HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: ferromagnetism (continued)
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:53:27
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com

Alison Chaiken writes:

    The $0.05 answer: The fundamental underlying cause of conduction
    electron "itinerant" ferromagnetism is the Pauli exclusion principle.
    In some sense the exclusion principle causes a repulsive force between
    electrons of the same energy and spin.  (This is really an indirect
    manifestation of the Coulomb repulsion between like charges.)

I don't understand the parenthetical remark.  The exclusion
principle applies even to uncharged fermions, no?

                                                                    The
    converse of the preceding statement is that if you have a low-density
    electron gas, there is an effective net force aligning the spins.

Is there a rough-and-ready intuitive explanation for this effect?  Naively,
it would seem that the exclusion principle would tend to *anti-align*
spins.  That is, if you want to pack all your electrons (bound and
conduction) into the lowest possible energy configuration, it would seem
that every occupied quantum state would be paired with another occupied
quantum state with opposite spin but all other quantum numbers the same.

Obviously this line of thought is too naive.  Is there a qualitative
explanation that shows how Pauli exclusion --> aligned spins?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dusan@sooner.b17a.ingr.COM (Dusan Doliak)
Subject: *** Physics education - please help ***
Keywords: Physics olympiad, talent
Reply-To: dusan@sooner.b17a.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corp. Huntsville, AL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:44:07 GMT

I teach one very talented pupil physics. He is in 7th grade and he
solved most of Feynmans problems for undergraduate students. He would
like to take part in the physics olympiad, but we need problems for
preparation. 

We have contacted American Association of Physics Teachers several times,
but have received no information.

We need the following things:

1) Textbook for practice
2) Sample problems
3) Registration information and forms

Any information or assistance is appreciated.

Send to Dusan Doliak at 

dusan@sooner.b17a.ingr.com
From: solu@reg.triumf.ca (SOLUK, RICHARD)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: A question about gas discharge tubes
Date: 9 Nov 1992 15:33 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: reg.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    


  If there is anyone out there who knows anything about gas discharge tubes I
am trying to find an explanation for the following effect which was recently
described to me.

  The apparatus was a standard discharge tube, i.e. simply a glass tube with
high voltage electrodes at either end.  The tube was initially evacuated and
was allowed to slowly fill with gas.  As the pressure increased the expected
fluorescence occurred, but rather then involve the entire gas volume it was
confined to a band which formed at one electrode and then began to propagate
down the length of the tube (as a function of pressure).  Additional bands
appeared and followed the first keeping an equal spacing between bands.
Finally five distinct bands were present which eventually stopped moving, 
intensified and merged into a uniform discharge.  Note that the gas pressure
was allowed to increase continuously throughout this process.

  The question I have is what effect would account for physical structure in
the discharge?  Why would a distinct band form rather then a discharge through
the entire tube, or perhaps a number of equally spaced bands appearing
simultaneously down the length of the tube?

  If you happen to know the explanation please drop me an email reply or post
a response to the net.

				Thanks...
 			        Richard Soluk
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: That Vision Thing
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:07:13 GMT


The key idea behind my conception of how the nonlocal quantum connection is
a practical communication channel in standard quantum mechanics in spite of
the bogus matheamtical arguments to the contrary is right here.  Feynman's
"sum over histories" Lagrangian multiple-time formulation may not be
equivalent to the Hamiltonian operator fixed-time formulation of quantum
mechanics. The latter emerges from the former as a special case just like
the Schrodinger fixed-time wave function emerges from the sum of path
amplitudes.  The commutativity of the hermitian observables is necessary
for compatibility (i.e., non-interference) of measurements but not
sufficent in the presence of both "entanglement" and "interfering
alternatives".  It is the last that is essential.  It is correct to say
that if there is commutativity and entanglement but no interference (the
situation in the actual experiments of Clauser, Aspect et-al) then there is
no quantum connection communication.  But, if the interference is
engineered correctly then such communication across spacelike intervals and
backward along timelike and lightlike intervals is possible.  Indeed, the
origin and evolution of the universe depend upon quantum connection
communication.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:53:57 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner) writes:
> [Gene Kochanowsky writes:]
>|> 	Or if you are a bible thumper try this quote for size:
>|> 
>|> 		"proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing"

>	I doubt I've ever thumped a Bible, and I can't imagine a reason for 
>thumping a bible, but I'll bite anyway: where's the quote from?

Of course, this quotation isn't from the Bible; it's from "The 
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."  One wonders if this is where
Kochanowsky, Houghton, et al. get all their information about
religion.  Since they seem unable to imagine the existence of any
kind of humane, tolerant religion, in which doubt is regarded as an
adjunct of faith, and unable to get their minds around the idea that
one can hold in one's head both science and religion (go read Pais's
life of Einstein, OK?), and bent on filling up space with their 
intolerance disguised as liberal atheism (don't try to out-liberal me,
Houghton ;-), I figure the best thing is to ignore them.  Just like
I ignore street preachers.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.154955.15938@prim> dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>After a while, the implications of working with zeros and ones just start
>to sink in. The digitization of life has been proceeding so gradually that
>maybe you don't realize what a revolution we are going through. Music is now
>nearly all digital and most of us can't tell the difference. Occams razor
>might suggest that there are _no_ continuums out there. We can get by OK
>without 'em.
>
>Now you might argue that computers are just a tool, no big deal. But
>I would say that technology leading to digitization is no coincidence,
>rather the digitization of life _reflects_ the underlying nature of reality.
>
>Nature is trying to give us a hint.
>
>Poor old physics is still stuck in the analog nineteenth century. The whole
>mighty edifice has been built on sand and the tide is coming in...
>
>Dave Griffiths

You are forgetting that scalability is a big concern today in CS.
Digital models don't scale gracefully, the bits look bigger.  Smooth
scalability demands a smooth view of what one is scaling.  A digital
view inhibits scalability.

When I was just starting as a Ph.D. student in Berkeley in 1969 I heard
a lecture by someone whose surname I think was Greenspan.  His topic
was the numerical solution of differential equations, and throughout
the lecture he kept making points of the above ilk, how everything was
really discrete when you got right down to it and numerical analysis
needed to take much more advantage of all this discreteness in the
world than it did.  Well, the two numerical analysts present, Vel Kahan
and Beresford Parlett, were incensed.  At question time Kahan ripped
right into Greenspan. challenging the efficacy of his "digital"
approach.  Never having witnessed such a ferocious attack in a lecture
before, I asked Parlett his opinion afterwards for calibration and he
assured me in very strong terms that he too felt that Greenspan's
digital emphasis was not at all helpful (he used a word that I expect
he would prefer not to have attributed to him in this forum).

The situation today with fonts is like this.  In the early 1980's many
people *identified* computer fonts with bitmaps.  Only a very few back
then in the desktop computer business realized that bitmaps would
become increasingly expensive as pixels shrank.  Today you can buy a
600 dot per inch printer for $2K, and at that granularity bitmap fonts
are a joke, smooth outline fonts are the only way to go.

That computers are digital has no more significance than that they are
silicon based.  With your argument you could equally convincingly show
that poor old biology is still stuck in the carbon-based nineteenth
century.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths)
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc SAGA
Organization: Primitive Software Ltd.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:20:04 GMT

In article <Nov.5.18.26.40.1992.16405@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>>>  ... 
>>>This is not a statement of any physics that *I* know.  As a matter of fact,
>>>I'm willing to go further and say that it's total rubbish.  Can you 
>>>point to a textbook which contains any statement resembling what you have
>>>claimed?
>
>>Think for yourself! I've no idea what he was talking about either, but just
>>because it's not in a textbook doesn't make it rubbish.
>
>You have no idea, Scott has no idea, I have no idea.  When someone
>tells me about wild and crazy physics (eg renormaliztion, inflationary
>cosmology, etc.), and I have no idea what he/she's talking about, I
>try to go and find a textbook to learn more about the subject (instead
>of just posting inanity to Usenet, OK?)  On the other hand I don't
>imagine I'll do that this time, 'cause my bullshit detector is going off.
>

Hmmm. Well I'm pretty keen to read _alternative_ theories of physics, so I
don't like to see someone put down when they dare to suggest their crazy
ideas, unless they're obviously a crackpot. Paul Koloc's article didn't set
off my crackpot detector - he just seemed to be quoting fragments of some
possibly well thought out theory.

Now I've only just started studying physics (for pleasure :), but it seems to
me to be an essentially _conservative_ field. There have been very few
revolutions in physics. At no (?) point has everything that went before
been chucked out in favour of new model. Even QM was a compromise forced on
physicists by experimental results - when they noticed that an electron
could pass through two slits at the same time, rather than chuck out the
well established idea that "an electron" exists, they modified the classical
theory by introducing the probability wave.

I'm a computer programmer by trade, and I've often come across the situation
where a suite of programs has become large and unwieldy, so much new 
functionality has been added that the structure is unstable. To make real
progress you need to chuck the code away and redesign from scratch.

It's just conceivable that physics has now reached that stage. That it's
present form is no more than an historical accident. I'd love to see the
theories of physics developed by alien civilizations.

There is no such thing as infinity. Physicists are going to have to bite
the bullet and develop a discrete TOE at some time or other. To do so
may require going right back to basics to develop an information based
theory. But with so much momentum in current theories, so much resistance
to the radically new, so little money to be made from such a reformulation,
I wonder if it will ever happen.

Sorry, seem to have strayed from the subject!

Dave Griffiths
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 06:04:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.175155.27867@impmh.uucp> dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:
>
>Consider a single photon: as its energy increses, its "size" decreases
>(assuming that size is related to wavelength).  Since energy is

What gives you that idea?  The wavelength is just the distance from peak to
peak (or trough to trough) of the electric (or magnetic) portion of the wave.
I've never heard that photons were exactly "one wavelength long".  More
likely, all photons are something like a meter long (or a millimeter or
a kilometer), and photons with a shorter wavelength just have more "wiggles"
crammed into that one standard photon length.

(I HAVE wondered how big "across" photons were, i.e. how close together do
two light beams have to be before they'll interfere with each other?)
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Date: 6 Nov 1992 14:08 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 <1992Nov6.200752.26007@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...

>     That's funny.  I thought I heard several Senators tell us the SSC
>     is about 'jobs'.

What a Senator has to say about the SSC is meaningless.  Most of what 
Senators have to say about most topics is meaningless.  No one in this
newsgroup has tried to argue that the SSC should be built because it
will employ warm bodies.  

-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: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: John Baez / sci.physics archives
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:50:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.032750.7417@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mporter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mitchell Porter) writes:
>I would like to see John Baez's expository postings archived somewhere -
>and for that matter, anything of a similar nature that might be posted
>here (Alexander Abian's instant introduction to diffeomorphisms, etc?). I
>think it would be a good idea to have an ftp site somewhere which would
>contain introductions to interesting and/or important concepts, and
>perhaps the FAQ list as well.
>(I don't know  if JB has retained copies of all the expositions he's
>posted; I only have a few.)

I have all the substantial ones, and by now I would be quite glad to
have them archived somewhere.  Once someone offered to do this for me...
if anyone offers to now, I'll go for it.  AS LONG AS they are not in the
same directory as anything by Abian.  :-)



Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Number of "religious scientists"
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:35:39 GMT

>>Then how do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists
>>and are religious?  Surely there is a sizeable number of such people.
>>They apparently feel that science has important things to say about
>>some areas of life, and religion has important things to say about other
>>areas of life.
>
>I wouldn't try to explain this since I have no idea what the number of 
>religious scientist is, nor do I know of a reputable study of this issue.  
>My own guess (hope) is that the number is small.  I personally consider 
>the phrase "religious scientist" an oxymoron. -AR.

   I have no hard numbers either, but my experience suggests that if you 
consider the number to be small you must have your eyes shut.  The data 
would be difficult to analyze for most mainline denominations, since many 
people who will reject the tenets of the church they will grew up in, and 
who haven't attended a church for 30 years will continue to call themselves 
Catholic etc, and would be quite offended by any suggestion that their 
beliefs and actions would warrant removal of that title.  Evangelical 
christianity would seem much easier to quantify, since when a persons 
beliefs or actions become inconsistent with the church they are more likely 
to detach themselves from the title.  I have just completed my Ph.D. in a 
fairly large semiconductor lab.  By my estimate 30% of the lab were 
evangelical (evangelicals make up only 5% of the Canadian population), and 
if you add Moslems, Bhuddists and Hindu's the number exceeds 50% without yet 
even trying to count the mainline adherents.  My experiences elsewhere have 
not been in such a large group, but suggest similar results.
   Why you would guess, much less hope, that the number is small is beyond 
me.  Your attitude certainly suggests that you not likely to be taking the 
data you do get with an open mind.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Continuos vs. discrete models Was: The size of electrons, ...
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 19:43:34 GMT

In article <344@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

>This is the question. Continuous models are the simplest to work with
>mathematically, but are the simplest possibility as models of physical
>reality? I do not think so.

It isn't clear to me that any such distinction can be made.

>There is good reason to suspect that no completed infinite totalities
>exist.

I know of none.  Name some.

 The continuum that appears in formal mathematical systems is different
>then what mathematicians mean by `the continuum'. The latter is a speculative
>philosophical idea that cannot be formalized mathematically.

If it is a speculative philosophical idea, it isn't mathematics.  This
sounds like gibberish.

>For example the real numbers definable in any consistent formal system
>are countable.

Completely false, and downright silly to boot.

I presume you meant something like there are countable models of
the first order theory or something like that.

>particular formal system. 

>Whether *all real numbers* exists or this phrase has any mathematical
>meaning is itself a speculative philosophical question.

In a word, bunk.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Some physics questions
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:59:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <6NOV199212364099@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>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

Here's where I prove I slept through biology (and that I
have the balls to take on the ideas of people like Lewis Thomas):

Before the sperm enters the egg, it isn't you, and after
it enters the egg, it's not a single cell, it's two cells,
or something entirely different.  Right or wrong?

				--Blair
				  "Okay, so BEFORE the beer
				   enters my belly..."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jdebruyn@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. deBruyn)
Subject: Re: Wanted: curve-fitting or minimization software
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:30:13 GMT

In article <MATT.92Nov6222133@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>Does anybody know of a good curve-fitting or minimization program that
>will run on an IBM clone?  (I don't have a FORTRAN compiler, so it
>will have to be either pre-compiled or else written in C.)
>
>I'm currently using MINUIT on a VAX.  It works fine, but it would be
>nice if I was able to get a second opinion.
>--

I'm sure there must be hundreds. I use the ones in 
Numerical Recipes in C by Press, et al.
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:29:28 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1dbo90INNt4k@hpsdlss3.sdd.hp.com> johno@sdd.hp.com (John Ongtooguk) writes:
>In article <1d9tejINNq6p@chnews.intel.com>, bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>|> Science is truth, and truth is science. They are one and the same. 
>
>  If the truth is always changing then what is it after it changes ?

Is it?

				--Blair
				  "My, but you're in a
				   subjunctive mood, today..."
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 18:50:29 GMT
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
Newsgroups: sci.physics


Don't be silly!

As I understand it, there were numerous objects left on the moon,
including corner reflectors, which, if you know where they are,
can be verified by laser illumination.

Or we could put snarfy on the moon with a transceiver so he could
radio back and admit he is wrong. Too expensive you say? Well, we
could forget about his return trip.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ric Peregrino   c/o Hewlett Packard Co.    I represent only myself
ric@spd.hp.com  1501 Page Mill Rd Bldg 5M  I may be wrong, maybe not
415-857-7526    Palo Alto, CA 94304        Do DC photons exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: abond@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Andrew H. Bond)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: a question on powerful lasers
Date: 10 Nov 92 08:37:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: rvgs.1992Nov10.083728.9487
Distribution: usa
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Roanoke)

BTW, the address of TAB books is:

		TAB BOOKS INC.
		Blue Ridge Summit, PA
		17214

you can send to them for a free catalog of all current titles.
-- 
andrew h bond, 	rvgs
From: siegrist@elde.epfl.ch (Mark Siegrist)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: zero point energy
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:44:33 GMT
Organization: CRPP-EPFL

My son, physics student at the ANU Canberra, heard
about this research project, allegedly supported by
the Indian government, to tap the zero point energy (?).

The following people are involved in this project
which runs also under the name

                      Free Energy - Levitation
 
1) Shiuji Inomata, ETL, MITI, Japan
1-1-4 Umezono, Tsukuba-shiglbaraki, Japan 305
Tel. 0298(58)5835
 
2) Robert Kincheloe, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering, Stanford
University.
 
3) Eric Laithwaite, Prof. Emeritus Heavy Electrical Engineering, Cambridge.
 
4) Chris Illet, Theoretical Physicist, Wollongong University.
2/3 Birch Crescent, East Corrimal, NSW 2518
 
Does anybody know anything about it or has any references?

The e-mail address of my son is:
user0066@student.anu.edu.au

 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Keywords: Evidence gravity falsified
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:29:04 GMT

In article <1dkfnaINNffg@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.232156.18262@trl.oz.au> soh@tmp_ip_003.trl.OZ.AU (Soh Kam Hung) writes:
>>I been lied to by the damned physicists!  I thought gravity was [...]
>
>Gravity is a cologne.

And quantum gravity is a questiogne mark.
-- 
Vaughan Pratt