HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: temporally undecided states (was: hidden variables)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:47:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.055743.26499@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@asl.dl.nec.com writes:
>This reminds me of a promise I made a long time ago to post an oddball way
>of interpreting such QM "timing" issues.  So why not give it now?
>
>
>            TIME -->               _   - (1st detection)
>                           _   -                / (past "created")
>      (pair production)-   _ <-----------------'
>                               -   _---------------------------.
>                                       -   _     (past unfolds  | "locally")
>                                               -   _            V
>                                                       - (2nd detection)
>
>
>REFERENCES, PLEASE?
>

"The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics" by
John Cramer in Reviews of Modern Physics, July 1986

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke)
Subject: Faster then the speed of light?
Organization: York University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:48:20 GMT

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.

I am wondering if these experiments (the speaker claimed that there are
at least 18 such known instances at present) are commonly known of
within the related disciplines.  If so, how are they accounted for,
given that they offer some evidence against currently held theories?

Thanks in advance.
-- 
........................................................................
....Carolyn L Burke     cburke@nexus.yorku.ca     (416) 604 2235........
..Department of Philosophy, YORK University, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA...
........................................................................
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 16:08:18 GMT

John Sidles writes:

I am curious what fraction of the current postings will be deemed
"rejectable".  If the rejected fraction is small, then why do we
need sci.physics.research?  And if the rejected fraction is large,
then why are we setting up such an exclusionary newsgroup?

It will be fairly large.  We will be excluding such things as: Abian's
endless thread, discussions of religion and politics (which threads on
sci.physics often turn into), endless repeats of questions that are in
the FAQ, re-re-rehashes of discussions ofthe interpretations of quantum
mechanics, etc..  (See Matt Austern's official proposal for more
details.)  The reason for setting up a newsgroup that excludes this sort
of thing is primarily that lots of people would prefer not to wade
through the above things to find what they consider interesting.  (Of
course, lots of people *like* such things, and sci.physics would still
be around.)  In particular, it appears that many research-level
physicists are turned off by sci.physics as it stands.  This keeps the
level of sci.physics rather low in a kind of vicious circle.  In short,
the reason for sci.physics.research is similar to why physics
conferences are not usually held in bus stations.  (I am not saying that
sci.physics.research will be equivalent to a physics conference, nor
that sci.physics is a bus station.  Just that a certain amount of
filtering can make for discussions that are more interesting to to
experts in a subject.)

As for your proposed trial test of sci.physics.research moderators, I
will leave it to Matt Austern, who is leading this effort, to decide
what he thinks.  It'd be fine by me.  I expect that there'll be a
certain amount of conferring among moderators at first to work out
sensible standards, by the way.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tao@fine.princeton.edu (Terry Tao)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA     Att: Andrew Martin FRAMINGHAM
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: a
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:18:31 GMT

In article <abian.726296379@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>
>  I do not have to prove or to persuade people of the righteousness
>of my (A3).  They will  themselves realize the rightfulness, the
>rectitude of my (A3).

Good, then you can relax and you don't need to post anymore: people will
realize that (A3) is right without you having to do anything at all.
Aren't you lucky, Abian!  Your theory does not require the author to make
people accept it: it proves itself!

So Abian: why don't you turn off your computer, sit back and listen to some
Beethoven.  You don't need to post to sci.physics any more or even read it
- you just have to wait until the majority of the world's population
realizes the rightfulness of (A3) and then your job is done.

Terry
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TOP in TIME
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:24:48
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu's message of 11 Jan 93 15:04:17 GMT

In article <11665@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:

>  The person I asked about this 
> said they were not even prepared to speculate as to whether seeing this 
> event indicated a rate consistent with the mass around 130 GeV suggested 
> by the CERN results.  We will probably have to wait a year to know for 
> sure, although it sounds like the PR has started already. 

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
goes down quite steeply as the top mass increases.  There's some
unceratinty in the cross section (perturbative QCD calculations are
difficult), but not a factor-of-ten uncertainty.

In other words: in my opinion, it isn't terribly likely that CDF and
D0 would be seeing very many 130 GeV top quarks.
--
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,news.groups,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: How about sci.physics.speculation as well?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:13:26 GMT

In article kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring) writes:
>In article noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:

>>Now, even with this tirade, I have no problem with a moderated newsgroup
>>devoted to discussion of "orthodox" physics only (I won't even attempt to
>>define orthodox, btw), as long as this is stated above board.  And let me
>>go on to offer an olive branch and propose that along-side a
>>sci.physics.research (it should really be called sci.physics.orthodox), that
>>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>a parallel moderated newsgroup, called sci.physics.speculations be created
>>as well (I'd be happy to be a moderator for such a group).
>
>sci.physics.orthodox is a bad name, as it has a negative taste.
>("Ah, that's where the old orthodox physicists post, those with the
>spider webs on their paradigms.")  It's almost as bad as calling your
>proposed s.p.speculations group s.p.crackpot instead.

Agreed.  I should have never proposed that.  So, as Jack Sarfatti proposed,
how about sci.physics.conventional or sci.physics.main-stream?

Jon

-- 

Charter Member of the INFJ Club.

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

=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | I VOTED FOR PEROT IN '92 |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   | Support UNITED WE STAND! |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 417-4101   |  caravan moves on."      |
=============================================================================
Who are you?  Read alt.psychology.personality!  That's where the action is.
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Wednesday, 6 Jan 1993 21:31:36 PST
From: Walid Majid <WALID@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject:    TOP in TIME

There is an article in this week's issue of Time, about the discovery of
the top quark by the CDF collaboration.  It mentions two events that could
be t -> W + b events with W -> mu + nu_mu.
Can some kind soul (perhaps a CDF member) put more light into this signal.
What is the expected background at this region?

Walid
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22612 news.groups:25433
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: in favor of a moderated physics group (sci.physics.research)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:38:34 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman) writes:

>I know you are not proposing to "touch" SCI.PHYSICS but rather to introduce
>SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH.  But in the body of the first posting, the statement
>was made that SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH absolutely has the possibility of becomming
>as "wild" or rather "speculative" as this forum (SCI.PHYSICS) is today.  

>In the attempt to keep SCI.PHYSICS.RESEARCH "clean," you will at some point have
>to filter a posting or two from that forum.  It is this process that I think is
>doomed to failure before you start.  It just doesn't make sense to stem the free
>flow of information, no matter how "non-serious" you happen to believe it is.

   Why not?  It's done all the time.  Scientific journals have very stringent
rules on what material they'll accept, for example.  Sci.physics.research will
be an intermediate medium between the complete freedom (and anarchy) of 
sci.physics, and the very restricted state of a scientific journal.  That seems
to be just what we need to complement sci.physics. 
   Free flow of information (and garbage) is wonderful, and I for one will 
continue reading sci.physics as long as I can afford the time, but there's no
reason why one can't have places for more controlled flow of information as
long as there are places where free flow is not stifled.

>If you were to say the moderators would simply make the choice concerning which
>forum to post an article I would possibly buy into that idea.  In other words,
>if someone posted an article to sci.physics.research, and it was dubbed not
>serious enough, the moderator would simply post the article automatically to
>sci.physics and send back a note to the original poster detailing the reasons
>for re-directing the work to another group.  Even here, you run into problems
>with cross-posting; who gets to? and who was cross-posted but didn't want to be?
>We then would need to consider replies and follow-ups (can you hear my feet
>dragging?).

   Actually, the idea of having rejected postings sent to sci.physics or 
alt.physics.new-theories was discussed.  I'm not sure whether or not this is
still the plan.  I have a feeling that this idea was discarded because it
was felt that it was more appropriate to send the article back to the poster
with the suggestion that they post it to one of the other newsgroups.  This
also allows them the possibility of modifying the article so that it will
meet the moderated group's guidlines.

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

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tayloe@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Rex Tayloe)
Subject: Re: Question on Mechanics Books
Reply-To: tayloe@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu (Rex Tayloe)
Organization: Nuclear Physics Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:17:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.201331.16640@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>, cochran@kali.enet.dec.com (Michael Cochran) writes:
>
>I'm thinking of buying some books. The two that I'm looking at are:
>
>               1) Goldstein - Classical Mechanics
>               2) Marion - Classical Dynamics
>
>What do you think? Good reading? Are they THE classics that every bookshelf
>should have or would there be another choice thats better?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
   Those are the books... Marion was used for my undergrad mechanics and
Goldstein for beginning graduate.  Another is a book by Symon.  Looking around
the lab just now, these are the ones on everyones shelves.  Good Luck.


   __    __    ____     __
 /__/\ /__/| /____/ \ /__/|     Rex Tayloe           TAYLOE@uinpla.npl.uiuc.edu
 |   \\| | ||  __ \ /|| | |     Nuclear Physics Lab  TAYLOE@uiucnpl.bitnet 
 | |\ \| | || |__) |/ | | |__   U of Illinois        UINPLA::(47165::)TAYLOE
 | | \   | ||  ___/   | |/__ /| Champaign Il 61820   (217)333-3190
 |_|/ \ _|/ |_|/      |_____|/ 

Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups,sci.misc
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:03:16 GMT

I favor the moderated group.  My kill list for sci.physics is quite
short, but kills a large fraction of the postings.  It wouldn't matter
except that it takes some time to operate.  Today, for example, I had
to skip more than a dozen content-free postings by a single person.

I suppose a better solution might be a "heuristic moderator" -- a
message-kill operator that recognizes when a contributor is writing
more papers than is likely to have content.  It would conjecture that
the 'offending' contributor has temporarily got into a bad state.
After a couple of days, the filter would display a message of the form

   <xxx.. has contributed distinct 20 messages in the past 4 days, for
   a total of 80 cross-posted ones.  These TEXTS include 40 CAPITALIZED
   WORDS.  Would you like to read a sample text? (ynq)

Come to think of it, this might solve the present problems with sci.physics.

.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Bell's inequality rules out hidden varibaiables?  N O !
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 06:08:42 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.031311.6547@news.columbia.edu> sla7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Louber Antiles) writes:
>People on this group seem to keep claiming that Bell's inequality
>rules out hidden variables. They claim that non-locality is
>incompatible with hidden variables. 

Which people? I've only read one post in the last few weeks where that
claim was made, and it was quickly contradicted by someone who knew better.
Maybe some of these articles aren't reaching my server.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
Subject: Re: Liquid metals
Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
Distribution: sci.physics, sci.chem
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:37:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.165810.12426@cs.sfu.ca> jones@cs.sfu.ca (John Jones) writes:
>Why is mercury a liquid, while its neighbours in the periodic table
>are high-melting-point solids?  A simple answer might be that the
>interatomic bonds in mercury are unusually weak, but then what is
>responsible for the weakness of these bonds?

I am ABSOLUTELY not sure about this, but isn't mercury a liquid because its melt
ing temperature is relatively low?  Couldn't you cool it to a solid form?  
Certainly one could (*if it were possible*;-) cool some mercury to absolute zero
and (if you could see it without heating it) find that it is solid at that
low temperature.

dks.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22473 news.groups:25314
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 11 Jan 93 10:03:18
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu's message of 10 Jan 93 01:03:25

In article <MATT.93Jan10010325@physics2.berkeley.edu>
matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes: 

   One specific question: I, personally, don't have any very strong
   preference for either sci.physics.research or sci.physics.moderated.
   I believe that both of these names are adequate to the task: that is,
   someone who's glancing at a list of newsgroups will probably be able
   to tell from the name whether or not they would be interested in
   reading the group, and someone who's looking for the group will be
   able to find it.  There's been a bit of discussion about the name,
   though, so if other people do feel strongly about it, it's not too
   late for it to be changed.

   Does anybody out there feel strongly about the name one way or the
   other?  If not, I'll keep it as is.


I vote for sci.physics.moderated.  (Why is it necessary to feel "strongly"
about this?  Is there some difficulty with changing the name at this
point?)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:22382 news.groups:25248 sci.misc:1987
From: leffler@physics.ubc.ca (Steve Leffler )
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: Are there important unresolved issues?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 23:28:52 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>I rather strongly prefer sci.physics.research - it parallels
>sci.math.research and will hopefully describe the group better...

> but then I'm a namespace freak ;-)

   Not to mention, that "sci.physics.research" might be better at attracting
working physicists to the group than "sci.physics.moderated", which may
discourage those who are new to the net and do not understand what a moderated
group is and how it works.

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

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: king@physics.su.OZ.AU (Peter King)
Subject: Radial Gain Variation In Lasers
Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:10:08 GMT


	Does anyone have any references to the radial variation (as opposed
to axial) of gain in a laser?

							Peter
--
********************************************************************************
Peter King                               *         The home of TORTUS.
Plasma Physics Department                *   T
University of Sydney, NSW 2006           *   O
AUSTRALIA                                *   Roid of
    voice: 61 2 692 3371                 *   The 
      FAX: 61 2 660 2903                 *   University of
    email: king@physics.su.OZ.AU         *   Sydney
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Wavelets, coherent states 9 - more on windowed transforms.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:59:06 GMT


9. Fs(v) = Integral (-+infinite range)[dt e^i2pivt h(t - s)*f(t)]   (63)

which defines the "dynamical spectrum" - a marriage between the Fourier
transform and the convolution.

ex.1. flat window h(t) = 1 gives ordinary Fourier transform.

ex.2. Delta function impulse at t = 0 gives

Fs(v) = h(-s)* is the impulse response ( the dynamical spectrum is a a bit
like a Green's function or propagator in momentum space for an impulse
window).

ex.3. Fo(s) = Integral (-+infinite range)[dth(t - s)*f(t)]     (64)

is the convolution.

ex.4 Define

h[v,s](t) = e^i2pivt h(t-s)      (65)

Fs(v) = <h[v,s]|f>   (66)

Make a frame indexed by the set M = {(v,s)|v,s each in R}. M is the
classical phase space, in this example the "time-frequency plane" of signal
theory in electrical engineering. Use the Lebesgue measure du(v,s) = dsdv.
Fs(v) is the Fourier transform of h[s]*f where h[s]* is the translated
window h(t-s)*.

For "nice signals" in the space of Schwartz test functions, Plancherel's
theorem gives

Integral[dsdv|Fs(v)|^2] = |h|^2|f|^2     (67)

where

|h|^2 = Integral[ds|h(t-s)|^2  (68)

|f|^2 = Integral[dt|f(t)|^2    (69)

h[v,s] is a tight frame with frame constants (defined previously)

A = B = |h|^2   (70)

and h[v,s] reminiscent of a Block function in band theory of electrons in a
periodic lattice (i.e., eq. 65) has Fourier transform

H[v,s](v') = H[s](v'-v)   (71)

Thus if the Fourier transform H(v) of the basic window is concentrated near
v = 0 (so that h(t) is smooth since any sharp edges and discontinuities
make large frequency components) then the Fourier transform of h[v,s]
(i.e., H[v,s](v')) is concentrated near v' = v.

*Therefore, h[v,s] is a window in phase space (i.e., time-frequency in this
example). The fact that windows form a tight frame means that signals may
be equally well represented in the time-frequency plane as well as on the
time line.

The resolution of unity (classical analog to quantum completeness of a
basis frame) is

|h|^-2 Integral[dsdv|h[v,s]><h[v,s]| = I   (72)

The consistency condtion gives the reconstruction formula

f(t) = |h|^-2Integral[dsdv e^-i2pivt h(t - s)F(v,s)]   (73)

The windowed Fourier transform is symmetric under interchange of time and
frequency. The reason is that windowed Fourier transforms, like the Glauber
coherent states, are closely related to the Weyl-Heisenberg group from the
hidden "symplectic geometry". (p.38 of G. Kaiser's book Elsevier, 1990).

to be continued
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research: proposed panel of moderators
Date: 10 Jan 1993 23:45:31 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1993Jan10.003520.23506@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>     Besides, how good do you think our collective memory really is?
>     When we've forgotten the last time one was posted, it's probably
>     about time.  For my memory, that's probably about six months.

Incredible.

Do you forget the reason FAQs were invented in the first
place (assuming you ever knew it)?

FAQs exist because approximately twice a year a new crop of
newbies gets their trepidatious little fingers on a
networked terminal as the result of the normal educaton
cycle.

The word "periodicity" became a net.joke; one could feel
the surge of cluelessness overtaking the net.beach at
certain seasons; and, basically, it wasn't all that hard to
figure out who was asking all the familiar questions.

>     What is it exactly that you are worried about?

If you have to ask, we can't afford it.

				--Blair
				  "Anyone even close to
				   detecting a thesis, here?"