HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Subject: When does an observation become a result?
Reply-To: blue@nscl01.nscl.msu.edu
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:19 GMT

In a continuing effort to teach Jed about the proper workings of science
I will respond to his question as to whether I consider Yamaguchi's
results "invalid".

Stripped down to the basics, Yamaguchi's experiment involves two observations
that are correlated: a rise in sample temperature and a change in the
peak shape and amplitude for an RGA scan for nominally mass 4 ions.  I
have no basis for doubting that these observations have been made just
as reported.  Let us agree to call these observations "valid".  These
observations do not, however, constitute a scientific result.  
Yamaguchi must make an interpretation of these observations which he
then puts forward as a scientific result.  I disagree with his
interpretation, for reasons I have stated at length in my earlier
message, and therefore suggest that his experimental results are
not valid as evidence for a cold fusion process.

Interestingly Yamaguchi's observations themselves contain a potential
for being selfcontradictory if one were to attempt to extend the
interpretation of the observations into a proposed model for the
fusion process.  Because samples containing hydrogen show the same
temperature rise as those containing deuterium, simple logic says
that either the temperature rise is not related to a nuclear reaction
process, or the change in the mass 4 peak is not a significant indication
of the process, or there are two different processes producing the heat
and only one produces results in a distortion of the mass 4 ion peak.

and only one of the processes results in a mass 4 ion peak.

Dick Blue
NSCL @ MSU
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: ded@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (nod sivad)
Subject: Re: Risk and Dysfunctional Thinking
Reply-To: ded@aplcen (nod sivad)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 17:38:08 GMT

>Your reaction is a common and understandable fault of human nature; everyone,
>including me, falls into the same trap from time to time. I have seen this
>kind of irrational denial in people who were seriously or terminally ill, but
>who kept insisting that the doctors were wrong and they would get better.

Hmmm.  Jed, you were applying this observation to one of the "non-believers" 
but my sense of irony forces me to point out it could equally apply to
a CF believer who refuses to admit the effect is dead.

Anyway, keep up the good work.  Sometimes I wonder about the informational
content of your postings, but they certainly are entertaining.  As I say to 
everyone attempting to give the world cheap and abundant energy: "I hope 
you succeed."

					me
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Subject: Where is background energy going?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:58:59 GMT

An interesting question came up on an unlikely mailing list.  We observe
that the wavelength of the background radiation has decreased as the 
universe has expanded.  This implies loss of energy does it not?
Where is that energy going and what is the vehicle of interchange.
Photons don't emit photons and energy transfer must be quantized
according to QM.  (John Baez, I would particularly appreciate a
response from you)

Bob
-- 
Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-358-2007

    'The meek shall inherit the earth--the rest of us will move on..'
                                                    Sameer Parekh


               PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Another antigravity device
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:03:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.013620.24161@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C.  
Baez) writes:
Disclaimer deleted. 
> Imagine an extremely (although not infinitely) rigid crystal.  It takes
> a huge amount of energy to deform the crystal lattice ever so slightly.
> Thus if this crystal is placed in the earth's gravitational field at sea
> level, the curvature of space due to the gravity prevents the
> lattice from being perfectly regular, at the cost of a large amount of
> energy.  The crystal would have much less energy if it were far away
> from the earth where the curvature of space is less.  If we make the
> crystal rigid enough it will actually be energetically favorable for the
> crystal to float upwards - since the decrease in its internal energy
> will more than compensate for the increase in gravitational potential
> energy.
> 
> Now, I *know* that this material would have to be insanely rigid for
> this effect to be noticeable at all -- far more rigid than any actual
> stuff.  However, we're talking questions of principle here.  Is there
> any reason *in principle* why a sufficiently rigid material wouldn't
> levitate to get out of the earth's gravitational field - that's what I'm
> asking.  

On the general principle that the universe conspires to prevent
such useful things as antigravity or faster than light communication,
I say it won't work.  I think the results of a detailed calculation
would have the following results:

To levitate the material would have to be rigid enough that the
vertical derivative of deformation energy/unit mass would exceed 
the gradient in gravitational potential energy/unit mass.  Mass 
cancels out, and as is usual in eleasticity, rigidity with mass
factored out gives a velocity - the speed of sound in the material.
Now nature will have so arranged things that a levitational material
(calorite? what did H.G.Wells call it?) would have a speed of sound
greater than c.  Therefore such a material is impossible!?

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The accelerating charge meets the EPR paradox.
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:54:35 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)

In article <COLUMBUS.92Dec18170421@strident.think.com>, columbus@strident (Michael Weiss) writes:
>[...] the collection "Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of
>Information", ed. by Wojciech H. Zurek, volume 8 in the Sante Fe
>Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (pub. Addison-Wesley).

>It says something for the rest of the contributions that they rarely
>mention "consciousness", even when discussing the interpretation of QM.

Why would you expect them to?  They're trying to produce things more
concrete than Bohr and Wigner, no?

Gell-Mann and Hartle certainly edge their way around the question.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Here is what I meant about the kill files...
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:09:15 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <15DEC199209024128@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>  OK Blair, et alia, here is the problem I have with killfiles. Again I am 
>on a VAX and using VNEWS. 

Ah.  I see.  Braindead operating systems engender braindead
applications.

> So the question stands : How can I tailor the killfile to get rid all articles
> beginning with "TIME HAS INERTIA." but with other stuff at the end. Don't
> tell me to get another newsreader unless that is the ONLY solution; and if it
> is, have the graciousness of specifying where said newsreader might be 
> obtained.

I think rn(1lwall) can be compiled for VMS, but from what I
can see it requires that you run it under eunice.

				--Blair
				  "Q:  What's the difference between
				       DEC and SPAM?
				   A:  They know..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:01:40 GMT

In article <432@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
|> [...]
|> Any one whe has read many of my postings is well aware that I am more
|> than willing to question established ideas if I think there is a *serious*
|> reason for doing so.  [...]

I think that anytime an well accepted concept is on the rocks
is a time for serious questioning of all the other well established
concepts that are involved.  I think it's just as likely that the
mathematical operation of *multiplication* is inapplicable to the
QM context as it is that locality is violated.  I have no reason
accept either over the other.  *Both* may be wrong.  As could any
number of other _very_ fundamental assumptions.  What specific reasons
(other than it's what everyone else is doing) do you claim that Bell's
results disprove locality instead of disproving other assumptions?

|> [...]          Bell's result is disturbing. [...]

Yep, it is.  It means that *something* about our fundamental concepts
is wrong.  It proves to have little to say about *what* is wrong.

|> [...]                                         It is clear to me that
|> the first thing to question is the assumption that the wave function
|> changes instantaneously.  [...]

This doesn't trouble me at all - since I believe the wavefunction to
be an abstraction it changes whenever the abstract situation does.
Abstractions can change as quickly as they like.

-- 
J. Giles
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: >Acoustics Problem for Swimmers: EXPLANATION
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:00:04 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes:

>I understand your arguement and it seems to make sense.  But if these standing
>waves and their ANTI-nodes are the explanation, then there must be other areas
>in the pool where only the higher frequencies can be heard.  Or, does this mean
>the standing waves are shaped EXACTLY like the pool?  Certainly for the case 
>with only ONE node this may be the case.  But what about
>higher order standing waves?  There must be other areas in the pool where
>only the higher frequencies can be heard (not just areas near the surface...
>). I say this because of the distribution of the nodes/ANTI-nodes in the
>3-dimensional volume of the pool when considering higher order standing waves.

   Keep in mind that the position of the antinodes and nodes other than the
ones at the water's boundaries will depend on the frequency.  Since the sound
waves are broad-spectrum, the superposition will be pretty uniform everywhere
but at the surface, because when one frequency has an antinode other nearby 
frequencies are still present.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca
From: jweiss@paintbrush.cgd.ucar.edu (Jeffrey Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Materials for simple static electricity expts.
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:04:41 GMT
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO

In my physics classes I recall we used cat fur, bakelite rods, and
pith balls to do simple static electricity experiments.  Does anyone
have any suggestions for common household substitutes?  I've found
that rubbing plastic silverware with a wool blanket charges the
plasticware, which I can then use to charge other plasticware.  I thus
can create many charged spoons and forks but they all have same-sign
charges.  Any hints on getting oppositely charged objects?
--
Jeff
jweiss@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: larsj@kih.no (Lars M. Johansen)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Summary: The wave-function is a subjective quantity!
Keywords: QM,collapse,nonlocality
Organization: Kongsberg College of Engineering    
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:48:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec8.133731.5484@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl 
McCullough) writes:

>>>Quantum mechanics predicts that, in the EPR
>>>experiment, if one experimenter measures spin-up for his particle,
>>>then the other experimenter will measure spin-down with probability
>>>cos^2(theta/2). Where does the assumption of collapse come in?
>>>It is definitely not necessary for experimenter A to assume that the
>>>measurement performed by experimenter B collapses the wave function
>>>in order to derive this probability.

After reading your reply, I understand that I misunderstood your position.
I agree with you that observer A will not sense any collapse of wavefuntion
due to observations done by B.

I wrote that

>>In the same vein, COLLAPSE in the QM-wavefuntion does not AUTOMATICALLY
>>imply nonlocal effects.

and you answered

>It depends on whether the wave function is a physical quantity, or
>a subjective quantity.

Do I sense a contradiction here? You first suggest that the wave function 
is *not* a subjective quantity, simultaneously you stated earlier that

>>>It is definitely not necessary for experimenter A to assume that the 
>>>measurement performed by experimenter B collapses the wave function
>>>in order to derive this probability.

Doesn't this mean that A and B will "see" different wave-functions? And 
consequently the wave function must be a *subjective* quantity! A subjective
quantity can't be "objectively physical". This shows clearly, I think, that 
the wave function is only an expression of our (limited) knowledge of the 
system.

I wrote

>>This sort of collapse will of course also take place in a classical 
>>probabilistic theory.

and you answered

>That is not true, either. In classical probability theory, we each
>have our own, subjective notions of probability. A measurement
>performed by you does not affect *my* personal probability
>distributions.

Here we probably misunderstand each other. I mean that my personal 
probability distribution may "collapse" as a consequence of myself 
performing an observation on the system. Consequently we also have the 
socalled "collapse" in classical probability theory. And as we know, there 
is no nonlocality connected with this kind of collapse. Consequently 
"collapse" does not necessarily imply "nonlocality".

>That was my point, that in the EPR experiment, there is no need
>to assume that the other experimenter's measurement collapses *my*
>wave function.

Yes, we agree on this, and as I have said, this also shows that the wave
function is a subjective quantity.
  Lars M. Johansen
  Dep. of Physics & Mathematics
  Kongsberg College of Engineering
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Why is the sky blue?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:22:49 GMT

Actually, I know *why*, ie. scattering... but why specifically blue?
Does it matter what molecules are in the atmosphere, or just that
there happens to be an atmosphere?

Would all planets with air breathable by earth creatures have to
have blue skies?  (Referring to green/brown/orange skies so 
prevalent on Star Trek)

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

Thanks for letting me indulge in stupidity.

Chris---

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: gravity question (rephrased) help!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:26:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.193210.1993@nhgs.vak12ed.edu> rpurman@nhgs.vak12ed.edu (Richard I. Purman) writes:
>My students stumped me (again) with this issue.  Please respond
>personally to:  
>
>rwright@nhgs.vak12ed.edu
>
>Issue: Conservation of Mechanical energy as applied to
>satellites when gravity is the only significant force doing
>work on the satellite.
>
>By definition total mechanical energy E = K + U (fine!)
>
>
>K2 + U2 = K1 + U1  where K = kinetic energy and
>
>                    U = -GmM/r = potential energy
>
>Students want to know if physicists "forced" potential energy
>to be defined as a NEGATIVE term so that the equation "looks
>like" conservation of M.E.  They understand that definitions
>are arbitrary BUT that physics is trying to make M.E. to be
>conserved.  My students want to know if, FROM A SCIENCE
>VIEWPOINT, one can derive K2 - U2 = K1 - U1 with U defined as a
>positive term.

    You have a choice of where you want your potential to go
    to zero (assuming that you don't really want the potential
    to *decrease* as you climb out of a gravitational well).
    If you choose the center of the earth to be zero and all the
    points vertically away from it to be positive, that is exceedingly
    inconvenient when considering deeper gravitational wells.
    In an intuitive sense it makes much more sense to define
    zero in space far  from gravitating bodies since presumably
    that holds the same value for all bodies in a classical universe.
    If flat space is zero and you accept that 'potential' should
    increase as you climb out of a gravitational well, then
    the choice is made.  

    And yes, to a certain extent it is defined this way for convenience.
    But the physical concept of potential is very useful.

                           dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.engr,alt.psychology.personality
From: jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Jenny Gutbezahl)
Subject: Stereotyping (was Re: Richard P. Feynman)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:51:10 GMT

In article <gilligan.724135021@cs1.bradley.edu> gilligan@cs1.bradley.edu (Edward Henigin) writes:

>There are reasons that people hold stereotypes.

Ignorance, fear, close-mindedness...  And, of course, being too intellectually
lazy to distinguish between individuals when it's so much easier just to hang
a label on someone & be done with it.

>Partially from a lack
>of experience with the stereotyped party, and partially because the
>experience people do have with the stereotyped party tend to reinforce
>the stereotype (or change it if it's wrong, but usually, at the surface,
>stereotypes are pretty close.  Gay men talk with feminine voices.  This
>is a stereotype.  This has never been proved wrong to me.)
>

This is a lovely stereotype.  It's never been proved wrong because it's
untestable.  What the hell is a "feminine voice"?  I would guess that
your definition of a feminine voice is that which comes out of a gay
man.  I mean, I don't see that Rock Hudson's voice was any more feminine
than, say, Jay Leno's. 

And when you do find someone who doesn't fit your stereotype, you can 
always point to them as the exception that proves the rule, like the
"nice" Jew man who lives next door.  You know, the one who eats normal
food, and gives to charity instead of clinging to every dime for dear 
life.  When you see people like that you can almost forgive them for
murdering Christ.  You can convince yourself that he's not *really* 
a Jew, he just happened to be born to the wrong family.  Just like
women who are aggressive and successful are not *really* women, they
are castrating bitches.

<note for the sarcasm-impaired, I don't really believe the things written
in the above paragraph about women & Jews to be true>

And of course the engineers who have artistic sensibilities, they're not
"typical" engineers, they either fall into some sub-stereotype you have (like
engineers going for a PhD), or else they are some weird anamoly, and
are probably going into the wrong profession.

You might want to check out some of the recent work by Susan Fiske or Abraham
Tesser on the mental cost of stereotyping vs. individuating.  That is, if
you can take the time out from your busy schedule of squeezing three-
dimensional human beings into two-dimensional slots.

Jenny Gutbezahl, ENXX, Psychology Student, PhD candidate, woman, Jew, and
                 much, much, much, much more....
-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: vejcik@daq (Steve Vejcik)
Subject: What I meant to say was...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 20:00:12 EST
Organization: Physics Dept., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIANS overwhelmingly rejected (A3)
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: SURRENDER ABIAN - NO OTHER WAY 
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:26:08 GMT

In article <abian.724453386@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>                                            12-15-92
>
>  I have repeated  (A3) and have given you various examples validating 
>and experimentally verifying (A3). Nevertheless, people are asking me again 
>and again to express and explain my (A3).  I have expressed and explained
>my (A3) at least 20 times, but I still receive numerous requests to repeat 
>it.  So I am repeating. 

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

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


---
THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE MOST BASIC, MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND THE MOST PRIMAL
CHARACTERISTIC BEHIND ANY CAT, KITTEN, MOGGY, FELINE, LION, CHEETAH, TABBY,
PANTHER, AND THE ENTIRE FELINE FAMILY as my principle (A6)

(A6) THE PRIMAL FEATURE OF A CAT IS HAVING FOUR LEGS

I repeat again I cannot give a precise definition of "LEGS", yak, yak, ...

The overwhelming ... yell hysterically

"Abian, verify your (A6), give us experimental verifications!"

my reply is


" You people, your pet cats are my best verification of (A6) ... I am
shaking the foundations of anatomy and evolution ... AND YOUR CATS STILL
HAVE FOUR LEGS!!!"

And I have used this to prove, as I have said ten times before,

(A7) ALL DOGS ARE CATS

MY (A6) Has been verified far more than any other axioms: I could bring you
hundreds of CATS, but I DONT HAVE THE TIME!!!  ACCEPT (A6)!! NO OTHER
WAY!!

Some say that my (A7) is contradictory, because DOGS are not CATS.  Well I
say this just DEMONSTRATES the POWER of (A6), that it can prove that DOGS
are CATS and that DOGS are not CATS!!

CHARLES DE GAULLE had a MALE CAT with FOUR LEGS!

GENERAL PETAIN HAD a FEMALE CAT WITH FOUR LEGS!

SEE the POWER IN (A6)!!!!
---

Until Abian comes up with some new type of logic, he's going to be "the person
who thought that all dogs are cats".

Abian: a challenge.  Either prove that my logic is faulty or accept that
all dogs are cats.  Whatever argument you use to prove my argument is
faulty, I can apply it to your usage of (A3) or (A1) or whatever...

Terry
From: marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (John Perry)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: bird in plane 
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 13:04:56 CST
Organization: System 6626 BBS, Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

Regarding the "bird in the plane" what would change if the plane were 
filled with water and some fish. If a fish swims closer to the top of the 
plane what does this do to the plane's mass? What if it then sits (do 
fish sit?) higher in the plane? Is that the same as if a bird were 
gliding (ie. not moving its wings) above the plane's floor?


    *********************************************************************
    *   John Perry, Winnipeg, Manitoba    |       GEnie: J.PERRY13      *
    * INTERNET: marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca | Data Phone: (204) 772-7349  *
    *********************************************************************