HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: frenkel@stcst1.mrl.uiuc.edu (David Frenkel)
Subject: Re: Why I don't use regular journals.
Organization: Dept of Physics, Univ of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:58:52 GMT

In article <By76Bs.6vz@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>Several people have asked why I don't publish in regular journals.
>I have one 22 page paper on this faster than light stuff in a peer
>reviewd journal called Physics Essays ...
>They billed me over a $1100.00 in page charges ...
>So no more elitist cracks or pot shots about regular journals - we
>homeless hobos can't afford them ...

   There are plenty of European Journals which do not have page charges.
   "Nuclear Physics", the most popular particle physics and field
   theory journal does not have page charges, so far as I know.
   Neither do "Modern Physics A" or "Modern Physics B", journals
   published by World Scientific (I believe).
   I think "Journal of Physics" (British) has no page charges.

   So, this is no excuse.
-- 
David Frenkel                        | e-mail:   frenkel@stcst1.mrl.uiuc.edu 
Department of Physics,               | 
University of Illinois at            |
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA    |
Xref: sparky sci.physics:19477 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2393
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:48:02 EST
From: <MRG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Quantum paradox? Local Hamiltonian dynamics contradicts linear ope

In article <By58u2.96p@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
says:
>
>Sarfatti Lectures in Super Physics (Lecture 4)
>
>A paradox in standard quantum mechanics?
>
>Suppose we have a coherent superposition
>
>|i> = |1><1|i> + |2><2|i>
>
><1|2> = 0
>
><1|1> = <2|2> = <i|i> = 1
>
>but suppose |1> and |2> have no common support in x-space. Thus, whenever
><x|1> not zero <x|2> is zero and vice versa. For example the e and o beams
>from a calcite doubly refracting crystal.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is very bad linear algebra, equivalent to saying whenever a vector
in two dimensions has a non-zero x component, its y component must be
zero.

Whenever |<x|1>| is not 1 |<x|2>| is not zero, and whenever |<x|1>| is 1
then |<x|2>| is zero.  but the statement above is absolutely wrong
-mike gallis
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA    ABIAN replies to  INDRA
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Reply to INDRA  11-14-92
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:30:56 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <abian.721770451@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>
>   Indra, please go to the nearest University, go to the Physics Department
>find the most "prominent" physicist there and ask him/her:
>
>    " WHY , say, TWO NEGATIVE ELECTRICAL CHARGES  REPEL "
>
>My guess is that his/her answer will be  "It is a principle , we do not ask
>why we use Coulomb's law to quantify the repelling force"
>
>   Indra, my answer is  "According to (A1), the space tends to maintain
>the status quo of its electrical neutrality and opposes a further concentr-
>ation of negative charges, and repels them.  However, if we overpower the 
>space we may crush  spaces' opposition", and a new Status Quo is created.
>   

Indra, the real answer is that this is caused by the electromagnetic
force which has been understood for literally centuries.  This
may sound like mere posturing, (I can even hear Mr. Abian now,
"you don't understand it so you call it electromagnetism"),
but electromagnetism was proved in the 1920s by a man whose
name begins with K that temporarily escapes me to actually be gravity
operating in 5 dimensions.

Let me put that another way.  Gravity (relativistically speaking)
is a distortion of the space-time continuum.  If you extend that
continuum to 5 dimensions, you get electromagnetism, which
causes the two negative charges to repel.  There is no need to
resort to these Status Quos and Provokers and Provokees which
are unclear, undefined, un-backed-up by mathematics, unpredictive,
unscientific, and (I must admit) rapidly becoming more and more
uninteresting.

I'm sorry if the science in this post is muddled. If you like,
I will email you with a better description, or perhaps someone
with more knowledge and better communication skills will oblige
us with a translation.

	Jason (not the Jason that asked for Abian's credentials
		but an incredible simulation)
From: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: UFO EVIDENCE VS. Carl Sagan
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:37:36 GMT
 <1992Nov18.225022.8696@sfu.ca>,<1992Nov19.031836.4848@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

While we're on the subject, I will put forward the following idle hypothesis:

Whatever UFO's are, they don't originate from outside the solar system. That's
because it's not possible to develop the computational resources required to
design, build and operate interstellar vehicles. By the time a civilization
advances enough to tackle the job, programmers spend all their time in
religious wars over operating systems and languages, and the programmers never
get anything done.

For proof, look at the comp.lang.* and comp.os.* newsgroups, and extrapolate
into the future :)

-- Frank Manning
-- This sentence is here so I can use the word paradigm.
From: 3363379@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Pancreas of Ghetto Giraffe, and an odd physics question.
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:05:53 GMT
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston



   Good day, I'm Fraser and I'll be joining you for a while.  I apologize for
the title of this message, I'll admit it was a rather shallow attempt to get
people's attention, but one has to do these things when one is new.  I was
actually here once before, but didn't realize that the REPLY command sent
mail personally, I should have used FOLLOWUP.
   In any event, I'd like to submit to the members of this base, who no
doubt are fairly competant in physics, a humble little 1st year test question
that has caused me much chagrin.  I'll explain why it annoyed me next time I'm
on, this time I will just post it and see what answers people give.  I probably
shouldn't have admitted to being 1st year, it will put me at a disadvantage in
any arguments, but oh well.  Here is the question, which we were expected to
solve in less than five minutes.

    Part a:  A ramp of height h is on a table.  The ramp has no friction, and
at the bottom where it comes off horizontally.  The top of the ramp is at the
centre of the circular table.  If a particle slides down the ramp, with what
velocity will it come off?

    This part is of course easy, and you don't need to know anythihng except
the height of the ramp to answer it.  Focus on part b.

    Part b:  Now another particle is slid down, but this time the table has
a rotation about it's axis (perpendicular through centre).  You are given
the rotational velocity w, and the radius R.  What are the radial and tangental
components of the velocity?

   I won't say anything else about the quesiton until I get a responce.  Hope
to chat again soon.  Oh, a question:  How can I make my name something more
reasonable than "qucdn 3363379"?  It seems rather impersonal.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.160502.17467@husc3.harvard.edu>, mcirvin@scws1.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes...
>In article <15NOV199206450358@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>>Any bump in the two photon invariant mass
>>spectrum is most likely some sort of technipion. And as a friend of mine
>>whispered to me during a talk on technicolor theory,"If this is how
>>God made the universe, I want out !"
> 
>Forgive me if this sounds idiotic, but isn't it the basic idea behind
>technicolor that there *aren't* any technipions?  Or are we talking about
>a situation in which not all of the spontaneously broken degrees of
>freedom are gauged, so that some of the Goldstone bosons survive the
>Higgs mechanism?
>-- 
>Matt McIrvin

OK I am stepping way out of my expertise, but I think that, at least
in extended technicolor theories, there are "pseudoGoldstone" bosons
left - the technipions. The number depends on the guage group used,
and in my opinion is a muddle. I just happen to be reading
_The Higgs Hunters' Guide_ (I kid you not) by Gunion, Haber,
Kane, and Dawson. A very good intro to this stuff.

Actually a theorist followed one of the Delphi talks on this 
alleged bump with a talk on some sort of \eta_6 walking techni
thingamabob, which apparently would not couple to the quarks
or neutrinos. I missed that talk, maybe someone else could
summarize...

       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Kaluza-Klein theories (Was TIME HAS INERTIA   ABIAN replies to  INDRA
Keywords: Kaluza-Klein theories
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:03:59 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <1992Nov17.023054.3771@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>[...]
>However, with the
>extra dimensions being proposed in superstring theory gaining
>more and more acceptance, perhaps a review of Kaluza and Klein
>and their ideas might be in the works!
>
This is almost exactly what has happened, though historically in the
reverse order --- the revival of Kaluza-Klein theories in the 1980's
was one of the main reasons that the extra dimensions of string theory
were considered acceptable a few years later.  

One can actually do a great deal with Kaluza-Klein theories; by letting 
spacetime have more than one "extra" dimension, one can naturally
incorporate non-Abelian gauge theories (strong and weak interactions)
into general relativity.  There was a great deal of work on this topic
a few years ago --- see, for instance, _Modern Kaluza-Klein Theories_,
edited by Appelquist, Chodos, and Freund (Addison-Wesley, 1987).  The
work has slowed down, for two basic reasons:

1. General relativity in four or more spacetime dimensions is not
renormalizable, and we don't know how to quantize the theory.  The
successes of electrodynamics, electroweak theory, and quantum
chromodynamics are all successes as _quantum_ theories; a classical
unification is not nearly enough.

2. As classical models, Kaluza-Klein theories have too much flexibility
to be satisfying.  By appropriately choosing the geometry of the extra
dimensions, you can get just about any gauge theory you want; there is
nothing that picks out the particular interactions we see in the real
world.  The early hope in string theory was that consistency requirements
would pick out a unique model, which would look like a Kaluza-Klein
model at large distances, but with a unique, determined "internal
geometry."  It is now clear that this will not happen classically, but
it is still an open question whether quantum effects will determine a
unique string ground state.  

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.     V.R.PRATT's LATEST COMMENT ON FTA
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:41:22 GMT

In article <abian.722489461@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>> 
>>>    1/ (1+z+z^2)  =   1 - z + z^3 - z^4 + z^6 - ...
>>> 
>>>    1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 
>>>The two expressions on the right side of =  must be identical. But 
>>>they are not.  Contradiction.  Hence our assumption is false and the 
>>>Theorem is proved.
>    You notice that I said  "The two expressions on the right side 
>of = must be IDENTICAL"  (by virtue of the well known uniqueness
>of the expansion of Analytic Functions). The reason that in the 
>unabridged version  I mentioned the "singularity" -because  people 
>would have then asked "Why they should be identical" - in fact someone 
>asked !

One of my math profs  (I hope he doesn't read this newsgroup ;-) once
said that the greatest invention ever made by mankind was the 
three dots: ...  I think if Mr. Abian would expand those ... then he
would find that eventually they meet up.  That might give us enough time
to build the energymeter! :-).
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: pressure questions
Date: 16 Nov 92 22:24:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: csa3.16NOV199214241024
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <9729@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, gswst@cislabs.pitt.edu (Gary S. Wachs) writes...
> 
>Therefore, if we took an extremely thick-walled metallic box with a 
>hollow center filled with a cubic foot of air at sea-level pressure  of
>1 atmosphere, I believe that the metal would be so resistent to 
>compression that the hollow air pocket inside would not see a change in
>pressure.  Yes it is changing altitude, but it is isolated from the 
>crushing forces of pressure outside the box, it won't be effected. 
> 
>Now then, am I way off or is that correct?

In principle, you are basically correct.  *Any* rigid wall will support some
of the external pressure on the gas inside.  That is, the restoring force
due to the atoms in the wall pulling on one another will provide some 
balance against the external force of the water pushing in.  The rest of the
balancing force must come from the pressure of the gas in the box.
Otherwise the box will not be in equilibrium.  So you can maintain a pressure
differential if you want to do so.  Only a perfectly rigid wall will
support all the pressure, so the internal pressure, in practice, will
always go up, at least a little.  But if you don't mind going into 
debt, you can build a thick-walled box with internal bracing that will
withstand really high pressures.  If you increase the external pressure 
enough, you will eventually cause the box to fail, leading to catastrophic
sudden pressure increase on the gas (or person) inside.

If you want to build an underwater habitat, like in _The Abyss_, you would
want to put your structure under as little net stress as possible, to limit
the strain, and therefore the cost.  In _The Abyss_, there are no airlocks -
the air and water are in equilibrium, so you just drop down through a hole
in the floor.  The structure is under zero net pressure, but the occupants
are at very high pressure. I don't know how much atmospheric 
pressure you body can take, however I imagine that if you aclimate slowly 
enough that you can take quite a few atmospheres of pressure.  Others
surely know more about this than I do.  But I suspect that when the 
atmospheric pressure approaches the pressure you heart can generate, that
you have circulatory problems.  Your heart will have to work harder, 
and your blood vessels may not be able to take the pressure increase.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Ghostbusters
Date: 23 Nov 1992 03:31:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>In article <1541700010@gn.apc.org> antennae@gn.apc.org writes:
>>My 7 year old son won't go upstairs on his own because he is afraid
>>of ghosts.  I told him I'd give him a 'charm' to scare them off and
>>found a tiny, beautifully carved and painted, soapstone tiger which
>>seems to have done the trick.

>     I give mine a 'top', they're heavier.  Don't tell this to the boys
>     at Fermilab, they'll be very disappointed they didn't get there first
>     (and then there's this business of confinement ...).

	Who wouldn't be afriad of ghosts? Tell him to stay in the axial gauge.

>>The purpose of this?  Not to prove that ghosts exist - I don't care
>>whether they do or not - but to see how inventive physicists can be.

	When trying to restore unitarity, as inventive as the best of them.




--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP!
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:10:42 GMT

In article <q1TiuB3w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman P. Paterson) writes:
>I'VE TOYED WITH THE PV=NRT FORMULA FOR GASES.  I'M DESIGNING A SMALL 
>AIRHSIP AND WISH TO CALCULATE THE EXPANSION OF THE HELIUM.  YOU COULD
>REALLY HELP ME OUT IF YOU COULD TELL ME HOW TO USE THIS FORMULA PROPERLY.
>I'D LIKE TO GIVE A PRACTIAL EXAMPLE AND PERHAPS YOU COULD EXPLAIN TO 
>MYSELF HOW TO APPLY THIS FORMULA TO THE PROBLEM (OR ANY OTHER PERTINENT 
>FORMULA).
>- Take a aluminium ball with a voulume of 100 cu/meters.  Say that this 
>ball is indestructible.  The ball is filled with helium gas on the ground 
>(the gas is 99.9% pure).  Now, take this ball to an alititude of 100,000 
>feet.  What would the internal pressure be of the ball (or helium)?
>
>
>Well, thanks!
>Norman Paterson
>Wpg MB CANADA
>
>norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
>The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607

First, PV=nRT is what is often called the ideal gas relation, or equation of 
state.  As such it is only good for gasses, and as its name implies, it is
only an idealization (although for helium at near atmospheric conditions, it is
usually quite good).

"n" is the number of moles of the gas, R is the universal gas constant (8.31441
kJ/(kmol K), T is absolute temperature, P is absolute pressure, and V is volume.
The way this equation is most often used is to calculate any of the above 
variables (except R, of course) in terms of the others.

For your example, since there is not enough information to assume otherwise, I
will make the assumption that the ball is perfectly rigid, and does not deform
under changing pressures.  If the ball is filled at sea level, then the 
internal pressure is one atmosphere (14.7 psi), and if the temperature stays
constant at 100,000 ft, then T is constant, R is defined constant, since the
ball does not expand or contract, V is constant, and if no gas is added or
removed then n is constant, and hence P=nRT/V is constant.

In reality, the temperature of the atmosphere changes with altitude, and if we
assume that the gas in the ball is the same temperature as the surrounding air,
we can find the internal pressure.  From a table of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere we see that the temperature (a time average over the U.S.) at 100,000 ft is
about 227 K.

How many moles of gas did you start with?  From PV=nRT, we find that you have
about 4100 moles (I am rounding my numbers).  At altitude, again using the
ideal gas relation, the internal pressure is about 7.7*10^4 Pa, or 11 psi.
The atmospheric pressure at this altitude is about 0.17 psi.

I am not sure why you want to know the internal pressure, since helium balloon
will expand with altitude (especially if it is your typical sort of weather-
balloon),but unless you are really interested in the stresses in a more rigid
material like aluminum, you maybe would be more interested in the bouyancy
effects.

Anyway, I hope this helps.
-AIP
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:30:58 GMT

In article <1e98maINNebq@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.065208.28725@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>    Name a physical system in which the FDE is considered more fundamental
>>    than the PDE?
>
>Any finite-state machine.

     I actually had 'nature' in mind.  I can *create* any number of systems
     that have a fundamental FDE.  My research is one example where since
     most of the constitutive laws are constituted at the FDE level, the model
     is more 'fundamentally' fde than pde.  My question more pointed to 
     'natural' phenomena.  I do not recall finite state machines described 
     by FDE's in our current description of nature.

     Enlighten me.

>>    For most of us, we take the 'true' PDE and muck it
>>    up, introducing loads of spurious conservation laws and higher
>>    order terms, by deriving a finite difference formulation of it. 
>>    I'd be interested in a system in which we did the reverse.
>
>The load on your machine (if it is a UNIX machine) is a simple example.
>
>A plot of the load vs. time (cf. xload(1X)) appears to
>decay exponentially.  The actual load is discrete, and not
>very indicative of the load, being simply a difference
>equation, and it can be approximated by a continuous
>exponential.  Thus it seems the dual of your meta-example:
>it is a PDE approximation of a FDE system, and the approximation
>introduces spurious knowledge (the idea that a load "decays").

     Interesting analogy.  However, my load doesn't decay at all.  It
     seems to be a monotonically increasing sequence.

>				--Blair
>				  "rm -rf /usr/spool/news;
>				   I dare you."

     Apparently someone has already done this upstream several times
     this month.   By the way, why waste space on one's own
     machine with all this garbage, when one can read it from someone else's
     nntp port?

                           dale bass

-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:39:20 GMT

In article <HgBFuB5w165w@iowegia.uucp> quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest) writes:
>To All;
>
>        I received the following letter that I truly appreciate.  
>I am glad I recieved this letter, it allows me to realize that I 
>am not alone- that I am one of a growing number of people who have 
>advanced toward science as an explanation of life and lifes 
>purpose- as opposed to the religious explanations.

      I'm sure probably few would object to you doing so, as long as
      you understand that science itself has no 'explanation of life's
      purpose'.  If we make science into a religion and oppose whatever
      truly religious explanations there are with our new 'scientific'
      explanations, we are no different from religion.  If we are no
      different from religion, we have destroyed the empirical value 
      of science.

      By the way, in no way should you consider yourself alone.  The 
      appropriation of 'science' as a new religion has a long past, and
      there are currently many who would agree with you.

                               dale bass


-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics