HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:53:53 GMT

In article <Dec.13.18.15.03.1992.6526@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>     ...   How about when a 
>>     toilet seat goes for over a hundred grand?
>
>Is that art, or defense contracting?

     Good question.  I bet certain people at unnamed large defense 
     contractors wish they could charge more than a couple of thousand.  
     Maybe they should call them 'Jasper Johns' and ask for supplemental 
     support from the NEA.  At the very least, they come under the
     heading 'performance art'.

     Cheerio, I'm off to write grant proposals.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: KIRLIAN PHOTOGRAPHY...
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:52:47 GMT

In article <13DEC199213482165@trentu.ca> lchardon@trentu.ca (LAURENT CHARDON)  
writes:
> I wasn't talking about anything supernatural, but the effect I was talking 
> about is the fact that when you cut a bit of a leave (for example) out, and 
> take a "picture" of it under the changing voltage, the bit that was cut off 
> still appears on the photographic paper 

I'm not certain, but I can see one way this could easily happen. A
typical Kirlian technique is to press the sample between two glass 
plates, and then apply the voltage across the plates, and record the
resulting breakdown. Now, suppose you press the whole leaf between 
the plates, and so leave traces of moisture and impurity on the 
plates. Then remove the leaf, cut off some part, and reposition
it. The remnant moisture, even where there  is no actual leaf, 
would suffice to breakdown in the pattern of the original leaf.
(Of course, at this point you don't even need the leaf at all,
just its original moisture imprint. This is another one of the wonders of the  
kirlian effect, you'll note.)



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: (A1) EXPLAINS THE PHYSICS from particle to Galaxies
Keywords: (A1)  12-11-92
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:59:22 GMT

In article <abian.724093986@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>     THE SPACE ITSELF  AS ANY PARTICLE  TENDS TO MAINTAIN  ITS
>     NEUTRALITY and reacts by trying to annihilate the concentration
>     of particles at any place -  With weak and small particles
>     it succeeds by decaying them explicitly under our eyes; with big 
>     masses the decaying process  takes  TIME.  The  resulting
>     energy is irretrievably dissipated to move TIME forward.

So why is the electron stable, the much larger proton more or less
stable, and the still larger neutron NOT stable?  "energy is dissipated"
-- dissipated to WHERE exactly?  Gone somewhere as heat?  Potential
energy?  What?

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.171927.1@stsci.edu>, zellner@stsci.edu writes:

 [Excellent exposition of the Rayleigh Scattering mechanism deleted]

 In addition to this, molecular oxygen absorbs red light. It's a weak
 transition (magnetic dipole) but there's enough O2 overhead to compensate.
 I vaguely remember reading that about 20% of the blue sky color is due to
 this (I forget precisely what that figure is supposed to represent) with
 the remaining 80% being due to Rayleigh scattering.

 Robert
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:59:39
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com


I've been perusing the collection "Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of
Information", ed. by Wojciech H. Zurek, volume 8 in the Sante Fe Institute
Studies in the Sciences of Complexity (pub. Addison-Wesley).  This is the
proceedings of a workshop held in 1989.  Much more perusing and I'd have to
start actually reading the articles (insert one usenet smileyon), so I
thought I would post a few impressions instead.

The collection touches on many themes near and dear to this newsgroup, such
as interpretations of QM, links between algorithmic information theory
and physical entropy, black hole thermodynamics, discrete vs. continuous
foundations for physics, and even our old friend the accelerating charge!
(I think we should give a *name* to this charge.  Entries in the "Name that
Charge!" contest will be accepted until the twins meet and compare ages.)

The contributions have technical meat in them, but the authors usually
season their offerings with a soupcon of philosophy.  The collection leads
off with John Archibald Wheeler's "Information, Physics, Quantum: The
Search for Links", where (in contrast to most of the other contributions)
the philosophical gravy practically smothers the meat.  I found it a very
tasty dish, nonetheless--- to hell with nutrition!  I quote from the
introduction, to give the delphic flavor:

    The search for understanding presents to us three questions, four no's,
    and five clues:

    (*) Three *questions*

    	How come existence?
    	How come the quantum?
    	How come the "one world" out of many observer-participants?

    (*) Four *no's*

    	No tower of turtles,
    	No laws,
    	No continuum,
    	No space, no time.

    (*) Five *clues*

    	The boundary of a boundary is zero.
    	No question?  No answer!

(The questions put me in mind of William Safire's squib on the difference
between "how come?" and "why?"  I don't remember the exact quote, but
roughly: "why?" is a professor eruditely putting his audience to sleep,
"how come?" is a street-smart urchin challenging you to a fight.)

That's probably enough for one post.  I hasten to add that the other
contributions in the collection are rather more inhibited.  Anyway, if
you're reading usenet, you're not completely allergic to blue-sky
speculation; why not get it from a master?
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: mcclaine@hardy.u.washington.edu (Robert Casey)
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:18:41 GMT

In article <Bz8C9J.4Hw@news.cso.uiuc.edu> ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marius) writes:
>
>
>* Han Solo does however mention at one point in time (you'd have to see 
>  rec.arts.sf.starwars to find the source) that his engines (NOT hyperdrive)
>  are capable of 1.5 times the speed of light (he says 'point five past c')
>

	Someone else has pointed out the discrepancy with this point but I
will just mention something anyway...

	Han Solo says that that Falcon can make "point five" past light
speed.  the "point" scale in Star Wars is not a fraction past light speed,
but is in its own way, a warp factor value.  Based on transit times mentioned
in Timothy Zahn's books, the factors refer to many times the speed of light.





	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/    NEW FOR 1993: 
	_/     _/  _/       _/     _/   The Ronald Reagan Commemorative 
	_/     _/  _/       _/                    Typewriter
	_/_/_/_/   _/_/_/   _/              
	_/   _/    _/       _/          This is the one you've been waiting 
	_/    _/   _/       _/     _/   for; the only one with no memory 
	_/     _/  _/_/_/_/   _/_/_/  	and no colon!
	Robert E. Casey  (mcclaine@hardy.u.washington.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: k138836@cc.tut.fi (Korhonen Tommi)
Subject: Re: A1 DECODED
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Finland
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 00:10:29 GMT


In <1992Dec11.191717.6523@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:


>    Of course, you've missed 'internal' influences, decay, etc.
>    However, assuming we can suitably redefine 'external' to include
>    'internal', why not change 'matter' to 'cheese', or 'economics', or 
>    'wildebeest'.  Now it works for anything, because it says 'things 
>    don't change unless they do'.  This is  probably true, but who cares?

>    The principle is still as vacuous as it was when abian figured out
>    how to post. The important concept is not in this tautological observation,
>    but in *how* things move and change.  I doubt abian will ever
>    figure that out.

>    D1: THINGS MAY CHANGE (dale bass, 1992)

>    You can keep the medal and meeting the King, I just want the money.
>   
>                             dale bass

	How about: "Literature is words." :)
-- 
---------------------------------------------
It's TKorho above there, at k138836@cc.tut.fi
"The Black Ghost out of Nowhere"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Chaitin's Omega and QM (was: Bayes' theorem and QM)
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:59:06 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>I salute Michael Weiss' post introducing people to the literature on 
>the number Omega, algorithmic information theory, algorithmic
>randomness theory etc..  This stuff is seriously cool and should be
>known by all those who love beautiful ideas.  Here is a nice
>bibliography of stuff along these lines that was passed on to me by Dave
>DeMers.  Unfortunately is doesn't have a reference to Martin-Loef, who
>(along with Kolmogorov, Solomonoff, Chaitin and others) deserves a lot
>of credit.  

Thank you very much for your bibliography,
which I know I shall find very useful.

It seems to me that the central concept of Kolmogorov/Chaitin theory
is _entropy_.
As I see it,
there have been 4 phases in the historical development of this concept --
or perhaps one should say that the same term has been applied
to 4 related concepts:

1. Thermodynamics
   Increase of entropy (S) as the measure of irreversibility.

2. Statistical mechanics
   S = -\sum p\log p

3. Shannon's information theory
   Entropy as a measure of information.

4. Chatin/Kolmogorov algorithmic information theory
   Entropy in the language of Turing machines.

But does entropy in the 4th sense
completely dispace Shannon's definition?
Can everything in Shannon theory
be expressed in algorithmic terms?

Equally, one might have asked if statistical mechanics
could be explained in terms of information?
Are the 2 kinds of entropy really the same?
Or is this simply to confuse 2 quantities
because they are defined by similar formulae?

I'd be interested to know the world's views on this!





-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:55:22 GMT


It would appear that Dale is correct.  I stand corrected that he is right and
even if there is a phase transition it would not account for the effect.

Ken Pearce
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: When your sun forges iron...
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:31:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kfree@netlink.cts.com (Kenneth Freeman) writes:

>I've often read that iron is the proximate cause of novas, iron
>being the last atomic ash, so to speak. Why iron in particular? 
>I'd appreciate a good QM explanation of why your usual stellar
>furnace blows upon trying to produce energy from Fe!

Iron isotopes are the most tightly bound nuclei.  For other nuclei,
e.g. silicon, a star can fuse them with alpha particles or whatever
forming a more tightly bound nucleus and releasing some energy in the
form of radiation - the radiative pressure supports the star against
gravity.  Once an iron core forms there is no more support and eventually
the star must collapse.  (This is a highly simplified version of events.)

I guess the short answer to your question is that you can't produce
energy from Fe.
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:08:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.002103.12956@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>>     Really?  Do you rule out phase changes in the early universe that
>>>     may have no reverse counterpart in this universe?
>>
>><raised eyebrow>  Do you have some reason to believe that the reverse
>>of those phase changes did not immediately precede the ones which we
>>suppose to have taken place in the first 10^-whatever seconds?  Presumably
>>if we do a big >crunch<, all of the phase changes would work in reverse...
>
>     <Another raised eyebrow>  Do you have any reason to think Omega
>     is one?

Oh dear, now I'm definitely out of my depth.  Omega refers to space-time
curvature, that everything will come back in a Big Crunch, something like
that?  No, no reason at all.  But, hypothetically, is there any reason to
think that those phase changes are irreversible, if the necessary heat
and pressure conditions are established?  I mean, it's not as though we've
actually done the experiment ourselves either way... though I'll concede
that what the cosmogenists are coming up with sounds convincing *to me*.

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca, 
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.optics
From: zacek@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Daniel M. Zacek)
Subject: Re: KIRLIAN PHOTOGRAPHY...
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 00:06:08 GMT

lchardon@trentu.ca (LAURENT CHARDON) writes:

>I wasn't talking about anything supernatural, but the effect I was talking 
>about is the fact that when you cut a bit of a leave (for example) out, and 
>take a "picture" of it under the changing voltage, the bit that was cut off 
>still appears on the photographic paper 

We spent a long time trying to duplicate that and came up with this:
If you cut a leaf and put it on the glass you don't get the "afterlife" image.
But every photograph I've seen has a before and after shot.  The leaf remains
on the glass through both exposures.  When the leaf is cut, there is still 
moisture and oil on the glass, hence the afterglow.  Sorry, nothing more
spectacular.  (You can make the leaf send messages from the other side by using
rubber stamps to stamp a little water or skin oil on the glass before firing up
the transformer.... :)  hee hee hee.

/s/dan 

-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dan Zacek                | Astrophysics & Philosophy:  The study of  
zacek@ucsu.colorado.edu  | why we think we know that starlight bends. 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polowin)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:17:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.214822.10150@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:

>>>Go back to fundimental chemistry.  Phase changes are generally exothermic.
>>
>>Um.  Exactly half of them are exothermic.  The other half are endothermic.
>>:-)
>
>     Really?  Do you rule out phase changes in the early universe that
>     may have no reverse counterpart in this universe?

<raised eyebrow>  Do you have some reason to believe that the reverse
of those phase changes did not immediately precede the ones which we
suppose to have taken place in the first 10^-whatever seconds?  Presumably
if we do a big >crunch<, all of the phase changes would work in reverse...

Joel Polowin
polowin@silicon.chem.queensu.ca, polowin@chem.queensu.ca,
polowinj@qucdn.queensu.ca
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why is the sky blue?
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:21:09 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Dec17.171546.13719@linus.mitre.org> m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White) writes:
>
>    ...             A universe where these things turned out differently
>would lack people to ask the question.  So, the question is "Why did things 
>turn out this way?", not "How did things turn out?". 

Then you were not paying attention.  They turned out this way so you 
could ask a question that cannot be answered to your satisfaction. 

A statement that explains how electromagnetic radiation is scattered by 
the atmosphere that is necessary to sustain carbon-based life *is* an 
answer to the scientific (this is sci.physics remember) question of 
why the sky is blue.  If you do not like this answer, you should ask 
it somewhere else:

An astronomer might observe that most of the time the sky is black, 
not blue, and wonder why your question was so narrow.  It is much 
more important to ask why the sky is dark at night (Olber's paradox). 

An observation that you happen to speak english is the answer if you 
were to have posted this question in some area concerned with cultural 
anthropology, where debate would concern whether the !Kung think the 
sky is "blue", or even care.  

A philosopher might ponder the strong anthropic principle, or perhaps 
even the question of how we come to accept that another person sees 
the same thing we do when we both say it is "blue". 

A social worker would want to know why you are asking a question that 
discriminates against the visually impaired, who do not know what your 
question means and are frustrated by it.  (Which, I suppose, begs the 
question of how it is that I was taught about Rayleigh scattering by 
a blind man.  Life has its interesting twists.) 

And some people would be happy with the answer the Kibo created the 
universe, complete with your question and various answers, just a 
few nanoseconds ago, because...

--
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: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:30:33 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec12.220517.12687@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
] larsj@kih.no@kih (larsj.johansen) writes:
] 
] >>Quantum mechanics predicts that, in the EPR
] >>experiment, if one experimenter measures spin-up for his particle,
] >>then the other experimenter will measure spin-down with probability
] >>cos^2(theta/2). Where does the assumption of collapse come in?
] >>It is definitely not necessary for experimenter A to assume that the
] >>measurement performed by experimenter B collapses the wave function
] >>in order to derive this probability.
] >
] >Well, there is a collapse in the sense that the wave function CHANGES 
] >INSTANTLY (in fact, in the whole universe!) because of the first 
] >measurement. Namely, the wavefunction |psi> collapses to one of the 
] >eigenstates
] >
] >	|psi> = |+>|+> + |->|->  ----->    |psi> = |+>|+>
] 
] I disagree. There is no reason for experimenter A to assume that B's
] measurement has this effect. Experimenter A can treat B as any other
] quantum system.

I am not sure what you are saying. There are certainly many ways to analyze
EPR experiments. However it is necessary to assume that the wave function
you use to compute probabilities changes instantaneously as the result of
a distant measurement to derive the probabilities for a joint detection
in tests of Bell's inequality. All laws of physics except this assumption
are local.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:49:21 GMT

In article <Bz6Gn5.JI1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Dave Nash) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.002236.5784@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes:
>
>>
>>Not in Canada, where the question was asked. Are U.S. pennies really
>>mostly zinc? I knew they were in 1943, but those looked like zinc. U.S.
>
>Don't judge a coin by its cover ;-]
>
>I'm pretty sure it's zinc coated with a very thin layer of copper.  Just to
>make sure, I grabbed a penny off my desk and gouged it with an X-Acto knife
>to expose the inner metal.  It's a silvery-colored metal.
>
   I've just pulled out an old email message date-stamped May, 1991. The
relevant sentences are:

"Canadian pennies are, and US ones used to be, about 96% copper. A few
years ago the US changed to zinc with a thin layer of copper over it."

   I don't have any Canadian pennies dated after 1991 so I can't check to
see if this has changed recently.


-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Entropy isn't what it
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | used to be.
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              |
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: quantum cosmology
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:28:40 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: stealth.intel.com

In article <1992Dec14.194012.20679@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.171644.74@vms.huji.ac.il> tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>A question about quantum cosmology from a non-physicist.
>>If space and time came into existence with the big bang, in
>>what would the quantum fluctuation have occured?

Probability.

>This is one of those questions they only tell you the answer to when you
>get your PhD, and they make you promise not to tell anyone.

Probably.

				--Blair
				  "Probely."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher J Burian)
Subject: Re: Freq. response of eyes (was: Why is the sky blue?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:05:34 GMT

zellner@stsci.edu writes:

>So why do our eyes contain structures specifically sensitive to light of 
>wavelength 4300 to 4800A?  Physiology, really accidents of evolutionary history.

Wow, Lots of responses!  And I thought I was asking a dumb question. :)

Now here's another one before the thread dries up:

	What is the maximum possible range of frequencies that the
	"perfect" biological eye could see.  Or, what IS the range,
	from animals that can see into the near-infrared to animals
	that can see into ultra-violet.  (Animals including bugs &
	stuff.)

Chris---

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: an1812@anon.penet.fi (Pakarinen)
Subject: Re: The EVIL Abian
X-Anonymously-To: sci.physics
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:01:37 GMT

>What are to be done with the EVIL Abian?

>Gunnar

Senile dementia is not an affliction to be ridiculed.

Pakarinen 
an1812@anon.penet.fi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Newsgroups: sci.physics