HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy)
Subject: Functional minimization with constraints
Keywords: conjugate gradient, quasi-Newton, Newton Raphson
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:06:23 GMT

Does anyone know of a good reference work for problems involving
functional minimization with non-linear constraints?  I have a
function of many variables with a complicated  constraint condition
between them which I need to solve both quickly and reliably.  I have
looked through several articles in the Journal of Optimization Theory
and Applications, but being a non-specialist in the area, the
terminology and notation is highly confusing to me.  A decent review
article or book would be a godsend.

Thanks in advance.



-- 
Eric R.      edremy@d31ha0.Stanford.EDU       Department of Chemistry
                        -1/2\nabla^2\psi_{T-72}
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The instantaneous transfer of information in QM calculations
Date: 10 Jan 93 16:58:51 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan10.005707.11410@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
> 
> Paul, I'm not a quantum mechanic (I wish most of the time I was one
> with a 50% polarization :-), but I don't think the projection postulate
> necessarily requires this collapse thing.  I think it states that
> after an experimentation the system will be in state given by: P_a|H> = c<H|H>
> or something like that.  I don't see anything collapsing here.  Then there
> is the statistical operator that takes care of everything that one can say
> about the experiment. I don't see anything about linear propagation of wave 
> function etc either. Are you questioning whether |H|^2 is really a probability ?
The linear propagation of the wave function is the evolution of the
wave function as defined by the Shrodinger equation. I am certainly not
questioning the interpretation of the wave function as a probability
density. I am pointing out that for a particular class of experiments
the postulates of quantum mechanics do not predict what can be observed
experimentally. I am suggesting that this is reason that one might
question the assumption that wave function changes *instantaneously*
when an observation is made.

You are correct that you do not need to use collapse to invoke the projection
postulate. However, to analyze tests of Bell's inequality you have to invoke
the projection postulate *twice*. You must assume that the wave function
has changed in a nonlocal fashion after the first invocation to be consistent
with the observation made then. It is this changed wave function that has
collapsed or jumped. You do not need to call it collapse.
In some interpretations the changed function was there all the time and
you just choose a different function to use in your calculations. It matters
little what you call it. You have to change the wave function you are using
in your *calculations* in a nonlocal way and this nonlocal change
alters the probability distribution that you use in the second invocation
of the projection postulate.  This is the *only* way to get predictions of
nonlocal macroscopic effects from the postulates of quantum mechanics.
All other laws of physics are local.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Do physics!... hoisting myself by my own petard!
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:40:22 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

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

>The problem is that many of the moderators are guilty of the
>adhominums themselves - some more than others. I predict that
>what will happen is that the small circle of moderators will
>pat themselves on the back and nothing very interesting will
>happen on that conference. The action will still be in the
>unmoderated conference- the trick there is stick to physics,
>ignore what you don't like - don't even read it, and when you
>do respond do so respectfully even if you privately think
>the guy is an idiot.

   If this is what happens, then there is nothing to lose in creating a 
moderated group, and it is an experiment well worth trying.  At worst, we
get an inactive group which gets deleted at some point.  At best, we get
an active and vibrant newsgroup which supplements sci.physics and provides
a place for those who do not have the time or interest to wade through the
muck here.

				     ---Steven Leffler
					leffler@physics.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: Re: Faster then the speed of light?
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:44:50 GMT

In article <MATT.93Jan7123259@physics2.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <cburke.726436100@yorku.ca> cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke) writes:
>
>> In a recent talk I attended, the speaker mentioned a series of
>> astronomical observations involving quasars.  Please excuse my
>> use of lay-terminology.  The speaker said that using triangulation
>> calculations to determine the velocities of two such heavenly objects
>> relative to each other over a period of time, scientists observed (or
>> inferred) that said relative velocity far exceeded the speed of light,
>> in excess of between 400% and 700% (depending on the value assigned to
>> the apparently controversial Hubble constant).  The speaker went on from
>> there, and if anyone is interested I'll post a follow-up with citations.
>
>Depending on exactly how you define your terms, there is nothing wrong
>with the relative velocity of two objects being greater than c.
>
>Definition 1: the relative velocity of object 1 and object 2 is defined
>	to be the velocity of object 2 in the rest frame of object 1.
>
>Definition 2: the relative velocity of object 1 and object 2 is defined
>	to be the velocity of object 2 with respect to the observer,
>	minus the velocity of object 1 with respect to the same
>	observer.
>
>In the nonrelativistic limit, these two definitions are the same; in
>special relativity, they are not.  Both definitions are useful for
>certain purposes, and you have to be sure which one you're talking
>about.
>
>Using the first definition, the relative velocity is always less than
>c; using the second definition, it isn't.  (Obviously enough, since
>you're just subtracting two numbers, and there's nothing wrong with
>one of the numbers being .9c and the other being -.9c.)
>
>My guess is that the speaker in this talk was using the second
>definition, if only because it's something that would be much easier
>to measure.
>
>
>--
>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!


Now wait a minute...doesn't the second definition give a maximum relative
velocity of just under 2c?  But the poster says that the lecture talked
about speeds 400% to 700% in excess, not merely a factor of about 2 in 
excess.  Isn't there still a problem?  Or have I missed something?

John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu
From: anon.281@pax.tpa.com.au
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Chiao's Quantum Eraser Experiment
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:28:46 +1030
Organization: PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) - Anonymous Service
Reply-To: anon.281@pax.tpa.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: flash.pax.tpa.com.au



I have a question regarding the Quantum Eraser experiment described in
Scientific American July 1992 (see below) performed by Raymond Y. Chiao of the
University of California at Berkeley.  First the relevent passages from the
article below (I think copyright laws allow me to do this for the purposes of
discussion) then my question about the experiment.

>From Scientific American, July 1992, "Quantum Philosophy," p.76
[Quote begins here; any spelling mistakes are my own.  I have placed words that
I have inserted myself, to better describe the diagram below, in square
brackets.]

--
** Anonymity & Privacy by PAX - Public Access Unix (Adelaide,South Australia) **

anon.admin@pax.tpa.com.au (a human)    anon.info@pax.tpa.com.au   (for help)
anon.ping@pax.tpa.com.au  (get alias)  anon.key@pax.tpa.com.au    (register key)
anon.###@pax.tpa.com.au   (reply)      anon.post.g@pax.tpa.com.au (post to g)
anon.list@pax.tpa.com.au  (to mailing list)
anon.subscribe@pax.tpa.com.au          anon.unsubscribe@pax.tpa.com.au

For dialup Unix access phone +61-8-235-9010 - online registration.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22333 news.groups:25208
From: ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig)
Subject: Re: reported dark matter observation (PART 2)
Organization: Indiana University Astrophysics, Bloomington, IN
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:24:58 GMT

In article <1idsmhINN17d@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
[great review deleted]
>So in summary, this is a very interesting observation, but how
>excited to get is going to take some time to tell.
>
>WHEW!  Hope this wasn't too boring, folks.

Not at all!  I almost wish I had a seminar to do, your summary would make a
great starting point for a talk.  Thanks for taking the time to explain this.

	Alec
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Ansatz (as used in mathematical physics)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:41:01 GMT

In article <C0o8o0.D00@world.std.com> jcf@world.std.com (Joseph C Fineman) writes:
>siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>
>>   I've seen the term Ansatz used (in English) to describe the
>>mathematical structure that is set up to analyse a physics problem or
>>solve a mathematical physics problem; but none of several English
>>dictionaries I've check contain this term, nor do my Deutsch-English
>>dictionaries give much clue to this usage.  Can anyone quote any
>>authoritative references on this particular usage?
>
>I can't find it in any of my reference books either, but I've seen it
>often enough, over the last 30 years or so.  So far as I know, it is a
>synonym for "trial solution".  IMHO, it is an import that English can
>well do without.  The native phrase is intelligible at first sight,
>and it is only one syllable longer.  Also, a plural is occasionally
>needed, and "Ansatz" presents one with the choice between the
>pretentious "Ansaetze" and the horrible "Ansatzes".  (Incidentally, in
>my experience it is usually not capitalized in English.)

     Since we've opened the floor for suggestions, I like 'Guess'.
     It has the advantage of colourfully saying what one is doing in 
     one fewer syllable, and I'd love to see phrases like "We will
     assume the Bethe Guess".

                               dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:04:32 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

>I have a very simple suggestion. If a moderator thinks an article
>should be posted, it gets posted, with his last name in the subject
>line. It's simple, it's not a lot of extra work for the moderators
>and it allows for accountability.

I would rather not see the moderator's name cluttering the subject line.
Accountability comes from the "Approved: <name>" line which the news
software requires in any article posted by a moderator.

>>   One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
>>   preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.

>I think sci.physics.moderated is more accurate and it allows for 
>a wider defintion of content. 

Add my vote for s.p.moderated.

     Richard M. Mathews			Lietuva laisva = Free Lithuania
					Brivu Latviju  = Free Latvia
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		Eesti vabaks   = Free Estonia
					        WE  DID  IT!!!
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.religion.kibology
From: kibo@world.std.com (James "Kibo" Parry)
Subject: Re: FAQ-fodder
Organization: Two rooms filled with typography, in downtown Boston
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 03:31:52 GMT

In article <COLUMBUS.93Jan5095023@strident.think.com> columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
>
>[Discussion by Mcinnes, MAWENZI [?] lieutenant of Kibo, of the "flat" case
>of an expanding universe omitted].

This would be my favorite sentence of the week if only that second comma
were omitted.

				-- Kibo of the "flat" case of
				   an omitted expanding universe.
From: natelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Douglas Natelson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Abian <--> Borg?
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:39:20 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

Hey.

(With apologies to Star Trek fans,) has it occurred to anyone
that Alexander Abian sounds vaguely Borg-like?

"SUCCOMB TO POSTULATE (A3)!  RESISTANCE IS FUTILE! 
 YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!  EXPERIMENTAL CONTRADICTIONS
 ARE IRRELEVANT!"

:-)

				Doug "This is why I like
				      kill files"
				Natelson
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tesalmin@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tomi Erik Salminen)
Subject: Request info on Cold Dark Matter
Keywords: cold dark matter, cosmology
Organization: University of Helsinki
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:21:38 GMT

I am doing an undergraduate project on cold dark matter (i.e. WIMPS,
axions, quark nuggets, black holes, monopoles, cosmic strings... any
more?). If anyone on the net knows any good references on any of these
and would be kind enough to email me about them, I'd sure appreciate it.

Is hot dark matter (neutrinos) the best bet today?
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TOP in TIME
Date: 11 Jan 1993 11:39 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <MATT.93Jan11102448@physics2.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes...
>I, however, can speculate.  (What else do theorists do?)
> 
>You can't say much about "rate" from a single event, and you can't
>even say much from two or three events.  (Even assuming, that is, that
>the D0 event and both CDF events really are top.)  However, you can
>ask this question: if the top has a mass of 130 or 140 GeV, then what
>is the expected number of events that would be seen with the
>integrated luminosity that they have at Fermilab?
> 
>The answer is: considerably less than one.  The t-tbar cross section

But the uncertainty in top mass is something like +- 30 GeV if you
lump together all of the experimental data on radiative corrections.
So a top mass of 100 GeV would still be constistent with all the 
data and search limits to date.  What would the expected yield for this
event class be for such a top mass?  Much higher than "less than one", 
no?

-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
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gravity & Rubber Sheet Analogy Problem
Keywords: gravity, general relativity
Date: 12 Jan 93 02:40:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

gt1057a@prism.gatech.EDU (gt1057a JOHNSTON,KEITH) writes:

>In almost all explanations of gravity as warped space, the analogy
>used is two-dimensional.  A mass deforms a "rubber sheet", causing
>a depression in the two dimensional space . ...

>  ...  Unless there is some other force
>pushing it down the slope, which would mean an external "gravitational"
>force outside the rubber-sheet universe, why would it move?

It's an analogy, son, an analogy.  You're right that the analogy
requires an external force outside the rubber-sheet universe; that's
because the analogy is just that, an attempt to picture what happens
in general relativity in terms of everyday objects and forces.  I
don't think it's that great an analogy, but I don't have a better one.

You're supposed to contrast the warped rubber sheet to the flat rubber
sheet, on which an object will move in a straight line forever -
analogous to the universe of special relativity.  Note, by the way,
that the fact that there are only depressions in the rubber sheet 
corresponds to the fact that gravity is always attractive (mass is always
positive).
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: dekinder@evsds.uia.ac.be (Jan De Kinder)
Subject: Re: Ansatz (as used in mathematical physics)
Organization: U.I.A.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:38:29 GMT

siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
:    I've seen the term Ansatz used (in English) to describe the
: mathematical structure that is set up to analyse a physics problem or
: solve a mathematical physics problem; but none of several English
: dictionaries I've check contain this term, nor do my Deutsch-English
: dictionaries give much clue to this usage.  Can anyone quote any
: authoritative references on this particular usage?
: 

Perhaps, a more elaborate Deutsch-English may work.  I can find it in my
Deutsch-Dutch dictionnary as 'starting point'.  It is the starting point
for the solution of a given problem. (Mostly the problem is too complicated
to solve it analytically, and simplifications or approximations have to
be made, so don't mix it up with 'approximation')  It may be easier to
check for the verb 'ansetzen'.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Jan De Kinder				Phone: 32 3 820 24 51
	Dept. of Physics			Fax:   32 3 820 22 45
	University of Antwerp (U.I.A.)		E-mail: DeKinder@uia.ac.be
From: edharris@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Electric Pinwheel Problem
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:48:54 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

The posting on Ben Franklin and the possible determination of +/- charges 
reminds me an interesting phenomenon (at least I think so).

I had made an electric pinwheel ( just an S-shaped piece of wire free to 
spin about its center):

direction of spin    <-	___ *corona here
		       /
		      /  
		     /|   <-- pivot point
		    / |
	corona	*---  |______ to +/- High Voltage

You hook it up to a high voltage DC supply (approx 5kV or higher) of either 
+ or - polarity and the thing begins to spin in  the direction shown 
regardless of the polarity. (In case my drawing is unclear: the electric 
pinwheel spins in the same direction as a water pinwheel with water being 
ejected from the tips of the S-shape. In fact, the corona of the electric 
pinwheel makes it look like "fire" is shooting out the tips of the "S".)

I belive the reason for this is as follows: If the pinwheel is at High 
voltage the electric field at the tips of the "S" will be high enough to 
ionize the surrounding air (thus the visible glow from corona). Now if the 
"S" is at +HV then light electrons will be attracted to the tips and the 
heavy ions will be repelled. Since electrons are light and have a 
relatively high mobility in a plasma, they will be quickly swept out of the 
tip region due to the electric field- thus leaving the plasma near the tips 
with a small net + charge. Therefore the tips are constantly repelled from 
the plasma near the tips...

(The collision of the electrons with the tips contributes only a very tiny 
momentum change to the tips)


Anyway I discovered ( or rediscovered) a neat variation to this expt.

If, instead of applying High Voltage DC, you apply high voltage, high 
frequency AC... then you can get the pinwheel to spin BACKWARDS!

I used a solid-state Tesla coil (homebrew):
frequency 10-20KHz
Voltage 10-50 kV

Usually the pinwheel spins around in the "Usual" way, but for some voltage/
frequency combinations it spins backwards. 

Anybody got ideas on this?

Flames away!
-Ed
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Do physics!... hoisting myself by my own petard!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:40:13 GMT


I guess I am violating my own rule but:

From: "Terry Tao" <tao@math.Princeton.EDU>
To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us
Subject: Re: DO PHYSICS DON'T TALK ABOUT MODERATING IT!

I mostly agree.  The problem is that despite the restraint of most
experienced n

et-readers, there is always SOMEONE who will respond to an idiotic post,
especia

lly if it is a very obnoxious-looking document.

Now you dislike personal attacks and impolite posts.  Don
't you want them moderated somehow in a different newsgroup?

Don't forget, sci.physics proper will still be unmoderated.

Terry

& r
To: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us tao@math.Princeton.EDU
Subject: Re: DO PHYSICS DON'T TALK ABOUT MODERATING IT!

The problem is that many of the moderators are guilty of the
adhominums themselves - some more than others. I predict that
what will happen is that the small circle of moderators will
pat themselves on the back and nothing very interesting will
happen on that conference. The action will still be in the
unmoderated conference- the trick there is stick to physics,
ignore what you don't like - don't even read it, and when you
do respond do so respectfully even if you privately think
the guy is an idiot. I will follow those rules if others do.
I know from a large volume of private e-mail I get that there
are a lot of young kids who read the stuff and do not post.
I am doing the pedagogical stuff on Feynman - also new thread
on wavelets et-al (which I am trying to learn myself - an
that is good way to do it) is for the kids. So please you
pundits don't be so self-centered - contribute ideas and
correct errors by all means.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22512 sci.math:17993