HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Origin of universe as quantum fluctuation?
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:22:36 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <65897@hydra.gatech.EDU>, cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes...
> 
>You seem to be conceiving of the big bang as an event which occurred
>in a pre-existing space-time.  As I understand it, space-time itself, as
>well as all the "stuff" which fills it, ORIGINATED in the big bang.
>Therefore, asking questions about what happened before the big bang
>is the same as asking what happened before time began:  it's completely
>meaningless.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that all these questions are just speculations
based upon almost zero physics content.  There is nobody who can tell you what
the universe looked like at sufficiently early time to address this question
in any kind of scientific way.  

Under the assumption that there is no fundamentally new physics which would
modify our description, and that everything we speculate and which is currently
consistent with the (poor) experimental evidence available will remain so 
indefinitely into the future, then it may in fact be true that it may not
be possible to define "what happened before the big bang" with sufficient
precision to provide a good answer.  But that's too many "ifs" for me.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: cos(reflection phase beam splitter) = 0 ? NO FTL?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:53:38 GMT



Message  1:
From aephraim@physics.Berkeley.EDU Thu Aug 13 19:00:06 1992
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 18:59:22 PDT
From: aephraim@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Aephraim M. Steinberg)
To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us
Subject: Re:  ftl device visualization

Dear Dr. Sarfatti,

You write :
>So that the locally observable probabilities to measure the
receiver
>photon polarization eigenvalues are conserved and we get
the connection
>communication equation
>
>p(e) - p(o) = sin2x cos(phi+m)cosb  (6)
>
>

where you have defined b as the phase shift upon reflection
at your 50/50 beam-splitter.(With respect to the
transmission phase shift.)

It can be shown from unitarity or from time-reversal
symmetry that this phase is always plus or minus pi/2.(For
any lossless beam-splitter, not just 50/50.) Thus cos(b) is
always 0, so p(e)=p(o), and there is no communication.

 Aephraim.

P.S. Thank you for your "visualization" of the transmitter
portion.Is the receiver portion just a calcite crystal,
where you monitor the difference between the e and o rates?
YES! (Sarfatti)

(Just in case this objection has a flaw, so I can try to
calculate explicitly what I would say the result is.)


Sarfatti response: At last a refutation that makes sense. If
true it would definitely mean that my device would not work.
On the other hand is it really true? Or is it a circular
argument? That is, is the "proof" that b =pi/2 really from
causality rather than unitarity or time reversal? From my
equations I do not see why it must be true. So I would like
to see the formal proof before I withdraw my claim. Then, if
it is true, we must see what happens if there is absorption.

However, I cannot find any information that b = pi/2 in any
book on optics. To the contrary for external reflection from
a single surface the reflection phase shift is pi not pi/2
in discussions of Fresnel equations. For example Fig.6.2-2
p.206 of PHOTONICS by Saleh & Teich (Wiley 1991) says for TE
wave "External reflection. The reflection coefficient is
always real and negative, corresponding to a phase shift of
pi" The only case, and it is unusual, where the reflection
phase shift is pi/2 is in internal reflection of a TM wave
at a unique angle of incidence corresponding to total
internal reflection. Why should a beam splitter be so
special as not to obey Fresnel equations?


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: big nuclei (was: BLACKHOLES IN THE CENTER OF THE EARTH)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:41:00 GMT

rdc@pelican.cit.cornell.edu (Bob Cowles) writes...
>Is there any "back-of-the-envelope" calculation that has been done to
>size a black hole of "nuclear" density? (whatever that means) ...along
>the lines of "if the nucleii of x uranium (or take your pick) atoms
>were "combined" to the same average density as a single nucleus, then the
>mass is sufficient to form a black hole"?  Any idea what the number would be?

x ~= 10^55

Thats about 3 solar masses.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Entropy
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:04:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



The concept of entropy seems to have two geneses:

From the Carnot cycle via the concept of temperature

or

From the notion of the maximum in the number of possible states ie
statistics.

But I don't recall any text's showing that these are equivalent
derivations.  Can someone give me a reference or two????

Thanks,    Jim Green
-- 
_______________________________________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Name:  James M. Green                         )*(     
Email: jmgreen@pilot.njin.net                (***)         "The Lord may be
Smail: Stockton State College NAMS          )*(*)*(       subtle, but
       Pomona, NJ  08240-9988              (* (*) *)           he is not mean."
ICBM:  39.49333 N  74.53083 W               )*(*)*(               
FAX:   609/652-4958                          (***)               A. Einstein
Voice: 609/652-4558                           )*(     
_______________________________________________|_______________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rhodewalt_br@swam2.enet.dec.com (Yackytonopah)
Subject: Re: Fun with droplets
Organization: Bonerland
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 AUG 92 18:03:58    


In article <1992Aug20.185557.14083@reed.edu>, acase@reed.edu (Andrew Case) writes...
;In article <1992Aug20.013001.25066@eos.arc.nasa.gov> jbm@eos.arc.nasa.gov 
;(Jeffrey Mulligan) writes:
;>adrian@csqx.cs.rhbnc.ac.uk (A Johnstone) writes:
;>
;>>Whilst I'm on the subject (probably this is not the place for it but here 
;>>goes anyway) has anybody else noticed the way droplets of coffee often run
;>>around on top of the main volume of coffee in a filter machine? 
;>>                          Adrian
;>
;>I think this is just the effect of fairly high surface tension
;>(like mercury droplets).  You also see this with ethylene glycol (antifreeze).
;>
;>	Jeff Mulligan (jbm@eos.arc.nasa.gov)
; 
;      Oh Boy! You have wandered into my turf. I just spent nine months
;studying exactly this phenomenon (isn't physics great?). The coffee
;droplets are prevented from coalescing by a thin (~1000 Angstrom) 
;film of air trapped between the droplet and the surface of the
;coffee. The film thins slowly, until the droplet has approached
;sufficiently close to the surface for rupture to occur. Other
;neat things about this phenomenon are the fact that mechanical 
;vibrations increase the drop lifetime, while electric fields,
;dust, and a whole bunch of other things decrease the lifetime.
;In addition to coffee and ethylene glycol, you can observe this 
;in just about any liquid. I have gotten droplets to last for up
;to eight minutes under controlled conditions.
; 
;followups to sci.physics 
;references available on request.
; 
;Andrew Case
;acase@reed.edu

That is _so_ cool. Does the drop flatten out (as a result of falling or 
being near the surface of the bottom liquid)? How can a film of air
be trapped betwee a convex surface and a flat surface? 

The world awaits your answer.

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Yackytonopah            | Who's the greatest mud-skipper of them all?
From: sjplimp@cs.sandia.gov (Steve Plimpton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: marbles in a container
Date: 13 Aug 92 20:15:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Aug13.201500.22023
Organization: Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM
Originator: sjplimp@singsing.cs.sandia.gov

korfhage@weston.poly.edu (Willard Korfhage) writes:
 
> A question came up recently about marbles in a container: If I dump a
> bunch of marbles in a container (randomly positioned, rather than
> carefully placed), what are the statistics concerning how many points
> of contact each marble has with other marbles?
 
>   Willard Korfhage
>   korfhage@weston.poly.edu

This is a problem related to grain boundary structure in solids.  I
have a Xeroxed pg. 304 which I wrote on the top:

J. D. Bernal in Royal Soc. Proc. (London) A, 280.

I don't know the year, but if I was smart, 280 is the volume #.  It's
around 1960 I believe.

If memory serves, Bernal put metal BBs in a balloon, poured in some
sticky fluid, then peeled off the balloon. I remember a picture of a
frozen mound of BBs with a grain boundary running across it.  Somebody
had to pick the BBs off one by one, count the contact points, and
record it.  I assume it was a grad student. :)

I copied the page because Bernal quotes the Reverend Stephen Hales in
his 1727 book "Vegetable Staticks" (no joke)

'I compressed several fresh parcels of Pease in the same Pot with a
force equal to 1600, 800, and 400 pounds; in which Experiments, tho'
the Pease dilated, yet they did not raise the lever, because what they
increased in bulk was, by the great incumbent weight, pressed into the
interstices of the Pease, which they adequately filled up, being
therby formed into pretty Dodecahedrons.'

Steve
sjplimp@cs.sandia.gov
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Vector Bosons?
Date: 18 Aug 1992 14:20:38 -0700
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes...

... an article good enough that with Scott's few minor modifications I
would like to nominate it for the FAQ.  I have a copy of the original
in case it is needed.  Scott, the last 2 paragraphs of your own posting
(addressing the "intermediate" issue) could be appended as well.

>>Bosons thus are a most
>>gregarious bunch, true party animals -- except that their parties tend
>>towards the dull side, what with *everyone* doing exactly the same thing.

>How about, "what with *everyone* doing more or less the same thing."?  
>Except at zero temperature, the particles in a bose condensate are *not*
>all in the same energy level.

Depends on what you mean my a "party" -- a single state or the whole
collection of particles.  I would say that every boson in the ground
state party is doing *exactly* the same thing.  Every boson in each
other party is also doing *exactly* the same thing as others in the
same party.  A few lonesome bosons may be off by themselves looking
for a party to join.  As temperature goes to zero, the closer you get
to having them all in the same big party.

Richard M. Mathews			 Freedom for Lithuania
Internet:   richard@locus.com		        Laisve!
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rpsingh@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: SCOSTEP meeting where??
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:51:24 GMT

Could anyone of you tell me where is the SCOSTEP meeting going to be held.
Also, if anyone among you have the telephone no. of Prof. C.H.Liu at
University of Illinois, Urbana. I need to gather some info for my dad.

Thanking you in anticipation.
Ravi. 

*******************************************************************************
`Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen'.
                                                     - Einstein

Ravi P. Singh                        E-mail: rpsingh@hydra.uwo.ca
Dept. of Physics                     Phone : (519)-679-2111 Ext.6556 [off]
University of Western Ontario                (519)-433-6291 [Res.]
London N6A 3K7, Ontario              Fax   : (519)-661-2033 
 C A N A D A
********************************************************************************
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Survey
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:38:01 EDT

urban@stout.atd.ucar.edu (Art Urban (PROFS)) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.201713.23219@infonode.ingr.com> norris@infonode.ingr.com (Jeff Norris) writes:
>%adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>%>>If you were to die today and God asked you, "Why should I let you into my
>%>>heaven?" What would you say?
>%>I would say "You shouldn't".  Have mercy on me a sinner.
>%> -Steve
>%Where the *HELL* did _this_ come from?
>%-jeff
>Would you believe it came from somebody already dead and buried in the ground,
>because he failed to answer god's multiple choice question? 

It's even worse.  It's from someone who forgot to use a Number 2 pencil.
From: varmint@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Samir Varma)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #91 (8/12)
Keywords: physics news interesting banana
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:41:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Center for Particle Physics, University of Texas

>In article <1992Aug14.193326.19268@midway.uchicago.edu>, revu@ellis.uchicago.edu (Sendhil Revuluri) writes...
>>delay; it took me this long to get permission, etc.)  For those who
>>want to receive PNUPs via email, mail pfs2@aip.org with your address
>>and you will be added to the distribution list.


Do you mean e-mail address?  And, if so, should one put it in the header
or in the body?  (Given that it must be an automated subscription program).

Thanks for the info,
Samir Varma
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: Origin of universe as quantum fluctuation?
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:51:08 GMT

Makes sense; a quantum fluctuation occurred, the universe
expanded from the initial point, and there's something
beyond the limit of our understanding (i.e., beyond the
universal horizon) that's being swept away with the
frontier of event 0.  This explains what came before the
universe:  another universe, which still exists and
surrounds our own.

The creation of the universe--obviously not your usual
quantum effect, considering the energy released and the
complexity created--had a nonzero probability, and may yet
have a nonzero probability, though whether this means it
will again occur within this universe or simply be repeated
cyclically by this universe I don't know.  Perhaps it has
already.

				--Blair
				  "If this'd had robots in it,
				   Asimov would have been proud."
From: ecc_jim@ecc.tased.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: BLACKHOLES IN THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH
Date: 19 Aug 92 10:37:48 +1000

In article <Bt6xuL.2K2@ecf.toronto.edu>, hillp@ecf.toronto.edu (HILL Peter) writes:
> grain of sand or less. They would fall into the center of planets and
> suns but take billions of years to eat up their hosts.  No structure
> would be strong enough to stop such a hole from falling in to the
> center of the planet.  

Would it necessarily fall to the *centre* of the Earth. I'm no physicist but I
certainly remember back in my pre-university days being taught in a physics
class that within a solid spherical body of uniform density the gravitational
attraction is uniform throughout the body.

But hey that was thirteen years ago and I could be wrong!

I submit this thought to the ultimate physics knowledge base...

Jim Palfreyman

jim@r140.tased.edu.au

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: sea waves
Keywords: waves
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 05:27:15 GMT

In article <25610@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>
>OK.  So I could be totally wrong.  Sue me. :-)

Sue?

Well, we were looking for a mediating object in
a photon-->e-e+ reaction, to conserve the momentum,
you understand, and...

				--Blair
				  "How much does a swallow weigh?"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Hubble constant?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:54:00 GMT

scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef) writes...
>  Because you said something like `infinity minus
>infinty might be everything' I thought you agreed
>that your way of integrating is just one of the
>arbitrary ways to get answers for diverging integrals.

It was meant to show why the symmetry argument is not rigorous.

Someone else posted the reason why the symmetry argument is invalid.

My way of integrating is also unrigorous, but you can be unrigorous if
you're right! :-)

>Now, if one has an equation G(g) = d, where g is
>a Friedmann-metric and d a `delta-tensor', then
>G(g) = d is in effect a vacuum-equation G(g) = 0,
>with the solutions I mentioned (see e.g. MTW).

A grid of point masses is hardly empty space!

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:46:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: utagraph.1992Aug20.234319.11437
    <25611@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug20.030038.22420@utagraph.uta.edu> 
    <1992Aug20.043947.13590@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
NewsSoftware: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
NntpPostingHost: utahep.uta.edu
MessageID: <20AUG199218461517@utahep.uta.edu>
X-Bytes: 1558

In article <1992Aug20.043947.13590@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <1992Aug20.030038.22420@utagraph.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>>In article <25611@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes...
>>>In article <1992Aug14.164822.10838@utagraph.uta.edu>, sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes...
>>>>[about a wager I made] 
>>> 
>>>Are you kidding?  I'm optimistic, but this is hard to imagine.  I doubt you
>>>could get anyone from CDF or D0 to take such a speculation seriously.
>>
>>Well I am on D0...it's a beauty bet  if we see nothing, everybody sort of
>>shrugs their shoulders and moves on. But if we do find something, I look like
>>Moses...
> 
>    Interesting attitude.  With this philosophy, Jeanne Dixon looks like Moses.
> 
>                              dale bass
> 
 I absolutely agree, Dale. Don't you think this is how these charlatans
in the tabloids always work: You make a lot of outrageous predictions,
and if 1 % pan out, people invite you be on Donahue ?

 Just as an insight on HEP as practised : Wagers like this (for a bottle
of wine, usually) are not uncommon. There was one made before LEP
startup, signed by rather serious folk on both sides an d posted in my
office at CERN, which bet that some evidence of physics beyond the 
Standard Model would be found in the first run of LEP. Alas it was not to be...

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

         Dept of Physics
         Univ. of Texas
               at Arlington
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Superbashing (was Re: SARFATTI LECTURES ON SUPER PHYSICS #1)
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:19:12 GMT

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes...
>>any supersymmetry. So there's no experimental, phenomenological, or 
>>theoretical evidence for SS. (See also John C. Baez's posting)

>That's not the way I understand it.  If you take the SM by itself, there
>are intrinsic problems which are guaranteed to arise at sufficiently high
>energy.  In loose terms, the Higgs particle behaves badly at high energy,
>causing "violation of unitarity," i.e., probabilities for certain processes
>are predicted to be greater than unity.  If I remember correctly, these
>problems arise with quadratic Higgs self-couplings and longitudinal W-W 
>scattering.

Don't fix me, and don't beat me, but if I remember right, unitarity as well
as renormalizability have been proven for the SM in the 70's by Weinberg,
t'Hooft, and others. Problems arise from the nonlinearity of the Higgs
theory (i.e. field equation) -- no superposition, etc. I'm rather sure that
self-consistency of the SM is granted. 

I'm aware that there are problems in really performing the renormalization
and keeping unitarity.

>Although we have not yet probed the energy scale at which this arises,
>so that in the strict sense you are correct that there is no experimental 
>evidence for SS, we know that the problems are coming and that SS is 
>a way out, which offers additional theoretical appeal on other fronts
>as well.  

>I think that it would be fair to consider these problems with the SM 
>as some "theoretical" evidence for SS or some other theory which is 
>mathematically similar.

Does SS overcome the problems mentioned ? If not, and if the problems of SM 
are of deeper nature (not only "missing a (math'l) trick") then you canNOT
derive theoretical evidence for a particular other theory, e.g. SS. 

But if you want, you may also view the SSC as a tool for finding out if the
energy range scanned by it gives some experimental evidence to one of the
concurrent theories. If not, it will at least deliver restrictions to some
parameters in the theory.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@dknkurz1.bitnet> or <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
Newsgroups: sci.physics