HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua (Aleksandr V. Kats)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Private Phisical Inst. seeks collaboration in different forms and directions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:20:46 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: INFOCOM LTD, Ltd.
Reply-To: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua

                           Dear Sir,
            Works of  private little venture Eco-Energy Institute are
       directed in general for ecology clean  possibility  of  energy
       production, conservation and utilisation.
            We are interested in collaboration,  the orders  of  some
       criogenic devices and osonators, and joint investigations.
            Suppose, that it is reasonable to  have  the  discussions
       and   meetings   with   investigators,  working  in  following
       directions:
       1. NASA  programs  of  metastable  helium  states (MHS)  as a
       rocket propellant   and   of   moon   He3   utilisation,   MHS
       manufacturing, conservation and utilisation.
       2. Weakly  bound  species: helides, rare  gas - hydrogen - and
       carbohydryde clusters, now wellknown foullerens,for example,
       - the manufacturing of its.
       3. Ozone generation, conservation and utilization.
          All theese ones may be used as energy accumulated species,
       but not only, ofcourse .
       4. The plasmoreactor methods of hydrogen from water and H2S
       production.
       5. Scintilators for nuclear and cosmic radiation detecting -
       some unusual methods of manufacturing, examination and testing.
       6. Mathematical modelling of dust ewolution and grouing in air
       on the base of Smoluhovsky  equations.
          We are interested to take part in the experimental work on
       the base of US organisations in all this fields.
          In all this directions  we have ideas,  know-hows,  skill,
       experience, patents.
          Now the negotiations, concerning 4 and 5 items, with some
       US Universities are in progress.

          We would like to have grants and other forms of collaboration
       for our researchers, working in this directions.


                S.Y.
                D. Myshkis,
                Director of Eco-Energy Institute
                Ph.D, Mb.of RAN Commitee for
                Energy Accumulating Species  Using

                Ukraine, 310103, Kharkow,
                ul.Kosmonavtov,5A/77.
                tel.+7-(057)-2-727666
                fax +7-(057)-2-324677

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIANS answers TAO
Keywords: SURRENDER TO (A3) - NO OTHER WAY 
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:03:08 GMT

In <1992Dec16.032608.19006@Princeton.EDU> tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao) writes:
                                    12-16-92
Dear Mr. Tao,

You write

>Another non-answer to my post.  Abian seems to ignore anything he can't
>answer to.  I've made my post shorter this time, so you can respond. 

>Abian, your logic is the same logic as the
>argument I used to prove all dogs are cats, viz.

 I reply
 
 
I gave and give  you NON-ANSWERS because that makes me feel secure and
I act according to my (A3). Period.


As far as your Logic is concerned, I have given you several times the
non-answer

   That Churchill during the air raids on London did  say:

     "  For the SECURITY of our nation we must fight the enemy"

he did not say
    
    " since all dogs are cats we must fight the enemy"

   So my NON-ANSWER IS STOP EQATING 

 "all dogs are cats "  with  "The prime cause of all actions  is
                              to gain a feeling of security", i.e. (A3)

    If you post any more questions to me  I will reply to you,
as usual with a  NON-ANSWER .  That gives me a feeling of
security  just the same way that it gives you a  feeling of
security to insists on a not a  NON-ANSWER  answer.

    THE COSMOS IS  ETERNALLY GOVERNED BY  (A3) -  NO WAY OUT
  
     With love                       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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Why Wave Functions aren't Physical (Was: Re: QM non-causal?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:50:58 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics

In article <1992Dec13.204233.10835@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
totally misses the point in favor of a spelling flame:

(followups to sci.physics, it's not much relevant to math)

)for exactly this reason (among others).  Bayes' theorem holds, in
)particular.  (But Vidugiris has not stated Bayes' theorem... maybe he
)really DID mean Baynes' thereom!  :-)  Bayes' theorem is that the
)probability of F given E is the probability of E given F times the
)probability of F divided by the probability of E.)  

The point is, however, that if one belives in Bayes (baez? :->) thereom,
then the fact that one cannot express the results of P(A) and P(B) in
Bell's experiments in the form

P(A) = intergal of Pa|c() * delta P(C)
P(B) = intergal of pb|c() * delta P(C)

implies that one cannot explain the correlations between A and B simply
by a common cause C.  In fact, one cannot explain the correlations between A
and B by multiple common causes C since C can be a vector just as easily
as it can be a scalar, (replacing the single intergal by an appropriate
multiple intergal).

This would then imply that one is left with A causing B or B causing A
given the following (restated):

If two events A and B are in isolated systems, isolated from the rest of
the universe and each other, they will not be correlated.  If we see
two events correlated, we can conclude that the systems are not isolated
and that either A influences B, B influences A, or some external event
influences both A and B.

as the third explanation (an external event or set of events C causes both A
and B) fails to explain the correlations between A and B.

I should also add that one can also explain Bell's results by adding in
probabilities of non-detection as Daryl M suggests, but I was attempting
to address the case where one had already assumed that QM was valid 'as is'
and not exploring results that were not 'standard' QM.

I should further add that I have been a bit suspicious of Baez's definition
of causality ever since I've noted he has had no problems with tachyons
being non-causal while also believing in SR.
From: yan-dicky@cs.yale.edu (Dicky Yan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Help! PINET. How?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:02:04 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: leopard.zoo.cs.yale.edu

Someone told me it is possible to look up job listings (of jobs in physics)
by connecting to the PINET of the American Physical Society. Is that true?
If yes, can someone tell me how to do it? (i.e. address for telnet, can I
log on anonymously?) Thank you.  

Dicky.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:47:26 GMT


Someone posted under this thread the syntax for a line to be put
into a kill file for the purpose of killing every article with
Abian in the header.

I, on the other hand, read this group only for fun, and all you
outdated neanderthalian physicists seeking security by attempting
to ignore Abian's A1 - A4 really bore me.  How could anyone want to
talk about QM and all that sort of rot, when revolutionary lunacy
is afoot?

Is there a way that I (using rn) can kill everything EXCEPT the
'TIME HAS INERTIA' stuff from Abian and his interlocutors?

--Jimbo
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientific writing
Date: 11 Dec 92 06:55:09 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
: with.  Oh, it would be so nice if we could all write like Stephen Jay
: Gould - and even he probably gets shit from journal editors.
Tell me this is a joke. Please tell me that you are not serious.          
Each time I read that pretentious windbag, I squirm with vicarious
embarrassment. If he gets shit, that's better than getting shot--which is
what he deserves. He ought to be writing for Time magazine.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:52:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.724114341
 <1992Dec10.141001.21374@sophia.smith.edu> <1992Dec11.011556.17556@galois.mit.edu> <1992Dec11.034055.7602@sophia.smith.edu>

orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.011556.17556@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>Nada.  (Nothing.  Nichts.)  Everett's relative state formalism doesn't
>>involve any notion about "worlds splitting" - and thus doesn't require
>>any answer to your question.  

>	My understanding of Everett's work is shallow, and I certainly
>accept your answer, and am grateful for the reply.  But let me quote
>Penrose ("The Emporer's New Mind", p.295):

>	"The consciousness of each observer is regarded as 'splitting'...
>	Indeed, not just the observer, but the entire universe that he
>	inhabits splits in two (or more) at each 'measurement' that he
>	makes of the world."

>So you can see where non-physicists like me might pick up the notion
>of measurements causing world splits.

You can use that language to describe vaguely what is going on, but
it's misleading.  What happens is that the wave function of the
world ends up in a superposition of different states that evolve in
a more or less classical manner, with very, very little interference
between the two.  The "worlds" are just these different nearly-
classical regions of the wave function.  It's a kind of "world-
splitting," but it's important to realize that:

(1) The "other worlds" aren't anywhere "else" in space, or in
    another spacetime manifold, or extra dimensions, or any such
    thing; the world is just superposed.  It's misleading to refer
    to states as multiple universes because it implies that something
    is selecting out measurement processes as special and using them
    to spawn new universes like budding yeast.  Though such budding
    occurs in certain speculative cosmological theories, it has 
    nothing to do with the process going on here.

(2) No extra machinery is required to throw off these "other worlds";
    the superposition arises naturally from the same kind of time
    development we normally see in quantum mechanics, applied to
    everything consistently.

(3) The only way the existence of the other nearly-classical parts
    of the universal wave function could be detected would be via
    experiments that, roughly speaking, get exponentially difficult
    with time after the various states get macroscopically different, 
    with an extremely short characteristic time scale.
    Under such conditions one can, with an *extremely* small loss
    of accuracy, take one of the nearly-classical states as the
    state of the world, and not bother about the others.  If you
    like, you can call the others "unreal," and unless you do certain
    implausibly sensitive experiments it doesn't change the physics.
    This is roughly what corresponds to "collapse" in the Everett
    interpretation, but it's not an extra postulate, just a
    consequence of ordinary dynamics.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of religious scientists
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:48:44 GMT
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa

In <qHBJVB2w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> John Perry writes:

> ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter) writes:

>> A belief in a god betrays a susceptibility to accepting drivel as truth.
>> That inability to discriminate between the real and the imaginary
>> can have a profound effect on one's scientific work. -AR.

>To quote a physicist who knows a lot more about science than anyone
>reading this newsgroup:

> "Science without religion is lame."   -Albert Einstein

Since you are fond of quoting Authority, I have another quote for you:

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius.  I regard it as a disease 
 born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."  
                                    
                                                    -Bertrand Russell (*)

Assuming that your quote means what it seems (Einstein would turn in his
grave if he heard what views people attribute to him!), it only shows to me
that he wasn't immune to the disease of religion.  -AR.


(*) Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, Unwin Peperbacks, London, 1987,
    Ch. 2, p. 27.
From: freeman_l@topaz.ucq.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Magnetic question (again!)
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:38:21 AET
Organization: University of Central Queensland, Australia


Here's another dumb question about electrodynamics......

How does a charged particle "know" how fast it is moving through
a uniform magnetic field, if the field is completely uniform and
featureless?  
It's a bit like this.... If you wipe your hand over a perfectly smooth
tabletop, then it feels the same whether you move slowly or quickly.

Similarly,  if there is no structure in a magnetic fild that the particle
can reference and say "ah, yes! i have passed so many of these field
lines in such and such a time, i must be travelling THIS fast...so i
should be experiencing such and such a force...."

I realize this is a sloppy way of saying it, but I still can't make a
logical link between an electron's motion relative to a magnetic field,
and the amount of force exerted on the electron.

The reason for this is the realization that while an electron may be
blithely oblivious to it's own velocity in a straight line, (that depends
on the observer), an acceleration , on the other hand is a very real,
measurable thing to the particle.

That leads me to the following conclusions-:

A magnetic field must somehow provide a frame of reference for a charged
particle.
Not only that, but the field/particle system must also be aware" of time,
because it can distinguish between fast motion and slow motion.

A magnetic field can move around in space. This seems at first thought to be
a pretty obvious statement, but.... WHAT is actaually moving? Has a magnetic
field got some fine internal structure, like the Classical lines of Force,
so that you can say: THIS bit of the magnetic field is now over HERE!

It's hard to put these concepts into words, but I hope
that you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.

PS I'm a programmer, not a physicist. (Face-saving admission).

Leo Freeman
Physics Dept.
Uviversity of Central Queensland,
Rockhampton, QLD, Australia.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:26:32 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec13.205221.10989@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
] In article <1992Dec11.230140.25299@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
] >In article <432@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
] 
] >|> [...]          Bell's result is disturbing. [...]
] >
] >Yep, it is.  It means that *something* about our fundamental concepts
] >is wrong.  It proves to have little to say about *what* is wrong.
] 
] I will say this just to annoy Paul for the millionth time, and more
] importantly to inform any neophyte lurkers....
] 
] Not everyone finds Bell's result disturbing.  Bell's inequality is
] derived in the framework of classical mechanics, so the fact that it is
] violated in the framework of quantum mechanics is just one of millions
] of ways in which quantum mechanics differs from classical mechanics.
] This is only disturbing if in some sense you still have classical
] intuitions about how the world works.  While people can take Bell's
] result in different ways (Giles' point), it seems to me the safest
] conclusion about "what fundamental concept is wrong" is that CLASSICAL
] MECHANICS IS WRONG.  This, of course, is no longer news.

It takes more than this to annoy me. We have an honest difference of opinion.
That is not annoying.

The important thing about Bell's result is the prediction of
*macroscopic* nonlocal effects.  How disturbing you find that is
a matter of judgement. I find it very disturbing. I plead guilty
to having some `classical intuitions'. I would call them philosophical
principles of science. Locality is among them. That is not to say that
I have any doubts about classical mechanics being false.

I do think physicists have been far to eager to abandon philosophical
principles of science before considering the possibility that there
mathematical models and not these principles may be incorrect.

Paul Budnik
From: fxt@helios.ucsc.edu (oxide owner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:18:11 GMT
Organization: UCO/Lick Observatory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.ucsc.edu

> From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
> This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
> for discussion of physics.

a yes vote from me. i agree with the fellow (sorry cant seem to find the
article) who made the suggestion that all submissions be posted in either
sci.physics.moderated, sci.physics, or alt.physics.new-theories.

>                                                         As long as an
> article is "serious" (I can't define it, but I know it when I see it)
> and is related to physics, I think that should be good enough.

yep. just enough knife's edge to stop the abian's, the hannu's, the snarfy's,
the dale versus blair (for example) flame fests, the mega group cross posters,
the verbage denoted to the relationship of religion and physics, and the qm 
and/or sr paradox specialists. 

fxt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: meyers@lorenz.ocean.fsu.edu (Steve Meyers)
Subject: Re: How does Scotty beam up? (WAS Re: Superman... (WAS Re: Batman...))
Organization: Florida State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 16:08:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.065616.10785@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU>  
dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
> 
> Now that we have explained how that Batman light works and that Superman
> propels himself with neutrinos, can somebody kindly explain how Scotty's
> transporter works?
> 
> Has anybody calculated the energy & bandwidth it would theoretically  
take to
> teleport a human body by a distance of 1 metre in 30 seconds?

How the devil should I know? I'm a doctor not an engineer!!!


-Steve
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:10:57 GMT

cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian) writes:

>I've seen pictures of Mars where the sky and ground were orange,
>and others with brown rocks and a blue sky.  What color is the
>sky on Mars? 

If I remember right, just on the famous first image there occured an error 
first, so that the sky of Mars appeared blue -- when corrected it was red.

There are Viking pictures with both sky colors red and blue, depending on
how many (red) dust is in the sky. If dust-free, the Martian sky appears
(quite dark) blue.  (Also according to my memory..)
--
 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 --
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec9.011426.5296@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com
(Mark Corscadden) writes:

>So the many worlds version does not deserve serious debate as a scientific
>theory.  Why is that, exactly?  Unfortunately I don't have the mathematical
>background to fully appreciate Hugh Everett's book on the topic but my
>gut instincts (which I trust but wouldn't offer to anyone else as evidence)
>tell me that Everett is dead on.

From what I gather, the major criticism of Everett's work concerns his
derivation of the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics (that
is, the interpretation of |Psi|^2 as a probability). What he shows (in
an interesting derivation) is that it is possible to give a measure on
entire histories of the universe, and that the set of histories in
which relative frequencies of events don't match the quantum
mechanical predictions have measure zero. This is an interesting
result, but somewhat circular, since his measure on histories has no
more justification than the quantum probabilities they are supposed to
explain.

The main virtue, in my mind, of Everett's work is that he shows that
it is almost completely unnecessary to consider the wave function
collapsing measurements that plague other interpretations. The major
mathematical effect of the hypothesized wave function collapse is to
change a superposition into a mixture; that is, to change, for
instance, from a situation described by 

     |Psi> = 3/5 |Psi_1> + 4/5 |Psi_2>

before a measurement to one described by:

     |Psi> = |Psi_1> (with probability 9/25)
     |Psi> = |Psi_2> (with probability 16/25)

after the measurement.

(The difference between these two descriptions is that elements of
a superposition may interfere, while elements of a mixture do not.)

Everett showed that the use of mixtures can be derived from the
assumption that there is a universal wave function describing both the
system and the observer. Therefore, it is not necessary to postulate
any special act of decoherence or wave function collapse to go from
superpositions to mixtures.

Everett's work is solid quantum mechanics, and is not dependent on any
particular interpretation of quantum mechanics, so it is not necessary
to "believe" in many-worlds or universal wave functions in order to
appreciate it.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Viscosity Calculation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:20:46 GMT

Suppose I have a solution of known viscosity into which has been suspended
some solid, spherical particles at a known concentration.  Is there any
way to calculate the viscosity of the resulting solution?

I've looked through my own physics text, and I've found a few examples
calculating the behavior of particle falling through a viscous medium,
but that's not quite the same.

Please email me with pointers, as I do not read this newsgroup.  Thanks
in advance!


-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.physics