HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Magnetic monopoles?
Date: 24 Jan 1993 10:00 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan23.032445.4376@lehi3b15.CSEE.Lehigh.EDU>, glipton@po.CWRU.Edu writes...
> 
>In 1983 (I think) Cabrera of Stanford ran an experiment to detect
>monopoles.  The experiment detected one event which had a virtually
>perfect signature for a monopole.  This event occurred on a Sunday
>when no one was monitoring the apparatus.  The event was, as far as
>I know, never explained and never repeated.

Closer to early 1982.  In the spring on 1982 I was in a freshman EM class 
at MIT where Alan Guth declared that div B = 0 (Except at Stanford) as one
of Maxwell's equations.  

Although nobody was ever able to explain the mystery event, Cabrera has 
since has new ones of the same kind.  His new detectors are coincidence
detectors.  The original one was a single superconducting loop.  The
newer ones are several loops, organized rather like the plastic loops on
a six-pack of soda, with two sets stacked one on top of the other. 
If a monopole passes through one loop of the upper set, it will, with 
high probability, pass through the corresponding loop in the lower set.
A valid monopole signal thus requires a coincidence of two loops.  However,
during several years of running, Cabrera et.al. have had at least one
singles event, i.e., a single loop fired in the same way as the original
mystery signal - only this time there was a lower loop which did not fire
to veto the event as unambiguous, though unexplained, noise.

Based upon this experience, Cabrera has, in a paper (last year, if I 
remember correctly) in PRL, officially retracted his original mystery
event as a possible monopole signal.

-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: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:06:00 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan25.180302.5963@novell.com>, dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes...
> 
>I discussed this matter with 
>Scott Chase and he feels that I (and my optometrist) should be a bit more
>precise with these statements.  Only *PERFECT* eyes under *IDEAL* conditions
>would be *CAPABLE* of reacting to significantly high percentage (we discussed
>efficiencies over %80 or so) of incident photons.  

I guess I should explain my point of view.  No matter what type of 
detector you choose (eyes, CCD, avalanche diode, etc.), you can make
the claim that perfect {insert detector name} under ideal conditions
can be 100% efficient.  But this is not meaningful in practice.  No
practical detector is 100% efficient, and eyes don't even come close.

Probably the worst problem with eyes is that they are connected to a
brain that can easily be fooled.  Put a person in a very dark room and
allow them to acclimatize - then ask them to respond vocally whenever
they see a single photon .  My best guess is that the person will 
respond many more times than you actually illuminate them with your
one-photon source.  I don't know whether the problem is with false signals
generated in the eye itself, or with the brain.

Without knowing the detailed physiology of the eye, I also imagine that
the effective detector area is not equal to the area of the retina - even
neglecting the entirely dead region (fovea, right?) near the optic nerve.
Rods and cones must have finite dead time and efficiency, etc.  All these
factors fold together to give you a net efficiency less than 100%. 

For an optometrist to blithly make the off-the-cuff claim that
your eyes are 100% efficient detectors, is probably just sloppy talk.  I
presume that optometrists know better.

To the original poster's question about whether 100% efficient detectors
exist, I think that the best answer will probably take the form "No, but 
for high enough energy photons at low enough rates, it is possible to 
construct detectors of type {insert detector name here} with efficiency 
blah-blah %."  As a non-expert on photon detection, I'm not sure what
the best detectors are.  Others have mentioned several varieties already.

-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,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: tke@shep.att.com (Tom Epstein [415])
Subject: New Net Acryonyms - Was: Re: New Physics, etc.
Originator: news@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
Organization: Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:16:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.080927.13352@news.unige.ch>, afzal@divsun.unige.ch 
(Afzal Ballim) writes:

|> In article <1k436cINNfe5@emx.cc.utexas.edu>, ethan@emx.cc.utexas.edu 
(Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> In cases like this the request for appropriate references
|> |> is doomed to failure, but making the request makes a point
|> |> so....
|> |> 
|> |> How about CARP?  
|> |> 
|> |> Cite Appropriate References Please
|> 
|> How about CRAP?
|> 
|> Cite References And Proof
|> 

Both seem to be winners here.  A kudos each to Messrs Ballim and Vishniac.

How about this:

In cases where claims are unreferenced and the responding party is merely
suspicious that there is something fishy about the original poster's source,
use CARP. Example:

	naive@gullable.edu > What about the proof of the CIA cover-up
                             of the JFK / Stalin connection?

	sci@anywhere.org  >  This sounds fishy - CARP. 

On the other hand, there may be reason to suspect that the poster has a particular
agenda or is a nutcase or for whatever reason appears to have no regard for facts:
In such cases, use CRAP.


	bogus@paranoia.com > I have inside knowledge of the CIA cover-up
          		     of the *real* source of AIDS: the Vatican!


	sci@anywhere.org  >  There is certain air about your statement - CRAP.

Tom Epstein
AT&T Bell Labs
Allentown, PA. USA
From: barinaga@netcom.com (Marcia Barinaga)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: female mentors in science
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:57:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

I am a reporter with Science magazine, and am preparing articles
for an upcoming special news section on women in science. 

I am looking for an example of a female scientist who has left 
her mark on a field by attracting, inspiring and training female 
scientists. I have heard that in some fields, particularly those 
in which there are few women, one may find a clustering of women
in a sub-discipline, and that one can often trace their lineage 
back to a particularly influential mentor. I am looking for a 
compelling example of that phenomenon, particularly in a field
such as math or astronomy or physics, in which women are scarce.

Also, for a related article in the same issue, I am seeking
comments from both male and female scientists on the 
question of whether women approach science differently than
men. I know this is a controversial question, and am hoping
to present a range of views on it. Do women have different 
styles of conducting science, or even different intellectual 
approaches that may enrich their fields either through 
added diversity, or as an example men might learn from?

I know about some scholars such as Evelyn Fox Keller who deal 
with gender and science. I plan to include them in my article, and
would be happy to hear about more such scholars, but I am also 
looking for real-life examples to use in my article: for men or 
women who have compelling anecdotes about their 
experiences with female vs male scientists, and differences
or similarities in their styles of doing science.


If you have suggestions of scientists who I should contact, 
for either of these articles, or if you would be willing to 
be interviewed yourself for my articles or want to send me 
your comments for use in the articles, please e-mail me.

My address on the internet is  
barinaga@netcom.com

I am new on the internet, and am posting this query in a 
couple of newsgroups that seemed appropriate. I hope I have
not made any errors in that choice, but please forgive me
if I have. 

Thank you for your patience in considering my query,
Marcia Barinaga
West Coast Correspondent
Science magazine
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23480 sci.skeptic:22869 alt.paranormal:2832 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2830 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7752
From: det@sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
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 1993 13:00:09 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: somebody@somehost.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <C1GEpL.4H7@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
| I am being paid a significant amount of money to write this by an
| influential European corporation. If you want to make
| corrections,suggestions etc. with no monetary compensation from me,feel free
| to do so. I will include opposing points of view in footnotes with your
| names if you like. All I can say is that this document is going to be
| translated into Spanish, French, Portuguese,Russian, Hindi and will be
| read by some of the most powerful people (politicians, CEO's of multi-
| nationals etc.) in the world who are about to set up a satellite based
| multi-media world wide university in which I have been asked to play a
| major role with major funding.

Oh, so many things I could say here.  I'll just leave it at "a fool and
his money are soon parted".

| This is no joke! 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.

More's the pity that this is "no joke".  I'm afraid that there *is* a decline
in the quality of education in at least American universities, but it would
be far worse if they were to teach classes in New Age pseudoscience, unless
it were in debunking it with critical analysis.  What we need is a more
solid grounding in foundation subjects, beginning in primary and secondary
schools, with higher graduating standards in oral and written communication,
literature, critical analysis, the physical sciences, and mathematics.

| Admiral Sarfatti
| Star Fleet Academy
| Star Fleet Command
| Presidio
| San Francisco
| Federation of United Planets.

Does this sound like someone with a firm grasp on reality?  I mean, I enjoy
trek a great deal, but I don't confuse it with the real world!

I know replying to this sort of drivel won't make it go away, but it
really raises my b.p. to see how many people actually believe this crap.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Magnetic monopoles?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:17:55 GMT
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia

In article <1993Jan23.032445.4376@lehi3b15.CSEE.Lehigh.EDU> glipton@po.CWRU.Edu writes:
>Some odds and ends about monopoles:
>
>Grand Unified Theories popular in the early 80's predicted the
>existence of *very* massive monopoles - sorry I don't have figures,
>but I recall that the mass was on the order of micrograms - pretty
>hefty.  Some GUTs also predicted that monopoles could "catalyze"
>proton decay - needless to say, none of this was verified experimentally.
>
>In 1983 (I think) Cabrera of Stanford ran an experiment to detect
>monopoles.  The experiment detected one event which had a virtually
>perfect signature for a monopole.  This event occurred on a Sunday
>when no one was monitoring the apparatus.  The event was, as far as
>I know, never explained and never repeated.
>
I heard about that too, but think someone (one of my instructors?) who was in on
the project said the "detector" had been found to be defective in some way.  But
my memory of this is definately foggy by now.

dks.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Super-Strings
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:35:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.728008534

allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson) writes:

>There's another, even more compelling, reason to like higher-dimensional
>objects. In a Feynman diagram showing two particles merging (say, an 
>electron absorbing a photon), there's a great difference between the 
>parts of the diagram where the individual particles are propagating, and
>the nasty Lorentz-invariant vertex where they meet. But if the objects
>are strings, the interaction looks like a pair of pants, a nice smooth
>2-manifold all over, no unpleasant separation into "propagation" and
>"interaction".

And now, another idiot question.  When I talk to string theorists, they
keep talking about something called "the string coupling constant."
If interaction vertices have been banished and all we have are pairs
of pants, what is this?  It seems to be different from the "string
tension,"  which is what I would imagine would be the relevant 
quantity if these things are all propagator. 

>Which makes me wonder, what could one accomplish with a theory whose
>elementary constituents were inseparable _pairs_ of points? It keeps the
>nice features described above, for starters - (a,a') interacts with (b,b')
>to produce the new particle (a,b').				Allen K.

This reminds me of strong meson interactions in the large-N (large gauge
group) limit.  The mesons are quark-antiquark pairs that are bound by very
stringlike fields.  The leading diagrams are flat sheets with quarks going
around the edges and planar networks of gluon lines in the interior.
It starts to become apparent why open string theory gave a good 
early description of hadrons.  Apparently, according to Gross
(he gave a talk here last week), in two dimensions QCD is quite literally
a string theory.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
Subject: Re: White Paper - definition of life.
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 02:34:44 GMT

For a moment there I thought Jack was about to announce that he was going
to Get a Life.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bbowen@megatest.com (Bruce Bowen)
Subject: Re: Black hole insights
Organization: Megatest Corporation
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:49:50 GMT

From article <STEINLY.93Jan24151539@topaz.ucsc.edu>, by steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson):
> I think it is very important to forget about "test" particles being
> sent in carrying no mass-energy, if you want to track the fate of the
> particle it has to carry _finite_ energy. Yet again QM comes to the
> rescue of GR!

  "Infinitesimal" does not mean "zero".  It means the object's mass/energy is so small
compared to the system that it's contribution can be ignored.  A 10 ev photon falling
into a galactic size black hole can pretty much be treated as an infinitesimal.

   An incoming micrometeorite perturbes the earth's position about their common center
of gravity since the meteorite also has mass.  But I don't know anyone who pays attention
to this.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:30:37 GMT

paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>In article <FRANL.93Jan19202211@draco.centerline.com>, franl@centerline.com
>(Fran Litterio) writes:
>> [...]  I've heard that the wavefunction is defined in phase
>> space rather than physical space (when more than a single particle's
>> position is involved). [...]
>> In a sense, the wavefunction encodes instantaneous
>> knowledge of distant events, since a point in phase space encodes
>> information about physically separate quantum states at a sinlge point
>> in time (in a given frame of reference).
[stuff deleted]
>
>One is forced to use phase space because the wave functions for two
>separate particles will overlap in physical space. One needs some method
>to represent the probability of finding particle A at location A1 and
>particle B at location B1. One cannot represent this without using a phase
>space that includes position coordinates for both particles.

No, that's not true. In the case of identical particles, one can do
without phase space by just using the particle density, which gives
the expected number of particles in a unit volume. Phase space is only
needed for distant correlations between particles. It is precisely the
violation of Bell's inequality that forces the use of phase space for
describing quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanics obeyed Bell's
inequalities, then there would be a local description of quantum
mechanics that does not use phase space.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: blair@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Blair Wyman)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:41:28 GMT
Reply-To: BlairWyman@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

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

|> The new physics is the telepathic physics...
                 
Please offer references to any reproducable experiments that prove the existence 
of "telepathy."   Without such references, there is no merit to any of your claims. 

-- 
Blair Wyman               IBM Rochester       If MST3K did usenet posts, we'd be
(507)253-2891   BlairWyman@vnet.ibm.com       witnessing the birth of the next
Opinions expressed are not those of IBM.      Roger Corman.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:48:33 GMT

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

>This is no joke! 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.

     What would a powerful circle look like?  Are its 
     physical properties any different from ordinary circles?

>On the Mind-Matter Interaction
>by Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D.
>
>The connection between mind and matter is not a problem restricted to
>philosophy and theology. It is a problem for new physics. Indeed, it may be
>the fundamental problem for the new post-Einsteinian physics of quantum
>connectivity beyond the confines of space and time.
>
>The new physics is the telepathic physics of "The Force" without force
>portrayed in the film "Star Wars". It is the Physics of Destiny. It is the
>source of meaning. It is the generator of existence in a universe of
>purpose uniting Man with God.
[and on and on and on and on]

      I suppose it is too much to ask that some actual
      physics be included in the 'new physics'?  Misrepresenting
      the meaning of Aspect's experiments for the 400th time doesn't 
      seem to count. 

      I don't know about you, but I generally avoid taking
      physical ideas from Hollywood, though Bugs Bunny's
      world *is* quite entertaining in its place.  However,
      films violate 'the old physics' all the time.  It's nothing
      profound, though.  It's called an 'illusion'.  Having
      seen Geller first hand, I'm sure you're familiar with 
      illusion.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: hidden variables
Date: 23 Jan 93 19:18:02 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1993Jan23.175012.23680@cs.wayne.edu>, atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
> [...]
> The point I am trying to make is that while the wave function does
> not collapse at the polarizer, only the first term emerges. The
> probability that the photon will reach a detector at a distance
> L behind the polarizer is (cos@)^2 -- this is essentially Malus's
> law.  If we change the polarizer angle at some time, the change in
> detection probability will show up L/c later. This is a clear and
> unambiguous prediction of wave optics.
>  
> Please explain to me what you find wrong with this picture, and/or
> why it can't be applied to singlet state photons in an Aspect-
> type experiment.
> 
There is nothing wrong with the description you provided for a single
photon. The reason it does not apply to the singlet state case is that
all the changes you described can be modeled by the Schrodinger equation.
They do not represent a change in state of the photon but only describe
how the wave function evolves in time and space. Because the
evolution of the wave function as governed by the Schrodinger
equation is local you cannot use it to model what happens in the
singlet state case. If you could the relativistic Schrodinger equation
would not be Lorentz invariant. You would have distant changes in
polarizer angles instantaneously changing the structure of the physically
distant wave function.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rbatra@uceng.uc.edu (Rajesh Batra)
Subject: Physics of an Air bag?
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:12:35 GMT


Hi,

	I was wondering if anyone could either describe to or point me
	in the right direction regarding the physics of an air bag.

	I am looking at the possibility of catching an object with
	some speed (1700 m/s) and some mass (120 kg) with a stuntman
	air bag.  Unfortunately, I don't know where to begin in terms
	of equations.  In my Mechanics of Solids text book, I have 
	the equations for impact loading of systems whose deformation
	is directly proportional to the magnitude of the applied force.
	I figure this isn't the case for an air bag. Since the bag pressure will
	increase considerably, and I don't want the object to bounce off the
	bag, I plan on releasing some of the air during deformation.

	In case anyone is interested here's the equations for impact
	loading that I have:

	Vertical Impact:  Xmax=Xst*( 1+SQRT(1+2*h/Xst) )
			  Pdyn=W*(1+SQRT(1+2*h/Xst))

	Horizontal Impact:
			  Xmax=Xst*SQRT(v^2/(g*Xst))
			  Pdyn=W*SQRT(v^2/(g*Xst))

	where   Xmax - maximum deflection of elastic body (like a spring)
		       with impact load.
		Xst  - deflection that would have occurred if static
		      load applied.
		Pdyn - Dynamic force.
		g    - gravity.
		v    - incoming velocity.
		h    - height at which weight (W) is dropped.
		W    - Weight of the object.


					Thanks for you time,

					Rajesh Batra
					Department of Aerospace Engineering
					University of Cincinnati
					rbatra@uceng.uc.edu