HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcirvin@husc10.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: graphical humping terminology
Keywords: lump, bump, hump
Date: 12 Nov 92 01:12:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov11.201215.17358
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov10.190554.11097@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:

>In the spirit of comfortable zoomorphism which commends these to us, I would
>like to suggest that we henceforth refer to all single-hump curves as "elkian".
>In this suggestion I do not wish to imply that the elk has a hump. The term is,
>rather, eponymous. It honors the famous theoretical paleoherpetologist Anne
>Elk, who is best remembered for her work on the brontosaurus.

Ms. Elk's theory has always struck me as a model of phenomenological
elegance.  Her scrupulousness in matters of scientific priority also
demand that she be given proper credit.  I heartily second this motion.

>Instead of the "dromedary" I would suggest the "parton", and curves with even
                                                 ^^^^^^
>more humping could be called "newlyweds".
>
>Leigh

We particle types would raise an unholy stink! 
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu,  5 Nov 1992 18:51:19 -0500 
From: "Andrew C. Plotkin" <ap1i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
	<mcirvin.720987478@husc8>

On destabilizing the vacuum:

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 5-Nov-92 Re: Scientists Plan to
Blow.. Mcirvin@husc8.harvard.ed (1323)

> I once opined to Eric Carlson that this was an idea that had been
> insufficiently exploited in science fiction.  He pointed out to
> me that "it would be a very short novel."

It has been done (and yes, it was a short story.  :-) In _Analog_,
several years ago. (No, I can't remember a title or author.) I'll
summarize it, because it also touches on another favorite sci.physics
topic...

Scientists build superduperlooper collider. But every time they try to
start it up, it fails. Not strange inexplicable failure; it's always
some 27-cent transistor, or a computer crashed, or a wire shorted out.
This has happened dozens of times. No pattern. The probability of all
these failures happening by chance is infinitesmal. Scientists going
crazy, suspect sabotage.

Finally someone figures out that the collision events would destabilize
the vacuum and destroy the universe. Thus, they have *experimentally*
validated the multiple-worlds interpretation of QM -- they (the people
watching the failures) must be in one of the few remaining un-fried
universes! 

Perhaps silly, but I liked it.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Sarfatti to Ramsay
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 06:38:15 GMT


How do you know you can't combine the beams coherently. If they can't be
coherent the scheme won't work. But it is obvious that they can be coherent.
There are analogous experiments with Stern Gerlach's and with neutron
interferometers. Also if you have two calcite rhombs back to back you can
recombine the extraordinary and ordinary beams from the first rhomb
coherently to reproduces the incident 45 degrre linear polarized beam.

And to repeat |a,e,+> is not orthogonal to |a,o,+> , on the contrary they
are parallel |a,e,+> = e^ix|a,o,+>. |a,e(o),+> is orthogonal to |a,e(o),->.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Kevin Dooley)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA      attention: Mr. KIM
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:52:50 GMT

In article <abian.721544742@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>     My principle (A1) is the best scientific principle.  It describes
>behavior of particles and people and everything in between.  In case you
>have forgotten, it states:
>
>(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
>       TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.
>
>    (A1)  is scientifically verifiable  your actions, my actions, the
>actions of Uranium, plutonium, etc., are all governed by (A1).

Yes, but it is an utterly empty statement because you have not defined
what a status quo is.  I think I know what you mean, but by stating
your principle in such terms you invite criticism of a superficial sort.
Read a book on Lagrangians and quantum action.  Read Feynman and Hibbs.
You will see that the mathematically precise way of stating (A1) is by
the principle of least action.  It is certainly not new with you, it
is, in fact, as old as Aristotle.  However, if you really want to do this
right and make predictions, you have to be a little bit more precise.
Of course, as I said before in a previous post, as soon as you write
down a Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism in which to make your statement
(A1) definite, you will be led inexorably to certain conservations principles
which are in contradiction to your nonsense about time having inertia,
statement (A2).

Just go away and do it right and you will see what I am talking about, 
but please stop clogging up the net with your drivel.

>   Likewise, my (A2) is extremely  informative, revolutionary and will
>change the aspect of Modern Physics and will be the central theme of
>the 21-st century Physics.  In case you have forgotten, it states:
>
>(A2)  TIME HAS INERTIA and some energy is irretrievably dissipated for
>                 moving TIME forward.  Thus the Principle of Conser-
>                 vation of Energy must be rejected.
>
>With best wishes and regards,                Alexander ABIAN
>
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: 9 Nov 92 17:26:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: sei.1992Nov9.172600.17151
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <11283@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>I liked the way you started out with Newton.  Of course, the mass of the 
>moon has nothing to do with its orbital properties, making this a nice 
>diversionary tactic.  Until an object actually orbited the moon so we 
>could observe its dynamics, estimates of its mass were based on models, 
>which means guesses. 

Nope: you can deduce the mass of the moon from the magnitude of the
ocean tides.

[I Newton: Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica,
 Book III, Prop XXXVII, Problem XVIII]
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.edu (Patrick S. Golden)
Subject: Free Middle/High School Broadcasts
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Hampton)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:08:33 GMT

REACHING FOR THE STARS

A free, nationwide distance-learning program designed to  
encourage young minority and female middle and high-school  
students to pursue careers in science and engineering

2:00 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. (ET)

December 16, 1992
February 10, 1993
March 17, 1993
April 7, 1993
May 12, 1993

Program Description:            	
Each of the 30-minute programs in the five-part interactive series  
will profile a different recipient of a Virginia Space Grant 
scholarship or  fellowship.  These  young minority and female 
researchers will describe what  motivated them to  pursue careers 
in the sciences and engineering, what their lives are  like at the  
college or university where they study, and what their career  
aspirations are.   Each researcher will also teach a basic science 
lesson and briefly  discuss the  relationship of that science lesson to 
their university research  project.  Viewers  will have the 
opportunity to ask questions of the young researchers  via 
telephone  during an interactive segment of the program.  Pre- and 
post- broadcast material  will be mailed to those registering for the 
series. 

Target Audience:  Middle school and high school students and  
other interested viewers

Program Objectives:

The series is designed to provide viewers with:

- An awareness of the career possibilities and rewards that exist for  
students --   particularly minorities and women -- in engineering 
and the  sciences.

- A knowledge of the scholastic paths students must travel to  
become engineers  and scientists.

- An understanding of the nature of five young minority and  
female researchers'  college experiences and what viewers will 
encounter if they attend  college and  major in the sciences.

- Knowledge of five basic science lessons and how those lessons are  
related to  more sophisticated research.

Reaching for the Stars is a cooperative educational project of the  
Virginia Space  Grant Consortium, Old Dominion University and 
the National  Aeronautics  and Space Administration.

For Registration Information:	
Old Dominion University's Academic Television Services at  (800)  
548-4807

VIRGINIA SPACE GRANT CONSORTIUM
2713-D Magruder Blvd.
Hampton, VA  23666
(804) 865-0726
E-mail: pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.edu
-- 
|-------------------------------|
|++Patrick Golden++             | 
|Virginia Space Grant Consortium|
|pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.edu       |
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 9 Nov 92 18:05:54 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <74170@hydra.gatech.EDU>, cegtitd@prism.gatech.EDU (Tim Dodd) writes:
|> In article <BxB855.7Mq@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU| 
sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:


|> |It seems pretty clear to me that the concept of meaning that you espouse is 
|> |itself meaningless under your own definition (meaning does not, after all, 
|> |refer to anything observable), and is in fact a philosophical rather than 
|> |a scientific statement.  
|> 
|> Au contraire:  I defined "meaning" in an earlier post.  It most certainly
|> refers to something real.
|> 

	I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where you showed that the 
concept of meaning was empirically verifiable (I believe that was one of your 
requirements for meaning).  Could you run that part by me again?

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:18291 sci.chem:4446 sci.engr.chem:554
From: jerry@wshb.csms.com ( WSHB Engineer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.chem,sci.engr.chem
Subject: Specific Heat
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:28:28 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: usa
Organization: WSHB, Herald Broadcasting Syn., Inc., Cypress Creek, SC, USA


I am trying to find what metals have these specific heats:

   1) 2740 joules/kg deg.C
   2)  848.6 joules/kg deg.C

Please replay E-mail: jerry@wshb.csms.com

Thanks in advance.
-- 
                      Jerry Lopez--Broadcast Engineer 
                WSHB - An International Broadcast Station of   
           Herald Broadcasting Syn., Inc., Cypress Creek, SC, USA
                            jerry@wshb.csms.com
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:11:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>Science, when presented properly, admits its faults to examination
>and discovery; it makes claims only about the logical deductions
>calculated and the experiments conducted, and those claims are
>only that the results are as they appear.

Yeah but how often does this really happen.  Every week my group has 
a session in which a paper from a peer-reviewed journal is presented 
and half the time the faculty wind up complaining about what a 
slipshod paper it is.

>Scientific numbers come with error-bars and descriptions of
>the method by which they were collected, in order to
>document the methodology for further study and refinement.

If you believe the error bars people publish I have a chi-squared
I'd like to sell you.

>Theories come with descriptions of the paradigms in which
>they were deduced, allowing examination of the gaps and
>false bridges in the knowledge they convey.

Wa-hoo.  Does this really happen?  Is there anybody out there
who realistically presents the good points and carefully
explains the bad points of his/her pet theory?  If there is,
tell them from me they better start to get with the program
if they want tenure.

>In contrast, religion strives to hide its fundamental faults
>behind paradoxical aphorisms about faith and sin.

I've tried to keep my big mouth shut but I can't any longer.
Your view of science as The Ultimate Self-Correcting, Fundamentally 
Truth-Approximating (tm) process does not describe well what I see 
goin' on.  One might say your view is not experimentally verified :-)  

The practice of science includes elements of exaggeration, personal 
grandstanding, appeals to higher authority, and instinctive behavior.
I don't think one can separate the practice from the ideal, either.
Science is definitely different from religion but there is no point
in bashing religion over this.  All it does is alienate people who
value their religious beliefs.  Not only is this insulting, it's
also foolish - why get people any madder at scientists?
From: emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA      attention: Mr. KIM
Date: 12 Nov 1992 23:54:17 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Keywords: TIME, INERTIA, MATTER

MR. ABIAN

  You continually ignore the following question:

  If your A1 holds, then why does time require energy to perpetuate it's
status quo -- i.e. moving forward.  BY YOUR OWN A1 TIME SHOULD RETAIN IT'S
STATUS QUO.  ADDING ENERGY SHOULD **CHANGE** IT'S MOTION FORWARD.

  Until you answer this question, DON'T POST ANYTHING ELSE OR

****GET OFF THIS NEWSGROUP****
GO POST IN ALT.SCI.PHYSICS.NEW-THEORIES!!!!

------------
E. Mark Ping
emarkp@soda.Berkeley.EDU

  "Stand aside, I take large steps."  --Michael Dorn
  "Say, that's a nice bike."          --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
  "Pituita es."                       --Unknown Latin Scholar
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: What's a manifold?
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:36:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.000228.14551@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
> asimov@wk223.nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov) writes:
> 
> >As has been mentioned, it *is* a theorem that all manifolds do occur
> >as subspaces of some Euclidean space: in fact, any n-manifold embeds in R^(2n).
> >
> >This is a pleasant theorem, but it would be inappropriate to take this as a 
> >definition.
> 
> What about the one-dimensional helix embedded in R^3. Is the helix not a
> 1-manifold? Note that if you compact it along its axis you get a circle
> (also a 1-manifold--is this S^1?) embedded in R^2. But a circle is a
> degenerate case of a helix ("stretching" along the axis having vanished)
> and is not in general a helix.
> 
> Someone educate me on this.

The helix, as a manifold, is just the same as, say, an infinite straight
line; and as such it does embed in R^2; indeed, in R [:-)].

The thing is that manifolds are only defined up to an appropriate kind of
equivalence; namely diffeomorphism; we say that A and B are diffeomorphic
if there is a map from A to B which is smooth and which has a smooth
inverse (exactly what "smooth" means depends on exactly what kind of manifold
you're dealing with; say, infinitely differentiable.)

A diffeomorphism between the helix parametrised as (cos t, sin t, t) and the
real line is given by (cos t, sin t, t) -> t.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: terry@asl.dl.nec.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Einstein and Judaism
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:27:52 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX
Originator: terry@aslws01

Hi folks,

In article <TORKEL.92Nov9204231@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se
(Torkel Franzen) writes:

> In article <emc.721244750@tristan> emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>
> | Einstein fought against Quantum Theory until his last days because he
> | felt that it completely contradicted God as he understood God to be.
>
> Einstein didn't "fight" QT, he thought it was incomplete. As for his
> reasons, or if you like, philosophical prejudices, he made them clear
> enough.  They were quite ordinary realistic philosophical prejudices...
> 
> He didn't base them on any ideas about God, as far as his actual writings
> and reported explanations indicate. Almost invariably, people who imagine
> that Einstein proceeded from theology to philosophy and physics base this
> view on nothing more than one or two aphoristic formulations.

Since I may have indirectly helped initiate this thread with my earlier
comments about the strong theistic views of Newton, I guess I should briefly
add that nothing I've ever seen about Dr. Einstein ever gave me the idea
that his rejection of QM was based on his Judaic background.  (If your
particular religious upbringing was the *only* issue, then I suppose Dr.
Richard Feynman should also have been adamantly anti-QM also, hmmmmm?)

The persistence with which people blandly gloss over Einstein's objections
to QM as trivial or simply biased astonishes me.  Folks might try reading
the biography "Subtle is the Lord" to get a feel for the depth of his
thinking about the issue -- it was a good deal deeper and more profound
than most of us will every realize, I suspect.

The kernel of Einstein's objections appeared to center around the curious
problem of a universe in which the timelines of all objects are not fully
determined, yet time itself is relative to the inertial frame of the user.

If more than one person can be in the "past" relative to some event that
is being observed, how *do* you reconcile the idea of a future that is
not yet fully determined?  It's not a trivial question, nor has anyone
every fully resolved it, at least not by anything I've ever seen or read.

Winners do tend to rewrite history, as they say, and Einstein was not the
winner when it came to QM -- even though 99.99999 percent of the ordinary
population of the world (or more!) would heartily agree with Einstein's
pragmatic view that, for example, the moon *really does* exist without
having to have its wavefunction collapsed by an observer.

				Cheers,
				Terry Bollinger

+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| Terry Bollinger                            | Phone: 214-518-3538           |
| Advanced Switching Laboratory, NEC America |   Fax: 214-518-3499           |
| 1525 Walnut Hill Lane, Irving, Texas 75038 | Email: terry@asl.dl.nec.com   |
+--------------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
From: U51773@uicvm.uic.edu (tom mckibben 2)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: BILL H.R. 4418 AGAIN
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:14:06 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

I know there was discussion of the following bill a while back but now that we
have a new administration going into D.C. perhaps it can be revived. If you
think so too, then by all means write your representatives and the new pres.

102D CONGRESS         H.R. 4418
   2D SESSION

To ammend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the prior law
exclusion for scholarships and fellowships.

   IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                   MARCH 10, 1992

Mr. Lewis of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to
the Committee on Ways and Means

                      A BILL

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the prior law
 exclusion for scholarships and fellowships.

1  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF PRIOR LAW EXCLUSION FOR
4             SCHOLARSHIPS AND FELLOWSHIPS.
5     (a) IN GENERAL.--Section 123 of the Tax Reform
6 Act of 1986 (relating to scholarships), and the amend-
7 ments made by such section, are hereby repealed; and the
8 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and ad-
9 ministered as if such section, and amendments, had never
10 been enacted.
                            2
1     (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Subsection (a) shall apply to
2 taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.
3 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
4      If refund or credit of any overpayment of tax result-
5 ing from the application of section 1 is prevented at any
6 time before the close of the 1-year period beginning on
7 the date of the enactment of this Act by the operation
8 of any law or rule of law (including res judicata), refund
9 or credit of such overpayment (to the extent attributable
10 to the application of section 1) may, nevertheless, be made
11 or allowed if claim therefor is filed before the close of such
12 1-year period.


thomas mckibben 2   university of illinois at chicago dept. of physics
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BITNET: MCKIBBEN@UICPHY or U51773@UICVM
Internet: u51773@uicvm.uic.edu or tommck@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Always state the obvious............................
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Isham's NATO 92' Lectures 3
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:52:58 GMT


Isham 3
"6.2.2  Conditional probabilities in Conventional Quantum Theory
... Let the (mixed) state of a quantum system at some time t = 0 be p(o).
In the Schrodinger representation, the state p(t) at time t is related to
the t=0 state by the unitary transformation

p(t) = U(t)p(0)U(t)^-1          (6.2.2)"

[In my quantum connection gedanken experiment motivated by a history
picture we need a nonlocal generalization

p(t,t')= U(t,t')p(0)U(t,t')^-1          (6.2.2')

for case of a pair of particles in which one particle is measured at t, the
other at t' - and we should further generalize to include spatial
locations. See Isham's eq. (6.2.8) below.]

"where U(t) = e^tH/h.  Therefore, if a measurement of an observable A is
made at time t1, the probability that the result will lie in some subset a
of the eigenvalue spectrum of the operator A is

Prob(A in a,t1;p(0)0 = tr(P(A,a,t1)p(t1))          (6.2.3)

where P(A,a,t1) is the Heisenberg-picture operator...

P(A,a,t1) = U(t1)^-1P(A,a)U(t1)                    (6.2.4)

... and P(A,a) is operator that projects onto the subset a; for example...

P(A,a) = Sum ai in a[|ai><ai|]                     (6.2.5)

If the measurement of A yields a result lying in a, any further predictions
must be made using the density matrix

p(a) = {P(A,a,t1)p(0)P(A,a,t1)}/tr[P(A,a,t1)p(o)]  (6.2.6)

and the transformation

p(t1) -> p(a)                                      (6.2.7)

is the [non-unitary! js] analog for density matrices of the familiar
reduction of the state vector.

Now let the system evolve until time t2 when a measurement of observable B
is made..... the probability of finding B in a range b, ...conditional on A
.. found to be in a at time t1, is

Prob(B in b, t2|A ina,t1;p(0)) = tr(P(B,b,t2)p(a)) (6.2.8)"


Newsgroups: sci.physics