HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
X-Xxdate: Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:32:18 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:35:28 GMT

I may be biased, but I believe it is high-time the commitee gave a Nobel
to
John A. Wheeler for his work on controlled nuclear fission.

Norman
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets wierd, the wierd turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Mitchell.Porter@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Mitchell Porter)
Subject: Quantum gravity ftp site?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:56:28 GMT

I read a column by N David Mermin in an issue of `Physics Today' earlier
this year in which he mentioned that researchers in quantum gravity,
string theory, 2D quantum field theory etc are communicating primarily
electronically now- eg preprints being circulated by email etc. He hinted
that there might be an ftp site somewhere storing these preprints -
do any sci.physics readers know of something like this?

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16403 sci.optics:1065
From: elrsc@lut.ac.uk (RSChandran)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.optics
Subject: Far-Field equations of antenna
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:34:54 GMT
Organization: Loughborough University, UK.


Dear Friends,

I am having a little difficulty in solving a particular electromagnetic
problem. Probably some of you in the net could help me.

The problem is as follows.

I have an antenna as shown in the fig below. The element lengths decrements
equally in both directions as it moves towards the edges. This is not
a Yagi antenna because in a yagi antenna the element length do not reduce
as the number of elements increases.

                       |
                    |  |  |
                 |  |  |  |  |
              |  |  |  |  |  |  |
           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
          ---------------------------
           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
              |  |  |  |  |  |  |
                 |  |  |  |  |
                    |  |  | 
                       |
Now assuming that a plane wave is incident on the antenna, and the plane
of incidence is parallel to the computer screen. I want to derive the
expression of the field strength at a distance `L' over the otherside of 
the antenna.

In most of the text books, it is assumed that the element lengths are
the same and the corresponding expressions are derived. Could anyone
help me to find out the solution or could anyone point out any related
papers or textbooks?

All the helps will be appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

R.S.Chandran.
R.S.Chandran@lut.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: micha@ecrc.de (Micha Meier)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Reply-To: micha@ecrc.de
Organization: European Computer-Industry Research Centre
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 11:29:36 GMT

So let me summarize what we have here:

- Thread, tau(gh)t string etc. This has the problem that to make it perfectly
  straight, it has to be perfectly thin and moreover straight on its own.
  The thinner it is, the smaller tension it holds. If it is thick, then it
  has its own surface which will not be made straight in any case. And
  you cannot use this method to produce a ruler, anyway.

- The laser. It looks perfectly straight, but do not forget that it is just
  a beam of photons and as such you cannot use it to draw a line, as there
  is no guarantee that the diameter of the beam will be exactly one photon,
  i.e. the photons follow each other _precisely_. Perhaps it is possible to use
  a mirror (can we make an exact parabollic mirror?), but the photons are still
  influenced by the gravitation and by virtual particles in the vacuum.
  Moreover, I would doubt that the laser can actually produce something straight,
  e.g. a ruler - it really depends of the material used and its interactions
  with the photons.

- The ruling machine. Now I'd really like to know its principle, because it seems
  that making a perfect straight line is like the angle trisection problem.
  Can anyone dig out if the machine just approximates a straight line
  very closely or whether it is principally precise?

- Folding paper. This is original, but it does not work. Try to make a line
  1 foot long, it is never straight.

It seems that there is a principal problem involved, isn't it?

--Micha

---
Micha Meier			------------------------------------------------
ECRC, Arabellastr. 17		The opinions expressed above are private
D-8000 Munich 81		and may not reflect those of my employer.
micha@ecrc.de, Tel. +49-89-92699-108, Fax  +49-89-92699-170

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: baindur@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Satyen Baindur)
Subject: Reviews sought: Ishihara : Condensed Matter Physics
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 19:56:32 GMT


Hi there : 
           I'm seeking views and/or reviews about /of the book by 
Akira Ishihara called 'Condensed matter Physics' and published by 
Oxford. 

Email or post here. Thanks.

Satyen
-- 

Graduate School ! It's not just a job, it's an indenture !!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mfm0@ellis.uchicago.edu (martin frederic melhus)
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Reply-To: mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:17:49 GMT

I agree completely.  As best as I can tell, sci.physics.fusion is the only
"spin-off" group at this time.  But I can't imagine how to break the
group up without getting some people upset.  Perhaps we could start out with
sci.phys.SR and sci.physics.GR (or just 1 relativity group).  I see a
lot of posts on relativity, and that seperation might help a lot.

Any suggestions or comments?

-- 
                          | You have all the time from when you remove the |
     Martin F. Melhus     | card(s) from your hand until you put it (them) |
 mfm0@midway.uchicago.edu | on the pile to say "Last Card".  If you don't, |
                          | take your two. - Hidden texts, Book of MauMau. |
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Field strength of earth magnetic field
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:12:43 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Oct12.131453.2064@opus40.ix.de> hm@opus40.ix.de (Harald Milz) writes:
>
>Can anyone tell me the field strength of the earth 
>magnetic field, measured in Gauss or Tesla?

It is somewhere around 0.5 gauss, varying in magnitude and direction (it is 
not parallel to the ground) with location.  It is about 0.6 gauss at the 
magnetic north pole, and is weaker near the equator.  Using 0.5 gauss 
is good for order of magnitude estimates; if you need more accuracy 
you had best consult a geologist for the value in your vicinity.  Local 
iron ore deposits can have big effects. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:53:46
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM's message of 15 Oct 1992 01:44:24 GMT

In article <1biidoINN87t@smaug.West.Sun.COM> Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes:

> I'd like to put in a word against a split.  The traffic here is high
> enough to possibly justify a split, but the problem is that too many
> of the topics discussed cross over between many branches of physics.

The main problem with a split is that, in my opinion, it wouldn't
solve the problem of this group.  To be blunt, the problem is that
this group has a high volume, but very little of that is useful
scientific discussion.

Splitting the group wouldn't solve that.  I would certainly want to
read all of the postings that really discuss physics, so a split
wouldn't be very useful---not unless the split was into
sci.physics.real and sci.physics.garbage.

A more useful solution would be moderation.  However, that presupposes
someone who is willing and qualified to be the moderator, and I am
very definitely not volunteering.  If we do get a volunteer, then
maybe it will be useful to think about moderation as a possible
solution.
--
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!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: FEYNMAN 6
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:09:50 GMT


Feynman 6
"We have to renounce a description of phenomena based on the concept of
cause and effect." said Niels Bohr. p.40 GENIUS  But no one believed him -
or, perhaps, understood him.
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:03:52 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <ZOWIE.92Oct14134224@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>Hawking's claim, according to Dr. Susskind, is that such a time
>reversal is impossible, as the information in the B.H. ingredients is
>totally lost.  Thus, something is fishy between general relativity and
>quantum mechanics.

Fishiness not disputed.  However, since laboratory-scale black holes
are beyong the budget of most experimental physicists, why not replace
the black hole with a goat?  The same information loss occurs.

In other words, isn't this just another example, though admittedly an
extreme one, of the contradiction between microscopic reversibility
and macroscopic irreversibility?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 03:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.201220.9007@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>The former.  Far from being revolutionary, it is the most conservative
>approach devised so far in that it attempts to adhere to the principles
>of both quantum mechanics (Hilbert space/operator formalism etc.) and
>general relativity (Einstein's equations, general covariance etc.).  
>
>But the real point is that what matters is not whether a theory IS
>revolutionary but whether it is CLAIMED to be, in the absence of
>concrete testable predictions.  Who knows, loop variables or Abian's
>principles might prove to be revolutionary!  But claiming so at this
>point deserves 30 points.  
>
>Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
>credit cancels my use of caps.

The above article has a crackpot rating of 6, since it has 2 capitalized
words and one error of fact.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atmpas@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:13:15 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <abian.719117674@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu
(Alexander Abian) writes: 

	Something falsifiable!

>         Yes, the tree will react and it will show the tendency of
>         maintaining its status quo.  However, as  I have mentioned, 
>         a weak provokee will succumb to a stronger provoker.  Although
>         the tree will try to resist (by giving you trouble in cut-
>         ting it, by burning your saw, etc) however, it will succumb
>         to your saw if the saw is sufficiently strong.
>         
>         There are trees which with their branches will strangle 
>         a weak provoker.  In fact, there are delicate flowers which will
>         capture provoking insects and will strangle them to death!
> 


	A weak provokee will succumb to a stronger provoker.  A weak provoker 
will be destroyed by a stronger provokee.

	So if A defeats B and B defeats C then:

	A is stronger than B.

	B is stronger than C.

	Therefore A is stronger than C, and A will defeat C.

	For example, take some moderately dry pycric acid, a five kilogram
stainless steel hammer and a gentle stream of water.

	The hammer, falling on the pycric acid is destroyed.

	Acid > Hammer.

	The hammer, falling into the stream, disrupts it and is neither
washed away nor destroyed.

	Hammer > Water.

	The water should therefore 'lose' to the acid, but will instead
dissolve it away, maintaining its status quo.  

	The hypothesis is disproved by reductio ad absurdam.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: BAEZIAN physics and astronomy [was: Space-time IS a semi-Riemannian manifold (?)
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:00:42 GMT

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
: In article <1992Oct5.125835.15091@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
: >In article <1992Oct5.091234.29484@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
: >
: >>So naturally what I meant was that CLASSICAL spacetime IS a
: >>semi-riemannian manifold.
: >
: >... and later ...
: >
: >>Spacetime is the set of all events.
: >
: >Now I'm *really* confused!  Which of the above mutually contradictory
: >views do you in fact hold?
: 
: I must have drunk too much at the reception 'cause I'm going to try to
: stick up for McInnes B T (Dr).  He is not contradictory if he assumes
: that spacetime is a semi-Riemannian manifold, hence a set of point, and
: if he assumes that each point is, or designates, an event.  The latter
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Too bad, you were doing well up to this point. It IS, it doesn't
designate.

: is pretty standard GR rhetoric, but don't ask me what an "event" is or
: I'll just say "a point in spacetime."  :-)
: 
: By the way, I love the subject line except for that extra "Z" which I am
: assiduously deleting
On what grounds?

ps I am not responsible for the "Dr" bit. I leave it in so as to avoid
accusations that I have not been doing my homework. Also because I don't
know how to remove it.

g.
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum eraser
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:21:37 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Oct9.133307.9059@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
writes:
>I have just gone through a book called "Tamingthe atom." by von
>Baeyer.  In it he speaks of a "quantum eraser" experiment at Max
>Planck.  Does anyone have any information on whether this experiment
>was done or not?

A quantum eraser experiment has been done. See Kwiat, Steinberg, and
Chiao, Phys. Rev. A 45, 7729 (1992) for an account. Zou, Wang, and
Mandel (Phys. Rev.  Lett. 67, 318 (1990)) performed a similar
experiment, but didn't call it a quantum eraser.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 01:38:01 GMT

>In article <Bw0MH4.9t5@news.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.031922.12518@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>>>
>>>>  I still maintain that:
>>>>    
>>>>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>>>>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO

     is the overall principle which governs all the events in the Cosmos.
                                       
                                                        Alexander ABIAN    



                                         > Why doesn't the bomb just
>sit there if it wants to take it easy?  Or is this the "reaction to
>provocation" part?  


  Yes, indeed it is the "reaction to provocation" .  That is my whole
point, and I am glad that you are starting to change your status quo
of views , however, after a rather strong reaction to my proposals.
 
 You tried to mock, to intimidate me by expressions such as"YOUR BIG
LETTERS are boring us, we are bored, we have heard you ... stop, etc.,"
That was (as expected) your reaction to my provocation.  I am reacting too. 
 
 You say that my theories do not have the predictability aspect about them !

  Well here is my prediction : "you are still annoyed with me with my
views and with my boring answers and with my rubbing them obnoxiously
to the entire world"

 Please don't tell me about Newton.  For him gravitational attraction
was the "bible".  If he was in his room and you were outside in his
garden and showed him from behind the window glasses  two negatively charged
bodies repelling each other, he would have had a manic-depressive temper
tantrum and would have thrown himself on the sofa and cry in bewilderment.  
I would have calmed him down by saying " Don't worry the masses still
attract each other , but the reaction of the space to maintaining its
status quo of electrical neutrality, in this case, is much greater than
the gravitational attraction of the masses that the space repels those
two likely charged bodies".
  
 Give me a better explanation for the violent reaction of gun-powder 
when it is struck ! I say that  gun-powder is like a Hitler or Stalin, 
when sufficiently provoked it will react so violently that in the 
process it even may destroy itself and/or the provoker.

 Give me a better explanation of explosion of sulfuric acid when a drop
of water is poured on it.  It wants to maintain the status quo of its
acidity and reacts by creating heat to evaporate the intruder.  I have
explained this before. Boring !!
 
 The extreme violent Reaction to  provocation is the real explana-
tion in the mechanism of the A and H bomb!  But I have explained that
before.  Boring !!
From: rwc124@rsphy1.anu.edu.au (Roderick Vance)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Eigenvalue Problem
Date: 12 Oct 1992 07:00:55 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rwc124@rsphy1.anu.edu.au (Roderick Vance)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.15.51



My question concerns the eigenvalue equation:

 (del^2 + k^2 n(x,y)^2) psi = beta^2 psi

where psi is a function of the rectangular co-ordinates (x,y)
      del^2 is the two dimensional Laplacian d2/dx2 + d2/dy2
and   beta is the real eigenvalue.

This equation is gotten from the three dimensional Helmholtz 
equation when we assume a three dimensional solution of the form

   psi(x,y) exp(-i beta z)

My question is: when can there be two or more linearly independent
solutions psi1(x,y), psi2(x,y), ...  corresponding to the SAME 
eigenvalue. 

I'd be most greatful for hints/thoughts about the above.

Many thanks in advance


Roderick Vance
Optical Sciences Centre
Australian National  University
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 03:19:22 GMT


>  I still maintain that:
>    
>   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO,  REACTION TO PROVOCATION 
>           AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO
>
>                                         Alexander ABIAN    

Yes, you have said this repeatedly.  We understand now that you believe
this and always will no matter what anyone says.  You are your own
theory's best example.  Congratulations.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: alison@wsrcc.com (Alison Chaiken)
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Organization: W S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Fremont CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:20:15 GMT

mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:

>In article <138426@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov (Alison
>Chaiken) writes:
>>Here are my predictions for 1992:
>>
>>Chemistry: Roy Smalley and Donald Huffman, for C60 discovery

>     Why are you leaving out Harry Kroto?  I'm sure the Nobel Committee
>will see fit to include Kroto if a prize is given for C60.
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca

I'm all for Kroto getting part of the Prize; I think he's easily
worthy.  But I'll answer your question with a question: why did Klaus
von Klitzing win with Dorda and Pepper, his coauthors?  Wasn't Horst
Stormer equally deserving?  I believe that this selection was unfair,
and I expect the pattern to continue, although overall the choice of
awardees has been excellent, as Scott and others have pointed out.

[von Klitzing won in 1986 (? or so) for the discovery of the quantized
Hall effect.  Dorda and Pepper were his coauthors on the original
paper.  Horst Stormer, along with a large team of people, discovered
the fractional quantized Hall effect, which is actually much more
interesting than the integral effect.]


-- 
Alison Chaiken 				alison@wsrcc.com
(510) 422-7129 [daytime] 		or chaiken@cmsgee.llnl.gov
(510) 422-7300 [FAX]
Live fast, die young, leave a long publication list.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 02:22:09 GMT

In article <Bvpr2n.F9@news.larc.nasa.gov> mark@uab15.larc.nasa.gov (Mark Flanagan) writes:

>How about making the string parallel to the local gravitational gradient?

Yes, here we are, using the marvelous global communication facilities of
the net to reinvent, yes, the PLUMB BOB!  :-)  By the way, the "plumb"
comes from plumbum, lead (Pb), and the straightness of the plumb bob led
to expressions such as "I's plumb tuckered out."  (Unlike my bogus
etymology of "nitpicking," this is for real as far as I know.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Schrodingers Dog
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:40:52 +0200
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <mcirvin.718235707@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
> naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>>Physicists just don't seem to understand that probability has got to do with
>>knowledge. 
 
> *Classical* probabilities do.  That what we call quantum probability
> is actually an epistemic sort of thing is a hallmark of hidden variable
> theories, not QM.

One of the reasons that mathematicians snub their noses at this approach is
that nobody has ever developed a theory of probablilities which is
"non-classical" using rigorous definitions.
 
*****************************************************************************
* Baby Doc Naturman                                                         *
* USS Enterprise                           "It's life Jim,                  *
* Final Frontier                                  but not as we know it."   *
* naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za                                                 *
*                                                       Spock of Vulcan     *
*****************************************************************************