HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: weeks@hpscit.sc.hp.com (Greg Weeks)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Axiomatic Quantum Gravity
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:51:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpscit.56960006
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA

Having posted the basenote, I now see a couple of things wrong with it.

1.  There are, of course, observables in general relativity.  For example,
whether or not two material objects make contact during their lifetimes is
diffeomorphism-invariant.  Many real-life observables are similar to this.
However, these observables are only tenuously related to the fundamental
fields that define the theory.  So, what I should have said is that there
are no _fundamental_ local observables.

2.  In the basenote, the overall topology of space-time is taken as a
given.  But the large-scale structure of space-time is dynamically
influenced.  My starting point for a local quantum theory -- ie, some
particular space-time manifold -- makes no sense.  So, in noting a tree, I
missed the forest: It's true that general relativity has no (fundamental)
local observables.  But quantum general relativity doesn't even have a
(classical) space-time manifold.

These errors don't affect the main point of the basenote: there is no
axiomatic quantum gravity.  It seems to me that some of the effort going
into attempts to construct theories of gravity on flat space-times would be
better spent thinking about what a real theory of quantum gravity might
look like.


Greg Weeks
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Exam suggestions :-)
Keywords: (Could be funny)
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:13:24 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)

Don't forget that modern day physics grad students need to know algebraic
topology, the study of space invariants under a change of notation.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Jobs in Physics?
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:44:48 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Dec9.144501.2102@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_bighamcp@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>"I want a job in Physics R&D". Easy to say, apparently not so easy to
>find.  I've tried Recruiters, Newspapers, Employment Agencies, Job Postings,
>and word-of-mouth, all to no apparent avail.
>
>Can anyone give some helpfull advice as to where to look to find those
>elusive entry-level research positions? Or is graduate school the only
>avenue today?  Are companies today not interested in recent-grads? Are
>we doomed to the workplace where our bosses have the IQ's of spuds?

Instead of starting another thread, I would suggest that you read the
corresponding thread on academic vs. 'workplace' jobs in sci.math. Our
firm has a HEP Ph. D. as our pricipal researcher in equities and we
just hired a RHIC guy from Brookhaven. To be sure, the mathematicians
outnumber the physicists by 7 to 2 on our research staff. Now I can
make some claims that our work is not so different from math research,
and it's even a little like some aspects of experimental physics (we
_love_ signal processing) but I can't say that it's really physics research.

But do the 'bosses' around here have the IQ of a spud? ( Not unless it's
the 'space potato'. :-))

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

P.S. With our three hires this year we're full up at the moment, but there
are a lot of places similar to us which are looking now.
From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA . EXPLAIN GRAVITATION !!
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:27:28 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium


abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:

>TO THE READERS OF TIME HAS INERTIA

>I have at least twice explained the reason for  GRAVITATION  and challenged 
>you physicists to give me your explanation without the annoying double
>talk and subterfuge.

>        m m' / r^2    DOES NOT EXPLAIN GRAVITATION IT  ONLY QUANTIFIES
>                      WITHOUT EXPLAINING WHY TWO MASSES ATTRACT

>I very recently gave my explanation .  WHY don't you explain without
>evasion ?!!

Well, in case it's escaped your notice, Einstein more recently came up with a
theory that says that a body follows the straightest possible trajectory on
a curved four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold, whose curvature is caused
by the presence of mass. In addition to satisfactorily explaining phenomena
which were not already understood, it had the advantage of containing Newton's
law of gravitation as a first approximation, something which your "theory"
doesn't. 

Einstein's theory also "explains" the mutual attraction of pieces of matter to
a higher degree than Newton's law, since it eliminates one "degree of mystery"
from the earlier theory, for want of a better phrase. But there's never going
to be any ultimate explanation of gravitation, as you seem to think, because
it's always going to be possible for there to be a further "why?", in your
case "Why does the universe have this characteristic of tending to maintain
the status quo?". Because you're God?

Unfortunately, for you, quantification is a necessary part of scientific
explanation in this day and age, otherwise how would we decide between Newton
and Einstein as regards whose was the better theory? Your assertion that
explanation needn't involve quantification takes us back several centuries,
if not millenia. It's interesting to note that the only part of your theory
which you do quantify is E=E(0)exp(-At), something that is unlikely to be
empirically testable within your lifetime. Why is this?

Martin Watts.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 20:52:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.230140.25299@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles) writes:
>In article <432@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>|> [...]          Bell's result is disturbing. [...]
>
>Yep, it is.  It means that *something* about our fundamental concepts
>is wrong.  It proves to have little to say about *what* is wrong.

I will say this just to annoy Paul for the millionth time, and more
importantly to inform any neophyte lurkers....

Not everyone finds Bell's result disturbing.  Bell's inequality is
derived in the framework of classical mechanics, so the fact that it is
violated in the framework of quantum mechanics is just one of millions
of ways in which quantum mechanics differs from classical mechanics.
This is only disturbing if in some sense you still have classical
intuitions about how the world works.  While people can take Bell's
result in different ways (Giles' point), it seems to me the safest
conclusion about "what fundamental concept is wrong" is that CLASSICAL
MECHANICS IS WRONG.  This, of course, is no longer news.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN  replies to POLOWIN
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:50:39 GMT

                                         12-17-92
Dear Mr. Polowin

You write:




In article <BzFBo6.F12@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel Polow

>sulfuric acid emits heat when it contacts water in an attempt to 
>maintain its status quo by evaporating the water -- ignoring the fact
>that conc. sulfuric will happily absorb water vapour from the air.
>
>Data?  That's no fun at all.

  Abian replies

    Sulfuric acid DOES NOT HAPPILY ABSORB WATER VAPOUR FROM THE AIR
   
   IT IS THE  TENDENCY OF THE WATER IN THE AIR NOT TO ALLOW THE
   CONCENTRATION OF THE ENEMY ( i.e. the sulfuic acid)  AND THE WATER
   IN AIR TRIES TO DILUTE THE ENEMY AND FEEL SECURE (the same
   way that General Petain tried to dilute the enemy)

    There is no way out -  PHYSICS HAS TO ACCEPT UNCONDITIONALLY
    (A3)  and reorganioze and its principles reexplain the action of 
    particles, stones,  amoebas, planets and galaxies according to (A3)
    SURRENDER TO (A3) -  this is the way !!!!

    With love                 Alexander Abian
 

    PS I will try to answer  other postings later tonight.  I am
    extremely busy right now.






-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: vejcik@daq (Steve Vejcik)
Subject: sky is blue
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 20:07:15 EST
Organization: Physics Dept., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: usa

Ok, so third time is a charm right? What I *really* meant to say
was that the sky is blue because the scattering is proportional
to some power of the frequency (not inversly like a told someone
else recently). I seem to recall that this is Rayleigh scattering.
The light you see when you look at the sky is light that is scattered
away from the suns direct beam.  This is more likely to happen for
the higher frequency (blue in the visible part of the spectrum) than
for the lower frequencies (like red).  If you look directly at the
sun you see it as white because the absolute probability of scattering
is still small.

With regards to other planets, I think this principle should still hold
except possibly that the regime of frequency(energy) of photons for
which Rayleigh scattering is valid might depend on the scatterer (type
of molecules in the atmosphere).  If its a dramatic effect, then I
wouldn't have a clue about what colors other atmospheres would be.  I
also wouldn't rule out other mechanisms that might apply elsewhere, but
are insignificant here (like what?).  The Mars photo's were computer
enhanced, but I guess they did have their own equipment as a reference,
so I dunno...

                            Cheers,
                            Steve
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:42:40 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec15.150424.5916@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
> [...] Statistical mechanics assigns a measure to (some of) the
> sets of possible worlds. 

In classical mechanics we understand what the connection is between the
possible worlds and the actual world. There statistics provide an objective
measure of our imperfect knowledge of a single physical world. 

> Quantum mechanics can be given a similar interpretation, where instead
> of assigning probabilities to sets of possible worlds, it assigns
> probability amplitudes to sets of possible worlds. [...]
> The fact that there are incompatible observables, such as S_x and S_y
> (the spin of a particle in the x and y directions), simply means that
> some sets of possible worlds, such as the set of all worlds in which
> S_x = 1/2 and S_y = 1/2, are not assigned any amplitude whatsoever.
> There is no reason that this should be any more upsetting than the
> fact that classical measure theory fails to assign measures to some
> sets. [...]

It may not be upsetting but it is a direct conflict with the classical
interpretation. It precludes the possibility of there being a single
objective physical reality that the statistics refer to. Of course you
do not need to use the classical interpretation, but if you do not you
have to replace it with something else. What could that be? That
there actually exist many different physical worlds or ... ?

>[...] 
> (Note: this view of quantum mechanics is brand-new to me, and I'm not
> claiming that I believe it. However, it sounds good.)

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. 

Bell had some harsh criticism of Everett in "Measurement theory
of Everett/de Broigle's pilot wave" (in *Speakable and unspeakable in quantum
Mechanics*, J. S. Bell, Cambridge). Bell suggests that Everett's ideas compare
unfavorably with de Broigle's earlier work along the same lines. Do any
of the supporters of Everett have an answer to these objections?

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: cschang@hae1.kaist.ac.kr (choong-seock chang)
Subject: Re: Einstein's definition of simultan.
Organization: KAIST, News/Mail Gateway
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 92 12:46:44 GMT

My name is Kim Yong-jin, Korean graduate student majoring in Plasma Physics.

	You asked about the meaning of below eq.

		Tb - Ta = Ta' - Tb

We can make a Gedanken exp.
	1. Observer at A cite records time when the light emits from A by
    reading his Clock ---> Ta
	2. Observer at B cite records time when the light arrives at B which
    coincides with the time of immideate reflection of light by reading his 
    Clock ---> Tb
	3. Again, obs. A records his when light arrives at the spot just
    from which it emits.  -----> Ta'
	4. Now the Two observers come into contact in face to face or
    by any means and talk about their measurements , especially their
    time recordings, Ta, Tb and Ta'.
	
	Just after calculating the simple differences of two pair of times
    Tb - Ta and Ta' - Tb, the former for time of light flight from A to B,
    the latter for flight from B to A.  If they get the same values for
    two calculations and even believe homogeniety of the space for light flight
    , then they can get the conclusion that 
	" their clocks are synchronized "

	Here, I think, "the time of flight of light" is some kind of ideal
    thing, and if we keep in mind the fact that important thing is the
    quantity of measurement, we have no wondering of "time".

		Thanks.
			Bio Yong-jin.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 08:53:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.075920.9997@cs.wayne.edu> atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems) writes:
>If you will examine the header lines of many recent posts, I think you'll
>find that much of the recent "flood of Abianology" is the result of Abian's
>cross-posting his articles to multiple sci.* and other newsgroups. My

Just a quick correction... After following back a couple of the threads,
I can't really swear now that Abian did the cross-posting, thouugh I *thought*
I saw a clear case of it earlier today. This stuff disappears awfully fast
here. Doesn't really matter though, the flood gates have been opened...

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.groups
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:02:20
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: merritt@macro.bu.edu's message of 15 Dec 92 21:26:06 GMT

In article <MERRITT.92Dec15162606@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:

> Your problem is you don't use a UNIX machine with a real
> newsreader like rn or gnus.
> 
> I'll sensor whom *I* choose. My kill files work fine.
> 
> No good can come from censorship of this newsgroup. Information
> both bogus and correct is here. Intelligent individuals must
> make their own rational decision and sift for themselves.

I don't think that changing sci.physics from an unmoderated to a
moderated newsgroup would be a good idea; I do, however, think that we
could use a new newsgroup, sci.physics.moderated.  (Please note that I
am not talking about the elimination of sci.physics, simply the
creation of a new newsgroup in addition to it.  Please also note that
the name sci.physics.moderated is not set in stone; it is the first
name that popped into my head.)

If you read sci.physics, you'll see immediately two things.  First, it
is a fairly high-volume newsgroup; and second, it is almost completely
unused for professional discussion between physicists.  Several of my
fellow grad students, for example, have told me "I tried reading it,
but gave up."

Sophisticated newsreading software and killfiles do help the situation
somewhat---I use them---but ultimately they are rather crude tools.
That, after all, is why we don't just put everything in one big
newsgroup.

I've been on the Net for quite a while now, and it is now several
orders of magnitude larger than it was when I first started reading
news.  It has had to accommodate to that growth in several ways, and
one of them has been to add more newsgroups, which make finer and
finer distinctions between their subject matter.  Almost all of the
groups that existed in, say, 1983, have split into multi-group
hierarchies, and it is clear that this process is continuing.  I
believe that it is time for us to talk about this process for
sci.physics.  I don't think we need a terribly elaborate hierarchy
yet, but we should at least take the first step, and create a
moderated subgroup.

If we get some volunteers for the moderator of sci.physics.moderated,
then we can start discussing moderation policy, and issue a formal RFD
and, later, a CFV.  In anticipation of that, I have cross-posted this
article to news.groups.
--
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: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:16:38 GMT

In article <Bz4470.4ps@knot.ccs.queensu.ca> polowin@chem.queensu.ca (Joel
Polowin) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.200321.6333@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:
>
>>Go back to fundimental chemistry.  Phase changes are generally exothermic.
>
>Um.  Exactly half of them are exothermic.  The other half are endothermic.

You don't believe in second order phase transitions, Joel? :-))

Leigh
From: bchen@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Bi Chen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: long equation in two column style
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:15:47
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu


The recent RevTeX3.0 allows two column style to be printed for
experimental purpose. It states that one can use floating body
environment to display long equation in two column style. However, I
have not found any effective LaTex commands to accomplish it. It seems
very difficulty to do this. Is there an expert out here in this group
who can give me an example?

Thanks in advance


Sincerely

Bi Chen
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.electronics,sci.space
From: sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari)
Subject: Does Sun have magnetic poles?
Originator: sehari@class1.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:31:04 GMT

Recently, an attempt has been made to create electricity using a large
electric loop in the space using earth magnetic force.  However, such thing
should not be a source of energy in the space since it takes energy to
change the flux that passes through wire loop and only a fraction of that
energy would be translated to electric energy. Further more, if the rotation
of satellite itself to be used for this task, the emf back force would change
the speed of the satellite.  That results in altitude drop for satellite.

However, if sun should have magnetic poles and if these magnetic poles
be strong enough, one could use earth rotation around the sun to create 
electric energy. This leads to too small a drop in the earth radius, to
be noticeable for all practical purposes.  Could someone give us some idea
about the sun's magnetic field?

                       With highest regards,
                            Babak   Sehari.

-- 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:54:34 GMT

In article <13DEC199211444059@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>    Short of this, can anyone suggest a way in VNEWS to tailor a kill file
>to filter the TIME HAS INERTIA postings ? Could a script be written that
>automatically redirects these to alt.physics.new-theories (or whatever that 
>group is called) ?

I am not sure that this would be an ethical thing to do, even if it is
possible. If I understand what you are suggesting, this would cause an
article to jump newsgroups as it is relayed from machine to machine,
thus interfering with its reaching its intended audience. Doesn't this
amount to tampering with the free flow of information on usenet?

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu (Dale Atems)
Subject: Re: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:59:20 GMT

In article <13DEC199211444059@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>     I have in the past thought that sci.physics should be unmoderated. The
>current flood of Abianology has caused me to change my mind. Is it possible to
>switch this to a _loosely_ moderated newsgoup for, say, six months, then 
>switch it back to unmoderated when the wackos have either calmed down or
>popped a blood vessel ?

If you will examine the header lines of many recent posts, I think you'll
find that much of the recent "flood of Abianology" is the result of Abian's
cross-posting his articles to multiple sci.* and other newsgroups. My
suggested solution is to add an entry to the FAQ list for this group
explaining the scientific status of Abian's ideas, and suggesting that
posting to any TIME HAS INERTIA thread be avoided unless one wishes to
start or perpetuate a flame war. It could also encourage people
deciding to post despite this warning to redirect followups out
of this group. Regular followers of the threads could then gently
guide visitors and newcomers to the appropriate FAQ item, preferably
by e-mail. The rest of us could just use kill files.

------
Dale Atems
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Department of Physics and Astronomy
atems@igor.physics.wayne.edu