HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: George Brown (was It's Down to the Last Blank Check)
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:15:21 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <mcirvin.716139378@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:


>> I sort of agree, sort
>>of disagree, etc. etc. etc..  I just wanted to pass this one
>>on without endorsing this fellow's opinions.  Since he's in power his
>>opinions matter.

>Some parts of the letter seemed odd to me.  It seems like between the lines 
>what he's proposing is essentially the cessation of most scientific
>research, and the establishment of some means of requiring that proposed
>research explicitly work toward his stated goals for humanity...

For those really interested in Congressman Brown's views (and we all
should be since he has a *lot* of say in science funding) Try the
Feb 92 edition of _Physics Today_, p38ff.  Brown participated in a
roundtable sponsored by that magazine, which roundtable is therein 
reported.  An interesting article in its own right.

Of course we can also compare his comments speaking to scientists
with what he told the general public in the letter in question.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: Why do protons outnumber antiprotons?
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:18:46 GMT


In article <mcirvin.715995960@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu
(Mcirvin) writes:
> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>
>>I wish to observe that this discussion quickly abandoned the question so
>>clearly stated in its title. It seems to me that result is commoner than usual
>>in response to this particular question. Could it be that ignorance on this
>>subject is as profound as I have always suspected it is?
>
> I think Scott Chase's summary and the corrections thereto pretty much
> summed up the knowledge/ignorance of humanity on the subject.  Either
> it's the result of weird initial conditions, or it might be the result
> of Sakharov's conditions being met, with baryon number nonconservation
> coming either from GUT couplings or from the anomalous term in the
> electroweak lagrangian.  As to which (if any) alternative to pick,
> ignorance is indeed profound, but there at least exist possibilities
> that aren't radically at variance with known physics.
>
> This being stated, the thread digressed massively into the virtues of
> hole theory.
>
> --
> Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

   If we have two parallel universes in time (few nanoseconds difference), one
 of which is contracting and one is expanding (this picture holds for combined
 universe of these two universes at the moment).
   Masses for base particles are only due to contraction resistance in first
 universe and masses are only due to expansion resistance in second universe.
 In first universe base particles have all negative masses (this is due to
 reversion time's direction, which gives negative value to expansion
 resistance) and in second base particles have all positive masses (this is
 due to expansion resistance to positive time's direction).
   Number of negative mass protons in first universe is equal to number of
 positive mass protons in second universe. This holds true also for all other
 base particles. And for example we have proton and antiproton which have both
 positive mass in second universe and we have proton and antiproton which have
 both negative mass in first universe (absolute values of masses in first
 universe are bigger than in second, this is due to contraction resistance,
 which is increased due to the heavy mass (about 10 exp 50 kg) in center of
 the whole space (both universes have the same center point, which is also
 time's starting point).

           Hannu.

 Reference:

 Poropudas, H. K. J., 1992.
 Structure of Time.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.034627.3965@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>Today we all firmly believe that mathematics is a human activity.

Include me out.  I'm a genuine, hard core, ostrakon carrying Platonist,
and I believe the entities discovered by mathematicians have a real
existence.

Humans my make crop circles, but the Mandelbrot Set is an artifact
from the hand of a rather better watchmaker.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: neutrinos & anti-neutrinos
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:47:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: global
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Summary: A question
Keywords: neutrino, antineutrino,anti-neutrino
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <26186@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes...
>In article <1992Sep9.191031.17922@ucselx.sdsu.edu>, maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene) writes...
>>Could someone please tell me what the annihilation products
>>of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are?  I'd appreciate it ever-so-much.
> 
>It depends entirely on the energy of the particles (in the center-of-momentum 
>frame) when they collide.  At low energy, it's only photons, because there 
>is not enough energy to produce anything else (i.e, anything with mass).
>At higher energy,  there are many possibilities.

At low energies, add other neutrino-antineutrino pairs of all flavors, 
assuming that all neutrinos are massless.

-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
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gapdrr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Daniel R T Rothman)
Subject: FTL - "experimental"
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:28:51 GMT

do i, or do i not keep hearing the words "experimentally verifiable" in 
reference to the causality-violating, FTL communicating schemes that
are floating?

WHY DOESN'T SOMEONE BUILD THE DAMN THING AND FIND OUT?!?!

sorry - it's just that no one has proposed any particularly ambitious
pieces of hardware for this, and i don't see and particular difficulties
in testing once one is built. So please, if you've got a gadget, BUILD IT!

daniel
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ritley@uimrl.mrl.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: NUCLEAR BOMBS IN SPACE
Reply-To: ritley@uimrl.mrl.uiuc.edu ()
Organization: Materials Research Lab
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:12:37 GMT


I suppose this concerns the 'physics' of nuclear weapons....

What would a nuclear bomb look like if it were exploded in space?
Would there be a single, point-like flash?  Any ideas how long it
might last?  Any predictions as to how long it might last, based on
simple assumptions about a bomb?

Just a curious question, not a homework problem.
From: greenie@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: IDS World Network looking for Teachers
Date: 14 Sep 92 05:05:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: drycas.1992Sep14.100528.2041
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

The IDS World Network is a "BBS" of sorts, a messages center, that is available
through the Internet.  We are currently seeking Teachers and Educators around
the world to join in our online message forums and communicate with other
teachers.  We're looking for new and innovative ideas for using the Internet in
the classroom.

If you have access to the Internet TELNET facility and would like to
participate, please TELNET to ids.net [155.212.1.2] and sign on as a GUEST and
apply for an account.  Once you get online, stop by SIG 9 (SIG = Special
Interest Group) and say hello.  We'd all be interested in hearing from you.
We already have quite a few Teachers from the local RI area and some other
users from the educational arena (including hospitals, libraries, etc).  We'd
appreciate your input.

(If you'd like to reach the IDS World Network via modem/dialup, call (401)
884-9002 with your modem).
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: AT WHAT HEIGHT IS GRAVITY PERCEPTIBLE?
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:56:45

In article <BuL1qx.CDz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ritley@uimrl7.mrl.uiuc.edu () writes:
   Given most humans' average athletic ability, musculature, metabolism,
   etc. etc. --- at what altitude will a deviation in gravity from sea level
   become perceptible (to someone)?  Any comments?

Well, let's assume I can detect a 10% difference in my weight, just by feel.
To achieve that, I must vary my altitude (over the ctr of the earth) by
sqrt(1.10) = 1.049, ie 5%.  Earth is roughly 1e7 meters in diameter, so 
that'd be a change in altitude of 5e5 meters, or 500 kilometers!  

In short, [to rehash an old chestnut, not to mention mixing a metaphor],
the Shuttle astronauts are essentially in a 1g field -- they're falling as
fast as you would, if you jumped off a cliff.  They're just moving 
sideways SO FAST that they get around the curve of the earth before they
hit!

On the other hand, I recall hearing that many long-jump, high-jump, and
sprint time records are set at high altitude, due to the measurable effects
of thinner air (so less resistance) on those relatively anaerobic athletic
events!


--
zowie@banneker.stanford.edu  "Tell your senator to fund the MSSTA program!"

 The world would be much better if more physicists read Strunk and White, 
 and if more fuzzies read Tipler.   *Everyone* should read and understand
 at least one economics text.  No exceptions.       -- zowie
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: BAROMETERS (was Re: Subject?)
Date: 8 Sep 92 02:17:49 GMT
 <Sep03.024357.54232@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> <1992Sep6.114724.7327@news.Hawaii.Edu> <Bu839s.5uu@nntp-sc.Intel.COM>
Distribution: na

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:

>Which begs the question:  How tall was Torr?

That's Torricelli.
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:41:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.220940.4850@infodev.cam.ac.uk> gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.045114.17931@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>
>>was impressive given Koenig's very high reputation.)  A month later
>>Zermelo was able to prove Cantor's continuum hypothesis assuming the
>>Axiom of Choice, but despite the further uproar Zermelo's result
>>produced, the eventual upshot was more to call AC into question than to
>>resolve the continuum hypothesis.
>
>Are you sure about this? I mean, you don't say his proof was wrong or
>anything, but I'm completely certain that not(CH) is consistent with AC.
>In fact I can prove it. So errrm, do you mean that Zermelo was able to
>think (wrongly) that he had proved CH using AC? or are we talking about
>a radically different set theory to the one I'm thinking of? or what?

Sorry about that.  When you put a monkey at the keyboard you're more
likely to get Usenet messages than Shakespeare.  Replace the last two
instances of "continuum hypothesis" in my paragraph by "every set is
well-ordered" (which later was shown to be equivalent to AC, leaving AC
as the preferred representative of this and a number of other
equivalent statements).

-- 
======================================================| God found the positive
Vaughan Pratt   pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU   415-494-2545  | integers, zero was
======================================================| there when He arrived.
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: quantization of angular momentum
Date: 5 Sep 1992 00:06:00 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

tk@ai.mit.edu (Tom Knight) writes...
>   the main thing to note is the position and momentum do not commute, so
>   the ordinary rules do not apply!
> 
>Ordinary rules, as in the definition of L as being r x p, or do you
>have in mind some other rules?

The point is, if they don't commute, then they can't have simultaneous 
eigenstates. You can have a state with any given r, or any given p (continuous
spectra), but this does _not_ imply that there are states with any given L.
I don't think you can prove that the L spectrum is _discrete_ with this
argument, but you _definitely_ can't prove continuity.

If I've misunderstood the question, please ignore this post.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 01:18:08 GMT
Organization: Physics department, U.C. Berkeley.
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

In article <Sep.14.17.21.17.1992.29178@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>Anyway, I
>don't think any of the cosmologists or astronomers who work on this
>think \Omega can be greater than 1.  That is, minimal hypothesizing
>gives not enough baryonic matter to "close the universe," there might
>be other dark matter; many people want just enough, i.e. \Omega = 1,
>so that we can have inflation, but that's already stretching.  And if
>\Omega = 1, the universe expands asymptotically, i.e. the turnaround
>time is at infinity.
>
>The universe will expand forever, you heard it here first (not in the
>Physical Review newspaper).

I don't quite agree.  Inflation does not provide an answer to the
question of whether the Universe will continue to expand forever.
There's a common misconception around that 
inflation requires Omega to be exactly 1.  In that case, the Universe
would be perfectly flat on large scales, and it would continue
to expand forever, as you say.  However, if you look into things
a little bit more closely, all inflation says is that Omega should be
very very close to 1.  (The argument actually says that during the
inflationary period, Omega(t) approaches 1 very rapidly from whatever
its initial value was.)  So if inflation is right, it's perfectly 
possible that Omega is 0.9999999....99999, or that it's
1.000000000000....00001.  In the first case, the Universe will 
expand forever, while in the second case it will eventually recollapse
(although not for an extremely long time).

Of course, it's probably not feasible to distinguish between these
two cases, since they look virtually identical on any scale we can
observe.  So rather than answering the question of whether the Universe
will expand forever, inflation simply pushes it outside the realm
of observationally testable questions.  Kind of sad, isn't it?

Fortunately, inflation's probably wrong anyway.   (IMHO, of course.)

-Ted
From: mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Mike Ciaraldi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: BAROMETERS (was Re: Subject?)
Date: 10 Sep 92 03:11:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <10569@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
>>> 5) As above, but swing the barometer in pendulum fashion.
>>
>>Disallowed: no rope (but very slick; I didn't think of this one)
>
>You can use your belt, especially if you use a rope for a belt that day. 
>
>What went unsaid here is that you use the pendulum period to determine 
>the difference in gravity at the top and bottom of the building and 
>deduce its height. 
>

Actually, you can use the pendulum method without a ruler
if you have a long enough rope.  Lower the barometer out the
window until it just clears the ground.  Set it swinging and
measure the period of oscillation.  You can derive the length of the rope
from the period.

I don't know if the barometer question was ever specifically asked on
a test, but it was going around when I was a freshman at Cornell
in 1969.

However, I did take an E&M (Electricity & Magnetism) final
that included the question "Why is the sky blue?"

Obligatory sex:

One more technique: Take the rope you would have used for the pendulum.
Tie the building superintendent to the handrail in the stairway,
then (depending on your mutual preferences) tickle and/or stimulate
him or her until you find out the height of the building.

Mike Ciaraldi
University of Rochester
(Cornell Physics '73)
mcia@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Subject: Re: Axiom of Physics
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 14:27:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.174922.6115@pellns.alleg.edu>, frisinv@alleg.edu writes:
|> A friend and I have a small disagreement about the existance of an axiom  
|> of physics. She claims that all assumptions in physics are made from  
|> empirical evidence and therefore there are no axioms in physics. I  
|> maintain that the conservation of mass/energy is an axiom. Here is my  
|> argument: an axiom must be based on evidence. Euclid didn't just say  
|> parallel lines don't intersect, he saw evidence that they didn't and then  
|> stated the postulate. We have seen that energy and mass seem to be  
|> conserved. There is very strong evidence that they are conserved but (to  
|> my limited knowlege) there is no proof that they are conserved in all  
|> cases. Thererfore, conservation of mass/energy is an axiom of physics. Can  
|> anyone think of other axioms of physics?
|> -----
|> Vince

Easy. The assumption that all observers in all places see the same
laws of physics. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. 

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LIFE? A BOOK BY SCHRODINGER!!!
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:36:07 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Sep5.154913.42807@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> christos@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Hello there,
>
>was by Andrew Schrodinger. 
>
>	In that article there was a brief summary about the author(Schrodinger)
>and it mentioned that Schrodinger has written a book with a title: "What is
>Life?". 

Wrong Schrodinger. Erwin Schrodinger (one of the founders of quantum theory)
wrote a charming (but slightly dated now) book called _What is Life?_. It
is presently available as a "Cantos" book which is from Cambridge University
Press.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:39:06 GMT

Kenneth Tolman writes:
> How old is the universe is [sic] seconds? 

Most estimates put the age of the universe at 10 - 15 billion years,
or about 3.1x10^17 to 4.7x10^17 seconds

> How much time is left before it crunches back together?

Nobody knows if the universe will ever collapse; the jury is still
out on whether there is enough mass in the universe to cause
"closure".  Stay tuned.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Hidden variable theories, was: Uncertainty Princi
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:36:37 GMT

In article <267@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
|> [...]
|> This is false. The Shannon definition of information is that it allows one
|> to select a limited number of alternatives from a wider range of
|> possibilities. [...]

It is not information either in Shannon's sense or anyone else's.  It 
_would_ be information if it permitted something known only at the other
end to be *transmitted* to us.  The possibilities locally are "a particle
is detected" or "a particle is not detected".  The same possibilities exist
at the distant end.  How does our local observation allow us to determine
the distant result?  The widest range is "detection/non-detection", so is
`limited' range *after* the local observation is made.  In other words,
you haven't narrowed the possibilities at all.

|> [...]
|> > Also only the hidden variables theory has to
|> > give up causality; e.g. quantum electrodynamics strictly respects
|> > causality.
|> 
|> You are dead wrong again. In a test of Bell's inequality manipulating a
|> local polarizer must instantaneously *affect* what happens at a remote
|> location. [...]

There is no such Effect.  A local observer cannot tell whether the distant
polarizer is being manipulated or not - or vice versa.  The only thing you
can say is that _after_ the fact, the aggregate results of many trials of
the experiment will obey a certain correlation.  Anything else you say 
(about waveforms, many worlds, faster than light hidden variables, etc.) 
are *models*, not facts.  The EPR experiments are the subject of much 
controversy because there are no *testable* models which fit the facts 
(none yet proposed anyway).

|> [...]
|> The alternatives we face are a local incomplete theory or a nonlocal
|> quasi-mystical (quantum collapse is caused by a conscious observer)
|> complete theory. I see no reason to prefer the existing
|> collapse postulate. On two occasions I have challenged the readers
|> of this newsgroup to come up with an *objective* reason for preferring the
|> nonlocal theory and none has been forthcoming.

I agree with you about the undesirability of mystical solutions.  But,
at present, there is no *objective* reason for preferring *any* model
that has been proposed.  The wise thing to do is reserve judgement and
to state only those facts which are observable: that there's a correlation
and that it takes such-and-such a form.  In any case, the phenonenon, whatever
its cause, is certainly not caused by conscious observers - but by physical
interaction of the particles with the polarizers/detectors.

-- 
J. Giles
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question of Theory of Everything (or Grand Unified theory)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:22:56 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))

In article <1992Sep8.023027.15883@nuscc.nus.sg>, matmcinn@nuscc (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>Now: is it not truly astounding that the complexity of the universe
>is so precisely calibrated to the intelligence of homo sapiens?

I think Einstein had a famous quotation on just this point.  Something
about the most incomprehensible thing about the universe being that it
is comprehensible.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics