HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 02:23:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>Why are elementary particles small?
>
>Clearly, the ones that comprise our bodies must be much smaller than
>ourselves, but why are there no other elementary particles that are
>the size of, say, a baseball?

Well, the common hadrons are smallish, but low energy photons can be
as big as you like.

Possible, there are some very large particles -- whose energies are so
small that we have not been able to detect them.  This is assuming
that large size goes with small mass, a la uncertainty.  On the other
side, the as-yet unestablished black holes appear to be more or less
"elementary", in the sense of having very few parameters.  They are
very massive -- and are either very large or very small, depending on
whether you think about the or the singularity.  Aren't the baseball-sized
ones rather short lived, according to Hawking radiation theory?
From: swarner@bbs1984.chi.il.us (Steve Warner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Lasers/collimated light in RGB? (full repost)
Date: 1 Jan 93 21:25:44 CST
Organization: Not an Organization

    Hi John...Hope I can help out in your quest for laser show info.
There is a company out there named Pangolin, which develops laser scanning
software for the Amiga computer. The computer drives devices known as
Galvometers (small motor type devices built in the fashion of an Analog meter
movement). To the shafts of these galvometers are mounted small mirrors. The
galvo/mirror units are mounted 90 deg apart from one another to effect a x/y
scan.
    Most of the systems I've seen use lasers, altho collimated light sources
could be an option, I'd imagine. The lasers used are normally of the Argon or
Krypton ion type...with Krypton being the favorite, in that it can produce a
wider range of color over the Argon 
    The address for Pangolin is:
Pangolin Laser Software
933 N Kenmore Street, Suite 317-A
Arlington Virginia  22201
(703 527-4880

     Also, If you "tinker" a great book on the subject is:
The Laser Cookbook, by Gordon McComb  Tab Books, 1988

McComb walks you thru 88 laser related projects with a couple fine chapters on
Light Show generation and the use of Galvos.
     Hope that helps....
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:24:45 GMT

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec24112819@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>Yea, well maybe the tag team was exposed to a little physics, if nothing
>else.  It sure beats the horoscopes they are exposed to everyday.
>
>    It is the hope of many that the Internet over time be more accessible
>to the general public, so that more people can benefit from this valuable
>information resource.  The downside is that more people will have access
>to USENET, which will lead to more "stupid" questions and "stupid" postings.
>Hopefully areas like sci.physics won't be flooded with such stuff.
>And if so, I think it is not a high price to pay to have to deal with
>these distractions from "serious" physics.  Physicists in general do a
>lousy job of explaining physics to the general public, and can learn much
>from the "stupid" questions that are posted, in terms of public misconceptions.
>Thus, my pitch to keep sci.physics as is and unmoderated.

I think most of the serious physicists want to create a *new* newsgroup
that is moderated.  I don't see any problems in doing so.  However, the 
trouble comes in when these same physicist stop reading the sci.physics 
newsgroup.  That would create an environment where the blind lead the blind.  
I somehow feel that sci.physics for all the noise that is generated is still 
a creative environment (or to quote Freeman Dyson out of context, a place 
where the unpredictable can happen; which is what the real physicists should 
be striving for in the first place !).  So I think a new moderated should 
be created and as gratuitiy for all of us amateurs voting YES, the physicist 
should also man the sci.physics newsgroup to answer the questions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sassoj@aix.rpi.edu (John J. Sasso Jr.)
Subject: Wavelets & Coherent States ?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:30:07 GMT

   I am currently doing research on wavelets (theory and applications),
and have come accross comparisons of wavelets to coherent states in
quantum mechanics.  Although I have has a basic course in Q.M., can anyone
explain to me what coherent states are?  Do they have anything to do with 
phase-space localization?
  Also, can anyone refer be to any texts which have a great deal of 
emphasis on Schrodinger's wave equation (from the basics on)?  I see some
reltionships between wave packets and wavelets, but I would like to learn
more.

                                   Thank-you ,
                                     John
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: 22 Dec 1992 00:38:55 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec19.015057.28603@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1gttdfINNhk0@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> ST202194@brownvm.brown.edu () writes:
>>physicists are really saying, I believe, is that the laws of physics
>>equate to God."  - G. Burbridge, in paper called Modern Cosmology: the
>>Harmonious and the Discordant Facts.
>
>     I hope this was made in a poetical rather than a serious vein.
>     Otherwise, I suspect that large numbers of physicists would
>     disagree with Mr. Burbridge, God apparently being unnecessary
>     within physics in particular and science in general.

They might disagree that physicists are really saying this,
but on reflection they might actually say it, since God is
better suited as such a metaphor than as some extraphysical
director of some suprareality.

God "exists" as a metaphor in all religions that don't
actually still believe in the anthropomorphistic deities in
the mode of the Greeks, Christians, etc.  Using God here to
encompass the totality of logic both discovered and
undiscovered tends to make science a religion of rigid
bounds; and religion a science of dubious quality.  God
isn't necessarily unnecessary as much as it is an
energetic, but not political or philosophical, nonentity.

				--Blair
				  "I even spelled it rihgt."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 13:13:54 GMT

larsj@kih.no (Lars M. Johansen) writes:

>After reading your reply, I understand that I misunderstood your position.
>I agree with you that observer A will not sense any collapse of wavefuntion
>due to observations done by B.
>
>I wrote that
>
>>>In the same vein, COLLAPSE in the QM-wavefuntion does not AUTOMATICALLY
>>>imply nonlocal effects.
>
>and you answered
>
>>It depends on whether the wave function is a physical quantity, or
>>a subjective quantity.
>
>Do I sense a contradiction here?

No, I am only considering the possibilities. *If* the wave function is
physical, *then* instantaneous collapse implies that something nonlocal
is happening. If it is not physical, then its collapse does not imply
anything nonlocal.

I agree with you that the wave function is not physical. However, I
admit that I could be proved wrong.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:02:55 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

I vote no.  If you've looked in sci.math.research lately, you'll find
a very low volume of posts, and, generally, very few followups to them.
On the other hand sci.math, the counterpart mainstream group has
rather lively conversations and a very high volume.  It seems, just
from analogy, that sci.physics.research would probably go the same
way.

Yours,
	Jason
	Not The Jason In Oxford, Feverishly Killing Abian Articles
	Left And Right
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:47:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec24112819@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>Yea, well maybe the tag team was exposed to a little physics, if nothing
>else.  It sure beats the horoscopes they are exposed to everyday.

     You forget, no one in the room knows any.  Besides, they're too busy 
     consuming erasers.  At this point, the local guide drops by with 
     a tour group.  They see equations on the board, but no one in the
     room can explain them.  They conclude that science consists of writing
     indecipherable hieroglyphics, belching and eating erasers.

>    It is the hope of many that the Internet over time be more accessible
>to the general public, so that more people can benefit from this valuable
>information resource.  The downside is that more people will have access
>to USENET, which will lead to more "stupid" questions and "stupid" postings.
>Hopefully areas like sci.physics won't be flooded with such stuff.
>And if so, I think it is not a high price to pay to have to deal with
>these distractions from "serious" physics.  Physicists in general do a
>lousy job of explaining physics to the general public, and can learn much
>from the "stupid" questions that are posted, in terms of public misconceptions.

     'Stupid questions' do not appear to be the problem.  

                               dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Aspect's experiment, was Re: Peer review ...
Date: 24 Dec 92 20:06:15 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <Bzr4LI.FL@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>[...] 
> *Paul, I'm sure Alain Aspect would not agree with you! Aspect stayed with
> me in San Francisco a few years ago.

I do not what Aspect thinks but the two references that I am relying on
are:
J. D. Franson, Physical Review D, pgs. 2529-2532, Vol. 31, No. 10, May 1985.
A. Leggett, Foundations of Physics, V 17, p. 875.

Both make it clear that Aspect's experiment was not conclusive. I am not
aware of any refutation of the arguments these two present. I have read
Aspect's original papers and I think the arguments that Franson and Leggett
make are correct.

> [...] 
> In my analysis this delay is negligible (i.e. short compared to flight
> times from source to polarizer) and essentially irrelevant. Why do you
> think it important?

Unless you measure it directly you have no proof that locality is violated.
It is also central to my argument that QM is incomplete. You can measure the
statistics of these delays, but QM does not predict what those statistics are.

> [...] What
> possible relevance can 24 or 35 have to the basic idea of Aspect's
> experiment? So far, Budnik I fail to see where the problem is. Perhaps,
> someone else sees the problem?  Does anyone else see what Budnik sees? Well
> let's continue.*

You cannot know what any of the times are that you discuss. A photon cannot
be regarded as a classical particle traveling at the speed of light. You
can only know what the delays are in QM if you observe them directly.

>[...] 
> You cannot know where a particle is at a given time unless you observe the
> particle at that time.
> 
> *I agree with the above abstract remark but fail to see how it is relevant
> to the concrete question at issue. Does any one else recognize how it is
> relevant?*

It means you cannot base an analysis of delays on distances and the speed
of the particle.

> [...]
> The way you measure the delay is by varying the polarizers between states
> that maximize and minimize the probability of joint detections.
> 
> *The probability of joint detection is (cos@)^2/2 so that @ = 0 is max and
> @ = pi/2 is min. That much I understand. But I do not understand in
> operational terms "measure the delay is by varying the polarizers between
> states".

You switch from a state of minimal joint detections to maximal joint
detections. You then see how long it takes before this switch starts
increasing the number of joint detections. It is a moderately complex
statistics problem to analyze this but presents no fundamental difficulties.

Paul Budnik
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:20:59 GMT
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA: good science?
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
From: wolf@doppel.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Koehler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Second antigravity device puzzle
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: wolf@first.gmd.de
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin


I was wondering what happened with the second antigravity device
puzzle.
I never read any consistent solution nor a summary of it's author
John Baez.
Did I miss it completely ?

wolf


 
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ... always look on the bright side of life ... (Monty Python)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Koehler                               wolf@first.gmd.de
GMD-FIRST an der TU Berlin              German National Research Centre 
Tel. (Berlin 030/049) 6704-2650              for Computer Science



Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 06:00:48 GMT

The version of the story that I heard several years ago in 
an NPR interview with a Nobel biographer was that a woman 
Nobel proposed to rejected him in favor of a mathematician 
(whom the biographer did not name)  The biographer then went
on to state that there was no historical evidence to support
the story. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: When your sun forges iron...
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:22:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.081331.21425@u.washington.edu> lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>>kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman) writes:
>>>I've often read that iron is the proximate cause of novas, iron
>>>being the last atomic ash, so to speak. Why iron in particular? 
>>>I'd appreciate a good QM explanation of why your usual stellar
>>>furnace blows upon trying to produce energy from Fe!
>>
>>Iron isotopes are the most tightly bound nuclei.  For other nuclei,
>>e.g. silicon, a star can fuse them with alpha particles or whatever
>>forming a more tightly bound nucleus and releasing some energy in the
>>form of radiation - the radiative pressure supports the star against
>>gravity.  Once an iron core forms there is no more support and eventually
>>the star must collapse.  (This is a highly simplified version of events.)
>>
>>I guess the short answer to your question is that you can't produce
>>energy from Fe.
>
>In fact what happens is that you get a buildup of Fe-56 in the core.  After
>the pressure gets great enough the Fe-56 begins to start to fission.
>
>This is bad.
>
>Very bad.

Aw, it ain't so bad.  If there were no supernovae where would we get all
those nice heavy elements?  :-)  (Extra credit question: could life on
earth get by if the heaviest element around were iron?  Hemoglobin's
still in, by a hair.)

But don't you mean fusion, not fission?  I am no nuclear physicist but
my hunch would be that at high pressures iron might want to fuse into
larger nuclei, not break into smaller ones.  Is there anyone out there
who can explain to me which one is right, and more importantly, why?
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Date: 22 Dec 92 02:13:55 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <42726@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> xm9@sdcc12.ucsd.edu (richard g. adair) writes:
>In article <1992Dec19.071907.14957@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella) writes:
>For those of us that remember steam heat, explain the clanging of pipes when 
>hot steam is first introduced that day.
>
>Could it be the collapsing of steam bubbles and the resultant water
>hammer?  

Very unlikely. The collapsing bubble effect, although much more destructive
to pipes than water hammer, sounds pretty innocuous, sort of like sand is
running in the water stream.

The clanking of hot water and steam pipes I believe to be due to the thermal
expansion of the pipes. This explains why the effect is most prominent when
the furnace comes on after a spell.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bcannard@hppcb36.mentorg.com (Bob Cannard)
Subject: Re: range of EM force
Originator: bcannard@hppcb36
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 18:51:59 GMT
Reply-To: bob_cannard@mentorg.com
Organization: Yuggoth Interstellar Travel Inc.
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 


In article <C03zI8.7Fy@utdallas.edu>, nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani) writes:
|> 	This must be very stupid. If the EM force is via virtual photons,
|> 	how does it have an infinite range, given that a virtual photon
|> 	of frequency 'v' has a non-zero "borrowed" energy 'hv' ? 
|> 	Leggett, in his book, "Problems of Physics", says this is because the
|> 	photon has zero rest mass and hence a zero "borrowed" energy. I 
|> 	find this fishy.

An explanation by a layman for laymen:

The photon has zero rest mass, so the energy needed to create it can be
arbitrarily small (*not*zero*), depending only on the frequency; thus the
lifespan of the virtual photon can be arbitrarily long. Hence EM has
unlimited range.
-- 
bob_cannard@mentorg.com			"More dynamite!" - Theron Marks
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:59:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.172445.20809@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>I think most of the serious physicists want to create a *new* newsgroup
>that is moderated.  I don't see any problems in doing so.  However, the 
>trouble comes in when these same physicist stop reading the sci.physics 
>newsgroup.  That would create an environment where the blind lead the blind.  

Look -- part of the problem is that the blind *already* lead the blind, not
merely on sci.physics but on many other groups.  And the seeing are getting
tired of it.

>I somehow feel that sci.physics for all the noise that is generated is still 
>a creative environment (or to quote Freeman Dyson out of context, a place 
>where the unpredictable can happen; which is what the real physicists should 
>be striving for in the first place !).  So I think a new moderated should 
>be created and as gratuitiy for all of us amateurs voting YES, the physicist 
>should also man the sci.physics newsgroup to answer the questions.

That's already happening to a considerable extent; witness the FAQ file.  I
don't think that a moderated sci.physics.[research/moderated] will spell the
end of professional participation in sci.physics; if anything, it's plausible
that *more* physicists will read, because the promise of a "useful" group will
overcome the prevailing -- and growing -- perception of Usenet as a useless
collection of dilettantes.  Each *individual* physicist may participate less,
it is true; but the prospect of rejuvenating the net as a place where pros
can interact may attract (or fail to repel...) enough people to make up for
that.

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21530 news.groups:24763
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:06:41 GMT
	<MATT.92Dec15140220@physics.berkeley.edu>
	<BCR.92Dec16000355@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
	<MATT.92Dec15152210@physics.berkeley.edu>
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu's message of 15 Dec 92 20:22:10 GMT

In article <MATT.92Dec15152210@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

   In article <BCR.92Dec16000355@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> bcr@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) writes:

   > Here! Here! I'll second this even with the name as-is.  I for one
   > normally am not subscribe to sci.physics, because it is too long and
   > redundant.  I Only read this group when I have work I'm really
   > trying to aviod doing.  I'm sure most of us are two busy to garentee
   > to read through 50+ some articles posted here a day to see what
   > passes the moderation policy criteria.  However, if we can figure
   > out a way to split that equally amoung 4-5 people I'd be happy to be
   > one of them.

>   The newsgroup soc.feminism is moderated by a panel of several people;
>   articles are randomly sent to one of the moderator.  Perhaps we could
>   do that here.  I'm sure the soc.feminism moderators would be happy to
>   help us set up the same sort of system that they have.
>
>   Incidentally, I might not have stressed this enough in my original
>   posting: we can't have a moderated newsgroup without a moderator.  It
>   is important that we get some volunteers for that position if we want
>   anything to happen.


We don't need censorship here. Everyone is quite capable of choosing 
for himself. This not a Journal of Physics. It is a great big
public-restroom-wall. People who feel that they cannot stand having
"Crackpots" should leave the group and start your own Facist/Moderated
group, which I will predict now will be a very boring place indeed.

If I want to read a refereed journal I have only to pick-up
Phys. Rev. Letters or preferably Phys. Rev. D. I get enough of
that, I read this group for the lighter side to physics. And
as someone noted to avoid work that I ought to be doing.

Abian's theories are not falseifiable. If that isn't enough, in an
Abian Universe Total Entropy decreases! It is a sad day indeed
when people of Science resort authoritarian tactics instead if
using their brains to deal with charlatans.

If this call for moderation of this group succeeds it will be a 
sad day for freedom of thought.


Sean J. Merritt.
Department of Physics Boston University
MACRO and SuperKamiokande 

--
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,sci.math
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1i1qs8INNrfi@mtha.usc.edu> <1993Jan1.201815.18409@news.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 23:14:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.201815.18409@news.vanderbilt.edu> mwmv@athena.cas.
vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion) writes:

   >*Economics* is a _pratical_ science ?!?!!  Now I'm insulted.

  Nobel had nothing to do with the prize in economics. It's not officially
a Nobel prize anyway. When it was instituted (by the national bank)
it was dubbed "the prize in economics in memory of Alfred Nobel".
Newsgroups: sci.physics