HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: balbes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: strong force
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:46:33 EDT

In article <MATT.92Aug18173446@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.175554.18835@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu(Vincent Frisina) writes:
> 
>> Is there a mathematical force law for the strong force? If so, what is it?
>> If there is no exact formula, what's the closest we have from what's  
>> known? Thanks.
> 
> I'm afraid the answer is complicated.  It isn't just that we don't
> have an "exact formula," but that the physical situation is
> sufficiently messy that it wouldn't mean anything.
> 
> On one level, the "strong force" is the interaction between
> hadrons---e.g., protons, neutrons, pi mesons.  These interactions are
> very complicated, and can't just be reduced to a single function V(r).

[Very nice discussion on the strong force deleted]

If only the strong force had a nice, easily described form.  Sigh.
In fact, there are many people who make there living trying to
describe the strong force in terms that others can use.  There are
many different potentials out there which have been derived in different
ways.  Some people try to derive them from a theoretical standpoint,
others using a phenomenological approach (i.e. make a model with enough
parameters that you can fit the world's supply of data with.)  There
are four terms to the nuclear potental that are important (at least
at the tandem energies (~10 MeV) that I am used to working with).
They is a central potential which is attractive with a repulsive core,
a coulomb potential, a spin-orbit term, and a tensor force term.
In light nuclei the tensor force can be very important.  It is necessary
in order to have a bound n-p system (i.e. the deuteron).


One of the more famous potentials is the Bonn potential.  Since I haven't
worked with it, I don't have any references but reading about it may
help you understand the current state of the art.


				Mark Balbes
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: TANDY Representative Again Insults and Belittles Us
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:56:50 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <8400013@trsvax>, pauls@trsvax.tandy.com writes...
> 
>1) Ge.. I'm sorry all your ARROGANT non-engineers are so touchy. Maybe its
>the fact Gov. Bill might take your pork away in Texas.
> 
>2) My post wasn't an ad.
> 
>3) If I've done some unspeakable horrible tabu sensitive thing (apparantly
>scott chase has gone nuclear (pun!)) I'm sorry. See..I am used to posting
>into areas like rec.audio and rec.music.synth where 99% of the posts are
>"ads" just like mine was. ie hey this new synthesizer just came out, here
>are the specs, here is the price, check it out. That was my ONLY intention.

Wow.  If the quality of your reply reflects the quality of TANDY products, 
then your company is in big trouble.  Do your superiors know that you are 
posting this garbage as a de facto representative of TANDY?

When someone from TANDY posts an item which includes nothing but a description
of new a product made by TANDY, a price quote, and a tag that says something
like "Hey!  Look at this!  It's brand new!"  how can you say that it wasn't an
ad?  I can't imagine what an advertisement *is* if not what you posted. Would 
you care to elaborate on what you think it would have taken for your post to
have qualified as an advertisement in your mind?

If by "going nuclear" you mean that I bothered to complain that you were
in clear violation of the rules of USENET and that neither you nor your
company should profit thereby, then I accept that description of what I did.  

If you think that while calling us arrogant and making fun of our scientific
projects that you have actually apologized simply by saying "sorry sorry sorry"
a few times, then you need to get a life.

If I had really wanted to "go nuclear" I could have called your USENET
administrator and had your account yanked.  I could also have called for a 
more complete boycott of your company.  I never expected an apology or reply 
on your part.  The damage was done.  I figured I would let it drop after 
voicing my concern. 

-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: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Hope Me helped
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:51:30 GMT
Organization: National University of Singapore

Please excuse Roger CARASSO. He is usually MUCH better than this!
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Volume occupation (was Re: Vector Bosons?)
Date: 16 Aug 92 19:40:55 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug16.013415.3630@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes...
> 
>I countered that plain electrostatic interaction must come before that,
>making the following argument: forget about spin, and solve the good
>old Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom.  You get a nice
>non-collapsing ground state that occupies some space.  Add more
>electrons and protons, resolve and lo, the occupied volume grows.
> 
>Anyone cares to comment?

Sure.  I agree 100%.  Even without the exclusion principle, EM repulsion 
would keep your chair leg from passing through the floor - but chemistry 
would be so different that trees would not likely exist from which to 
make the table.

The exclusion principle comes into play, in the collapse of massive
stars, for example, only at the point where EM is neutralized by inverse
beta-decay driven by the massive pressure.  Then only neutrons are left,
at least in the core, supported only by the degeneracy pressure.  Before
that point, it is the electromagnetic repulsion of protons and electrons
which is responsible for the size of stars and their tendency not to 
collapse when cold.

-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: horan@hemlock05.cray.com (Rick Horan)
Subject: any equations that can help determine ice melting rate?
Originator: horan@hemlock05
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 20 Aug 92 10:23:35 CDT



hi,

i am looking for some type of equation that help me
determine the rate of ice melting. for example,

how long would it take 100 lbs of ice to melt if it's size is
square and at room temp of 78 degrees F. 

i am not a physicist,
i am merely a computer geek. a friend of mine called and asked
if i could find this out for a radio contest to give away a car (or something,
i don't remember what the prize is) to whoever can guess how long
it would take to melt a 300 lb ice cube.
 

thanx for any info you can give.
-- 
==============================================================================
Rick Horan
horan@hemlock.cray.com
612-683-5357
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: xie@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Yan-bo Xie)
Subject: Re: Entropy
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 03:24:15 GMT

From article <Aug.19.22.04.37.1992.17693@pilot.njin.net>, by jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green):
> 
> 
> The concept of entropy seems to have two geneses:
> 
> From the Carnot cycle via the concept of temperature
> 
> or
> 
> From the notion of the maximum in the number of possible states ie
> statistics.
> 
> But I don't recall any text's showing that these are equivalent
> derivations.  Can someone give me a reference or two????
> 
> Thanks,    Jim Green
> --
The best reference I would suggest about this is the
book by Rief(sp?) <<Statistical Physics>> in the
UCB course series. 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Name:  James M. Green                         )*(     
> Email: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net                (***)         "The Lord may be
> Smail: Stockton State College NAMS          )*(*)*(       subtle, but
>        Pomona, NJ  08240-9988              (* (*) *)           he is not mean."
> ICBM:  39.49333 N  74.53083 W               )*(*)*(               
> FAX:   609/652-4958                          (***)               A. Einstein
> Voice: 609/652-4558                           )*(     
> _______________________________________________|_______________________________
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jmack@surf.rice.edu (Jeffrey Mackey)
Subject: Re: exclusion
Organization: Physics
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:15:07 GMT

I'm not too certain of the nature of exclusion or the 'probabalistic
force' that separates electrons of the same spin. One would probably
do well to consult Pauli's papers. I do know that, although exchange
terms would appear to increase the total energy of the system, they
end up lowering the total energy by reducing the coulombic repulsion
between electrons of same spin by separating them (producing a 'Fermi
Hole'). Can it be said that the availability of a lower energy state
produces a force, in the same sense that the gradient of a potential
gives rise to a force?
-J
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: SARFATTI LECTURES ON SUPER PHYSICS #1
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:17:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug7.001821.7351@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>However, I feel much more comfortable believeing QM is wrong anyway, and
>that wave functions collapse at the speed of light rather than
>instantaneously.

Considering that the collapse must occur in the province of the pregeometry
out of which space-time is constructed, this seems to me to be a meaningless
distinction.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt	Preferred: doug@netcom.com   (or: doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 02:00:02 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world

I have some questions that people don't seem to be able to answer in 
sci.space.
 
Situation:  I need to place a casino 200 miles over Nevada with a 
tether below it for elevators.  I have access to 2026 AD technology.  
 
Questions:  What amount of power would the casino need to stay over 
one spot in Nevada?  What would be a good source of this power?  What 
should the tether be composed of?  What will be the weight capacity 
of the tether?  
 
                                                           Eric Klien
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: SU(5) GUT (was Re: Superbashing ...)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:09:58 GMT

In article <15AUG199200394835@zeus.tamu.edu> dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:

>From Collins,Martin,Squires "Particle Physics and Cosmology": "Fortunately,
>the successful prediction for m(bottom)/m(tau) is hardly changed [when
>SUSY is introduced]". It is actually made slightly worse. But this is
>hardly a decisive test of the models. [..]

Agreed.

[..]

>Non-SUSY SU(5) predicts 10^30 years.

>SUSY SU(5) predicts the same process to take 10^34 years. But there are
>other decay modes which bring tau_p down to around 10^32. Also I think
>the 10^32 experimental limit is mode dependent. I know that extra higgses
>or generations ruin the proton lifetime, so it must be getting close.

So we are in the situation that there's no experimental preference of
SUSY or non-SUSY SU(5). In addition, we canNOT say at the present stage if a 
supergroup of SU(5) should be employed (SUSY or not), or if a unification is 
present at all -- SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) as is may well be the starting point.
Ok, some evidence for a unification by the m(bottom)/m(tau), and the
coupling constant relation. Probably the SSC could improve our knowledge
in that area, giving at least some evidence for this or that theory.

--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: TOP-quark reactions and mass limit question
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:45:07 GMT


 Hi !

   I red just about mass limit of top quark in:

     Particle Data Group, 1992.
     Review of Particle Properties.
     Physical Review D, Volume 45, Part 2, 1 June 1992.

   There was said that t-quark mass > 91 GeV and this assumes that t quark
                                                    +
   would decay with 100% branching ratio as t -> b W  rather than to other
                         +
   modes such as t -> b H  . Whithout this assumption the mass limit is
     m > 55 GeV. Standard Model analyses of precision experiments on the
   the electroweak interactions suggest a mass between 110 and 190 GeV with
     m < 200 GeV at 95% CL.


   As an amateur physicist I would like to ask is any of the following
   reactions possible. ?
                  +
        t -> b + e  + nu_e

                   +
        t -> b + my + nu_my

                    +
        t -> b + tau + nu_tau

   And if these are possible, then would these affect the limit
   mentioned first ( > 91 GeV ). ?

                Hannu.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sea waves
Keywords: waves
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:28:52 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <25584@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <boudouvi.714144870@theseas>, boudouvi@ntua.gr (Andreas Boudouvis) writes...
>> 
>>A summer-time question:
>>Why the crests of sea waves are white (esop. when the waves 
>>break at the seashore?)
>
>Neat question.  The answer must be "turbulence."  Presumably, the turbulant 
>water on the crest scatters light without preference  to wavelength (at least
>in the visable), leading to white caps.  I am no expert on turbulence, but
>I believe that it is characterized by fluctuations on many length scales,
>which leads to the scattering of all wavelengths.  

     More likely just foam. 

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@euclid.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Volume occupation
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:52:42 GMT

In article <keXkdGi00aw=8OgEVs@andrew.cmu.edu> ag3l+@andrew.cmu.edu (Arun K. Gupta) writes:
>
>>From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
>>Subject: Re: Volume occupation (was Re: Vector Bosons?)
>>Date: 16 Aug 92 19:40:55 GMT
>>
>>In article <1992Aug16.013415.3630@cerberus.ulaval.ca>, yergeau@cornu.phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes...
>>>
>>>I countered that plain electrostatic interaction must come before that,
>>>making the following argument: forget about spin, and solve the good
>>>old Schrodinger equation for a hydrogen atom.  You get a nice
>>>non-collapsing ground state that occupies some space.  Add more
>>>electrons and protons, resolve and lo, the occupied volume grows.
>>>
>>>Anyone cares to comment?
>>
>>Sure.  I agree 100%.  Even without the exclusion principle, EM repulsion
>>would keep your chair leg from passing through the floor - but chemistry
>>would be so different that trees would not likely exist from which to
>>make the table.

>It is not at all clear to me that in a bosonic-electron system, the electrons
>will not all occupy one state, not very much larger than a few atomic orbitals
>in spatial extent, with the nuclei all very close to this very dense negatively
>charged cloud. That is bosonic electrons would very effectively screen the
>nuclear charge and this matter would be very much more dense than normal
>matter. Nor is it obvious that the volume of matter will be prop-
>oitional to the number of atoms.

Again, I seem to remember that the famous work of Dyson and Lieb on the
stability of matter (which has been continued by many people since)
implies that matter would not be at all stable if electrons were bosons.
Don't tell me I should actually look this stuff up again!  One can
always try Thirring's multivolume Course in Mathematical Physics.  My
unreliable memory indicates that Gupta is right: if electrons were
bosons the earth would be much much smaller than it is.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Origin of universe as quantum fluctuation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:44:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <ARI.HUTTUNEN.92Aug13023839@silver-surfer.hut.fi>, Ari.Huttunen@hut.fi (Ari Juhani Huttunen) writes...
>A religious person might claim that 'God' created the universe by
>creating the first big quantum fluctuation. This could have happened
>by hitting with a mighty hammer, for example. Sounds as good a solution
>as any other that I've heard. Certainly we will not be able to obtain
>any information about what happened before the 'big bang', if it
>indeed happened.

I just don't see why this needs to be true.  The unfortunate truth is that
we just don't know enough physics to say what happened early enough to answer
the question unambigously.  It seems entirely possible that you could
know what happened before the big bang.  The big bang need not have been
the result of a perfect mathematical singularity - information may have
been preserved.  

Interesting physics has always popped up in the past to save us from
singularities and other bizarre stuff.  I would say that there is a 
cutoff time before which the universe was dominated by processes we
know nothing about - yet.  So the question of what came before that time
is completely open.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: SU(5) GUT (was Re: Superbashing ...)
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:48:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: National University of Singapore

Dave, please tell us what happened to flipped SU[5]. [By the way, is
flipped SU[5] really U[5]?] What is the current position re SO[10] and
E6? Thanks. Brett McInnes.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@zermelo.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 21:29:01 GMT

In article <13AUG199218325029@zeus.tamu.edu> dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:
>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...

>>If this 1-cent bet is all you're up for, how much money would you be
>>willing to give me if they DON'T find strong evidence?  I'm sorry if I
>>seem so crass, but frankly a subscription to Playboy is not my idea of
>>"classy".  :-)  Feel free to propose anything.
>
>I agree to your $60. But to me $40 is an empty victory. I want the penny.

Sounds fine by me - $60 to one cent!  You're on!  (It's like stealing
candy from babies.)  (Unless you turn out to be right.)

So you seem to believe that SUSY is 6000 times more likely to be right
than wrong.  That's what I call confidence.  :-)

>>Then we will have to get some idea of what counts as 'strong evidence
>>for SUSY'.  Convergence of coupling constants alone does not cut it in
>>my opinion.  
>
>I trust you.

I am very trustworthy.

>Well... to be perfectly honest, I would _most_ enjoy needling you publicly
>if you refuse to pay! :)

No way, I'd prefer to pay.  

>See you in 2010 (or preferably before!)

Looking forward to the cash!  


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:39:23 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <64161@cup.portal.com>, Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
|> I have some questions that people don't seem to be able to answer in 
|> sci.space.
|>  
|> Situation:  I need to place a casino 200 miles over Nevada with a 
|> tether below it for elevators.  I have access to 2026 AD technology.  
|>  
|> Questions:  What amount of power would the casino need to stay over 
|> one spot in Nevada?  What would be a good source of this power?  What 
|> should the tether be composed of?  What will be the weight capacity 
|> of the tether?  
|>  
|>                                                            Eric Klien

Before looking at 200 mi,  it might be nice to look at some of the
simpler problems...

First, an orbit requires a certain speed for any one radius. 
Geosynchronous orbit is the radius at which the speed would take the
object around the earth once per day.  Now, orbits occur in a plane. 
So, if the orbit were as far north as Nevada, around 12 hrs later, it
would be the same distance south.  Now, if you wanted to come in from
geosynchronous orbit to 200 mi, the orbit would have to be much faster
in order to stay close to a circular orbit.  If you wanted to slow it
down, you'd have to supply the extra force necessary to keep the object
up.  You also need to supply enough force to keep the orbit in a plane
not through the center of gravity of the earth.  Then you have
perturbations that you'd need to worry about (moon + sun tides), but
they'd be relatively small.

I'd recommend trying to figure out the thrust you'd need.  I think it
could be a fun problem.

Dan

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: seove@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (ERIC OVERTON)
Subject: Free point energy??
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Aug 1992 15:54 EDT  


Free point energy?  New class of nuclear [unclear] reactions?
Alternative energy source?  What is it all about?

Inquiring minds want to GROW.

Thanks in advance.

Eric Overton
Newsgroups: sci.physics