HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:11:20 GMT

In article <518@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.053921.11702@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
(Dale Atems) writes:
>> In article <515@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>> >[...]
>> >The Relativistic
>> >Schrodinger equation is local and Lorentz invariant. One cannot derive
>> >such effects using that equation.
>>
>> This argument looks like a rather clever sleight of hand to me. The
>> last statement requires a proof. While it's certainly true that one
>> cannot use that equation to obtain an instantaneous change in the wave
>> function at a given location due to a change in a distant polarizer
>> angle, it's not at all obvious to me that you need this in order to
>> describe what is happening. Maybe I'm missing something.
>
>You do need an instantaneous change in the wave function that is
>influenced by a distant polarizer angle to get the predictions of QM.
>You can prove this. In effect that is what Eberhard did.
 
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.
 
>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.
 
>> I've already shown that the nonlocal dependence required by Eberhard's
>> proof is implicitly contained in the rotational invariance of the
>> singlet state.
>
>This is false. Without talking about time delays you cannot prove anything
>about locality.[...]
 
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.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why only mass `distorts' space?
Date: 22 Jan 93 09:32:43 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Eindhoven University of Technology.

ted@physics2 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:

>The short answer is this:  It's hard to view electromagnetism as a 
>geometrical phenomenon analogous to gravity because electromagnetic
>forces affect different objects in different ways.

That's true, but it's certainly possible. Shortly after GR, the
Kaluza-Klein theory introduced a 5th dimension to describe EM forces.
The idea was, that this extra dimension was shrinked, just as the extra
dimensions in string theory. The biography from A. Pais over Einstein
gives an short explaination of the Kaluza-Klein theory.

This theory is not further developed because the problems which arose
in quantizing them, the same problem we're facing now with GR.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
**********************************************************
From: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: A Good Stat. Mech. Book Is Hard To Find
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:02:21 GMT
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu (Berkeley Tentacle)
   So can anyone recommend an introductory undergrad text on statistical mech-
	Cosma Shalizi
	In Real Life: lizi@soda.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

-- 
"I'd love to hold you/ I'd love to kiss you/ I ain't got time for that now."
-Talking Heads, "Life During Wartime"
"Death needs Time for what it kills to grow in."
-William S. Burroughs, "Ah Pook is Here"
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23608 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2880
From: jimmosk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jim J Moskowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.optics,sci.edu
Subject: Science Fair JUDGES WANTED [repost]
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:31:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Distribution: pa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


   The Delaware Valley Science Fairs are seeking research-experienced
scientists, engineers, and technologists willing to volunteer one (1) day to
help one of the most important science education programs in the Delaware
Valley.  The 1993 DVSF will be judged Thursday, April 1st, 1993 at the
Philadelphia Civic Center.  Judging requires a full day.  Criteria for
evaluating science projects will be provided (as will breakfast and lunch).
   Contact with student scientists in a Science Fair is an interesting
experience for scientists or technicians with training and recent experience
in any field of medicine, science, or engineering.  To volunteer as a
Science Fair judge, contact:

Dr. Lee Bennett
The Franklin Institute
Franklin Parkway at 20th St.
Philadelphia PA  19103
(215) 448-1269

or email your name and mailing address to jimmosk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu

--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Jim Moskowitz                   "All you can logically say about 
jimmosk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu     a guy who thinks he's a poached egg
                                 is that he's in the minority." - James Burke
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Luminous Intensity
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:27:10 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: selee@hpcc01.corp.hp.com's message of 22 Jan 93 03:18:06 GMT

In article <4720060@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> selee@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Lee Say Eng) writes:




>   If two light rays of luminous intensities  I_1 and I_2 are in the
>   same direction and are a small distance x apart,  what would be the
>   apparent total intensity to an observer a long distance away?
>
>   Is it simply   I_total = I_1 + I_2  ?


   (Ignoring losses in intensity as the light rays traverses thru space)

Consider two plane light-waves:

E1 = A1*exp i(k*x-wt)

E2 = A2exp i(k*x-wt+p)

the A's are amplitude
k is the wave vector propagating in the x dir
w is 2*pi*frequency
p is a phase difference

If these waves are to interfere (not clear by the way you state the
problem , ie how small is a compared to beam width?), 
intensity goes as the square of the fields.


I = |E1 + E2|**2 = (E1+E2)^*(E1+E2)  where (E1+E2)^* is the complex conj.


I = A1**2 + A2**2 + 2*A1*A2* cos(p) = I1 + I2 + 2*I12*cos(p)

The maximum is: 

Imax= I1 + I2 + 2*I12	cos(p) = 1  p = 0, or n*2*pi, n=0,1,2...

or Imax = ( A1 + A2 )**2

the minimum is:

Imin = I1 + I2 - 2*I12 	cos(p) = -1 p= pi, or m*pi, m =0,1,2...

or Imin = ( A1 - A2 )**2

for cos(p) = 0  p = pi/2 or j*pi/2 (j=m+1)

I = I1 + I2 = A1**2 + A2**2.

your "simple" case.

-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What does quantum have to do with it?
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:34:41 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1jmlssINN4v8@gaia.ucs.orst.edu>, preddy@comphy.physics.orst.edu writes:
> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
[...]
> This "incoherent mess" is nothing more than a failure to
> separate a classical notion of the way things are "out there"
> from what QM predicts about experiments done on systems.
> 
> > That's enough for some people, but not for everyone.
> 
> Then "everyone" will have to look elsewhere for the answer
> he/she seeks (like metaphysics, perhaps, or religion).
> 

This last statement is the point where physicists go from simply being
too complacent to committing a serious sin against science. You are saying
that is impossible to come up with a more complete physical theory that
could be experimentally verified. What is the scientific basis for this
metaphysical claim? 


Paul Budnik
From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: 2 of 4 moderators not qualified for sci.phys.research
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:40:28 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us's message of 21 Jan 93 07:08:31 GMT

In article <C16zu7.5oq@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:


>   I'm for a moderated physics gorup. But looking at the posted CV only
>   John Baez is really qualified by formal trainin. Johnson is next best
>   but he is an experimentalist and most of stuff is theory. It would be
>   good to have a separate experimental conference. Dale Bass dos not even
>   have a Ph.D. and his field is not physics but engineering. And the other
>   fellow is more a chemist than a physicist.

Honestly I don't think there is anyone "qualified" for the job.
I don't see how anyone can due this job fairly and it rubs against
the grain to think we need them.

That being said I suggest we shut the hell up and stop talking about this!
Let's vote (the vote is under way, see the second call for votes).
I think we should give it a go as an experiment. It may well fail under
it's own weight of pretention. If it works then we have something of
use. At the present I am of the attitude; Let's wait and see.

And now we return to discussions about PHYSICS.


-sjm

--
Sean J. Merritt		         |"Road-kill has it's seasons just like     
Dept of Physics Boston University|anything, there's possums in the autumn  
merritt@macro.bu.edu             |and farm cats in the spring." T. Waits
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23440 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2823 sci.skeptic:22832
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: below absolute zero?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>I'm not sure of what was originally intended. I just caught the posts
>whipping by at warp 10 and did not really digest it. There is in quantum
>physics such a thing as a negative spin temperature - this would be formally
>below absolute zero - but that is misleading since any negative temperature
>is "hotter" than any positive temperature. Indeed -.0000000000.....1 degrees
>Kelvin is hotter than infinite positive temperature. This is because of the
>way entropy varies with respect to energy in quantum systems with discrete
>energy levels. A negative temperature means that more particles sit in the
>upper energy level than in the lower energy level for the simple case of
>a two level system like a spinning electron, proton or even neutron, or atom
>of spin 1/2 in a magnetic field.
>
>Thought problem for Star Fleet Academy Cadets from Admiral Sarfatti:
>How does a reversible Carnot heat engine behave if the hot reservoir is
>at a negative quantum temperature while the cold reservoir is at a positive
>classical temperature? What kind of Star Fleet devices can you make with
>this idea? Hint: use the second law of thermodynamics.


If you'd like a clue, consult chapter 14 in the book "Heat and
Thermodynamics", by Mark W. Zemansky, McGraw Hill, 1968).

Jon Noring

-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

Now, if you're just dying to know what INFJ stands for, be brave, e-mail me,
and I'll send you some information.  It WILL be worth the inquiry, I think.

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: satellite orbits
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:53:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.727739591

ledwards@leland.Stanford.EDU (Laurence James Edwards) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.213632.3246@newshost.lanl.gov>, u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine) writes:
>|> The gravitational force is toward the Earth, and is hence a centripital force.
>|> In this simple example there is no centrifugal force.
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If the earth exerts a centripetal force on the satellite I would think the
>satellite exerts a centrifugal force on the earth, as you mention subsequently
>with the example of the ball and string.

The satellite does exert an upward force on the earth.  But there's
no centrifugal force on the satellite.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #111 (1/21)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:29 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Summary: Latest Physics News Update
Keywords: physics news interesting banana
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan22.053914.21600@midway.uchicago.edu>, revu@midway.uchicago.edu writes...
> 
>SQUID DETECTORS OPERATING IN THE
>MILLIATTOVOLT range have been able to measure a tiny
>resistance in a YBaCuO thin-film superconductor, even in low
>magnetic fields and for low currents  (F.C. Wellstood et al., 4 Jan.
>1993 Physical Review Letters).  The resistance arises from noise
>in magnetic flux lines which do seem to penetrate the sample even
>though the external fields used are far below the critical field at
>which penetration is supposed to commence.  By the way, although
>the scientists in this Maryland-AT&T-Berkeley collaboration use
>the prefix milli-atto to denote 10 raised to the -21st power, the
>official name for this prefix is "zepto," or just z.  For those who
>would go further yet, the name for 10**-24 is "yocto."  (Science
>News, 16 Jan. 1993.)

Does anyone know how they shield their detector from stray electric
fields down to the zVolt level?  Seems like a tall order to me.
Has anyone tested ordinary BCS superconductors at this level of 
sensitivity?  

-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: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: "Are your theories falsifiable?"
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:26:05 GMT


re:From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-
theories,

rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:41:38 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

--MORE--(57%)
sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>I have been told that I am a "super star" in some powerful
>circles that have decided that traditional universities are "brain dead"
>and that something new-age is needed.

And you're humble, too, apparently.

>How is the new physics different from the old physics?

The main difference is that the old physics exists to explain
experimental evidence. You, on the other hand, don't seem to make
much mention of evidence.

Are your theories falsifiable?
--
Don             D.C.Lindsay     Carnegie Mellon Computer Science

Dear Don,
Humility is not one of my false virtues. Is Murray Gell-Mann humble?
"Now take for example my case,
I've a bright intellectual brain.
In all London City, there's no one so witty.
I've said so, again, and again!

You must stir it and strump it.
And blow your own trumpet.
Or, trust me, you haven't a chance!"
I think that's Ruddygore.

Yes, Don my theories are always falsifiable. Even Marcello Truzzi was
very clear about that.

In one of my mad dog schemes to communicate faster than light and from
future to past on the quantum spin connection, I predict that the receiver
light will be linearly polarized by amount sin twice the angle between the
sender and receiver doubly refracting polarizers multiplied by cos of the
sender interferometer phase difference.

There are three problems, linearity of the time evolution operator,
unitarity of the time evolution operator and orthogonality of the single
sender photon polarization states.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Gallis vs Sarfatti on linearity in QM
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1993 02:56:49 GMT


Mike Gallis >> writes

>>Sarfatti has demonstrated in past posts a gross misunderstanding of
>>quantum mechanics, Feynman path integrals and elementary linear algebra.
>>Do not take his intuition too seriously (at least not without some
>>formal training...)
>
>Tut, tut, Mike - flames!

>>Not at all.  It is an observation that your intuition has been
>>demonstrably unreliable, amoung other things.  The repeated observations
>>in this article that you do not distinguish between state and dynamics
>>point out a clear lack of understanding of the basic principles.
>>It is my opinion that you need to (re)learn quantum mechanics and
>>perhaps even some linear algebra.

OK Mike, lets talk about linear algebra in QM. It's a question of how to
properly apply the formalism to, for example, the following physical
situation:
                  __|2>____B_______
                /
   |1>    A   /
------------/
            \
              \
                \___|3>____C_______

Fig.1

A, B, C are "black boxes" that are evolution operators that transform input
kets to output kets. A has one input |1> and two outputs |2> and |3>.

The action of A on input |1> is  A|1>.

Formally

|1> = |2><2|1> + |3><3|1>

A|1> = A|2><2|1> + A|3><3|1>

How do B and C act?

Clearly, from the physical picture in Fig.1 my intuition says that B only
acts on the  A|2><2|1> branch of A|1> and C only acts on the A|3><3|1>
branch. What does your intuition say on this Mike? Or anyone else. What do
you think? I write that the input (i.e.,|1>) -> output (i.e. |4>
transformation created by the total system of A, B and C black boxes is

|1> -> B A|2><2|1> + C A|3><3|1> = |4>

Now, Mike do you say something different about this. There is a kind of
"nonlinearity" here because B and C only act locally on the pieces of the
state they are "in contact" with, so to speak. This kind of locality I
believe in.

It is a separate problem about how to recombine the two separated branches
to detect |4> as a coherent superposition. But first let's settle this
part. Since it has been tacit in all my thinking about quantum connection
communication gedankenexperiments.



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: White Paper "telepathic physics".
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 05:56:43 GMT


From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:06:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan26.164128.13733@rchland.ibm.com> BlairWyman@vnet.ibm.com
writ

es:
>In article <C1GEpL.4H7@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti) w

rites:
>
>|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
>
>Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the
existenc

e
>of "telepathy."   Without such references, there is no merit to any of your
cla

ims.

   . . . Something I also frequently demand on many newsgroups.

   But the need to say things like this so frequently is
   tiresome, especially as the clueless and gullible products
   of the US educational system and popular culture are spewed
   onto the net.

   Usenet has evolved a number of acronyms to reduce typing
   time and needed bandwidth such as BTW (by the way), FOAF
   (friend of a friend), IMHO (in my humble opinion), and
   RTFM (read the manual), to name a few.
--MORE--(82%)
   IMHO, we should develop an acronym for the above sentiment,
   something like NUCWE (no unusual claims without evidence)
   or RNFSC (references needed for strong claims) or simply RP
   (references please)?    But I find these a bit awkward.
   Any suggestions for something simple, clear, and catchy?


---peter

Dear Peter,
My, ,y how so many of you under-estimate me. I may be wrong - but not for
the reasons you think.
The reference to "telepathy" is an allusion to Einstein's oft-quoted remark.
I think he first used it in a letter to Born, maybe also in his
Autobiography. It is also connected to his phrase "spooky action at a
distance".

True, the paranormal meaning is stronger than Einstein's - Einstein was
referring to nonlocality which as we all know by now is not the same as
communication because communication demands local decoding of message
at receiver without having to cross-correlate with data from the sender
later on. Nonlocality is enough for certain cryptographic applications but
not for local decoding. It is also the case that if precognition is real,
if there is any factual basis for remote viewing, and for the prophecy of
the Judeo - Christian Tradition, then communication on the quantum
connection must exist as a falsifiable testable reproducible physical
phenomenon. If that means stretching standard quantum mechanics a wee
bit then that is progress if it works. I am being slandered by those
who claim I have no contact with experiment. I have more contact with
experiment than the super-string theorists do- that's for sure.
From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Relativity book for a 9 year old
Date: 24 Jan 93 18:54:04 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Are there any relativity book(s) that a nine year old could read ?
I haven't been through any of Gamow's Mr. Tomkin books, but I think they 
might be a little too much for a child of that age.  A book that
illustrates relativity in cartoon form would be nice.

Please email.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: Software Engineering Institute
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 08:10:57 EST

In article <1k4bv7INNfj1@gap.caltech.edu> brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm) writes:

>It seems obvious to me that you do have the resources, namely
>  1) A computer,
>  2) A human brain.
>So go for it!  Mentally influence your random number generator!

Not fair - it's well known that psychics can't influence pseudo-random
processes.  The experiment should be done with a true random process -
for instance the process that, with extreme rarity, generates sense on
sci.physics.