HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: NSF Physics budget (Re: WHAT'S NEW  18 Dec 92)
Keywords: WHAT'S NEW
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:54:11 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Dec19.175237.28599@cerberus.ulaval.ca> ddepir@curie.phy.ulaval.ca (Didier Depireux) writes:
>
>1. FY 1993 NSF OPERATING PLAN IS APPROVED--WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS!
>At this point the plan itself is still a state secret; it was not
>shared even with NSF Division heads.  Why such secrecy?  Perhaps
>it was concern that some grantees would lobby the Appropriations
>Committees to urge that parts of the plan be rejected.  

Given the expected impact of this plan, viz. the unscheduled 
reduction in some lab budgets by amounts on the order of 
1 M$ described below, it would be surprising if some of the 
gored oxen did not object to the consequences of the LIGO 
decision by congress on other areas of physics. 

>2. IN A TOUGH YEAR, LIGO SEEMS TO BE THE MOST CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.
>When it became clear that this was going to be a rotten year, NSF
>sought to scale back its $48M request for LIGO to $16M. Alas, the
>LIGO pitchmen did not let up.  Over NSF objections, Congress ear-
>marked $38M for LIGO construction, with another $5M for LIGO R&D
>to be taken from Physics.       ... 
>              ...        In this year's operating plan, NSF tried
>to reduce LIGO to $25M, but the Appropriations Committees did not
>agree to the reduction, and the Mikulski/Traxler letter instructs
>NSF to go ahead and allocate the $5M to LIGO from Physics.    ...

The consequences of this are significant.  The 0.7% cut in actual 
dollars at the NSF was bad enough, but could be lived with since 
we managed to survive other years with less-than-inflation increases. 
That cut coupled with the need to use some of those funds for a new
purpose will require a major cut in nuclear physics funding that 
runs counter to the peer-reviewed long range plan and necessitates 
a series of site visits by various review committees at 10 labs 
around the country.  

The biggest impact will be felt at Michigan State (not so far from 
Traxler's district) and Indiana University, whose labs will probably 
have to absorb a 10% cut (almost 1 M$ each) for the coming year.  
Some layoffs have already been made at MSU.  Since these are national 
user facilities, the impact will be felt by experimenters from coast 
to coast.  It will be interesting to see if such a diverse group 
can affect what happens in next year's budget. 

--
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)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy
From: kalita@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Jugal Kolita)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Quantum/General optics mailing list?High energy physics institutes
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:25:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania



General of quantum physics
--------------------------
A friend of mine in India who has access to e-mail wants to know
if there is any newsgroups/bulletin boards/mailing lists for
general or quantum physics. If there is/are mailing list(s),
could someone tell me what address he should send mail to be
included in the list?


High energy physics institutes 
------------------------------
Another request from the same friend:
He wants a list of high energy physics institutes around the world. 
According to
him, there are several such directories which can be obtained by 
remote login to QSPIRES@SLACVM.BITNET at Stanford. I don't have access
to bitnet. Can someone let me know if the directories are available on
an internet machine? Can they be obtained by anonymous remote login?
If not, can someone please mail the lists/directories? Thanks a lot!


Thanks!


Jugal Kalita
U of Colorado at Colorado Springs
kalita@pikespeak.uccs.edu


Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Subject: Re: Feynman 44 Is it unitary? Sarfatti predicts new solid state release of vacuum energy based upon Feynman's musings in 1949?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:40:47 GMT


This is a nice bit of work, but don't you think it belongs in
sci.physics rather than HERE?

C'mon now.  The subject-atmosphere (possibility of alien visitations,
UFOs, abductions, etc.) in this group is already getting dangerously
thin---it really doesn't need this sort of stuff to come along and make
it rareified to the point of "unbreathability".  John Winston does
enough of that already....

T.R. Stone
University of Nebraska-Omaha

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic
From: rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson)
Subject: Re: Physics - the Good, the Bad and the Bogus 1
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.162729.15635@infodev.cam.ac.uk> mjh22@phx.cam.ac.uk writes:
>Hasn't Sarfatti pinched the title of this thread more or less from a Martin
>Gardner book? Come to think of it, I remember one or two less than
>complimentary remarks about one Jack Sarfatti in there...
>
>Martin

I notice you are from a physics department, which suggests you might
have been able to comment on the content of the post.  That would be
much more interesting than your "pinching" an opinion from Gardner.

Cheers, Roger
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Hal Puthoff's zero-point engine 1
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 08:56:36 GMT

sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
: 
: Hal Puthoff's work on extracting useful energy from the quantum vacuum
: using the Casimir force looks very interesting.
: Puthoff writes:
: ".. the Casimir force, ... closely-spaced metal plates being pushed
: together ... is due to radiation pressure from the background
: electromagnetic zero-point energy which has become unbalanced ..(by).. the
: plates.  This attractive force is proportional to 1/D4... and becomes quite
: strong at (D) ... on the order of 1000 Angstroms ...
: 
: An alternative candidate .. to obtaining energy from vacuum fluctuations
: might lie in ... cold, dense, ... plasma in which charge condensation
: occurs on the basis of a Casimir pinch effect ..."
: 
: My "precognition" tells me that eventually we will build Star Ships powered
: by zero point energy. We will be able to amplify tranversable time-machine
: wormholes out of the vacuum for our ships to fly through and we will be
: able to communicate in "subspace" faster-than-light on the quantum
: connection in a globally causally consistent forever expanding universe.
: Indeed, if UFOs are real, some of them are such ships from our future.
: Ref. Martin Gardner, Science Good Bad and Bogus "Magic and Paraphysics"
    	                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^			
So which is it this time around? Bad or Bogus?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 19:12:10 GMT

In article <440@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>I'm happy to hear you are not convinced yet. It only sounds confusing to
>me. The problem in quantum mechanics has always been how do we connect the
>mathematics of the theory to the observations in experiments. I do not
>think anyone has a resaonable answer to this question. I suspect that
>Everett only succeeds in obscuring the problem with some pointless
>mathematics. 

Please read his work before critiquing it, huh?
From: ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA (Greg Neill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: ABIAN HAS TIME AND INERTIA
Summary: What's all this then?
Keywords: inappropriate proof
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:35:39 GMT
Organization: HNSX Supercomputers Inc.


To quote Mr. Abian:

     "Why light propagates ?  Because  Space  acting according to (A3)
   tends to dilute the intensity of light (concentrated at one point)
   (just the same way that water  acts according to (A3) and dilutes the
  ink drop to feel more  secure, just the same way that General Petain
   acted according to (A3)in diluting the enemy forces) TO FEEL SECURE.
      So this is how FUNDAMENTAL (A3) enters in the VERY ACT OF PROPAGA-
  TION OF LIGHT.  Now, after that it is only a logical observation and
   deduction that the DILUTING PROCESS ( as I explained in my posting)
   manifests itself by diminishing  the intensity of light propa-
   tional to  r^(-2) , since the area of a sphere  is  4pi r^2."


  I would like to ask how the above principle allows for the existence
of laser beams?  Surely Space would cause the light comprising the beam
to be 'diluted' and the coherent structure of the beam would be lost
almost immediately?  Light from all sources would be forced,
asymptotically, into the spherical mode of dilution.

  Now what about light moving in straight lines?  Why should a portion
of Space which is currently "light free" allow an intruding bit of light
free passage through it?  Surely Space should react violently against
the inturder and force it to change its straight path.  We would then
expect light to follow a random walk sort of path, or at best a circular
path, instead of a straight line.  

  And about the analogy Mr. Abian draws between the point source and
sphere derivation of the kM/r^2 law for gravitation,  besides pointing
out that this is a reletively ancient proof which he is revelling in, it
does not necessarily apply to his World picture.  Mr. Abian's line of
reasoning states that things happen because all 'particles' and things 
are animate to the extent that they crave a feeling of 'security' and
act to increase this feeling.  This would imply that the actions they
take are directed.  Directed actions would tend to act directly along
the line connecting the interacting objects, in direct response to the
provocation.  This does not lead one to an inverse square relationship
in any straightforward manner.  In fact, I cannot think of any elegant
reason, based on Mr. Abian's postulates, why the response to the 
provocation should not be focussed and specific rather than spherically
symmetric.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,               | ounce (ouns), n. - The standard unit of
HNSX Supercomputers   Inc.|   prevention, equal to one pound of cure.
ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.ca    | 
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21749 news.groups:24904
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Date: 24 Dec 92 14:24:33
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Dec24.074121.11426@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<MERRITT.92Dec24115137@macro.bu.edu>
	<1992Dec24.182252.16866@cs.wayne.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu's message of Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:22:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.182252.16866@cs.wayne.edu> atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:

> But many (including myself) who support the creation of a new
> newsgroup are interested in having a forum for discussing
> research-related topics that would be attractive to a larger
> fraction of research physicists than currently have the patience to
> sift through the incredible volume of traffic on this group.

This, I think, is the real point: we can talk all we want about how
there is no difficulty with using sci.physics for professional
discussions about physics, but the evidence, quite simply, doesn't
support that conclusion.  

Most physicists nowadays have access to computers that are linked to
the Internet, and use of the Internet is growing---the preprint
bulletin boards, for example, have become popular very quickly.
However, almost no physicists choose to use sci.physics for
discussions; it just isn't a hospitable environment.

Sci.physics does serve some purposes well, and I'm not proposing to
eliminate it or change it in any way.  It has, however, demonstrably
failed to be a place where it is convenient for physicists to talk to
each other about physics.  A new newsgroup is needed for that purpose.
--
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!
From: srihari@sam.cchem.berkeley.edu (Srihari Keshavamurthy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: sci.physics
Date: 3 Jan 1993 22:53:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sam.cchem.berkeley.edu
Keywords: knots,stat. mech....

I was reading Kaufmann's book on knots the other day and I have a
question for the experts out there. I understand that the q-state potts
model partition function is actually a invariant polynomial. My
question is that given any lattice system...is the partition function
a invariant polynomial(like the jones or HOMFLY etc.)? If not, when
is it possible. Also I have another naive question...When one writes
down the invariant polynomial for a certain knot e.g. the jones 
polynomial, V(t), what is the variable t? I understand that V(t) is
invariant under "nice" topological deformations of the knot. I am 
asking this because in an actual physical system where you have knots
does the variable t correspond to some physical parameter. I may be
completely off on both questions and would appreciate it if someone
explained it to me. thanks 
srihari
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: range of EM force
Date: 31 Dec 1992 07:16 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 <C03zI8.7Fy@utdallas.edu>, nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani) writes...
>	This must be very stupid. If the EM force is via virtual photons,
>	how does it have an infinite range, given that a virtual photon
>	of frequency 'v' has a non-zero "borrowed" energy 'hv' ? 
>	Leggett, in his book, "Problems of Physics", says this is because the
>	photon has zero rest mass and hence a zero "borrowed" energy. I 
>	find this fishy.

Fishy or no, it's true.  The easiest way to see this is to look at the
scalar case.  The field of a point source is then described by the 
Klein-Gordon equation,

		Box(psi) - m^2*psi = G*delta(x)

where G is some coupling constant, m is the mass, and "Box" is the
D'Alembertian operator, Del^2 - (1/c^2)*d^2/dt^2.

To solve this for the static field psi is easy - you just take the 
Fourier transform to get

		(-k^2 - m^2)PSI = G/(2*pi)^3/2,

where PSI is the Fourier transform of psi.  So you get

		PSI = - (stuff) * (1/(k^2+m^2).

To get the original field back, you need to do the inverse Fourier
Transform, and the math get's a little messier - you need to expand
the exp(-ipx) kernal in terms of spherical waves ("Bauer expansion",
or spherical Bessel expansion), etc.  You can do it with that hint
if you try hard enough.  Allow me, for the sake of brevity, to just
give you the answer:

		psi = -G/(4*pi) * exp(-mx)/x

In other words, you get a 1/r field modified by exp(-mx), which defines
the range, 1/m in these units, of the static field.  So, for x >> 1/m,
psi is suppressed by a large exponential factor.  

You can find more detail in Sakurai, chapter 1.  Try to work out the
details for yourself.  It's very educational.

-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: riehm@maccs.mcmaster.ca (Carl Riehm)
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Organization: McMaster University, Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 01:36:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.201815.18409@news.vanderbilt.edu> mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion) writes:
>In article <1i1qs8INNrfi@mtha.usc.edu> bruck@mtha.usc.edu (Ronald Bruck) writes:
>
>(much discussion of urban legends about why Nobel snubbed mathematics
>deleted)
>
>>The astronomer went on to say that the real reason for the exclusion
>>of astronomy was that in those days it was considered a branch of physics,
>>which Nobel had already provided for.  Similarly, I have read that the
>>real reason for the exclusion of mathematics is that it was not considered
>>a practical science; that Nobel excluded _theoretical_ sciences.
>
>*Economics* is a _pratical_ science ?!?!!  Now I'm insulted.
>
>Mike

Well I believe that Nobel did *not* establish Economics as one of the fields in
which the prize is given out; this was done many years later by the Swedish 
Academy (or something like that...).   So don't be insulted.

Reminds me of a recent anecdote:
A is back at his alma mater (in the version I heard, it was Stanford) for his
20th anniversery after his PhD.   Professor B has put on display questions from
the most recent PhD qualifying exam.   A opines to Professor B:  "Hey those are 
the same questions on my qualifying exam over 20 years ago!"  Professor B
counters with "Aha but we've changed the answers!".
From: gene@aee.aee.com (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, concluded
Keywords: anthropics, faith, humor
Reply-To: gene@aee.aee.com
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:13:03 GMT

andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) writes:

>>It would be interesting if people would post what they think the word
>>faith means and then a citation from their dictionary with reference. 

>No, that would be pretty boring. Strictly speaking, definitions are matter
>of agreement between the parties to the discussion. Otherwise it's the
>same thing as shouting. Much better to skip the dictionary reference,
>since if the definition persuades the disputants to agree, it isn't 
>important if it comes from a dictionary. Even the OED cannot be taken
>as beyond dispute.

OK. If this is the way you feel, then what exactly is your definition of
"faith". I guess is all boils down to that. As you said, it is what the
two parties agree to. But it seems to me that your reluctance to divulge
your definition, accompanied or not by one from the dictionary, indicates
an attitude of intellectual smugness, and certainly no desire on your part
to discuss the issues. 

>>Much of this discussion centers around differing definitions. This process
>>might result in a definition that all would agree reflects the common usage,
>>like it or not. 

>So what. If you want to convince people, you have to get them to agree
>to _your_ usage, not common usage. Science is chock full of terms which
>have important and useful meanings which are not in common usage. Take
>for example the commonplace 'rate of speed'. Do _you_ use this  to be
>synonymous with 'speed', the way it is _commonly_ used? If so, you cannot
>expect many readers of sci.physics to join you, even should you produce
>an entire stack of errant dictionaries to support this usage. I expect
>most physicists are glad to be able to use acceleration in preference to
>'rate of speed'.

Again, Andrew, how can we agree to anything, IF WE DO NOT LET EACH OTHER
KNOW WHAT WE ARE THINKING!

PS. What is OED?

Gene Kochanowsky
-- 
Gene Kochanowsky                           | "And remember ....
Associated Electronic Engineers, Inc.      |       The better you look ... 
(904)893-6741 Voice, (904)893-2758 Fax     |       the more you will see."
gene@aee.com                               |               Miss Lidia
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 22 Dec 92 17:15:22 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec21.131354.29282@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
[...]
> No, I am only considering the possibilities. *If* the wave function is
> physical, *then* instantaneous collapse implies that something nonlocal
> is happening. If it is not physical, then its collapse does not imply
> anything nonlocal. [...]

The point of Bell's inequality and the proof that quantum mechanics
violates it is that something nonlocal must happen, if you assume that
the wave function you use to compute probabilities changes instantaneously.
This is independent of what interpretation of QM you prefer and independent
of the physicality of the wave function. I say `the wave function you
use to compute probabilities', because there may be no change in the wave
function. They may all exist simultaneously and you only choose a different
one as the result of an observation. I could care less about the metaphysics.
The point is that the *calculations* in QM produce nonlocal predictions as
a consequence of the assumption that the wave function you use in
computations changes instantaneously.

This *physical* effect of the computations suggests to me that there is
a physical wave function and that it does *not* change instantaneously.

Paul Budnik
From: ralf@ark.abg.sub.org (R.Stephan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 21 Dec 92 10:44
Organization: Not Very Ltd.

jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
> 
> Is there a way that I (using rn) can kill everything EXCEPT the
> 'TIME HAS INERTIA' stuff from Abian and his interlocutors?

You don't want to do this, since you wouldn't be able to read the
answers to your posting.  ;-)

--
***************
Sbetrg Pburerag
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: can sound waves boil water?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:19:21 GMT



At Penn Sate in the early '50's we had a siren capable of setting a cotton ball
aflame.  The frequency was about 30 kHz, and we think about a kilowatt of 
acoustical energy was being generated.

I suspect that someone has tried in for water; it'll be interesting to see
what answers arrive here!