HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Feynman 43  Advanced causes needed for energy conserving radiation reaction in QED.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:49:48 GMT


Feynman 43 QED & renormalization Part V  Advanced effects from the future
required for energy-conserving radiation reaction?

ref. Schwinger reprints volume QED Dover p.244
6. Radiative corrections to scattering.
Feynman has introduces his short wave convergence factor C(k^2) to avoid
the ultra-violet catastrophe. Now he also sticks in a long photon wave cut
off (i.e. small photon mass which violates gauge invariance) to avoid the
"infrared catastrophe" Rmember just putting in the Planck length means we
do not need Feynman's C(k^2) and we get a gravitationally limited self-
energy for the electron that is of order of the observed electron mass -
that is zero bare electron mass? I could be wrong about this!

I will not go into the details of this section but Feynman computes "the
change in the (electron) magnetic moment and the Lamb shift" ...He makes
the interesting remark "In this problem of the radiative corrections to
scattering the net ressult is insensitive to the cut-off ... by a simple
rearrangement of terms previous to the integration we could have avoided
the use of convegence factors completely ... the use of convergence
factors, even when they are actually unnecessary, may facuilitate analysis
somewhat by removing the effort and ambiguities that may be involved in
trying to rearrange the otherwise divergent terms.

The replacement of D+ by f+ .. is not determined by the analogy with the
classical problem. In the classical limit only the real part of D+ is easy
to interpret. But by what should the imaginary part 1/ipis^2, of D+ be
replaced? The choice we have made here (in defining ... the location of the
poles of (17) is arbitrary and almost certainly incorrect. If the radiation
resistance is calculated for an atom, as the imaginary part of (8)

[(-ie^2)S^2[fad(4)GK+(4,3)Gf(3)D+(s43^2)d3d4] (8)

in the self energy problem above]

the result depends slightly on f+. On the other hand the light radiated at
very large distances from a source is independent of f+. The total energy
absorbed by distant absorbers will not check with the energy loss of the
source. We are in a situation analogous to that in the classical theory if
the entire f function is made to contain only retarded contributions."

*Note advanced effects are required to get conservation of energy including
radiation reaction (Sarfatti).*

Feynman continues:"One can say therefore, that this attempt to find a
consistent modification of quantum electrodynamics is incomplete... For it
could turn out that any correct form for f+ which will guarantee energy
conservation may at the same time not be able to make the self-energy
integral finite." Feynman closes this section with a possible solution in
which the short wave cut-off limits to zero - but the issue is left
hanging.

to be continued

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA    requests for (A1) and (A3)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 19:37:26 GMT

 
   To the readers of  TIME HAS INERTIA


    I received two e-mail requests for repeating  (A1) and (A3).
  In the future, please  consult my previous postings in TIME HAS INERTIA.  
  (A1)and (A2), as well as (A3) and (A4) have been repeated at least
  50 times. 
   
   (A1) says that the behavior of matter (animate or inanimate, particles or
        galaxies) always manifests 
     
   (A1)  THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVO-
         CATION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO

   I have given numerous examples verifying (A1).  Just one more:
   
   When electric current is created in a coil, magnetic flux is 
   instantaneously  created to oppose the creation of the current       
   (i.e., to maintain the status quo).  But of course subsequent
   maintenance of the electric current overpowers - and the magnetic 
   flux is sustained - creating a new status quo.
   
   Conversely, when a magnetic  flux is created thru a loop, an electric 
   current is instantaneously created to oppose the creation of the flux 
   (i.e., to maintain the status quo).  But of course subsequent forced 
   presence and absence of the magnetic flux overpowers - and the 
   electric current is sustained - creating a new status quo.


   AS A CONSEQUENCE OF (A1), as I have mentioned many times, I derive
   
   (the NOBEL-prize deserving) (A3) which says
 

   (A3)  TIME HAS INERTIA and  some energy is irretrievably dissipated
         to move TIME forward, according to
    
                    dE = -A E(t) dt
        
 PLEASE CONSULT MY PREVIOUS POSTINGS IN TIME HAS INERTIA.
 
 I READ AND POST ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY IN  
           
            sci.physics Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA.

If you want me to read your postings then please post them in
            
            sci.physics Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA

The  final part 5 of RELATIVISTIC ADDITION OF VELOCITIES will be
posted shortly, maybe today or tomorrow.

      With best wishes               Alexander Abian




-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: The gravitational energy-momentum thingamajig
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:45:48 GMT


Many texts on GR mention,with various degrees of unease, the gravitational
energy-momentum "pseudo-tensor". This arises when one attempts to pretend
that the equation Div T = 0 corresponds to energy-momentum conservation.  
 Can anyone tell me how to formulate this thing in coordinate-free terms?
In other words, can one give a mathematically sensible definition of it?
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
	<1993Jan1.185409.13755@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> <C06xJo.Grn@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan2.225539.26574@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:22:20 GMT


   In article <C06xJo.Grn@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
   >dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs) writes:
   >[...]
   >
   >>A friend of the household, before I moved in, was active with COYOTE in the
   >>SF Bay Area.  I can't remember the acronym expansion, but it is (was?) an
   >>organization to promote legalized prostitution.  Among other things, COYOTE


Call
Off
Your
Old
Tired
Ethics
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani)
Subject: quantum mech.
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:31:29 GMT

	My questions seem to have drowned in Sarfatti noise. Scott, you had 
	said a good quantum no. for a system is that whose operator 
	commutes with the Hamiltonian for that system. But you left open the
	question whether the position operator can ever commute with a
	Hamiltonian and if it does, how one can interpret the delta function
	eigenstate of the position operator. This was in context of Liboff's
	statement that the measurement of a varible leaves the system in an
	eigenstate of that system. My other question about transition 
	lifetime from the first excited state in a 1-D infinite well has also
	gone unanswered. I do wish Sarfatti would rather answer such questions
	than adding all that noise.

	Sushil
From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What are the conditions for Mass <-> Energy conversion
Date: 30 Dec 92 00:44:22 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.

In <1992Dec29.154112.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> draper@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:

[...my stuff deleted...]

>That's because equation 6 is wrong.
>What you probably meant to say is that conservation of energy demands
>E^2 = (E1 + E2)^2
>so that
>E^2 = p^2 = p1^2 + m1^2 + p2^2 + m2^2 + 2E1E2
>and since by conservation of momentum
>p = p1 + p2
>we then get
>p1^2 + p2^2 + 2p1p2cos(A) = p1^2 + m1^2 + p2^2 + m2^2 + 2E1E2.
>Solving for cos(A) gives
>cos(A) = [m1^2 + m2^2]/2p1p2 + E1E2/p1p2
>Now as long as m1 and m2 are nonzero, the first term on the right is
>positive-definite and the second term is greater than 1. Thus there is no real
>solution for A.

Ah yes, I see my error now!

Thanks for correcting my math. 

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
From: kepley@cs.unca.edu (Brad Kepley)
Subject: Re: The Pagels Phenomenon 1 (The cases of mcinnes and kepley).
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:10:24 GMT

>goofy

Well..maybe so, but I'm new to this group and telecommunications are very
poor means of transmitting things like irony and sarcasm.  Without voice
inflections and facial expressions it can be pretty hard to pick up on
a person.  Many of the people here seemed to be treating you as serious
with your threats of lawsuits and intimidating letters to employers.  If
that was all a joke (and lately you seem to have been making it into one)
then I appologize...sorry.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Aspect's experiment
Date: 1 Jan 93 16:34:10 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <FRANL.92Dec30171403@draco.centerline.com>, franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

 [Description of an experiment to measure delays in tests of
 Bell's inequality deleted.]
 
> Won't this experiment only allow conclusions of the form "There is a
> 33% probability that a non-local process is at work"?

Yes, but if you conduct enough accurate trials you should be able to get a
probability arbitrarily close to 100%. *All* real experiments have this same
limitation, although not all real experiments are verifying a statement
that is probabilistic. You can always concoct an unlikely but logically
possible alternative explanation for any experimental result.

Of course I do not think you will get this result because I do not think
locality is violated. The result I expect is a nearly 100% probability
that there is no nonlocal effect.

> After all, you might see the first third of the shift from few-to-many
> joint detections happen in less time than it takes light to travel to
> each detector from the more distant polarizer.  The remainder of the
> shift happens "too late" to be evidence of a non-local process.

I do not understand what you mean by the 'first third of the shift'.
You will see a series of detections that change at some point from
many to few (or the reverse) joint detections. You can then make a
statistical estimate of when the probability of a joint detection changed.
You have to repeat the experiment many times to get an accurate estimate
of what the delay is.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Christmas problem
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:21:55 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <8456@charon.cwi.nl> vanloon@cwi.nl (Maarten van Loon) writes:

>2. An astronout takes a bottle filled half with whine with him
>   in space. What does he see when he looks to the bottle in
>   space?

I know I already answered this once but I just remembered an actual
event somewhat along these lines.  A few years ago a Russian
spacecraft had a problem:  Some water somehow got loose and was 
floating around the crew compartment.  It was of course in a more 
or less spherical shape, held together by surface tension.  The
danger was that it would find something it shouldn't and "pop" all
over it, soaking important equipment.  Two quick-thinking cosmonauts 
solved the problem by getting one on each side of it and drinking it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 04:51:53 GMT

In article <12950101@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes:
>PS. Are you just prodding the net for some psychological experiment?
>    C'mon, fess up !)

The "Autonomous Belaboring Intelligent ANswering (ABIAN)" Expert System
software is now available for beta testing by FTP from iastate........ ;-).

(No disrespect intended).
-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: FTL communication in SR does not violate causality
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:32:18 GMT


daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:

> A statement such as "It is possible to send a FTL message to a location a
> distance of one light-year away such that it will arrive at the same time
> it left" is only true in some reference frames, and not others.

     This assertion is only true in the literal interpretation of SR.  But
this thread is discussing possible synchronization that supercedes these
hypothetical SR limitations.  If super-synchronization using infinite-
velocity beams were possible, then the fact that clocks in different frames
moved at different rates would cause no problems for super-synchronized
clocks or observers.  It would lead to a somewhat different understanding of
the meaning of SR, but nothing in conflict with observations or experiments.

     Think of time dilation as affecting all physical clocks within a frame
instead of affecting time itself.  Then a lot of things start to make more
sense.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: moshier@world.std.com (Stephen L Moshier)
Subject: Re: inductance of a coil
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 18:33:26 GMT

   I did find Grover's book.  It is a practical and apparently
unique work.  He seems to have been the guru in charge of
inductance at the Bureau of Standards for many years. It was by
tracing back the references in this and a later NBS publication
that I found the actual theory from which the inductance tables
were constructed.

   You mention finite element analysis, and I've wondered about
this in connection with electric motors and antenna fields.
I can't just go out and buy an expensive software package,
though.  Is there anything available on the network that
would help, at least to get started?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: NE28@DKAUNI2.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Help me deal w/ infinity
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:47:20 +0100
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, Germany
Distribution: world

I don't really see your problem, because in my opinion 0.9(r)
is equal to one.
Proof:
Consider the sum 0.9+0.09+0.009+.....
It can be easily rewritten as 9*Sum((1/10)^n),n=1 to infinity.
This is just the geometrical sum.
the limit of the above is 9*(1/(1-(1/10)))-9
(the -9 is because the geometrical sum starts with n=0.)
that is (10/9)*9-9=1.
So you see 1=0.9(r)
Greetings
Carsten Grueber
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 14:57:32 GMT

hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>       It seemed unlikely to me at the time that a mathematician
>would have a love life, much less an adulterous one, but I've
>since realized they're human too.

?????? Is that because you think that all mahtematicians are 1) asexual,
2) homosexual, 3) perfect moral speicmens according to some moral
code that you recognize, 4) prudes, or 5) just don't have the time
because they spend so much time doing mathematics?????

Bill Hery
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Can space-time intersect itself?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 21:35:20 GMT


Matt McIrvin writes:
>A difference between "can be embedded" and "is embedded"
>is that the former doesn't *require* the space to intersect
>itself, whereas the latter well might!  I can embed a Klein bottle
>in R^3...

Really?  You should publish this shocking result immediately.  :-)

>but if I do it requires that the Klein bottle intersect
>itself.  

Right.  This is an immersion, not an embedding.  One can't embed a compact
nonorientable n-manifold in R^{n+1}, as it turns out, and the Klein
bottle is nonorientable.  In fact, one can show that one can't embed a compact
nonorientable n-manifold in a simply connected (n+1)-manifold.  The
proof relies on the following rough intuition (which I won't bother to
state precisely, so it won't be literally true): the complement of a
compact embedded n-manifold in a simply connected (n+1)-manifold must
consist of two parts, but if the embedded n-manifold is nonorientable,
one must be able to get around from one part to the other, a
contradiction.  (Think about how the outside and the inside of the Klein
bottle are really on the same side.)    

Here it is crucial that the n-manifold be without boundary.  There is no
problem embedding the Moebius strip in R^3; it's a compact nonorientable
2-manifold *with boundary*.

>(By the way, is the word "embed" right in this context?  Is what
>you do to a Klein bottle in R^3 an embedding, or just an immersion?
>Are all immersions embeddings?  An immersed manifold certainly can
>intersect itself, or, more properly, its image under the immersion
>can.)

An embedding is a 1-1 immersion, or loosely one with no
self-intersections.  An immersion is a smooth map from one smooth
manifold to another whose differential has maximal rank at each point.
Or, to put it loosely, it's 1-1 on each tangent space, and thus (one can
show) locally looks like an embedding, but globally might fold around
back on itself.  

The great advantage of being a mathematician over being a physicist is
that mathematicians are the ones who get to define how all mathematical
terms are used, and thus are always able to trip up physicists with
terminology!  :-)  

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: len@schur.math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 13:26:54 GMT

In article <C05619.8zy@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>
>I should have put smileys on it.  Math is such an abstract,
>seemingly incorporeal subject that it doesn't seem such a strange
>conclusion for a young mind such as mine to make.
>
>So I guess at the time I would have chosen 1) asexual. 
>
>No flames please.
>
>Alejo (hausner@qucis.queensu.ca)
>

I remember thinking at one time that mathematicians were less likely
to engage in adultery than mere mortals.  My theory was that the TRUTH
is of such great importance in doing mathematics that mathematicians
would find it difficult to engage in practices requiring deception.
Alas, there are too many counter-examples to this theory for one
to take it seriously.

Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:50:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec30.113719.1@sscvx1.ssc.gov> draper@sscvx1.ssc.gov writes:

>If there is no distinction between inertial and
>gravitational mass, then the situation would be almost exactly like classical
>electrostatics: unlike masses would attract and like masses would repel, 

I'm sure that isn't what you meant to say.  If two like (positive) masses
repelled, gravity would push us all off the face of the Earth.  What you
probably meant was "opposite to classical electrostatics."

However, that is not the way Forward defined it.  As I stated before,
his negative matter has negative gravity, which repels all other matter
(negative or positive).  Positive matter, of course, has positive gravity.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Originator: terry@aslss01
Organization: (Speaking only for myself)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:27:04 GMT

In article <31DEC199211004292@author.gsfc.nasa.gov>
rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler) writes:

> Would someone be so kind as to summarize the argument that hidden variable
> theories violate causality?

They don't.  Hidden variable theories simply say that the values controlling
two "readings" of what was originally a single quantum event (e.g., release
of two oppositely polarized photons) were fully determined when the event
happened.  They are very mundane, actually, requiring only that each "piece"
emanating out of such a quantum event should carry all the information ever
needed to make accurate statistical predictions about it.

As John Bell showed, such theories are mathematically incompatible with the
predictions of ordinary quantum mechanics, which requires "spooky action at
a distance" to make its predictions.  QM basically refuses to acknowledge
that distance is an issue in determining the form of such predictions --
whether a Angstrom apart or a lightyear apart, standard QM simply says that
the exact statistical profile for measuring the second of two correlated
quantum values (e.g., spin direction) will invariably depend on the outcome
of the first measurement.  You cannot separate the two in the classic (and
much more intuitive) local-info-only style one would naturally expect.

However (and simply ignoring the many person-years of "debate" in sci.physics
on this issue), I would strongly suggest that if you look carefully at the way
it is set up, this very odd QM "spookiness" does _not_ violate causality any
more than fully local "hidden variable" theories do.  Causality violation
means the abilty to transfer a message upon which some very real action can
be taken.  The QM version just does not allow that, since no matter how you
arrange it the "correlations" will be recognizable _only_ after you bring
records back together from both sites and compare them.  The latter process
of "bringing together" the records enforces a speed-of-light delay that keeps
the universe nicely consistent and prevents any serious (past-changing) info
from being transferred.  You really just cannot use the QM correlation to
call your own grandmother and tell her to shoot grandpa, because by the time
you can "convert" any QM correlations into "info" by comparing records, you
will find yourself nicely embedded back in conventional relativistic time.

Bell's "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" has some delightful
essays on these subjects.  For example, check out "Bertlemann's Socks" for
an easy and fun (but quite solid) explanation of hidden variable theories.
It really is a "must read" book for anyone interested in such issues.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger




  Hidden variable theories are no more profound than Bertlemann's
socks -- a fellow John Bell knew who liked always to wear a different color
of sock on each foot.  If you saw one foot with a green sock, then you could
know that the other foot had a color other than green.
Newsgroups: sci.physics