in competition with professional journals.
      
>Elementary SR and thermodynamics also produce their share of questions.
>For some reason, the SR posts to sci.physics mostly rehash stuff already in
>the FAQ, but there are occasional exceptions.

     Seems to me that it depends on how elementary.  Things of interest, yes.
     Barn and pole, no.  Keep in mind that sci.physics still exists
     for all and sundry purposes.

>Should sci.physics.research include such threads?  If its goal is to serve
>the needs of research physicists only, then I guess not.
>(Sci.math.research does seem to have this kind of charter.)

     The group was not intended to be as restrictive as sci.math.research.
     I hope that the proposed sci.physics.research will be a bit more busy
     than that.  The sparseness of sci.math.research was one of the 
     things that shaped the proposed charter.

                             dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Wildebeest
Transvaal                                           (804) 924-7926
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 09:28:08 EST
From: <IO80900@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: ... looking for mathematical/scientific software and utilities ...

As I remember, a long time ago, a list of some internet sites was posted
showing locations of software for scientists, mathematicians, et cetera.
Does anyone still have this list?  Does anyone have an updated list
containing this information?  Any help will be appreciated.
C@G
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Ansatz (as used in mathematical physics)
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:30:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>   I've seen the term Ansatz used (in English) to describe ...
>  ...  nor do my Deutsch-English dictionaries give much clue to this usage.

No surprise, since it's a proper name, coming from the now-obscure
Prof. Dr. Hans-Dietrich Ansatz, a nineteenth-century German mathematical
physicist who came to a bad end after spending long fruitless years
trying to convince his colleagues that group theory had major applications
to physics.

(Seriously, I see that several people have already given you the real
answer and reasons not to use the word.  I do agree that "guess" or the
more dignified "trial solution" is a lot clearer and less obnoxious but 
there is some atavistic part of me that likes jargon for the color it
(hopefully) provides to our language.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: carl@aoa.aoa.utc.com (Carl Witthoft)
Subject: Re: In defense of crackpots ( was Re: Repost of Truzzi Lecture:)
Organization: Adaptive Optics Associates
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:00:56 GMT

(sorry, I can't post to alt.sci. .... If  someone would care to 
transpost this...)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
In article <6774@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
>1) My ideas are unconventional, so you laugh at them;
>2) But unconventionality, even apparently ridiculous, is no counterproof;
>3) The example of XXX shows that the implication "ridiculous -> wrong"
>   doesn't hold.
>4) Therefore your observation that it's ridiculous is not sufficient to
>   prove me wrong.
x
As is regularly pointed out in sci.med, #4 is not relevant to scientific
findings.  It's your job to prove validity, not our job to
disprove it.  (Although a quick counterexample can often save everyone
a lot of trouble :=) ) 
In fact, many but not all posters do follow "it's ridiculous" with some
obvious examples of contradictory results from the "ideas."


-- 
Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates
aoa!carl@bbn.com  carl@aoa.utc.com
54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201
"88 is 55 if you want to fly."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Quantum correlations and information transfer
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:50:34 GMT

Paul, there are two issues here as I see it:
 
1). Does one obtain the correct quantum correlations by using the singlet
wave function before either particle is detected? For the spin-half case
I get < (S1.a) (S2.b) > = -(hbar^2) a.b / 4 for arbitary unit vectors
a and b, particles 1 and 2 in the (pre-detection) singlet state. Is this
the correct answer or no?
 
2). Are the predictions of QM inconsistent with the assertion that the
setting of the near polarizer *never* influences the outcome of the
distant measurement? If this is what Eberhard claims to prove then I
will read his derivation as soon as I can find the time.
 
I suspect, rather, that the most can say for certain is that if QM is
correct, the polarization states of the photons are incompletely
determined until the measurements are made (a statement with which
Bohr would have agreed decades ago), and that the correlations
predicted by QM between distant measurements would *otherwise*
imply such an influence.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22407 news.groups:25267 sci.misc:1993
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 9 Jan 1993 21:27:04 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

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.

Oh by all means as long as there's a conflict let's please
ram the problem through the congress before somone actually
catches on...

				--Blair
				  "Don't you just love
				   a good anarchy?"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:46:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.232633.7016@galois.mit.edu>
jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

> One could ponder the properties of bound states that were as big as a
> baseball... A bound state consisting of only a few elementary particles
> but big as a baseball would probably be very weakly bound hence too
> fragile to have much fun with.

I recall seeing a passing reference once to superexcited hydrogen atoms
that were about a centimeter in diameter.  They were, as you said, rather
(ahem) rather delicate.  Not very "colorful," either, since your average
photon was inclined either to pass through it or knock it silly.

I believe Bill Johnson once mentioned to me a paper about largish excited
(xenon?) nuclei that were whopping larger than the normal variety, maybe
in the atomic range or something.  Bill?  (We _know_ you listen in!)

				Cheers,
				Terry

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kforward@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Ken Forward)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Organization: Dept of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:30:53 GMT

In article <MERRITT.93Jan11100049@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>In article <MATT.93Jan10010325@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>>   One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
>>   preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
>
>I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for 
>a wider defintion of content. 

Ditto.

-- 
  Ken Forward, Dept of Physics, Memorial University of Newfoundland
   <kforward@crosby.physics.mun.ca> | <kforward@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
 "...don't plant your bad days, they grow into weeks..." -Tom Waits-
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gravity & Rubber Sheet Analogy Problem
Keywords: gravity, general relativity
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:28:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Matt McIrvin writes:

>Hmm... speaking entirely in terms of intrinsic geometry, the sheet looks
>more or less the same if I push it down or pull it up.  

You bet, but I think the rubber sheet analogy is so far from real GR
that one can't speak entirely in terms of intrinsic geometry (there's
a preferred direction "down" in which the external force acts).  It
seems to me that it might give a vague picture of how objects move
but that it doesn't deal well at all with the real concepts of GR,
eg intrinsic curvature.  After all by its nature the rubber sheet
analogy is a 2D space embedded in 3D, and embeddings are not kosher
(right?).
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:00:17 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan12102855@macro.bu.edu>
	<1993Jan12.203251.18849@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU's message of 12 Jan 93 20:32:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.203251.18849@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:


   In article <MERRITT.93Jan12102855@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

   > the reader) than she may place that moderator in a kill file.
   > Instead of undiscriminated signal like we have in sci.physics,
   > we will have 4 distinct signals with different thresholds.
   > If one channel becomes too noisy the reader has the option of
   > turning it off.
   >
   > I would even say we let the moderators "filter" themselves,
   > rather than have another moderator "approve" thier articles.
   > That way the moderator's own posts will either increase or
   > decrease the S/N ratio of that channel.

#	First, if a 'channel' becomes noisy, then someone is not 
#	doing their job properly, and I hope someone would point that out.

Since there is no definitive defintion this(the "job") is left to the reader.

"One man's noise is another's signal"

#	Second, I think it a matter of courtesy to the other posters
#	that moderators submit to the same moderation procedure as
#	everyone else.  

On the face of it that does seem fair. Intellectually honest people
tend to be harder on themselves then they would on others. If they
are not, as I said, one can just "turn off the noisy channel".
I think it is far more useful to rate each moderator by what they
are offering as acceptable, including their own posts.
The positive side of this is that there will be an opportunity
to "lead by example".

#Third, I thought your basic objection was to too stringent moderation, 
#not too lax.

NO, not all. I already moderate this group for myself and I would 
guess that it is more stringent than the moderators will be. 

My basic objection is that I am not moderating(filtering) for myself.

By givivng the moderators "enough rope" I can continue to do so
on a , hopefully higher intensity signal. The idea that there may
be quality contributors who will participate in sci.physics.research
(who don't now)
is the only reason I am even considering a "yes" vote.

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Wavelets, coherent states 2
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:32:21 GMT


2. Canonical coherent states |z> of 1-dim quantum harmonic oscillator.

I follow the book by G Kaiser. (h/2pi =1)

a = [x +(1/mw)d/dx]               (1)

[A,A*] = 2  (2)

H = (1/2m)[p^2 + m^2w^2x^2] = (1/2)mw^2a*a + w/2  (3)

a|z> = z|z>    (4)

<x'|z> = (pi)^-1/4 e^[-z^2/4 + zx' - x'^2/2]      (5)

These canonical coherent states "have the remarkable property that if the
intial state is |z(0)>, then the state at time t is |z(t)> where z(t) is
the orbit in phase space of the corresponding classical harmonic oscillator
with initial data given by z(o). These states were discovered by
Schrodinger in 1926 ... investigated by Fock in 1928 for quantum field
theory and by von Neumann in 1931 for quantum measurement theory."

They span the Hilbert space but do not form a basis because they are
linearly dependent and it is hard to find complete linearly independent
subsets.

The canonical coherent states do not a basis make but they do provide a
"generalized frame" that generate a representation of the Hilbert space by
a space of analytic functions. This frame feature was discovered
independently by Klauder, Bargmann and Segal. Glauber used them to extend
classical optical coherence to quantum electrodynamics in the early 1960's
when I first encountered them.

to be continued
Newsgroups: sci.physics