HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch)
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:57:34 GMT


After reading everyone elses opinion on the subject, I say this,
Yes, you're all probably right!
But what I really want to know is this;
    How do I optimise the foam on top of the milk, get the best froth,
biggest head, etc. ??????
    Should I heat it slow or fast, near the top of the milk or the
bottom, how does the amount of milk affect the final froth, does the
container have any effect and does it taste any better if the milk is
hotter and froth is frothier???

  Kev.

(Oh, life on the leading edge of physics research!)

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

--
________________________________________________________________________________
kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie
also  dept.of pure and applied physics
I write this for me not my college or anyone else.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Recent article on QM in AJP
Keywords: QM, correspondence principle, Arnol'd cat
Date: 31 Dec 92 19:58:38 GMT

cathy@alex.com (Catherine McManus) writes:

>What is AJP?

The American Journal of Physics.  It's an eclectic, somewhat
quirky journal devoted to articles on physics education, physics
history, physics etymology, review articles written at the
advanced undergraduate level, review articles written at other levels,
and anything else they feel like putting in.
-- 
Matt McIrvin         I read Usenet just for the	tab damage!
==== =======         = ==== ====== ==== === === === ======= 
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22053 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2682
From: jtbell@hubcap.clemson.edu (Jon Bell)
Subject: Re: Curved space?
Organization: Presbyterian College, Clinton SC
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 05:24:33 GMT

In article <BzL7As.A81@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>I've heard "the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily
>a straight line."  I'm not as knowledgable about physics as most of you
>probably are, and would like a explanation to this interesting
>statement. 

Depends on how you define "straight."  The shortest path between two points
on the Earth's surface is generally not a straight line if you're using a
map based on the Mercator projection, but _is_ a straight line in some other
projections.

A better analogy as far as curved space-time is concerned (which is probably
what you're thinking of):  Suppose you have a flat plain with a mountain in the
middle.  If a straight-line path between two points on the plain happens to 
pass over the mountain, a shorter path is probably one which "bends" to
skirt the mountain.

Jon Bell / Dept. of Physics & C.S. / Presbyterian College / Clinton SC
From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal F Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Christmas problem
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:57:34 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.

In article <8456@charon.cwi.nl> vanloon@cwi.nl (Maarten van Loon) writes:

>In a Christmas puzzle for engineers, the following two problems
>were given. Since I am not a physician, maybe you guys can help
>me. I already asked several physicians, but they all had different
>opinions. Here they come:

Interesting.  I just saw a physician because I had a sore knee but
never thought of him as an expert in physics.  :-)

>1. A glass of water is standing on a balance.
>   At a certain moment someone puts a thermometer in the glass,
>   without touching the glass and still holding the thermometer
>   in his (or her) hand. Question: does the balance show a
>   heigher or lower weight or does it indicate the same weight?

Think of how much the thermometer weighs, in and out of the water.
By Archimedes prinicple it will weigh less in the water, its
apparent weight being reduced by the weight of the volume of water
it displaces.  This means the water exerts an upward force on the
thermometer.  Now by Newton's law if the water exerts an upward
force on the thermometer, the thermometer in turn must exert a force
equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the water.  It
pushes the water down, making it appear to weigh more.

Of course you could get a good quality balance and do the
experiment!

>2. An astronout takes a bottle filled half with whine with him
>   in space. What does he see when he looks to the bottle in
>   space?

Why would he want to take whine with him?  Oh, you mean wine!  :-)

This is more difficult to actually experiment with but we do know
that the wine has both surface tension and adhesion (wetness).  It
will try to both minimize its surface area and maximize the area if
glass it contacts.  These forces fight each other and the final
result will depend on their relative strength and the shape of the
bottle.  Here on earth the adhesion to the glass overcomes some of
the force of gravity and forms a meniscus.  Without gravity I would
expect that the meniscus would become very pronounced, probably
wetting the entire container and leaving a cavity in the center.  If
the shape of the bottle allows that cavity would be spherical (to
reduce surface area because of the force of surface tension),
otherwise it would be as close to spherical as the bottle allows.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
From: lamontg@stein.u.washington.edu (Lamont Granquist)
Subject: Re: Baez's "the right question".
Organization: 'Operation: Mindcrime'
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:50:45 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Baez quotes Smolin:
> Mathematics will do us little good if
>we have not yet stumbled upon the right new questions;
>
>I assert that the right question is to question the truth of causality
>in the sense that causes must always precede effects in all frames of
>reference. How the universe comes into being and why the masses and
>charges etc are what they are makes much more sense if one entertains
>the hypothesis that the universe is created by design by an advanced
>future intelligence within that universe.

Q: What cause precedes creation of virtual particles/vacuum fluctuations?

A: God.

uh huh.

Jack meet Werner, Werner meet Jack...

-- 
Lamont Granquist  lamontg@u.washington.edu
  "When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases."
                                      -- Robert Anton Wilson
From: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu (RUBIO)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: FAQ list needed.........
Date: 30 Dec 92 14:00:43 GMT
Reply-To: rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4


	I would like to see the FAQ list. I've been waiting for somebody 
to post it but no luck. could somebody please e-mail it to me or tell me 
where it is kept.

			-jose a rubio-

	rubio@pine.circa.ufl.edu
or
	rubio@ufhepa.phys.ufl.edu

ps: thanks...

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: MIT, Department of Mathematics
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 19:40:53 GMT


>It would be interesting if people would post what they think the word
>faith means and then a citation from their dictionary with reference. 

>Gene Kochanowsky

But not on sci.physics, please.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 20:19 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes...
>Why are elementary particles small?

Because, neglecting String Theory, they are all pointlike so far as we know.
All structures with nonzero size are bound states of more fundamental 
particles, e.g., the proton is composed of quarks and gluons.

>If there were an elementary particle the size of a baseball,
>what color would it be? What would happen if you touched it?

It depends entirely upon how it interacts electromagnetically.  Also, it
would probably be unstable, quickly decaying into lighter particles.
Noting precludes the existence of a baseball-sized partis, but there is
no evidence for them either.  If it were composite, it would be very difficult
to construct an interaction strong enough to keep the constituents closely
bound at the radius of a baseball which we would not have noticed yet.
But if it were fundamental and very massive, then there is no reason
why we would have discovered it yet - so who knows?

-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
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Link invariants and gauge theory
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 10:04:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.063339.27448@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>baez@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) writes:
>[interesting stuff deleted]:                                              
>:    
>Can anyone								  
> [a] give me an example of a theory that is *not* diffeomorphism
invariant

Look, Brett, I keep be extra nice just for you, by noting in many posts
that general covariance of physical theories does NOT mean the same thing as
diffeomorphism-invariance in your sense!  As you noted
once upon a time, even special relativity is diffeomorphism-invariant in
the sense that one can pull back all fields including the metric by a
diffeomorphism and get an equally good world.  In fact one could simply
say special relativity is a special solution of general relativity with
the gravitational constant set to zero.  But special relativity is not
"generally covariant."  If you require me to explain general covariance
again I will, albeit grumpily.

> [b] explain to me whether "real" physicists "really" care about
>Chern-Simonsology [meaning: do they actually have a concrete use for it,
>or is it something that people do while waiting for the next theory of
>everything to come along?]

There are 3 reasons why people are interested in Chern-Simons theory:
1) it is a 3-dimensional theory that has as a "boundary value theory" a
2d conformal field theory, the WZW model, which is of interest in string
theory, 2) it is a generally covariant quantum field theory, or as they
say these days a topological QFT, for which one can actually work out all the
details, pleasing A) the physicists because one needs all the practice
with generally covariant theories one can get, quantum gravity being too
hard for us so far, and B) the mathematicians because it turns out to be
related to link invariants (e.g. the Jones polynomial), quantum groups,
and many other cool things, 3) in the Ashtekar-Rovelli-Smolin approach,
Chern-Simons theory appears to define a state of 4-dimensional quantum
gravity - since in some sense Chern-Simons theory is itself a "boundary
value theory" of 4d quantum gravity.  It's this third fact, in my humble
opinion, that indicates that Chern-Simons theory might really be "honest
physics" (as I'm not a big fan of string theory).  Indeed, Louis Crane
has written a charming paper called "Categorical Physics" in which he
claims that the Chern-Simons state of quantum gravity (perhaps with
gauge group enlarged to include all the other forces) should be taken
seriously as THE WAVEFUNCTION OF THE UNIVERSE.  (Capital letters to
indicate the danger of sounding like a crackpot when one makes such
suggestions.)  There is much more to say about this, but I will wait and
sometime try to give a semi-popular exposition of his paper (which is
not even an official preprint yet).  It is, to say the least, ambitious.
If it were true, Chern-Simons theory would be quite important indeed.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 07:41:21 GMT

In article <D0s0VB1w165w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> marco@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (John Perry) writes:
>merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>
>> When I was a grad student the department set aside a class room for
>> tutoring undergrads. When times were slow we go to the chalk board
>> and "play" with physics and I learned more from my fellow grad
>> students at that chalkboard than I did from any Prof. When
>> undergrads did come they too were interested in what we were discussing.
>> I see this group more like the chalk board in that classroom
>> than a "public restroom wall.". I also see no need for the
>> creation of another group as I feel USENET is already too
>> diluted by schisms. Most new groups are created because a
>> certain sect wants to silence others. On the rare happy occasion
>> a new gorup is created to accomadte a truly new subject of
>> interest. I believe that your "middle ground" exist in the
>> minds of many of the readers in this group already.
>
>This is one of the more sensible points made in this newsgroup in a long 
>time. I suggest everyone consider its contents.

     The only problem is that the local Moose Lodge has sent over
     the 50 man tag-drinking team right after an important match.
     They've stolen all the chalk and are eating the erasers.
     The professors are cowering in their offices, the grad students
     have wandered off in search of the beer, and the undergrads
     left in the room are filling out applications to join the Lodge.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
From: ron@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ron Williams)
Subject: Re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:44:56 GMT

Roger D. Nelson (rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
> Unfortunately, I am sure there is "interest in this".  But I hope both
> Dale Bass and Jack Sarfatti might restrain themselves and set a good
> example for others by using these precious (or expensive) electrons,
> minutes, and exertions of mind to discuss the interesting physics that
> appeared to be a rarely interesting thread aborning, and set aside for
> the moment their (or, rather, Gardner's) opinions on Sarfatti's
> character and whatnot.
> 
> Cheers?  Roger

I second this. Dr. Sarfatti may hold outre' opinions about the meaning of his
work, but let's at least hear what it _is_. I have been following the 
discussions concerning quantum gravity, et al. with a great deal of interest. 
Sarfatti's articles and the replies to them have so far constituted the
_only_ postings I have seen in this group which have tackled advanced 
theoretical ideas. The wierdnesses of QM experimentation needs discussion -
why not here? Do you all want to kill off discussion unless it is safe and
mundane?

If more actively working physicists posted here, the signal/noise ratio might
remain better than the abysmal (pre Sarfatti) value it was.

regards,

Ron Williams                  ACSnet : ron@syacus.acus.oz
Ph : +61 2 390-1366         Internet : ron@syacus.acus.OZ.AU
Fax: +61 2 390-1391             UUCP : uunet!munnari!syacus.acus.oz.au!ron
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. RELATIVISTIC ADDITION OF VELOCITIES final part 5
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Michelson-Morley
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:45:49 GMT

About abian's derivation of the relativistic velocity addition formula, he
assumes that the addition is of the form

x (+) y = ax + by

Now the question is : are a and b absolute constants, or are they functions
of x and y? in other words, is the formula

x (+) y = ax + by

or

x (+) y = a(x, y) x + b(x, y) y

because, in the first instance, the only way c(+)x = c for all x is for b
to be zero, and the only way for -y(+)c = c for all y is for a to be zero,
and therefore we have derived the GREAT ABIAN RELATIVISTIC ADDITION FORMULA

x (+) y = 0

and in the second instance the two equations (from the Michelson Morley)
give 

a(c, x) c + b(c, x) x = c  for all x
-a(-y, c) y + b(-y, c) c = c for all y,

and these two equations alone give practically no information about the
quantities a and b, unless further, non-obvious, constraints are put on a
and b.             

Actually, its the familiar Abian logic.  Vague statements (is b constant or
a function) used with two different meanings.  Also note that ANY addition
formula can be written in the form

a(x, y)x + b(x, y)y assuming the reasonable 0 (+) 0 = 0.

Terry
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: b259phl@utarlg.uta.edu (PHILIP LIPPEL)
Subject: Re: Why does sticky tape glow?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:20:00 GMT

This phenomenon was widely discussed back when I was processing my own B&W film
in highschool. I wish I knew the answer, but since I don't, I'll just pass on a
related piece of folklore. A similar effect can be seen if you break a 
wintergreen Lifesaver in a dark room.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:00:19 GMT





If the problem is discerned as one of congestion implying overuse, then I think
the solution is to subdivude.   Splitering off items such as .research or 
.feynman is a perfectly logical way to improve communications among those of us
that may need and want said information.

Ang.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: FTL communication in SR does not violate causality
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:26:45 GMT

markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:

MC> ... The existence of a preferred frame violates
MC> the principles of Special Relativity (I believe) but it does not contradict
MC> the mathematics of SR, and it's the math that has been confirmed over and
MC> over by experimentation.

>Instead of being timid I should have said that my use of a preferred
>reference frame violates the principles of Special Relativity, period!
>Also, the "mathematics of SR" I refer to are only the mathematics of the
>Lorentz coordinate transform, which I *do* assume to be universally valid.
>I could have been more clear about these points.

What do you mean by saying that the Lorentz coordinate transform is
"universally valid"? The meaning in Special Relativity is that the
laws of physics are invariant with respect to the Lorentz
transformations. In your case, you are postulating a Faster Than Light
communication, which can easily be seen to violate this postulate. A
statement such as "It is possible to send a FTL message to a location
a distance of one light-year away such that it will arrive at the same
time it left" is only true in some reference frames, and not others.

So, to repeat: if your laws are not Lorentz-invariant, then what does
it mean to assume that the Lorentz transformations are universally
valid?

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: bubble in container
Date: 1 Jan 1993 02:31 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes...
>>The final state has the same fluid in the same volume but different
>>pressure. In fact one can repeat the procedure ad infinitum to get
>>as high a pressure as one likes.
>
>There's no paradox, only a misapprehension.

? A paradox _requires_ a misapprehension (or an inconsistency).

>The pressure in the bubble can not change unless the number
>of atoms of gas change, the temperature of the bubble
>changes, or the volume of the bubble changes.

The pressure in the bubble doesn't change, but the pressure everywhere else 
does.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: The real truth about ABIAN!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 01:25:36 GMT


All of you guys and dolls have been had upthe gazoo. I just read a piece
by Abian - it's obvious that "ABIAN" is some kind on anacronym - it is an
AI program - sort of an articulate computer virus that has passed the
Turing test for most of you.

I just noticed that Dale Bass is not a physicist but an engineer!
From: deghare@daisy.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Hare)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:03:56 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.145732.19319@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> wjh@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (william.j.hery) writes:
>hausner@qucis.queensu.ca (Alejo Hausner) writes:
>>       It seemed unlikely to me at the time that a mathematician
>>would have a love life, much less an adulterous one, but I've
>>since realized they're human too.
>
>?????? Is that because you think that all mahtematicians are 1) asexual,
>2) homosexual, 3) perfect moral speicmens according to some moral
>code that you recognize, 4) prudes, or 5) just don't have the time
>because they spend so much time doing mathematics?????
>
>Bill Hery

Jean Bourgain, who is one of the best functional analysts of our time, has
been quoted as saying that "One can either do mathematics or get married,
but not both".

One wonders how his mathematics has been affected by his subsequent
marriage :-)

Dave Hare
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:48:20 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <kkretsch.724957054@unix1.tcd.ie> kkretsch@unix1.tcd.ie (kevin patrick kretsch) writes:

>    How do I optimise the foam on top of the milk, get the best froth,
>biggest head, etc. ??????
>    Should I heat it slow or fast, near the top of the milk or the
>bottom, how does the amount of milk affect the final froth, does the
>container have any effect and does it taste any better if the milk is
>hotter and froth is frothier???

The best way to get a good head on the scalded milk is to use one of the
commercially available attachments for the steam nozzle which is a little
venturi attached to a snorkel which injects air into the steam. The thing
costs $2.00 in stores near me.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.alien.visitors,alt.conspiracy