HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:41:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.14OCT199219411514
Distribution: sci
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes...
>Hawking's claim, according to Dr. Susskind, is that such a time
>reversal is impossible, as the information in the B.H. ingredients is
>totally lost.  Thus, something is fishy between general relativity and
>quantum mechanics.

Since there are several levels of heresay here I'll not flame Hawking for
this. The information is lost in the sense that knowing all the phases of
the incoming matter does not allow the outgoing phases to be determined.
But one can equally well say the converse. Knowing all the outgoing phases
does not allow the incoming phases to be determined. This is natural as
some phases lost to the singularity, and are never observable.
So physics still works the same when time runs backwards. But QM will
still have to be modified if virtual black holes are possible.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:37:21 GMT
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE EARTH'S TILT ... Reply to: WOMBAT
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics


How would you affect the orbit and tilt to "make it better"? 
Should we be more like Pluto, or more like Mercury in orbit?
Should the spin axis be more towards or more orthogonal to the
plane of orbit with the Sun? Should we move our orbital plane?
How much? Why will any of this "make it better"?

Just asking,

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino   c/o Hewlett Packard Co.    I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com  1501 Page Mill Rd Bldg 5M  I may be wrong, maybe not
415-857-7526    Palo Alto, CA 94304        Do DC photons exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Schrodingers Dog
Date: 8 Oct 1992 14:16 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Oct8.134835.203018@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes...

>You are assuming non-determinism, a rather shakey philosophical idea. 

It may be shaky philosophy, but its *great* physics.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: mcirvin@scws3.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:06:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: scws3.mcirvin.719096772

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for posters
>with defective keyboards).  
>9) 10 points for every use of science fiction works as if they were
>fact.

WHAT is NUMBER 8?????!!!!  Has it been REMOVED by CENSORS FROM
THE BIG G?????????   or MICROWAVE BRAIN-scrambling EQUIPMENT??????

I second the proposal to include comparisons to Galileo as an
extra bonus, particularly if it makes specific reference to the
Inquisition.  We ought to keep track of speed records for the
appearance of the first Galileo comparison.  If it comes up in
the subject's first posting, it should count double.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Who is Alexander Abian and why is he doing this?
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:51:01 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>>Subject: Who is Alexander Abian and why is he doing this?

I contacted the University of Iowa, Ames, Math department, and
learned that Dr. Alexander Abian has been on sick leave from 
the department since the beginning of the semester.  I will
shortly verify if someone is posing as Dr. Abian in the newsgroups,
or not.

---------------------
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum reality silliness
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:43:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.719109798
 <1992Oct13.174345.20680@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Oct14.193231.7614@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

ddixon@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Dixon) writes:

>That said, though, I do think that the way quantum mechanics is taught
>engenders a lot of confusion, because the implication is that there is
>some classical ball-bearing type particle which is magically either a wave
>or point-like, depending on how you try to look at it.  This bias seems
>to show up in every text I've seen (not exactly a library-full, mind you)
>and is probably the result of the wide acceptance of the Copenhagen
>Interpretation.

It mostly shows up in undergraduate texts, particularly in the
introductory chapters of QM books and in general "modern physics" 
texts for sophomores.  The thing that bothers me about it is that it
gives a very *narrow* view of what quantum mechanics is like, as if the
only observables in the world were position and momentum, and they
could individually be measured exactly by laboratory equipment.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 01:07:21 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <1992Oct7.021658.29299@galois.mit.edu>

Freezing into a state of "broken symmetry" clearly decreases entropy
locally. How and where does the entropy increase in the rest of
the universe, as it ages and gains entropy overall?
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  Would You Like Space Potatoes With That?       |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16437 sci.math:13129 soc.men:17679 soc.women:17675
From: rsb@mcc.com (Richard S. Brice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Summary: queue overflow
Keywords: Targetting high schools once again.
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:33:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcc.1992Oct13.203307.3625
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX

In article <1992Oct12.173039.3065@tellab5.tellabs.com>, chrz@tellabs.com (Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
> I do wish that high schools would require at least one TOUGH course in 
> critical thinking:  rules of evidence, misuse of data and statistics,
> basic errors of logic, etc. 
> 

With all due respect for the good intentions which probably motivated
this potential solution for some of our problems, I'm led to wonder
whether the author has ever studied queueing systems in which the
arrival rate is greater than the departure rate.

R. Brice
MCC Corp
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Mattel Protest
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:51:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.060429.3998@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <burt.718433315@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:
>>
>>  There is another way to look at the results of programming girls out of
>>math.  That is, that it is costing us a great deal.  How?
>>  Let's assume that there _are_ sex-linked cognitive differences which show
>>up in the statistics of large populations.  (And ignore, for the moment, the
>>stupidity of trying to apply statistical data to unique individuals.)  Then
>>consider the fact that because of social and cultural factors math has,
>>purely historically, been developed almost entirely by men.  (Yes, I know
>>there have been a number of excellent female mathematicians!)  Then it is
>>reasonable to apply statistics to the large sample of all past mathematicians
>>to infer that math, _as it now exists_ contains a built in bias toward those
>>cognitive skills at which men tend to excel, leaving skills at which women
>>tend to outperform men out, or puting them down as "not real math".  I would
>>argue that this implies that current mathematics has cut itself off from
>>much that might have otherwise been discovered.
> 
>     This is very sloppy.  The existence of 'cognitive skills at which
>     men tend to excel' or alternatively 'cognitive skills at which
>     women tend to outperform men' may well invalidate the contention

     I was being sloppy as well by not making myself clear on one point.

     Just so there's no misunderstanding and overt flamage.  I firmly
     do not believe that there exist cognitive skills at which men
     innately outperform women.  I do tend to think that their innate
     socialization is somewhat different, and this may go a long way towards 
     explaining part of this 'problem'.

                                   dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwolff@res-c4.Prime.COM (David Wolff)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: Computervision
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:17:01 GMT

Is there a way to set up an xrn KILL file to kill postings where the
subject line is in ALL UPPERCASE?  I think this one step would zap at
least half of the postings that deserve to be zapped...

David Wolff

dwolff@RES-C4.Prime.COM

Disclaimer:  Reflecting Computervision policy is a non-goal of this posting.
FreeAdvert:  Esperanto, the international language *that works*:
             Call (800) 828-5944 for free info package (US or Canada)
WittyQuote:  Witty but very long saying condensed into a microdot: "."
Kibofodder:  nfe Kibo xoe
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Gravity, Geometry, and Metric (Re: Spin)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:38:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.045740.15083@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

[most deleted]

>For folks who read my earlier posts, what I'm saying here is that
>Einstein's equation is causal.  Of course this is trickier to define
>than for other fields, because gravity *is* the metric, the same metric
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>whose lightcones appear in the definition of causality (the "diamond
>property").  Nonetheless one can make sense of causality in this case
>and prove that gravity is causal.  

IMHO it is better to say that (in standard GR) the metric is the 
  gravity-mediating field.

More general, a "'Generalized' General Relativity" says that gravity is
an effect of geometry. Since geometry is given by the *metric* g_{ab} and, 
in principle unrelated and independent, by the *connection* Gamma^a_{.bc}, 
these both are gravity mediaters in a general geometry with GR. On request 
I'll outline this a bit (although some of the stuff was discussed recently):

Metric and connection get related (by Levi-Civita's relation) by two demands 
or requirements:   
  1. Metricity, i.e. "absense of nonmetricity" 
  2. Absense of torsion,
which can also be expressed by the equations
 
 Q_{abc} := - g_{ab;c} = - g_{ab,c} + 2 Gamma_{(ab)c} == 0         (1)
 ^^^^^^^           ^            ^              ^+-^
 : nonmetricity    |       partial derivative   +-- symmetrization
                covariant derivative

and
 
 S_{ab}^{..c} := 2 Gamma^c_{.[ba]} - c_{ab}^{..c} == 0             (2)
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^                ^--^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 : torsion         anti-symmetrization    +-- anholonomic coefficients,
                                              == 0 in coordinate frame basis

respectively. 

(1) means simply that the covariant derivative of the metric vanishes,
(2) that the connection is symmetric in indices # 2 and 3 in a coordinate
frame. 

A geometry observing the identities (1) and (2) is called (semi-)Riemannian,
as is the manifold described by it. Then (1) and (2) can be resolved to 
obtain the usual Levi-Civita/Riemannian connection. In more general theories,
there may occur nonmetricity and torsion as independent fields. Since they
are both tensors (by construction) they can build up terms to the 
gravitational part of the Lagrange density, and show a non-minimal coupling 
to matter fields, as in principle can do curvature, but not the Riemannian
[or the total] connection.

--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
From: raistlin@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Brett Cuthbertson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: WHO : Edward Witten
Summary: WHO Edward Witten
Keywords: who edward witten
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:13:56 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I am looking for Edward Witten's e-mail address...if he has one..

can anyone help?

till later
From: ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:57:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Oct8.155709.7074
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <138426@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov (Alison Chaiken) writes:
> Every year for the last 5 years or so I have predicted in this group
> the winners of the physics and chemistry prizes.  So far I have an
> unblemished record of being wrong every year.     Here are my
> predictions for 1992:

> Physics: Leonard Mandel and Alain Aspect, for fundamental tests
> in QED

What I want to know is why Hawking hasn't won it, particularly since
the Nobel is only awarded to living people, and every year he hangs
on seems miraculous.

Is there some general concensus that his work just isn't of Nobel
caliber?

Bob
-- 
                                                                  _
". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch."                 Nipetlahuini.
Robert Neinast (ran@cblpo.att.com)
AT&T-Bell Labs
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: video review
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:53:44 GMT

From Bill Gawne at Space Telescope Science Institute (gawne@stsci.edu)

I found the following article in sci.military.  I've edited out some
text for brevity.  What remains ought to give the sci.physics readership
a good chuckle.

>From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

>On a cable channel that shall remain nameless, a new series called "Secret
>Weapons" showed up on the Fall Schedule.  

>	Manahattan Project:  Credited the Curies with the discovery of
>	Plutonium at the turn of the century.  (!!!) Said that Megatons was a
>	unit used to descibe fusion weapon yields, with kiloton reserved for
>	fission weapons.  Said that the Enhanced Radiation Weapons (neutron
>	bombs) functioned by turning the inside of tanks into (sic) "microwave
>	ovens".  Words fail me.  Then went on to talk piously of the need for
>	the public to understand the "facts" about nuclear weapons effects.

>thanks
>dave pierson
From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Do physicists wax metaphysical?
Keywords: This is humor.
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:57:48 GMT


>In article <1992Oct6.012221.28431@access.usask.ca> choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am

>a terminator.) writes:
>>
>>  + The universe is a large computing device bound and run by God knows
>>    what (but God knows I'm going to find out). We're here as something
>>    is being computed (or the machinery is idle).
>>Henry Choy
>The Earth is a large computing device created and operated by mice.  We're
>here to discover the question whose answer is 42.
>-Douglas Adams


>:)

>--
>If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes
.
>      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |       bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
>     ------> shari brooks <-------       |       bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu
>                             All opinions are my own.

  Actually, there are certain considerations which this idea brings up,
whether it's mice or mooses, or little green people with pointed ears
and seven sexes.
  Namely:
  a)  What is being computed?
  b)  Given the results on the limits of computation, is the universe
attempting to compute the uncomputable?  I.e., what about the halting
problem.  Suppose that the universe computes whatever it was programmed
to compute on Oct. 17 at 3:45 pm pacific standard time.  Will it then
stop, crank out a roll of paper with "THE ANSWER" on it ($@??, or 42???)
or whatever it might be.  Or will it grind on forever, or at least until
somebody pulls the plug?
  Perhaps the "ANSWER" is uncomputable and the universe, in it's
computational wisdom, has found that the only way to handle this state,
given it's initial programming to compute, is to evolve sub-programs
which are capable of dealing with intrinsic uncertainty.
  But it's too late at night to think thoughts like this.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:36:34 GMT

pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>In article <jim.719006495@st-michael> jim@cs.UAlberta.CA (Jim Easton) writes:
>>
>>In the words of the great philosoper "I dunno".  If you replace
>>points A and O in my diagram with ball joints I would think it would
>>work.

>(I don't think your proposed modification produces a correct cell.
>Leaving all else in the plane, swing O straight up out of the plane
>containing all joints but O.  This plane is distinct from the plane
>containing OA.  The point P will now move away from A, which I claim
>you don't want.)

That isn't quite what I had in mind.  I considered all joints except
A be in the same plane.  First let me label the point that joins the
radius (a) to the bottom of the rhombus of sides k as point B.  (I
should have labeled it in the first place)

With all joints except A in the same plane the distance from O to B
is still 2*a*cos(theta) where theta is the angle BOA and therefore
the distance R (O to P) is the still the same function of theta.

So unless I've made some stupid mistake again I claim that point P
will lie in a plane which is normal to the line OA.

	Jim 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: List Wanted: Nobel Laureats in Physics
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 92 00:20:06 GMT

It has always surprised me that the CRC "Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics" does not contain such a list, but I don't believe it does.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:17:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.193228.13905@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>As far as I can tell, the game is to make something our of hard steel
>parts which has a hole in it that you can stick a pencil in, such that
>when move the movable parts you wind up drawing a straight line "by
>definition" in just the same way a compass draws a circle "by
>definition".  It is a matter of principle, not of accuracy; i.e., we
>don't need to worry about general relativity, quantum mechanics and
>everything else in this game - we pretend we are 1800's believers in 
>idealized rigid mechanical parts.

There are at least two games here.  Game 1 is for flatlanders.  A
solution in terms of inversions of circles is presumably a solution to
game 1.

Game 2 is for "the rest of us" who live in 3 dimensions.  Any game 1
solution "lifts" to a game 2 solution by the obvious "prism-ization" or
cylindrification, to give the solution the necessary rigidity in
3-space.  Without cylindrification  a game 1 solution with one degree
of freedom in the plane will typically have more than one d.f. in
3-space.  A solution lifted by cylindrification will be characterized
by having all pins parallel (to each other and to the axis of the
cylindrification).

The obvious question now is, what game 2 solutions exist that are not
merely lifted game 1 solutions?  These will presumably have to contain
at least two non-parallel pins.  Is anything know about this?  In
particular what is the minimum number of pins required?

The problem cannot be to draw a line *on a given surface* since if the
surface were not planar there would be a starting point and direction
for which we could not draw a line, while if it were planar there is
the obvious trivial solution involving a conventional arm with parallel
pins at shoulder and elbow, which incidentally happens to be a lifted
game 1 solution that for game 1 sounds too vacuous to bother
mentioning.  (So all those of you wondering how to draw a line on your
drawing board with a compass-like instrument can go away now, your
problem has a simple solution with only one more pin than a compass; in
fact you can make it from your compass by replacing its fixed point
with a pin parallel to the standard compass pin.)

The problem rather is how to "air-draw" a straight line, in thin air.
So far no one on this list has suggested that there are any non-game-1
solutions for game 2.  My intuition is that there should now be lots of
non-game-1 solutions.  But intuition does not a proof make.
-- 

--Vaughan Pratt, pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU      Math anxiety = fear of floundering
From: davids@spira.bri.hp.com (david sixsmith (contractor))
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:27:10 GMT
Subject: Re: GROSS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PROBABILITY, DETERMINISM AND LOCALITY
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England
Newsgroups: sci.physics
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]

What is most concerning about this posting is that not only are you ignorant
about probability theory and it's applications, but you seek to lecture the
rest of us.

Perhaps the time has come for a little less hubris. The arcane delights of the
philosphy of QM are all very well, but I fail to see the point of fiddling
with Bells inequality when you don't have a proper grasp of more basic
mathematics.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Sixsmith                  |  Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim, etc.    |
| Bristol, England               |                                        |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech