HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: FAQ - where?
From: CHEAC@LURE.LATROBE.EDU.AU (CZERWINSKI,Alex)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:37:06 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

Could someone tell me where I can find Frequently Asked Questions - physics,
please.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Bass and Sawyer have disqualified themselves by flames.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:02:51 GMT


Bass and Sawyer have disqualified themselves as objective professional
moderators by their rude insults in response to my valid questioning of
the adequacy of their credentials to moderate the physics conference.

So really this is a matter of ethics and integrity. Anyone with a sense
of fairness will understand this. I fear that sci.physics.moderated will
be a travesty given the present slate of moderators - with the exception
of Baez and the other fellow who, as far as I know has not stooped to
unprofessional insults sniping about typos, confusion of names etc.- not
at all relevant to the substantive issue.

Yes, I'm all for a moderated conference - but only if the moderators have
a sense of fairness and integrity as well as competence. My case is proven
by the responses of at least two of the would-be censors.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Re: Hobby of the Future
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:57:59 GMT

Nobody's taking me seriously, so I'll start over.  Let's say you could
make a black hole.  How big would you make it?  What would you do with
it?  It seems like you could use it as an energy source (pour material
in, and collect the radiation that comes out), but that sounds like
something for nothing.  Does it take more energy to make it than you
can get out of it?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Hobby of the Future
Date: 21 Jan 93 03:58:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: rx7.HAGERMAN.93Jan20225855
Distribution: sci
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

What would it take to make a black hole?  This is obviously a fanciful
question, but I'm looking for real answers, not Star Trek answers like
"beam a whole sun into the space of a sugar cube."  How much mass do I
need to collect?  How much pressure do I need to subject it to?  Where
do I keep it?  How long will it last?

- John
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
From: baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Magnetic monopoles?
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:36:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1993Jan20.025101.9082@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>If there are no monopoles then searching for them would indeed be
>pointless.  But if charge quantization only increases the known lower
>bound on the number of monopoles in the universe by one, why should the
>knowledge that charge is quantized change our mind about searching for
>them?  (Not objecting, just want to learn how to think like an
>experimentalist.  :-)

For starters, you are being way too logical.  It goes like this:
monopoles would explain charge quantization, which is otherwise
not easy to explain.  So let's look for monopoles!  

Yes, of course there might be just ONE monopole.  For all we know, that's
what they saw in that mysterious irreproducible experiment - the one
and only monopole!  But it goes against the grain in particle physics
to have particles that there's just ONE of.  If there were "unique" particles
floating around it would be hard to discover universal laws, so we 
optimistically assume there aren't.
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hobby of the Future
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:18:50 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

In article <1jtjteINNmmh@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <HAGERMAN.93Jan20225855@rx7.ece.cmu.edu> hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman) writes:
>>What would it take to make a black hole?
>
>What's the Schwartzchild Radius of a Quaker Oats box?
>

Naked singularities.  Because it's the right thing to do.


--
*******************************************************************************
"Keep an eye on the species below us...because you never know who may be next."
	----Bertha's Save The Cat Committee (Garrison Keillor)
Jason D. "corleyj@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley, Poet, Polymath, Scoundrel.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: ATOMS & ELECTRONS
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A784D377EB021C1F@31.28.189.128.in-addr.arpa>
X-Xxdate: Thu, 21 Jan 93 06:25:59 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:26:04 GMT

In article <1jipr8INN9vo@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> Angelyn P. Williams,
angelyn@fridge.Jpl.Nasa.Gov writes:

>Leigh: QM is based on some postulates to be sure, but I
>can't figure how this is an empirical observation upon which quantum
>physics is founded right now. Care to enlighten? (always willing to
learn...)

Empirically Rutherford showed that the atomic nucleus of gold (and, by
plausible if great extension, hydrogen) is quite compact. Maxwell
predicted (though he was dead at the time) that Thompson's electrons, the
other component of atoms, should crash into the compact nucleus in a
brilliant burst of electromagnetic radiation. Bohr observed that they did
not, and that they had never done so. He made up a rule, ad hoc, which
did not *explain* why electrons don't crash into the nucleus, but which,
if Nature followed it, had as consequences *both* that fact and the very
precise scheme by which hydrogen *did* radiate under suitable
circumstances. The fact that the rule had more than one physically
observed consequence made it attractive as an explanation, so today we
say that Nature follows this rule. That really simply shifts the question
to one of asking why She should follow the rule; it does not answer the
question, as you have pointed out.

Of course we do not use Bohr's formalism any more, and Nature's rule
turns out to be different from the one Bohr proposed, if only by h-bar.
(The orbital angular momentum of the ground state of hydrogen is zero
rather than h-bar.) According to the more modern picture (which we'll
call Schroedinger's), the electron in hydrogen is actually more likely to
be found in the nucleus than in any other equal volume of space, so in a
very real sense the electron does exactly what one would have expected,
given the limitation of its intrinsic claustrophobia. We might just as
well say that the electron does not fall into the nucleus because it is
by nature restless, and the nucleus is too confining for its taste.

Whether Nature follows Bohr's or Schroedinger's rule is not a question
which is susceptible to resolution. To believe that either represents
something real is a fallacy, technically refered to as "reification",
against which I have declaimed elsewhere in sci.physics. It appears that
we can never hope to answer the most fundamental questions about the
nature of the universe. Our greatest aspiration is the reduction of the
number of such questions to the smallest value which can be reached, and
it is possible that we shall never know what that irreducible number is.

Leigh
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23545 sci.skeptic:22905 alt.paranormal:2852 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2857 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7786
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:04:29 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <-xq3+jr@rpi.edu>, petitc@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
> As for all the ESP info---consider this.  There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day'  Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
>.  But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
>exists in some form.

A great many such stories are easily explained by selective perception and
memory.  A great many more are easily explained by the fact that the people
reporting the experiences have no intuitive feeling for the probabilities
involved.  Most are poorly documented.

> Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.

The question of testing relativity wasn't one of "thinking of how to prove its
existence."  Experiments for testing it were known pretty much from the outset.
The problem was in the relative infrequency of opportunities for testing it,
and the development of equipment that could be used to perform the experiments.

For example, with general relativity, the only nearby object massive enough to
be used to test the theory was Sol.  Unfortunately, testing the theory using
Sol required observing the occultation of a distant star, and seeing a star
near the sun is somewhat problematical from the ground.  So we had to wait for
a total eclipse.

With special relativity, one obvious test was to compare time measurements in
two different reference frames.  That had to wait until we were able to
generate short-lived subatomic particles and measure the lifetime of the
particles as a function of their energy.

Also both theories of relativity were developed to account for discrepencies
between observations and the predictions of Newtonian mechanics.

ESP, on the other hand, is more or less in the situation of being an
explanation looking for something to explain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:21:37 EST

In article <C1GEpL.4H7@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>The new physics provides the beginnings of a paradigm for wholistic
>medicine.

That's "holistic", from greek "holon".

>It is in this sense that
>we think of The Force without force or "La Forza del Destino".

I think this is a serious distortion of the intended message of the opera.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:38:35 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan21.020948.24425@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
>[...]
> >Just consider the simple case of a photon traversing a reflective
> >polarizer. The wave function for this experiment exists on both sides of
> >the polarizer until and unless the photon is detected. If we assume there
> >is a microscopic event corresponding to the photon traversing the polarizer
> >then we must assume that the wave function on the other side of the polarizer
> >will go to 0 when this event occurs. But we will get the wrong answer if we
> >do that. [...]
>  
> The answer to what question? [...]

The answer to the question of what is the probability of observing the
photon on either side of the polarizer.

> See my previous post. This discussion is going nowhere.

Ditto.

> >Absolutely not. The linear part of QM makes no prediction about this
> >delay.
>  
> The "linear part" of QM gives the probabilities for the possible
> outcomes of a single measurement on a system. Unless you can show
> that QM forbids us to simultaneously measure a photon's polarization
> and the time the measurement took place, I don't see how you can
> argue this position.

Again see my previous post. The probabilities that the linear part
of QM gives for each of the single measurements in this experiment
(considered independently) will *not* violate Bell's inequality
and this delay will not be defined. The only law that
lets you couple these two measurements with the experimental manipulation
of the polarizer angles and decide the timing relationship for this
coupling is the collapse postulate.

> >You cannot, using the wave function model, get the correct
> >correlations without a nonlinear change in the wave function.
>  
> This claim has already been refuted, by others as well as myself.
[...]

It certainly has not. I agree that you can argue
*outside* the wave function model about what the correlations will be.
I consider that a specious argument because the only model QM supports
is the wave function model (or an equivalent formalism). However, once you
are `using the wave function model' you *cannot* get these correlations
from the linear part of QM.  Remember the correlations involve not just
the observed detections but the relationship of these detections with
the angles of both polarizers. It is this nonlocal coupling of the
probability of joint detections with the relative angle of the two
polarizers that no local theory such as the linear part of QM can account for.

Paul Budnik
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23621 sci.skeptic:22974 alt.paranormal:2875 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2881 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7834
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:51:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <GERRY.93Jan27123027@onion.cmu.edu> gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston) writes:
>In article <1k436cINNfe5@emx.cc.utexas.edu> ethan@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
>
>>   In cases like this the request for appropriate references
>>   is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
>>   so....
>
>   How about CARP?  
>
>   Cite Appropriate References Please

  I like this one!  Unless I hear a better one in the next few
  days I'll start propagating it (there is never any shortage
  of opportunities on Usenet).   Maybe we can start a new acronym.
  This could be an interesting experiment in language propagation.


>Why bother responding.  The first poster made his request just for 
>the halibut!

  . . . 

     . . . I can't think of a funny rejoinder.

        

---peter
From: lim@toadflax.cs.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: magnet help
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:57:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Davis

I'm building something and have some magnetism related questions.  Sorry
if this is the wrong place, but I couldn't think of anything better.

The part I'm thinking about is a thin (4mm) piece of wood.  One side will
have a sheet of metal attached to it, preferably only 1 or 2mm thick.
On the other side, I want to be able to place small cylindrical magnets
(preferably about 5mm in diameter) against the wood and have them stay
there upside down and while shaken.  The stronger, the better.

Are some metals better at attracting magnets than others?  What kinds
of magnets are stronger than others?  Where would I get them?

Please feel free to mention anything, even if it's expensive.  It's
always interesting to learn something new.  Can I buy any room temperature
superconducting magnets yet?  :)

+++
Lloyd Lim                    Internet: lim@cs.ucdavis.edu
Lim Unlimited                America Online: LimUnltd
330 W. Iris Ave.             AppleLink: LimUnltd
Stockton, CA  95210-3738     CompuServe: 72647,660
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23662 sci.astro:14524
From: O.MostynOwen@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: comets in 16th century
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:31:14 GMT

Please can someone help me?

I need to find references to the major comet sightings in the year 1506.

Is there a compendium of such things, and if so what is it called.

Does anyone know of ANY comet sightings in the early 16th century.

I have been asked by a historian to calculate the countries in which a comet
would be visible given that it was visible in Britain at a particular date.
His reference does not specify in which constellation the comet was seen in
1506, hence my question.

Thanking you, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Mostyn-Owen				     +44 71 387 7050 ext 3673
Internet: omostyno@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ramsay@math.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The confusion of tongues (was: Trouble understanding bra-ket notation)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 07:47:39 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.math.ubc.ca

In article <COLUMBUS.93Jan21101415@strident.think.com> 
columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
|On the topic of mathematicians' vs. physicists' notation, does anyone know
|why most mathematicians will write an integral as shown below on the left
|(unless they omit the dummy variable x entirely), whereas physicists prefer
|the form on the right?
|
|         /                       /
|         |  f(x) dx              | dx f(x)
|         /                       /

This is just a guess (from a mathematician), but the notation
\integral f(x) dg(x) sometimes is used, by mathematicians at least:
one function integrated relative to another one. The right-hand-side
notation has a possible ambiguity between dx.f(x) and d(xf(x)). If you
are confused, then, you could interpret the right hand side so that it
evaluates trivially to xf(x)+C.

Keith Ramsay            "Being a computer means not having 
ramsay@math.ubc.ca       to say you're sorry."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: More POP FIZZ PSI WARS
Keywords: electric radio waves electromagnetic radiation psychological warfare
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:30:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.135109.19624@husc15.harvard.edu> blom@husc.harvard.edu writes:
>Do high-intensity radio waves of computer-like frequency affect computer
>systems?
>
>Would 10-15Hz electric waves mess with people's minds?
>
>Could one make a laser-like device for such electric waves?  Would magnetic
>lenses work to direct the beam?
>
>Could one just put a bunch of electric dipole antennae in an electric-wave
>reflecting tube?
>
>How does one reflect 10-15Hz electric waves?  I know radio waves can be
>reflected with regular materials.
>

Have you been listening to Dr. Peter Beter?  Looking for cosmospheres?

Hmmm....a Yagi for the 30,000 meter band.  Could be done, could be done.

If you really want to mess with people's minds, use a high-intensity magnetic
field.  Look at what happened to all the particle physics guys, they used to 
be normal.

---Bill VanHorne

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And when the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy is
Warre; which provideth for every man, by Victory or Death" - Hobbes "Leviathan"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dossa@isis1.bxb.dec.com (Universe.MilkyWay.Sol.Earth.USA.enet.dec.com)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Reply-To: dossa@isis1.bxb.dec.com (Universe.MilkyWay.Sol.Earth.USA.enet.dec.com)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:15:01 GMT

A better argument for a moderated news group can't be found that can surpass
the recent spate of garbage in this group.  It's been extremely bad lately
and that is after my KILL file processing...

	Don Dossa
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black hole insights
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:45:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.727739154

bbowen@megatest.com (Bruce Bowen) writes:

(in a very nice summary of some black-hole physics)

>For a massive object, what horizon are you talking about?  The horizon
>of the original black hole, or the horizon of the black hole + object?

An excellent point.  The horizon of a black hole, as some have
pointed out, comes out to meet a massive object that falls into it.
In this discussion I've usually been idealizing infalling objects
as massless test particles.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: mmalak@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Jay Malak)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: below absolute zero?
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:25:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: gap.1k6r3uINNg4p
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

prissi@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Markus Pristovsek) writes:

>An easy way to construct "lower than zero"-temperatures:
>All you need is a magnetic material and a strong magnet.
>Then 1) Cool the whole thing and switch an the magnet.
>2) Wait until ALL spins are orientated upwards.
>3) Change the direction of the field.
>So the spin are all looking against the lines of the field.
>The is identified with negative absolute temperatures.
>But this is only a statistical definition.

Well, let's be more precise here.  The statistical-mechanics
definition of absolute temperature is that 1/T = dS/dE (that is, the
partial derivative of entropy with respect to energy).  All we care
about is the sign.  For most physical systems, the energy can be
arbitrarily large, and the entropy always increases with energy.

But let us consider a system which has a maximum possible energy.
A simple one is the case of two spins in a magnetic field.  A particle
can have one of two possible energies, represented here as ``+'' and ``-''.
A particle in the `+' state has an energy E, and one in the `-' state
has energy 0.  The possible states of the whole system are:

State		Energy		Entropy

--		0		0

+- OR -+	E		S = k ln 2

++		2E		0

The middle (energy E) system has two indistinguishable possible
configurations, so its entropy is nonzero.  Increasing the energy
of the system to 2E _reduces_ the entropy.

It doesn't make much sense to speak of a `temperature' for such a small
system, but you can consider a system of a large number of spins:
as you add energy, the entropy increases until the total energy is 1/2
the maximum energy; after that, the entropy decreases.  According to
the definition of absolute temperature, the system has a negative
temperature in this higher-energy regime.

Intuitively, you would think that adding energy to a system
should make it hotter.  This is correct.  Negative temperatures
are hotter than positive ones!

This isn't nearly a  complete discussion; most textbooks on thermodynamics
or statistical mechanics have a few pages on negative temperatures.

-- 
Michael Malak                      |  1. All syllogisms have three parts.
mmalak@looking_glass.caltech.edu   |  2. Therefore, this is not a syllogism.
Newsgroups: sci.physics