HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: Nevada Casino - 200 miles up
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.131309.8143@pellns.alleg.edu> frisinv@alleg.edu (Vincent Frisina) writes:
>In article <64161@cup.portal.com> Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
>> Situation:  I need to place a casino 200 miles over Nevada with a 
>> tether below it for elevators.  I have access to 2026 AD technology.  

>   Could you be more exact as to what 2026 AD technology is?

The sort of stuff we get twelve years after Louise has
earned her PhD.  Should be bitchin'.

>> Questions:  What amount of power would the casino need to stay over 
>> one spot in Nevada?

I'll leave that to the rocketeers in sci.space.  They'll
probably suggest a better orbit (although I think
geosynchronous is a bit out of the way for junkets...).

>>What would be a good source of this power?

Something expendable.  There are no electric cars
in space.  Even ionic systems require a propellant.

>>What should the tether be composed of?

Bob Stupak's hair.  We in rec.gambling are all certain
it's some sort of space-age polymer.

>>What will be the weight capacity of the tether?  

If you get the propulsion right you'll only need to 
support the weight of the tether itself.

				--Blair
				  "Come onnnnnn, SEVEN!
				   Daddy needs a new
				   pair of heavy boots!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: drabik@tech.ascom.ch (Pascal &)
Subject: black hole
Organization: Ascom Tech Ltd., Freiburgstrasse 370, CH-3018 Berne, Switzerland
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:45:19 GMT

Hi,

   I am not at all an expert in physics but I am really interested in
astronomy or nuclear physics.

   Can someone describe me how a black hole can evolve? I think it is
created in a super nova, then it collects matter from other stars. It
can melt by losing energy. Eventually, can it explode?

   Thanks.

Pascal.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Pascal DRABIK            Tel:     +41 31-999-32-22        % You'll never %
Ascom Tech Ltd.              Telefax: +41 31-999-36-07        %  know until  %
Freiburgstrasse, 370                                          %  you try...  %
CH-3018 Berne                e-mail : drabik@tech.ascom.ch    % ~~~~~~~~~~~~ %
Switzerland                                                   % ~  ~~~~~~  ~ %
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
NewsSoftware: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
    <1992Aug14.164822.10838@utagraph.uta.edu> <25611@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
NntpPostingHost: utahep.uta.edu
MessageID: <19AUG199222033419@utahep.uta.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:03:00 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Bytes: 1669

In article <25611@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes...
>In article <1992Aug14.164822.10838@utagraph.uta.edu>, sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes...
>>[about a wager I made] 
> 
>Are you kidding?  I'm optimistic, but this is hard to imagine.  I doubt you
>could get anyone from CDF or D0 to take such a speculation seriously.

Well I am on D0...it's a beauty bet  if we see nothing, everybody sort of
shrugs their shoulders and moves on. But if we do find something, I look like
Moses...
> 
>More seriously, does anyone know what the easiest SUSY particle to identify
>experimentally is expected to be?  Given how elusive gluons are, I don't 
>think that gluinos would be it.  I imagine that photinos or sleptons are more
>likely.
> 
>Scott

    This is what I eleuded to by mentioning missing tranverse energy
events. Typically SUSY searches have centered on gluino > quark
antiquark LSP, where LSP = the Lightest Supersymmetric Particle
and is usually assumed to be the photino. THis gives rise to
missing tranverse energy since the photino escapes the detector.
Trouble with this scenario is, the gluino may decay into a higher 
mass gaugino, which then cascades down to the photino, softening
the missing E_t spectrum. This for the ppbar world  there have
also been specific searches for neutralinos and charged Higgs, as 
well as limits placed on SUSY partner particles from the Z0
invisible width.

    Tell you what, I will post a more complete description of
previous searches later, when I don't have to do it ad lib...

       ================
         Lee Sawyer

         Dept of Physics
         Univ. of Texas
               at Arlington
From: pauls@trsvax.tandy.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: $99 True RMS meter
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:00:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:trsvax:8400012:000:557
Nf-From: trsvax.tandy.com!pauls    Aug 17 10:00:00 1992


Radio Shack is now selling a True RMS voltmeter for only $99. It is a
"benchtop" type, but uses batteries. It also measures frequency (to 4 MHz),
capacitance, and has a unique "Auto ID" transistor checker:it will identify
the leads (E,B,C), NPN or PNP, and then the beta. Great for all those "what
in the world is this thing" parts.

It has all the nice "Fluke" features as well: peak hold, bar graph display,
rel/min/max readings, and something most Flukes dont have, a dBm scale for
audio measurements.

You can't beat the price, either. Check it out!
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: SU(5) GUT (was Re: Superbashing ...)
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:44:35
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Distribution: usa
	<12AUG199219583210@zeus.tamu.edu> <phfrom.245@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
	<18AUG199200471328@zeus.tamu.edu> <mcgrew.714174409@skid.ps.uci.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mcgrew@skid.ps.uci.edu's message of 18 Aug 92 22:11:12 GMT

In article <mcgrew.714174409@skid.ps.uci.edu> mcgrew@skid.ps.uci.edu (Clark McGrew) writes:

> Minimal-SUSY SU(5) does predict that 10^30<tau(p->e+pi0)<10^34 years,
> but it has problems because extra Higgs are introduced leading to
> decay modes such as nucleon goes to lepton and strange quark.  While
> life time predictions are difficult for these modes due to "dimension
> five operators" (Don't ask me why, I'm just quoting review papers, see
> the literature if you're really interested), the predicted lifetimes
> are around tau(Nuc->Lep K)<10^30 years.  This is ruled out by both the
> IMB-1 and Kamioka and will be further constrained by new IMB-3 data.

What most people who construct SUSY SU(5) models do is to come up with
some kind of symmetry principle which forces these dimension-five
operators to be absent from the theory.  

To me, at least, this seems a bit ad-hoc; that is, these symmetries
aren't something that anyone would have thought were particularly
natural if they hadn't known ahead of time that they had to do
something to avoid making disastrously wrong experimental predictions.

(If I get very energetic, I'll post an article explaining what that
phrase "dimension-five operator" means.  It comes from effective field
theories, which are the most natural way of looking at problems like
this.  Read Georgi's book, _Weak Interactions and Modern Particle
Theory_, if you get impatient while waiting for me to post.)
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
From: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: I can travel faster than light (A riddle)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:56:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: Msu.0095EFAD.E5086100
Reply-To: uchpcjv@Msu.oscs.montana.edu
Organization: Montana State University

In article <1992Aug5.231821.10710@visus.com>, jml@visus.com (Jim Large) writes:
>
>I am something you all have seen with your naked eyes.
>I am a servant you all have employed. 
>I can travel faster than light (you have almost certainly never
>    seen me do it).
>
>What Am I?
>
>[Note: this may be a riddle, but it is *NOT* a joke!]
>
>-- Jim L.

Okay, if it's NOT a joke, the THING in the "riddle" is the GROUP VELOCITY
of a wave packet, which can (apparently) travel faster than c.  But it
can't carry information.  Do I win anything?  Do I get flamed, at least?
Jim Vivian
Bozeman Institute for Savage and Unnatural Sciences
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: scip1061@nuscc.nus.sg (Marc Paul Jozef)
Subject: Re: Hubble constant?
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:32:12 GMT

Dave and John, read more carefully please.

My delta-tensor was the stress energy tensor of a grid
all along.

G(g) is not zero somewhere _does_ imply that it is 
not zero everywhere _if g is a Friedmann metric_
(not for general g of course). I urge you both to
take a look at MTW, section 27.8: for a Friedmann
metric, the `matter component G_{ss} of the Einstein
tensor G is a function that only depends on global
time s. Therefore, if G_{ss} is (non)zero somewhere,
it is (non)zero everywhere.

Any `toy model' for the universe must have a global 
metric of the form Friedmann. Now before you start
complaining that in case of a grid things are different,
remember that my _only alteration_ of the ususal
Einstein cosmology is another proposal for idealizing
the stress-energy tensor - not that of a perfect fluid,
but that of a grid. Now Dave, you didn't find anything
wrong with that, so don't complain if the mathematical
consequences don't suit you.

I repeat, if you don't like the consequences, you have
to reject either the Friedmann shape as a global 
approximation, my `delta' idealization of the stress-
energy tensor, or Einstein's equation.

What will it be?

And by the way, why so stubborn? Your intuition on a
slow-down seems to be based on a Newtonian deduction
that you yourself admitted to be unrigorous.
Just forget your prejudices for a moment and assume
(I know this is totally ridiculous) that experimentalists
know their job. They tell us that the universe expands
with constant rate. Still try to forget your prejudices...
What does GR tell us? It confirms it! (if we use the
delta idealization). Now if that is not a nice prediction
of GR, I don't know what is.

marc van loo. 

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.religion.misc
From: hillig@U.Chem.LSA.UMich.EDU (Kurt Hillig)
Subject: Re: Fossil Paradox (was: Structure of Time)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 12:34:16 EDT
Organization: Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Distribution: sci,talk

In article <1992Aug12.091957.14414@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>> It sounds like those questions where one is asked if you could go back and
>> kill Adolph Hitler even if it would mean your own death, would you do it?
>> This has always sounded logically impossible to me.  If in 1992 I was sent
>> back to 1930 (or some such year) to hunt down a man named Hitler and I
>> was successful, but I was killed, then none of the atrocities of WWII would
>> have happened (in theory).  However, when 1992 rolled around I would never
>> be asked to go back and kill Hitler because he would never have committed
>> those crimes.  So if I WASN'T sent back, then no one would have killed him
>> and he WOULD have committed the crimes.  Aaaugh.....no wonder I majored in
>> engineering ...the answers were in the back of the book.
>
>This is the standard father-son paradox as re-present by Carl Sagan.
>The junior time-fan imangines himself going back in time and killing
>his father.  No father, no son, no time travel... back to the beginning.
>
> [stuff deleted].
>
>Jon C. Russo
>internet : cpyy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
>phone    : 607.277.3295

Larry Niven (Sci Fi author of some repute) has written an essay on the theory
and practice of time travel; I believe it's found in his book "Convergent
Series" (worth picking up for the title story alone, IMHO).  Niven's Law
(paraphrased, as I don't have the book handy):

If "free" time travel into the past is possible (i.e. that which allows for
direct interaction with past events), then it will never be discovered/invented.

The logic is that if it's possible to meddle with the past, then people
past, present and/or future _will_ meddle with the past, until they've
modified it sufficiently that it leads to a future in which time travel
is never used.  At this point, the universe becomes self-consistent.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
NewsSoftware: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
    <1992Aug14.024327.22167@nuscc.nus.sg> <phfrom.244@nyx.unikonstanz.de>
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
NntpPostingHost: utahep.uta.edu
MessageID: <14AUG199211512933@utahep.uta.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:51:00 GMT
X-Bytes: 905

In article <phfrom.244@nyx.unikonstanz.de>, phfrom@nyx.unikonstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes...
>In article <1992Aug14.024327.22167@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
> 
>>I'll take on both of you. I bet that supersymmetry will be discovered in
>>the same year in which category theory becomes popular among
>>physicists.
> 
>So in 1992 ? [Look at John's post]
>
> Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +

    Since this thread has its antecedent in a post I made before the ICHEP 92,
I might mentioned that the wager I made to a few friends is : Both CDF and
D0 will report the mass of the gluino, based on high missing transverse energy
events, before the next Rochester conference (July, 1994, in Glasgow).

       ================
         Dr. Lee Sawyer

         Dept of Physics
         Univ. of Texas
               at Arlington
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ORTHODOX SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:12:21
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1992Aug10.202618.1433@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<mcirvin.713483129@husc8>
	<Aug.13.18.10.50.1992.26657@ruhets.rutgers.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu's message of 13 Aug 92 22:10:50 GMT

In article <Aug.13.18.10.50.1992.26657@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

> Extra question: suppose physics was dilation invariant.  What
> conserved quantity would be associated with this symmetry
> (in the Noether's theorem manner, i.e. translation invariance
> <=> momentum conservation).  This is not a trick question, I don't
> know the answer.  I would guess, though, that lengths would become
> dimensionless, for whatever that's worth.

Various people have made interesting comments about this, but there is
one important point that nobody has made yet.

This is that from the standpoint of field theory, even if you have a
theory which is classically invariant under dilation,
quantum-mechanical effects will break this invariance!  (Unless, of
course, the theory is trivial, and includes no interactions at all.)
In other words, to use technical language, conformal symmetry has an
anomaly: even if a theory looks conformally invariant, it probably
isn't.

You can see this by thinking about the renormalization group:
renormalization necessarily introduces some length scale into the
problem, even if one is not present in the classical theory.

Sidney Coleman has a nice discussion of this in his book, _Aspects of
Symmetry_. 
--
Matthew Austern              I dreamt I was being followed by a roving band 
(510) 644-2618               of young Republicans, all wearing the same suit,
matt@physics.berkeley.edu    taunting me and shouting, "Politically correct
austern@theorm.lbl.gov       multiculturist scum!"... They were going to make
austern@lbl.bitnet	     me kiss Jesse Helms's picture when I woke up.
From: rlee@watneys.med.utah.edu (Rich Lee)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Are there any WIMP's out there?
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:07:01 GMT
Distribution: sci.physics
Organization: Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah


Any response to this post will serve to prove their existence.

-Rich
--
Triple Zip-Loc it, then duct tape it.
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: sea waves
Date: 20 Aug 92 03:04:29 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Keywords: waves
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Aug19.022852.11816@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
>In article <25584@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>Neat question.  The answer must be "turbulence."  Presumably, the turbulant 
>>water on the crest scatters light without preference  to wavelength (at least
>>in the visable), leading to white caps.  I am no expert on turbulence, but
>>I believe that it is characterized by fluctuations on many length scales,
>>which leads to the scattering of all wavelengths.  
> 
>     More likely just foam. 
> 
>                               dale bass

OK.  So I could be totally wrong.  Sue me. :-)

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TOP-quark reactions and mass limit question
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:17:04 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

>In article <1992Aug21.094507.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi> hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi writes:
> 
>      I red just about mass limit of top quark in:
> 
>	Particle Data Group, 1992.
>	Review of Particle Properties.
>	Physical Review D, Volume 45, Part 2, 1 June 1992.

Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.  Should have read the FAQ.  

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.folklore.urban,sci.electronics
From: bigdave@texas.tdd.sj.nec.com (David Sweeney  x2987)
Subject: Re: Fun with droplets
Organization: NEC-AM TDD, San Jose, California
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 22:44:28 GMT

acase@reed.edu (Andrew Case) writes:
>
>      Oh Boy! You have wandered into my turf. I just spent nine months
>studying exactly this phenomenon (isn't physics great?). The coffee
>droplets are prevented from coalescing by a thin (~1000 Angstrom) 
>film of air trapped between the droplet and the surface of the
>coffee. The film thins slowly, until the droplet has approached
>sufficiently close to the surface for rupture to occur. Other
>neat things about this phenomenon are the fact that mechanical 
>vibrations increase the drop lifetime, while electric fields,
>dust, and a whole bunch of other things decrease the lifetime.
>In addition to coffee and ethylene glycol, you can observe this 
>in just about any liquid. I have gotten droplets to last for up
>to eight minutes under controlled conditions.

You study this at a university?  Damn!  I study my coffee here at work in 
great detail on a regular basis.  I didn't know I could get college credit 
for it!

-- 
Dave Sweeney     bigdave@tdd.sj.nec.com
I watch the water cooler pretty closely, too
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Christopher Neufeld)
Subject: Re: Annihilation?
Organization: University of Toronto Physics/Astronomy/CITA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 06:10:28 GMT

In article <25476@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <mcirvin.713731150@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes...
>>
>>Was I wrong to say that the spin-aligned version can decay
>>into three photons, even if it's spatially in an S wave?
>>I'm trying to think whether parity messes this up, but
>>my brain is going fuzzy.  Certainly there are no problems
>>with angular momentum conservation.
>> 
>
>Sorry.  I should have said J = 0 and J = 1 states.  S and P 
>are correctly reserved for the spacial wavefunctions.  
>As far as S states decaying into 3 photons, I seem to remember
>that it doesn't happen.  Your parity argument may be correct.
>To be perfectly honest, I have to go look it up.
>
   In Perkins' _Introduction to High Energy Physics_, page 88, he lists
the decays of singlet and triplet positronium.
   The singlet state (^1 S _0 in spectroscopic notation) or J=0 state
decays with a lifetime (observed) of 125.2 +- 1.7 picoseconds into two
gammas.
   The triplet state (^3 S _1) or J=1 state decays with a lifetime
(observed) of 137.7 +- 0.4 nanoseconds into three gammas.
   The two states differ in their value under the charge conjugation
operator, the singlet being C=+1 and the triplet being C=-1. This is
offered as the argument that the triplet state cannot decay into two
photons, as a system of 'n' photons has C=(-1)^n and electromagnetic
decays, naturally, conserve C.
   
>Scott I. Chase
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV


-- 
 Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student  | Confidence is the feeling
 neufeld@helios.physics.utoronto.ca    Ad astra  | you have before you
 utzoo.utoronto.ca!generic!cneufeld              | understand the situation.
 "Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" |
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: How to make big bucks using supersymmetry
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 02:43:27 GMT

I'll take on both of you. I bet that supersymmetry will be discovered in
the same year in which category theory becomes popular among
physicists.
From: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #92 (8/19)
Date: 21 Aug 92 01:24:52 GMT
Reply-To: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Particle Physics Research Group

In article <25624@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>THE ELECTRICAL CHARGE OF ANTIPROTONS AND POSITRONS has been studied

	[...]

>>...the charges of the positron and electron are equal to about one
>>part in 10**8...

>Of course, the author *meant* to say that they showed that the charges
>were equal to *better* than a part in 10**8, etc.  No differences were found.

Hmm.  I thought he meant to say that the *magnitudes* of the charges were 
equal to better than a part in 10^8.  But then, that's just picking nits.

           John Price * * * * price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu
           Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.religion.misc