HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: OQ (Open Question) on particles
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <MATT.92Oct13104824@physics16.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.163540.27085@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>> Hmm.  My definition was only intended to allow one to say "in this
>> theory there are the following elementary particles: electrons and
>> protons" or some such thing.  As soon as one has a 2-particle state it
>> is no longer an eigenvalue of the mass operator (since the relative
>> velocities can vary continuously, essentially).
>
>Actually, I've always thought that a decent definition of a particle
>is that it's an irreducible representation of the Poincare group.
>(With, again, the same caveat: unless you're talking about asymptotic
>states, it's hard to figure out what really is and isn't a particle.)
>
>Then there's my other definition: a particle is something that you can
>see in a bubble chamber.
  
    It's simply nitpicking, but you must have better eyes than I do.

    I thought it was more 'a particle is something hypothesized to leave
    a *track* in a bubble chamber'.   Hoofprints are not the beast.

                                dale bass




-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Value Rule is sometimes false
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:00:13 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za writes:
>Only reply to this if you are deeply familiar with Locality and Realism
>paradoxes.

Such arrogance ...

>The VR in interpretations of QM formalism says that
>if the probability of an observable Q having a value q in state Psi is zero,
>then Q cannot have value q in Psi.
>It is certainly agreed that VR is false for observables corresponding to
>operators with an uncountable spectrum of eigenvalues, since any such
>eigenvalue has prob. zero in a non-eigenstate.

This doesn't make any sense.  How about the superposition 
 |psi> = ( |x=0.4> + |x=0.5> ) / sqrt(2) ?  It's not an eigenstate of
x, but ...

>Now consider a
>state Psi where prob(r>0) = prob(r<0), i.e a probability density amplitude
>symmetric about r=0. Then if p:E-->[0,1] is the probability function for Q
>having particular values in E in state Psi. Then p(-1) = p(1) = 0.5 while
>p(0) = 0. 

Barring a delta function at X=0, fine.

>If we accept VR then we must conclude that Q cannot have value 0 in
>state Psi. This is false since X can have value 0, and consequently Q
>has value q = s(0) = 0.

As you know, though (or should know given that you used "probability
density") the probability of measuring X and getting *exactly* zero,
is zero.  One can only measure X to be within some interval dx
(the probability density has to be under an integral sign, in 
other words, and we ruled out delta functions above.)

>If BI [Bell Inequality] needs VR ... [realism carries the day].
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Burden of proof's on you, bud.

>Please only reply if you are really familiar with the subject. Don't reply if
>you have free-will hangups or a fetish for retaining Nonlocality at all costs.
>
>* Baby Doc Naturman 

Big, fat, hairy deal.  Not even the guru-est of the gurus ask people
not to respond to their posts!  This is Usenet, not Phys Rev Letters.
I do have a free-will hangup, which is why I'm responding.  I figure
in a wholly deterministic world you would be have no choice but to
post this drivel, and it would be unfair for me to criticize what was
essentially foreordained.  (This is a well-known ethical problem with
strong determinism: how do you justify penalties for criminal acts
which the criminal was foredoomed to commit?  Think about it, twice.)

I have no idea why I am talking to someone who calls himself "Baby Doc."
Are you really trying to call up images of the Haitian dictator
Baby Doc Duvalier or are you just dense?
From: jonathan_scott@VNET.IBM.COM (Jonathan Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Scalar spin
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:23:21 GMT

What is known about the scalar component of spin?

This is what I have worked out for myself so far:

If the spin operator either for the Dirac equation or non-relativistic
spin-1/2 equation is systematically extended to include a scalar part,
like a four-vector, the scalar spin operator S_0 comes out as hbar/2
times the identity matrix but with an overall minus sign for the
negative-energy (positron) solutions.  This means that its eigenvalues
for spin-1/2 functions are +hbar/2 for particles and -hbar/2 for
antiparticles.  The four-vector describing mean values of spin
observations is then equal to the four-vector particle probability
current minus the four-vector antiparticle probability current.

(The corresponding operator L_0 for scalar orbital angular momentum is
always zero because it gives the way in which Psi varies when x is
"rotated about the time axis".  This means x -> exp(ia) x exp(-ia) where
a is scalar, so it has no overall effect).

When S_0**2 is included in the S**2 operator, its eigenvalue becomes
just hbar**2 instead of 3/4 hbar**2, which seems more intuitive.

The scalar spin is dimensionally equivalent to a quantized imaginary
amount of action, and unless it can arise in some other way, appears
to be absolutely conserved, like angular momentum.

It appears to be closely related to the I_3 component of isospin, but
somewhat more generalized.  If leptons are assigned appropriate I_3
values (+1/2 for neutrinos, -1/2 for electron, muon etc.) then the
patterns suggest to me that the scalar spin will probably in general be
equal to I_3 + (strangeness + charm + bottom + top)/2, which seems to
be a conserved quantity equal to Q - B/2 + L/2 where Q is the electric
charge, B is the baryon number and L the total lepton number.

Can anyone tell me anything more about this quantity?  Does it have
a name?  Does it have a macroscopic significance?  Any references?
Are my guesses about the quantum number interpretation reasonable?

Jonathan Scott
jscott@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 20:15:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.165358.20476@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 17158DA@MSU writes:
>Someone once told me that the Nobel Prize is awarded to all sciences except
>one, and that one science was excluded because Nobel's wife had an affair
>with a scientist in that particular science.  I thought this person had
>told me the science was physics, but after perusing this bulletin board and
>noting all the Nobel Prize headings, I realize that I was wrong.  My first
>question is, was this person pulling my leg, or was he telling the truth?  And
>secondly, if he was correct, what science is excluded?
>Thanks!
>-Donna

Mathematics is the science he was referring to (if mathematics is a
science), and the well-known tale is that Nobel refused to give a prize
in math because his wife had an affair with the mathematician
Mittag-Leffler.  This is apparently apocryphal.  The mathematician
across the hall, Ziv Ran, said that it is also said that Nobel was a
lifelong bachelor, and that another version is that his bride-to-be was
snatched away by Mittag-Leffler.  A more boring version is that Nobel,
being a pragmatic fellow, thought math was not useful enough to deserve
a prize.  
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mvb@chopin.udel.edu (Maurice V. Barnhill)
Subject: Re: a question about water waves
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:15:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.195818.16396@husc3.harvard.edu> mlevin@husc8.harvard.edu (Michael Levin) writes:
>
>     When an ideal wave moves across a surface of water, each
>individual water molecule moves only up and down - not laterally; thus
>it is the pattern of which point is highest that moves in the
>"direction of the wave", not any individual water molecule (am I right
>on all of this?).  My question is, suppose you freeze-frame a water
>wave that was mving due north at some point. You now have a peak,
>which during the next frame(s) will go down, and the next north-most
>patch of water will then move up. What exactly is it that determines
>that the next patch of water to move up is that north (i.e., in the
>direction that the wave was moving) of the previous peak? After all,
>looking at a frozen frame of a water wave, can you tell which way it
>was moving? It seems that there is a symmetry of what the water can do
>after any initial moment in time, and if so, where does the
>directionality of the wave's motion come from?

Good question.  The answer comes from the fact that each patch of water is 
executing simple harmonic motion vertically, but as you move northward through
the patches each one is delayed slightly with respect to the first.  So if
we draw velocities as well as positions, north to the left:

                    ^     x   
                 ^  |         
                 |  x           x 
                 |              |  
                 x              V  x
   <------                         |       
 N                                 |
                                   V

OK, so ASCI isn't the best drawing medium, but if you fill in the lines and
arrowheads manually it makes sense.  The patch of water that moves up to
make the next peak is simply the one that was moving up to start with,
gradually slowing down because it is above the mean water level.  The patch
to the south, having already peaked and hence moving down, continues down,
eventually becoming the next trough.  So the relative phase of the
oscillators tells you which patch moves up and which moves down.

Mathematically, the height of the wave at any point is given by
              z = cos(wt - ky)
where ky is the varying phase of the motion. The peak of the wave is given by  
              dz/dt = 0

              -w sin(wt - ky     )=0
                            peak

               wt -ky      = n pi
                     peak
The last equation implies that each peak moves with a constant speed of 

              dy     /dt = w/k .
                peak

All of this is general; it applies to any kind of wave.  Interesting 
complications arise if w is a function of k.
From: corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley )
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Summary: You're right, as far as I know
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:19:19 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In article <1992Oct13.165358.20476@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> 17158DA@MSU writes:
>Someone once told me that the Nobel Prize is awarded to all sciences except
>one, and that one science was excluded because Nobel's wife had an affair
>with a scientist in that particular science.  I thought this person had
>told me the science was physics, but after perusing this bulletin board and
>noting all the Nobel Prize headings, I realize that I was wrong.  My first
>question is, was this person pulling my leg, or was he telling the truth?  And
>secondly, if he was correct, what science is excluded?
>Thanks!
>-Donna

There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics.  And yes, the story
you heard is correct, at least as far as I know.  It's quite
possible, though, that this is just another science folklore
example that _sounds_ so real it just _has_ to be true.
Anyone know for sure?
	
	Jason
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:45:31 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <abian.718940281@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

> The extreme violent Reaction to  provocation is the real explana-
>tion in the mechanism of the A and H bomb!  But I have explained that
>before.  Boring !!

So if I go and cut down a tree, will it react to this provocation and
attempt to maintain its upright status by reaching down with its
branches and trying to strangle me?  I don't think so.  If your
"explanation" is not useful for making predictions then it is
considerably less real than mainstream science.

Are you the Real Professor Abian, or just an imposter trying to
discredit him?

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:12:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.112644.15166@nuscc.nus.sg> scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef) writes:
>jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>: Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>: should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>: 
>: 3) 30 points for each posting that claims a revolutionary theory but
>: gives no concrete testable predictions.

>   I take it that the loop-approach is not revolutionary
>   or it makes a testable prediction :-)

The former.  Far from being revolutionary, it is the most conservative
approach devsied so far in that it attempts to adhere to the principles
of both quantum mechanics (Hilbert space/operator formalism etc.) and
general relativity (Einstein's equations, general covariance etc.).  

But the real point is that what matters is not whether a theory IS
revolutionary but whether it is CLAIMED to be, in the absence of
concrete testable predictions.  Who knows, loop variables or Abian's
principles might prove to be revolutionary!  But claiming so at this
point deserves 30 points.  

Hopefully the present article gets a 0 crackpot index since my 5-point
credit cancels my use of caps.
From: br0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bruno W. Repetto)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE EARTH'S TILT ... Reply to: WOMBAT
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:13:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.seqMUAa00WB6EM8ZJZ
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 12-Oct-92 Re:  TIME HAS INERTIA,
ALTE.. by Marc Paul Jozef@nuscc.nu 
> From: scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef)
> Subject: Re:  TIME HAS INERTIA, ALTERING THE EARTH'S TILT ... Reply
to: WOMBAT
> Date: 12 Oct 92 08:50:20 GMT
>  
> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
> :   To prevent the abovementioned catastrophes, calamities and disasters
> : radical and bold methods must be implemented which should be of Cosmic
> : order such as Altering THE TILT and/or  THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH.
>  
>  
>     How about tilting Iowa state university to the north pole?
>  

No. Just Mr. Abian's office.

Bruno.  br0w+@andrew.cmu.edu
From: rrr@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Rudi Rynders)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:39:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Number of elementary particles in visible universe?
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID
Newsgroups: sci.physics

<<</ hpdmd48:sci.physics / tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) /  1:00 am  Oct  5, 1992 /
<<<What is the approximate number of elementary (I mean proton, electron,
<<<neutron) particles in the visible universe?  Is it around 10^40, or 
<<<way higher?  
<<<
<<<----------
  The last time I checked, ( and this was quite a while ago)
  the number was in the order of  10^72, so I guess "way higher" would be 
  a good assessment.  ( B-:)

  Rudi Rynders (rrr@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: 1992 Nobel Prizes: a prediction
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 16:45:07 GMT

In article <6091@dove.nist.gov> gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.155709.7074@cbnews.cb.att.com> ran@cbnews.cb.att.com (Robert A. Neinast) writes:
>>What I want to know is why Hawking hasn't won it, particularly since
>>the Nobel is only awarded to living people, and every year he hangs
>>on seems miraculous.
>
>It's out of my area of specialization, but I'm under the impression
>that most of Hawking's important work is speculative and hasn't been
>confirmed by observation.

Yes.  The work of his that is bound to stand the test of time is his
work in mathematics - helping prove the singularity theorems in general
relativity.  

I don't think it would be a good precedent to give the Nobel prize in
physics to someone who has made many startling predictions, none of
which has been confirmed.  

I think that for a while they thought gamma-ray bursters might be small
black holes going off in a puff of Hawking radiation.  Hawking's friends
were thrilled because this would earn him the Nobel prize.
Unfortunately the theory didn't seem to fit the facts (I don't know
why).  By the way, I don't know if there are any good theories of
gamma-ray bursters.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 14 Oct 1992 10:28 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 <1992Oct14.043202.2607@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.

I think that comparing oneself to Galileo is far more egregious than comparison
to either Einstein or Newton, and probably warrants a 40 point hit as a sure
sign of a crackpot.

Claiming to deserve the Nobel prize is a 20 (unless you really do, in which
case it's only a 5 for arrogance.).

-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
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Black Holes, Hawking Radiation, and Entropy
Date: 17 Oct 92 01:37:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.16OCT199220375436
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews) writes...
>It seems to me that the solution must be that the black hole is not a
>pure state.  In fact, it can't be.  If the hole can evaporate at all,
>then it can change with time.  Nothing which can change with time can be
>an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian.  Thus black holes are not pure states.
>It is some incredible mixture of all of the states corresponding to all
>possible decays.  And the coefficient on each of those states must be a
>function of only M, Q, and S if the no-hair theorem holds.  But it is
>still a mixed state.

With only a 3 parameter state space it's going to be tough to get the
whole entropy of a black hole. Recently, Nanopoulos tried to convince
us that the extra quantum hair parameters might be enough. I told him
he was full of it (a good bet in general :) but of course he didn't
listen. I think the eventual argument was that you needed
an uncountable infinity of parameters (I don't buy that either) and
string theory only suggested a countable number.

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:57:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

alison@wsrcc.com writes:
>The Rosenbergs may not have given any valuable information away, but
>they _were_ disloyal, so I for one don't feel bad about their
             ^^^^^^^^
>execution.  I'm only sorry the Walkers won't meet the same fate.

Ouch!  And who defines what is "loyal"?
Oh well, it's probably a good thing you weren't on the committee
inquiring into Oppenheimer ...

By the way, is there some reason my site only gets half of the
messages in this thread?  [Other than that I'm a security risk ;)]
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16116 sci.math:12855 soc.men:17422 soc.women:17452
From: jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Math and such (was: Re: Mattel on women
Keywords: Targetting females once again.
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:45:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Oct7.174543.22277
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Oct6.224326.3834@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>  I know that
>personally I regretted not taking some 'hard' courses - in my case, though
>they were humanities courses and not 'Math' courses which I always liked -
>later on.

I happen to be a jerk who insists that people of various groups may
be less likely to excel at something than people from other groups.
I do not limit this to physical activities like basketbal or gymnastics
or running fast, but also include academic studies.

I also believe that these inconsistencies are a good reason not to use
quotas for determining equity in jobs or classes.  I don't believe that
membership to a group should exclude someone from consideration for
positions.  I think each case should be dealt with individually, based
on the individuals ability and observed success.

I was an exceptional student (male) particularly in math, science, and
logic.  My toughest undergrad courses were in Graphic Design.  I was
required to take 2 fine arts courses and chose Graphic Design because
it seemed like the easiest one (as opposed to dance, life drawing, art
history, or watercolor.)  

I have an 11 year old daughter who is an exceptional student.  She excels
in all classes, perhaps science being her least favorite.  Being in R&D,
I would love for her to choose to pursue a science.  Perhaps medicine,
as she is a harder worker than I ever was, and I'm sure she would have
a good shot at success.  She is not sure what she'd like to be, but if
she's as close in personality to me as she seems, she'd be unhappy in
anything but a mentally challenging position.  Time will tell.  I also
have an 8 year old son.  He is bright and does fairly well in his classes,
but not nearly as well as my daughter.  He asks very deep questions, gems 
from topics we talked about days and weeks ago.  Probing questions that
are not satisfied by short brush off answers.  I think he'd make a great 
scientist as well.  A poster at work quotes Einstein as saying, "Despite
your difficulties with mathematics, I assure mine are much greater."
I'll encourage any honest career choice, though.  

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: This years Nobel (we all missed it...)
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:20:33 GMT

In article <14OCT199209164500@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee
Sawyer) writes:

>  One last comment : though Charpak work is obstensibly in HEP, he has been
>quite active in applying this detection techniques to other fields, 
>particularly medical imaging. He has a longstanding joint project with
>one of the Geneva hospitals (l'Hopital Cantonale ?) to develop new wire-
>chamber based PET detectors and similar devices. To a large extent, this
>may be viewed as the first Nobel for medical physics.

Lee, I'm afraid you are off by a looooong way. The first Nobel Prize in
Physics went to Roentgen, whose discovery of x-rays was applied almost
instantly to medical imaging. There warn't no FDA in those days. Applied
physics was Nobel's target for the Prize, so Charpak was a good choice.
Thanks for the note. Without it many of us would have had no idea...

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.physics