HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:10:17 GMT

In article <507@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
> [...] All the laws of
> physics except the collapse postulate are local. You cannot get a
> violation of Bell's inequality from these laws. Thus you need collapse to
> prove that Bell's inequality is violated and to compute the delay
> involved.
>
> It is the premise of this argument, `that no law of physics except the
> collapse postulate can violate Bell's inequality' that you keep objecting
> to. [...]
 
Actually to get at my basic objection we have to step back a bit. The
premise you quote, if I've understood you, is the conclusion of an
argument whose premise is "information must be transferred
instantaneously at a distance when Bell's inequality is violated".
As I've said before, I consider this a completely reasonable thing
to say. However, I don't think one can draw any conclusions about
quantum theory from any argument based on this premise. As a
physical theory QM is not required to account for a "process"
which cannot be observed. The correlations which result in the
violation of Bell's inequality are the only thing it needs to
explain, and it regards those as a consequence of the twinned
photons' common origin.
 
Also I don't think it's correct to call collapse a law of physics.
If one takes probability as a primary concept one needs to describe
what happens when the observer's state of knowledge changes. If
this occurs discontinuously, then the description naturally reflects
that discontinuity.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
From: rhatcher@fnala.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:22:18 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan25.134627.22922@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:

[good, (mostly :-) coherent and articulately written points about
the search for a "reasonable" interpretation of QM, by both people]

> The problem is that no self-consistent interpretation of QM is
> adequate for all the purposes of physics. It's all very well to say
> that QM says nothing about reality, but only predicts the results of
> experiments, but then how can someone take seriously a quantum theory
> of black holes, or neutron stars, or the Big Bang? Is talk about a
> quantum theory of black holes really short-hand for "If in a lab, we
> prepare a black hole with such and such a mass, and later perform such
> and such a measurement...?

What I wish to comment on is the last line.  Maybe I've grown up with
a simplistic background in the "philosophy" of science, being just a
simple experimentalist and not a theorist, but this IS how I've always
interpreted "theory".  To me talk about a theory IS just a short-hand for 
"If in a lab....".  I've always taken theory to be a means of generating 
predictions that, in principle, could be verified (but are still subject
to testing) in the lab.  The *key* part for this discussion being the
clause "in principle"; -currently- unverifiable portions of a theory 
should be emphisized as speculative, but are valid predictions if they
result from a theory that IS verifiable in other domains.  Here in this
case to be specific I've always recognized that QM theories of Black Holes
to be a shorthand for "If in the lab...", and while we know that presently 
we can't actually do the lab experiment we take the theory to have some
validity because it results from coherent exentions from domains that
ARE measured.  Not being a theorist I've never had much enthusiasm for
"in principle" type theories (except as passing interest); give me
something that I *can* measure. :-)

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher        | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 Software Tzar, Hunchback | Michigan State University | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180     | East Lansing, MI 48824    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23580 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2872 sci.skeptic:22941 alt.paranormal:2866 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7813 alt.alien.visitors:10262 alt.magick:6986 alt.pagan:15945
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,rec.arts.startrek.tech,alt.alien.visitors,alt.magick,alt.pagan
Subject: Re: New Physics,Healing & Paranormal 2 "White Paper"
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:44:31 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: GRASP Lab

In article <C1H5D6.6Jr@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
> 
> Continuing part 2 of my paid for "intelligence analysis" on the impact
> of New Age Paradigms on the future of medicine, new marketing
> strategies, new politics, etc. etc. for a high level consortium based
> in Luxembourg,Geneva,London and Paris. Your (unpaid) comments,
> criticisms will be included (if of value) in footnotes. I am striving
> for a balanced objective presentation.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think so.

You know Jack, you should try to strive for regaining your sanity instead.

As for your high-level consortium, I challenge you to give any information
on it. I think you're talking BS.


JM.
From: klauck@dfki.uni-kl.de (Christoph Klauck)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: "Feynman Diagrams"
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:27:48 GMT
Organization: DFKI Kaiserslautern
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ws-300.dfki.uni-kl.de

Hi everybody,
I am searching for a program to draw "Feynman Diagrams" and
some introduction on how to use it.
Thanks in advance
	Christoph Klauck
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: what is demonstrable?
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:37:56 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I've only posted this to sci.physics to cut down on netwaste.

rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
> relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
>[snip]

>>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates.  The real 
>>world is a wondrously interesting place!  Weirdnesses like black holes, 
>>einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, 
>>superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of 
>>all, demonstrable!

>I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
>real world is interesting.  But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
>the above list is "demonstrable!"

>Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list?  In what way would you
>propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" ...
> (stuff on how PK is more demonstrable than these things deleted)

Maybe, but here is an example of the too-narrow scope of sci.physics.
We spend all this time talking crap about black holes et al, and you
wind up mischaracterizing two of the elements on his list.  First the
less painful one: "quasar" in fact originally stood for "quasi-stellar
radio source."  There are these things on the sky; we can't go there,
but they do exist.

Okay, now the one that really bothers me.  "Quantum wells" are a neat,
VERY well-documented, Hot Topic in solid-state physics.  If you have
access to a literature searcher, search for "quantum" + "well."  I found
1,939 items, and my database only covers items published since 
September 1988.  Or you could just pick up a random issue of Phys Rev
Letters, Phys Rev B, or Applied Physics Letters.  I just went to the
library and looked at the latest issue of Appl Phys Lett, and there
are four papers on quantum well phenomena.  

Basically they're just tiny structures in semiconductors, but there
are all sorts of fun things that happen in them, e.g. lasing.  What
gets me is that because it's solid-state physics, it's ignored.  I'd
rather hear about mesoscopic quantum systems than about event horizons
or EPR paradoxes for the Nth time.  (No offense to those who discuss
it, but you gotta admit these topics tend to reoccur painfully often, 
with frequency 1/semester.)  I have to point out that this is not
special pleading: I'm doing astrophysics.  I get enough of cosmology
already, that's why I want to hear something else.
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:31:40 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan26.061120.19568@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
> [...]
> Eberhard's proof says nothing about wave functions. It does refer to
> the results of measurements, and the wave function by itself does
> not determine the results of any measurement.

Huh? I always thought that in QM the *only* basis for making
predictions about measurements was the wave function. I realize
you can go outside the wave function model and base predictions
on higher levels of abstraction, but it must always be possible
to derive those results based on the wave function model.

>  
> >Eberhard proved
> >that the observed experimental results depend on the setting of a distant
> >polarizer.
>  
> So far I agree. In fact, the joint probabilities predicted by QM
> *do* depend on both settings.
>  
> >In QM predictions about this observation are completely
> >determined by the wave function. Thus the wavefunction itself must
> >be dependent on (or be a function of) the distant polarizer angle.
>  
> No, I think you have that wrong. One needs to project the wave
> function onto a basis set to obtain probabilities, and that, I
> believe, is where the functional dependence comes in.

The wave function represents the probability of observing results
corresponding to a particular basis set. If those probabilities did
not encode nonlocal effects in the first place you cannot get them
from projection.

>[...]
> The conditions for Eberhard's proof have nothing to do with time
> delays. The time delay becomes relevant only when we discuss the
> significance of the violation of the inequality Eberhard derived.
> I consider it an important issue as well, and I'm trying to
> address it in my other series of posts.

In an introductory paragraph Eberhard specifically discusses space-like
separated events. It is true that when he defines his *locality* assumption
he only talks about correlation values and knob settings as being
independent of each other and does not mention space-like separation
explicitly. However this is an obvious implicit condition. There is no
reason to suspect that knob settings and observed correlation values
will be independent in local models unless they are space-like separated.

This is a sticking point with both you and Daryl and it is completely
beyond me why anyone should question this. It is trivial to construct
a local hidden variables model that reproduces the correlation function
in Bell's inequality or any other correlation function you can invent
if you do not consider time and distance constraints.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: holerbch@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Uwe Hollerbach)
Subject: Re: Okay, it's not the inverse sprinkler problem...
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:19:35 GMT

In article <12950103@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM> ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes:
>
>If your stopped and not currently pressing on the brake or clutch with
>the motor running then you'd have to be in neutral. So pushing the
>clutch is meaningless.
>
>The answer I once say in a traffic school movie was to put it in reverse
>and gas it. I'd honk the horn too.
>
>R. Peregrino, ric@spd.hp.com


Actually, I found that the best thing to do was to step (lightly) on
the gas. I was standing at an intersection, and I heard a wild
screeching of tires behind me, plus headlights waving madly in my
rearview mirror. The person behind me couldn't brake in time and had
lost control of his/her car. So I pulled forward about nine feet, and
the other car eventually stopped six feet forward of where my rear
bumper had been, and facing backward. Then I re-swallowed my heart &
other organs. I recommend this alternative over either of the others
(if it works :-) ).
-- 
Uwe Hollerbach          uh@acm.princeton.edu  or  uh@alumni.caltech.edu
"In His infinite mercy, Allah does not subtract from one's alloted span those
hours which are spent in contemplation of net.news. All praise be to Allah."
-- an obscure commentator on the early work of Al-Khowariszmi
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:33:33 GMT

In article <-xq3+jr@rpi.edu> petitc@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit) writes:
>
> Emotions and mental states are CRUCIAL to physical health...
> Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
>subject feel cared for...

     Or, more simply, caring for a person can make a person
     feel cared for.  Somehow, I feel another Norman Cousins attack
     coming on. 

> Intuition is a very powerful mental ability (look at it this way---have you
>ever heard of AI---Artifical Intuition?).  Why?  Because it brings together
>life experience (e.g. Wisdom), and lets you look at problems in totally new
>ways.  Einstein probably wasn't just intelligent---he was also very intuitive..
> It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
>means...

     Throwing darts at a board is also a powerful mental ability.

> As for all the ESP info---consider this.  There are many urban legends which
>involve ESP as 'saving the day'  Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
>of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
>.  But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
>exists in some form.

      Consider this.  Millions of people thought their diseases
      caused by bad humours, or evil spirits or ...

      They were all wrong.

> Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
>thought of how to prove its existence.

      Galilean relativity had a long history prior to 
      Einsteinian relativity, and ESP is widely believed to 
      exist.  Unfortunately for ESP proponents, there is actually
      evidence for the both of the former. And just remember, J.B. 
      Rhine studied 'ESP' for countless years down at Duke, with no undisputed
      positive results, and yet our particle-heaving friends 
      use SR with every new toss.

      Sortta makes you wonder why ol' J.B. was so incompetent.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: question on electromagnetic pulse
Date: 20 Jan 93 18:05:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

edharris@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu asks

>Could someone tell me (or point to a book/paper) what causes EMP
>(ELectroMagnetic Pulse) in a nuclear explosion? How are relatively low
>frequency Electromagnetic waves generated in such high energy reactions?

Try
		"EMP: Engineering and Design Principles" (Bell Telephone
		Laboratories, 1975)

		"Electronmagnetic Signals from Nuclear Explosions in 
		 Outer Space" M.H. Johnson and B. A. Lippmann, 
		 Phys. Rev. vol.119, 1960.

		(I can't find my other papers.)

EMP originates from Compton scattering: gamma rays from the burst collide
with air molecules, knocking out electrons. The charge separation creates
a strong non-radiated field. A radiated EMP field is generated by an 
unbalance in the Compton current caused by asymmetries in the surrounding
environment. This accounts for the relatively low (radio) frequencies.

Steve Hoell		seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there imp
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:55:44
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1993Jan24.234057.24075@cs.unca.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu's message of Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:40:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.234057.24075@cs.unca.edu> kepley@photon.phys.unca.edu (Brad Kepley) writes:

> I wouldn't be so sure that Newton, Einstein, Plank, Bohr, Heisenberg,
> and Pauli were above all this "puffing and strutting" and insulting
> people on occasion.

Especially Newton.  He was a great scientist, but also quite an
unpleasant human being.  He was quite certainly not above vicious
priority fights; consider how he behaved in his disputes with Leibniz.

Pauli was also quite capable of being unkind: read Weisskopf's
autobiographical works for some examples.  


--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23556 sci.skeptic:22915 alt.paranormal:2857 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2862 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7792
From: petitc@nuge112.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:43:03 GMT

rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:

>In article <C1H02x.K38@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
>[snip]

>>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates.  The real world is a wondrously interesting place!  Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
>>
>I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
>real world is interesting.  But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
>the above list is "demonstrable!"

>Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list?  In what way would you
>propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" (a
>paradox worthy of podolsky), for example?  Demonstrations of the PK you
>deny are more likely.

 Actually, I also side more with the advocate of 'New Age' stuff.  Most of it,
I'll agree is probably off-the-wall.  But, some is very important and ignored
in this day and age.  Specifically...

 Emotions and mental states are CRUCIAL to physical health...
 Properly done therapudic touching can help heal sicknesses by making the
subject feel cared for...
 Intuition is a very powerful mental ability (look at it this way---have you
ever heard of AI---Artifical Intuition?).  Why?  Because it brings together
life experience (e.g. Wisdom), and lets you look at problems in totally new
ways.  Einstein probably wasn't just intelligent---he was also very intuitive..
 It is possible to perceive someone else's emotional state by non-verbal
means...

 As for all the ESP info---consider this.  There are many urban legends which
involve ESP as 'saving the day'  Now, in order for ESP not to exist, EVERY ONE
of those stories must have either an alternate explaination or be totally false
.  But, if even one has no such explaination, and is somewhat true, then ESP
exists in some form.

 Just remember---Relativity wasn't believed to exist either, until someone
thought of how to prove its existence.


-- 
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 2 of 4 moderators not qualified for sci.phys.research
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:23:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Well if most of the stuff posted is theory, Jack, then why don't
you start alleviating the imbalance by posting experimental
material.  We are all waiting for the results of your experiments,
after all...
From: ask@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Andrew Stanford Klingler)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Trouble understanding bra-ket notation
Date: 21 Jan 93 07:04:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In <1jd41cINNdh4@gap.caltech.edu> allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson) writes:

>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>>Mathematically speaking, both bras and kets are vectors in a kind of
>>vector space called a Hilbert space.  This is a vector space over the
>>complex numbers equippend with an inner product satisfying various
>>axioms.  So <a| and b> are just vectors and <a|b> denotes their inner
>>product.  The "operator" X is just a linear transformation of the
>>Hilbert space, and <a|X|b> is just a weird way of writing the inner
>>product of a and Xb.  

:>John, I think thinking this way is a great hindrance to a person trying
:>to understand the practice of manipulating bras and kets. What's the
:>difference between <a| and |a>? Why do you see expressions like X|a>
:>but never |a>X? And so on. If you naively think of kets (bras) as
:>column (row) vectors, you can readily follow more complicated expressions,
:>like |a><a|. (See my earlier post for a more extensive discussion.)
:>							Allen K.

OK, maybe I can make this even more confused.  One's outlook varies with
background and interests.  For some physical intuition about what the
quantities mean, I find it helpful to think of the inner product.  When
you hear "The probability is the square of the amplitude" you're thinking
 <a|a> = |a|^2 is the probability or density.  In this case, the similarity
between |a> and <a| makes things easier to see.  The row-column vector
image helps keep indices and complicated expressions clear, but when
I actually get around to writing down brackets, I'm usually thinking
of projecting onto a basis via an inner product.  So the usage (if not
the stand-alone meaning) of |a><a| is perfectly clear.  Incidentally, the
expression X|a> is written in that order just because operators act on
functions from the left.  X can then be construed as an inf-dim linear
operator or matrix.  I have seen |a>X but only with indices attached to
keep things clear.  The expression <a|X|a> is a case of deliberate 
notational symmetry; it can be construed as X acting on |a> normally
or its adjoint acting on <a|.  I think the inner product "attitude" may
be more helpful in, e.g., solving first year QM problems.

ask@ucscb