HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Axiom of Physics
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:26:17
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: na
	<1992Aug26.193609.24313@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<mcirvin.714873508@husc8>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 23:58:28 GMT

In article <mcirvin.714873508@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:

> To speak of "axioms of physics" is to create the wrong impression
> that physics has one unified, unchanging theoretical edifice.  Axioms
> of specific theories, on the other hand, surely exist, though which
> theoretical facts are the axioms often depends on whom you talk to.

Somebody (Philip Morrison, perhaps?  It's the sort of thing that he
would do) once suggested a distinction between the Greek and the
Babylonian logical traditions.  The Greek tradition involved choosing
a set of fundamental axioms and then deducing their consequences;
while the Babylonian tradition involved a more complex set of logical
relations between statements, none of which are necessarily more
fundamental than any other.

The point, in any case, is that modern mathematics is very much a
continuation of the Greek tradition, but modern science is much more
akin to the Babylonian.  It is sometimes physically illuminating to
treat some statement as a fundamental postulate and some other
staement as a consequence of it, but *which* statement you choose as
the postulate depends on the specific understanding that you are
trying to achieve at the time.  For example: which of these two
statements is the postulate, and which is is the consequence?
	(1) Momentum is conserved.
	(2) The laws of nature are invariant under spatial translation.

I get a headache whenever I try to figure out whether F=ma is a
postulate, a definition (and is it a definition of "force," or of
"mass"?) an empirical observation, or some combination of the above.
Feynman (the Feynman Lectures, vol. 1) tried to answer that question,
but I don't think his answer was entirely satisfactory.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
From: johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition; was: Re: Are Your Light Bulbs Radioactive?
Date: 3 Sep 1992 16:27:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdlg10.sdd.hp.com

In article <5602@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu>, smorris@tweedledum.ucsb.edu (Stephen Morris) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.195524.25813@athena.cs.uga.edu>  
> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
> + All this talk about children ingesting smoke detectors points up one thing:
> + Much of the otherwise educated populace views radioactivity in a
> + superstitious way, with numinous awe, as if it were witchcraft.
> + 
> This is the topic of an excellent book; "Nuclear Fear" by Spencer Weart.  
> It is a resonable and balanced account of the history and phsychology of  
> radioactivity, nuclear power, the bomb etc.
> 
> Physicists who go off on "Oh people are so stupid ..." tirades about this 
> stuff are urged to read this book: it helps to bridge the gap and illuminate
> the historical causes of radioactivophobia.

  I haven't read the book but being a stupid layman I thought it time
  to speak up. I have a basic understanding of radioactivity, I'm not 
  alarmed about any sources that I'm likely to encounter, I have
  handled low level sources like tritiated thymidine during work on 
  dna characterization, and I think that the primary reason for fear
  is the history of official misinformation on the subject. How else
  could you get all of those troops to walk thru ground zero so soon
  after a detonation, or be so complacent during the Bikini tests ?
  I recall problems experienced by uranium miners, watch dial painters,
  people who drank radium water as an elixer, TMI of course, the cast
  of the 'Conqueror', what appears to be a rather intractable problem
  of radioactive waste disposal, and the mess at Hanford and other 
  facilities. I think we have done well protecting the public compared
  to what has happened in the former Soviet Union, but perhaps the toll  
  could have been less. 

  John Ongtooguk (johno@sdd.hp.com)
From: tk@ai.mit.edu (Tom Knight)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: quantization of angular momentum
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:25:17 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab

I'd like to understand the quantization of angular momentum better.
On the one hand, we are told that L is quantized, but we (naively)
recall that L = r x p, and note that neither the position nor the
momentum is quantized; presumably, the error or complexity lies in the
classical definition of the angular momentum, and if we had only
turned these into operators on the wave function "it would all be
clear."  Perhaps that's sufficient for some of you, but I'd like a
little better insight.  Maybe I'm just asking for insight into
something which is intrinsically not amenable to insight.  If so,
perhaps that will be some consolation.  Thanks.

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.science
From: kistler@iowave.physics.uiowa.edu
Subject: Low frequency death rays (was: The dangers in microwaved food)
Organization: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.165415.21655@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>,
 bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
> There's also some concern about electric & magnetic fields - the stuff
> you get from power lines, for instance.  I'm not sure if this is based on
> anything other than possibly spurious correlations, though.  I think there
> was some animal testing done or planned, but I'm not sure about the results.

This is all from the memory of a number of hysterical news reports
on TV a short time ago.  No, not Maury and Oprah, but Dan Rather, Peter
Jennings, Tom Brokaw kind of stuff (which may not be much better).

There were some studies on rats done a year or two ago that showed a
definite systemic impact from continual exposure to millihertz radio
waves.  The results were summarized some thing like "low frequency
waves can have a detrimental effect."  Then somebody figured,
"Hey.  60 Hz is pretty low, and it's everywhere.  My God, the power
companies are involved in a conspiracy to degrade the health of the
American populace just to make a buck."  Never mind that there are 4
orders of magnitude between 10E-3 Hz and 60 Hz.  I even remember that
some folks were planning on suing their local power company because
the neighborhood power cable ran by their house outside the window of
their son who had developed leukemia or something.

Well, realistically, slow variations in power line currents could produce
a component in the millihertz range, but millihertz waves don't travel
very far before they're attenuated into noise (like less than 1 cm or so).
Waves generated from current levels in electric blankets and toaster ovens
don't even make it through the insulation.

Allen Kistler
kistler@iowave.physics.uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Axiom of Physics
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:35:22 GMT

In article <13519.2a9ca679@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> balbes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>In article <25781@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>> 
>> Eventually, one hopes that all axioms undergo direct experimental test,
>> verifying the fundmental assumptions of the theory by direct confrontation
>> with reality.  At that point, I suppose they loose their status as axioms
>> and become experimental facts.
>
>I'm not sure I would call something that is tested indirectly an 
>experimental fact.  I would call an experimental fact something that
>has been measured directly but cannot be calculated exactly, say, like
>the mass of the proton or electron.  
>
>Something that is indirectly tested, such as the constancy (hey, if
>FDR was allowed to use "normalcy") of the speed of light is experimentally
>verified only to the limits of our ability to test it.  Just like
>Newton's laws, relativity might be overturned at any time by one
>contradicting (and compelling) experiment.  If I think of one I'll 
>get back to you.

     In what way is the testing of the mass of an electron or a 
     proton more 'direct' than the verification of lightspeed?

     Why do you feel that the same experimental limits that apply
     to light do not also apply to the properties of electrons?  

                                 dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Radar Invisibility
Keywords: Swirls Sux Flux
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:23:30 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.

bramsey@massive.its.bldrdoc.gov (Bradley J. Ramsey) writes:

>Stranger still, I have seen this same effect transform DC current (ZERO Hz
>in frequency) to output in the infrared spectrum.  Which order term can
>do that ????  

Easy, heat something with DC current, and it will radiate in the IR.
Of course, this is not effective if you want only one frequency.

******************************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *         u\  _\       /e+        2 * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *     1 |   \ u \  X  /         |   * 
******************************** P = - |    >   >---<     + ...|   * 
*     The only nature of       *     N |   /   /     \         |   * 
*     reality is physics       *         u/   /d     u\            *
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.environment,misc.consumers
From: danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth)
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:49:04 GMT

In <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com> epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) writes:

>The title says it all

That's what I've been wondering.  Is the network really functioning 
correctly?
===
D. Danforth
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: The human body as a detector for Brightsen-Mallove
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:44:10 GMT

The notion that GeV 3He particles will escape undetected is so far
out I can't resist ranting on a bit more.  First of all the arguement
by analogy to cosmic rays is totally off base.  The nucleon component
of cosmic rays interacts far up in the earths atmosphere such that
all that reaches us (Thank goodness for small favors!) are secondary
reaction products, mostly muons, which are puny little things compared
to a 3He with a GeV of kinetic energy.  Even though the range of
3He is larger than the dimensions of a typical calorimeter, these
things will interact in a big way with any substantial chunk of matter
such as concrete.  Lets say you had 10^5 3He at a Gev moving upward
from a basement lab a stricking the overhead concrete.  The result
would be a flux of 10^5 neutrons, also at GeV energies radiating
people upstairs.  For reference purposes, a flux of 1 neutron per
cm^2 per second, is the order of magnitude of what is "allowed".
Maybe the cold fusion experimenters would be too dim to notice
anything happening, but their near neighbors might begin to notice
some strange effects.

Dick Blue 
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Various
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:33:20 GMT

To Frank Smith:

I continue to be very confused about the gas situation.  Remember, I have
back filled with D2 and there is a catalyst.  When I reverse the cell, I 
expect D2 and O2 to come off in the 2/1 ratio and proportional to the 
current.  I also expect out-diffusion of D2 from the cathode.  To my simple
way of looking at things, the electrolytic 2/1 D2 and O2 simply re-combine 
in the catalyst.  This leaves the out-diffused D2 as a net gain in gas 
volume.  

The idea of an empty cell at run start is to make absolutely sure that there
is no chemistry going on.  Sure there is a small thermal transient if the 
electrolyte fill is not at the same temperature as the inside of the 
calorimeter when it is added, but this can be computed and checked.  Remember,
I keep track of integral joules, so this is not hard.  The calorimeter is
not affected by putting things in it. (at least to first order - that is the
whole idea of its design).

To Mike Jamison:

Note that I am not using a radiation detector, but a source.  Presently a 
2 micro-curie 60Co source.  We are shining the source on the cell and noting
the power level with the source on and off.

When the time comes, and I think there is something to see, I will build a 
proportional chamber to look at what might be there.  That is something I 
know how to do.

To Kent Jones:

Many people have weighed cathodes.  Storms at Los Alamos has published an
extensive study on this subject.  But I know that sometimes the cathodes 
outgass very quickly, so a lot of gas can be lost on the weigh to the scale.  
Sometimes the cathods hold on to the gas.  Very mysterious.  One more thing 
to study if "anomalous heat" does not work out.  

The source is not inserted into the cell but put up against the wall of a 
dewar which contains the cell.  Both have about the same thermal capacity - 
close estimate is 1 cc of H2O.  If all the possible heat from handling some
how made it into the dewar, then is would be at most a few joules.  The 
measurements are typically hundreds of joules.  But most of the heat would not
so I would put an upper limit of this kind of error at 0.1 joule.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Subject: Re: Imploding Pd pellet
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 19:50:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Pd pellet?  how about U233?


re m. # 4163,  An ICF process based on compression of small pellets
made of U233 and D, or DT might work--if the pellets are constructed
as small reactors, the densities already reached should be enough to
allow the critical mass to be less than milligrams, with the D acting
first as a moderator, then fusion fuel....
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
From: kjones@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu (Kent Jones - EECS)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Silly Questions From A Reader...
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:30:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: serval.1992Aug25.223030.22317
Organization: Washington State University!

I also have a couple (possibly stupid) questions to ask. It seems that there 
has been some concern about gas absorption/emission. Has anyone *weighed* 
the cells on a continuing basis to see if gas is escaping the system? 

Also, how is the temperature of the radiation source, and the dummy source
controlled so that it does not affect the energy of the cell when it is 
inserted?

Stupid questions I am sure, but I am still curious.

Kent Jones
From: rrichter@link.ph.gmr.com (Roy Richter PH/32)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Where did everybody go?
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:28:34 GMT
Organization: GM Research and Environmental Staff

In article <1992Sep2.184457.17530@adobe.com>, epperson@adobe.com (Mark Epperson) writes:
|> Where did everybody go?

I think their cells actually started firing up according to the known natural
laws, and radiation poisoning set in.

--
Roy Richter                  Internet: rrichter@ph.gmr.com
Physics Dept, GM Research    UUCP:     rphroy!rrichter
        and Environmental
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: Untruthes about GeV Particles
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:43:55 GMT

Jed Rothwell, as spokesman for the Brightsen-Mallove theory, has made
the assertion that 3He particles at multiGeV particles would not be
detected with the kinds of detection equipment that has been employed
around cold fusion experiments.  This is NOT TRUE!  To make the issue
clear cut we need a firm estimate of the flux that is supposed to have
gone undetected for lo these many years.  Information contained in
Tom Droege's note on this question leads me to an estimate of something
like 10^10 reactions per second for each watt of output.  Feel free to
revise this by several orders of magnitude as it won't effect what I
have to say.  Very energetic charged particles loose energy through
two processes, collisions with atomic electrons and nuclear collisions.
For more ordinary energies in the MeV range the atomic collisions
dominate, but the rate of slowing decreases with increasing energy so
the signal in a detector gets smaller.  That is the effect B-M-R are
counting on, but there is a clinker in their arguement.  The nuclear
collisions become relatively more significant, and believe me you
don't hide what happens when you have a nuclear collision at GeV
energies.  This is what we study here at the National Superconducting
Cyclotron Lab, in case you wondered what NSCL refers to.  Just to
mention one possible way the slow down of the "cosmic-ray-like
particles" make themselves know.  They produce a cascade of high-energy
neutrons.  We detect those suckers by putting up a block of ordinary
aluminum which in an hour at the kind of fluxes we have here will be
very radioactive such that any simple gamma detector could sense it.
'Nuff said?

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Detectors
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:13:34 GMT

In article <920826132615.20202e47@FNALD.FNAL.GOV> ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE  
writes:
> Barry Wise asks about point 8.  As noted at the time, Jennifer turned on the
> heat between point 7 and point 8.  That is she activated the controll that 
> caused the furnace to perform a heating cycle.

Yes I recognized that possibility based upon your discussion. But the real  
question I had was why the same anomaly happened after about the same length of  
running time (~1 week) in the first (pseudo Ying) run. I wouldn't have  
mentioned it if I'd only seen the one occurence.  As I said, it could well be  
an environmental effect due to the weekly activities going on in your house,  
but it seemed awfully suspicious to me (without having all the facts) that it  
would repeat the same way if it was a random event. Did Jennifer turn on the  
heat at point ten in the first run? 

If someone has the data from the PF or Takahashi runs is there a jump at about  
1 week into the run?

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Re: Nucleon Cluster Model, Nature 20 Aug
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 20:05:19 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Looks like 100% of those contacted, if I read correctly,
deny affiliation. Looks therefore also like Mr. Rothwell
is following in the CF = good PR footsteps of some other
well-known names.

I expect Mr. Rothwell realises his duty to the net.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant | Free Tibet                                      |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Detectors
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:57:32 GMT

Barry Wise asks about point 8.  As noted at the time, Jennifer turned on the
heat between point 7 and point 8.  That is she activated the controll that 
caused the furnace to perform a heating cycle.  The weather has been strange.
Jennifer turns on the heat more often, but it does not seem to affect the 
calorimeter.  It just may not be possible to calibrate out the environment in
a way that produces believeable data.  We will try.

Jed Rothwell says look for GEV level particles.  Then he goes on to say:

"Others have suggested that said GEV particles might easily be detected, or 
that they might cause obvious environmental damage, or other effects.  I have
talked to a number of high energy particle physicists and they say this is 
not the case."

Who did you talk to Jed?  Even money I know them, but more likely they know 
me if they are in high energy particle detection business.  But I think you 
really got it completely wrong.  Almost every known high energy physics 
detector will detect GEV level alpha particles.  Note that Kamiokande surly
detects such particles - but you are correct in saying that "even the 
Kamiokande CF experiment was not set up to detect such particles."  They vetoe
them out, that's why.  But they would only have to look at their vetoe rate
to detect them (but I am not an expert on the Kamiokande set up - it could 
be that it is hard to get at the right signal).

Just to rub it in, I include a list of detectors you could use.  Apologies to
anyone's favorite detector that I have left out.  The ? indicate it might be
hard, and the * indicate that I am willing to call myself an expert on the 
detector type.

Chrenkof detectors using photomultipliers or micro-channel plates.
Gas Proportional Chambers
*Magnetostrictive Spark Chambers
Narrow Gap Spark Chambers
Wide Gap Spark Chambers
*Liquid Argon Detectors
Liquid Xenon Detectors
Plastic Scintillator with photomultiplier detection
?Plastic Scintillator with PIN Diode read out
Bubble Chambers
Ge Surface Barrier Detectors
Si Strip Detectors
NaI Scintillation Detectors
?CCD Arrays
?Ionization Chambers (may need high rate)
Geiger Counters
*Flash Tubes
Drift Chambers

One more "exotic" detector that even a computer programmer might know about 
is the computer memory chip.  They are sensitive to alpha particles and must
be made of low radiation emitters to prevent bit changes from alphas coming 
to rest at just the right spot in the chip.  So Jed, if you notice while 
running your experiment that your computer "dies" with a parity error, you 
might have your "proof".

I would sure like to know what "high energy particle physicsts" you talked to
that said detecting GEV alphas was hard!

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich)
Subject: Re: Mindlessness for the Day
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 22:43:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Keywords: sonoluminescence

In article <1992Aug26.231725.28591@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     As far as the heat being only a small part of what's there, I 
>     have no idea what else you could be talking about in the context
>     of 'anomalous events in metal-hydrides'.  It seems to me that heat
>     is all there is.
>
Uh, lately there has been the thread about GeV gammas hoping about.
And although there have been several experiments that carefully looked
for radiation, there were several p[osts about people not being
able to find that sort of radiation. GeV gammas aren't going to
appear all by themselves. There would be all sorts of stuff
flying about and most of it would be detectable if by no other
means then by the 'canary effect'. :-)

As to heat -- it is a matter of debate whether there is any heast
at all. :-)


Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion