HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Reply to Barry Wise
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:36:43 GMT


Barry Wise wonders about an apparent jump one week into the two Pseudo Ying
runs.  Point 10 on the first run was taken roughly on a Friday, and was taken
about 7 days into the run.  Point 8 on the second reported run was taken on
a Tuesday, and was actually about day 10 of that run.  I did not start 
reporting points until I had settled down on a 24 hour period.  

This leads to the problem of the inevitable bias in reporting partial data
that has not been thoroughly analyzed.  I do my best to report representative
sets of data.  My attempt is to be a "seeker of truth".  But ***of course I
want a positive result***!  So far, the experiments have not been too 
cooperative.  Anyone willing to put in the month or so part time work required
to get up to speed can have raw data sets.  I collect 388,800 bytes a day.

So Barry, I have looked at the log book pages for the two points in question.  
I do not see anything in particular.  But perhaps looking at the 60 odd items
recorded at 1 minute intervals would show something.  If you would want to 
look at it, I have probably recorded it.  

I figure it would take about a month, after getting up to speed on the data,
to just muck with the data and to try to answer Barry's question.  One problem
is that there has been no effort to take consistent data sets.  The second 
in/out run being one of the closest things to a real experiment that I have
done.  I am still exploring.  When something looks interesting, then I will 
attempt a controlled series of experiments.  

Tom Droege
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites)
Subject: Re: Mills & Ying
Organization: Copper Electronics, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 06:55:09 GMT

Jed Rothwell <72240.1256@compuserve.com> writes:

>Regarding Ying's work: let me emphasize that I *think* he is missing something.
>Perhaps he is mismeasuring the input electricity, since that appears to be the
>weakest part of his experiment. However, I have not seen any papers from him,
>or talked to him at length, so that is just a tentative guess.

It maybe that Ying has missed something but I must admit, I am some what 
intrieged by the process he describes.  Along time ago Koonin had a paper
that suggested that pertribations could enhance the cold fusion rates. It 
is one paper I agree with, and it seems to me that is what the Ying work
does. There is also a somewhat problematic theory problem with regard to
the cross section of external radiation on loaded PdD systems.  If someone
wants to do real science, the cross section of gamma + PdD(x) for various
energies and loading, could be extremely enlightning.  Perhaps one of 
the national labs has already done this.  If the external source does 
indeed increase the amount of excess heat seen in a standard CF cell,
then great, if not then that does not rule out an enhancement above the
Jones level.        
   
 
>- Jed

Have Fun,
Chuck
chuck@coplex.com
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:28:10 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)

In article <1992Sep14.005448.28555@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, pratt@Sunburn (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>(You can stop after the first "no" to these questions, since that will
>bring us closer to the source of the disagreement.)  Matthew Wiener
>asserted earlier today that physicists could safely base their
>mathematics on PA.

No, I did not "assert" such.  It's merely one of many possibilities, one
that I was pointing out to give a more concrete analogy in defense of
what you were saying.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: rsb@mcc.com (Richard S. Brice)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: It's Down to the Last Blank Check
Summary: decoupled from "bottom line profits"
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:36:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX

In article <mcirvin.716139378@husc8>, mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
> I also found interesting the statement about scientists' desire to
> maintain their elevated status in society.  I'm not sure what that means.
> 
> -- 
> Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 


I'm not sure what that means either, but I assumed it was referring to
the ability of researchers in general (and scientific researchers in
particular) to decouple their funding from quarterly bottom line profits.
The trend away from this funding model seems to be creeping (rushing
headlong?) through industrially/commercially supported research already.

I have seen some of the effects of this trend on certain research segments
and others have already posted messages about some of the effects it's
having on the national labs.

Sad.

Richard Brice
MCC Corp
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Sep10.132003.15495@sei.cmu.edu>
	<1992Sep10.205022.15408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:00:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.205022.15408@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.
Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

   >Cantor's theory the way physicists would, but rather the result of the
   >mathematical community finding that Cantor's theory provided an
   >attractive and workable foundation for mathematics.

  This is not historically accurate. Set theory caught on chiefly
because of its role in the creation and development of such subjects
as point set topology (which Poincare considered a "disease") and
measure theory. And, of course, the simple but striking applications
of the basic ideas such as the uncountability of the set of
transcendental numbers.  The idea of set theory as a foundation for
mathematics came much later.

   >You can take either it or its negation as an
   >axiom, either one when added to the axioms of ZFC yields a consistent
   >foundations for mathematics.

  What do you mean, "yields a consistent foundation for mathematics"?
What you say applies equally to the statement "ZFC is consistent". Are
you saying that adding either this statement or its negation to
ZFC yields a consistent foundation for mathematics, and if so, what
is this supposed to mean?
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Terminal velocity of a raindrop?
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:43:41 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Sep4.122013.9635@den.mmc.com> carlm@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Carl Morris) writes:
>After reading some of the posts to this group I'm sure someone
>out there can help me with my question: what's the terminal
>velocity of a raindrop?

I asked my favorite consulting meteorologist (and immortalized-in-a-
NOVA-program tornado chaser) this at lunch today. 

As you might guess, he said the answer depends on the size of the 
raindrop, since some are so small that they are carried around on 
updrafts inside the storm until they become large enough to fall. 
With that caveat, the basic answer is that most fall at a speed of 
"a few" meters per second.  

I asked him if they had defined a "standard" raindrop and he just 
laughed.  (Although their storm models distinguish between "rain" 
and "graupel" and other forms of water, the models are not sufficiently 
microscopic to worry about the actual drop size.)  He did add that 
the *shape* of a raindrop is not what most people think it looks 
like: it is more of an oblate spheroid falling along the symmetry 
axis, that is, flat side down, rather than an elongated "drop".

--
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,sci.math
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 21:59:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.191455.24754@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:
>In article <TORKEL.92Sep13174850@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>
>Can we split mathematicians into the chiefs and the indians, or since
>that's politically incorrect these days, the officers and the troops?
>The officers are focused on the central problems of mathematics *and*
>at least some of their applications, even when they seem to be off
>doing hopelessly pure mathematics.

If you want to look at it this way, then the officers are those using
set theory in topology, measure theory, etc.  The troops are solving
specific applications.  The foundation people are neither officers nor
troops, but are perhaps more like the political commentators arguing
whether it makes sense to have an army at all.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: moulding@fnalp.fnal.gov (Steven M Moulding)
Subject: Re: neutrinos & anti-neutrinos
Summary: No photons
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4  
Keywords: neutrino, antineutrino,anti-neutrino
Reply-To: moulding@fnalp.fnal.gov
Organization: Fermilab
Distribution:  world
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:42:37 GMT

In article ... brahm@cco.caltech.edu (the illustrious David E. Brahm) writes...
>maxc0452@ucselx.sdsu.edu (Legene) writes...
>> Could someone please tell me what the annihilation products
>> of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are?  I'd appreciate it ever-so-much.
> 
>sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (the illustrious Scott Chase) writes:
>> It depends entirely on the energy of the particles (in the
> 
>Since neutrinos are neutral, [nu + anti-nu -> photons] is a higher-loop
>process, and is suppressed.  Thus to a fair approximation, at low energy
>(i.e. less than twice the electron mass) the final products are almost
>entirely [nu + anti-nu].  Now an s-channel virtual Z gives final neutrinos
>in each of the 3 generations, while a t-channel Z preserves the flavor of
>the original pair; so I calculate a branching ratio of 2/3 to [nu +
>anti-nu] of the same flavor (this is "elastic scattering" rather than
>"annihilation"), and 1/6 to [nu + anti-nu] of each of the 2 other flavors.
>    							     __
How about t-channel exchange of a W ? This would then give nunu --> e+e-
and would change your branching ratios.
I can't think of why this would be suppressed if t-channel Z's also go.

			Steve

*******************************************************************************
*        _        __                                                          *
*       qq --> LQ LQ         Looking                                          *
*                 __                   for                                    *
*       gg --> LQ LQ                        leptoquarks                       *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr))
Subject: Re: It's Down to the Last Blank Check
Organization: National University of Singapore
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 01:25:07 GMT

I think GE Brown must be chairman for the House Committee for the
propagation of the New Age.  It's terrifying that an idiot of this order
can occupy a position of such importance. The worst thing is that he
jumbles up matters of genuine scientific interest [eg how to achieve
zero population growth] with stupid nonsense like how to persuade people
not to regard material possessions as a measure of wealth.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: trivedi@yukawa.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi)
Subject: Re: Why Do Mirrors Reverse Left/Right and Not Up/Down?
Organization: Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:37:03 GMT

I think this thread can use one more contribution.

First of all, while most of you certainly know this, I should say it
anyway: mirrors *can* produce upside-down images; it is just that
the common plane mirrors do not do so. :-)

Now to the serious stuff. The question is: why do Left/Right behave
differently from Up/Down? This has nothing to do with mirrors, really.

The basic thing to understand is that neither Left/Right nor Up/Down 
have any fixed meanings in space (the Universe).

However, the notion of Up/Down is reasonably stable on the surface
of the Earth; you have to travel far for it to shift.  It is defined
with respect to the center of the Earth and has nothing to do with
*your* personal orientation.

The notion of Left/Right, on the other hand, is defined with respect
to your body; to use the stock market jargon, that makes it much more 
volatile. Its meaning in space changes as you walk around. Face another 
person: it takes no mirror to arrive at situation when *his left* is
on *your right*. Forget another person; just turn around yourself: what 
used to be to *your* left is now to *your* right. And so on...

In the (plane) mirror, the image of *your* left hand is, amazingly,
still on *your* left. But it is the right hand of the *other guy*.
However, as I said, you don't need a mirror for this subjective switch 
of direction: if a real person was standing there, the "left/right"
disagreement would be much the same. Mirrors do not reverse Left/Right
any more than a cocktail party does.  :-)

-----
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: felawka@sitka.fnal.gov (Larry Felawka)
Subject: Re: Angular momentum thought experiment
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia IL
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:58:43 GMT

Oops! Equation III) should read:
    
     T3 =- (m1+m2).g = (m1+m2).ac
		^	    ^
		|	    |
			

				Larry Felawka
 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: julian@fraser.sfu.ca (Julian Shillcock)
Subject: Re: Is Spacetime Absolute?
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:57:47 GMT

prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:


>I understand that special relativity gets rid of the idea of absolute
>3D space and absolute time, but is there any such thing as absolute spacetime?

>I think what I am asking is, is there an objective spacetime fabric out there
>through which all particles move? Or does a different universe exist from the
>perspective of every particle?


No General Relativity postulates that spacetime (and the interval between
two evetns udefined using the metric on that spacetime) is absolute in the sense that it
is independent of all observers.

>Um... also... how does an object "know" that it is spinning relative to
>the "fixed" stars? (Relative to the object, all it's particles are at rest
>and only the universe is spinning).

>Dave Griffiths


If a system is spinning it alters the spacetime around it in an absolute 
way so that one can detect the motion independently of the rest of the universe.
eg by the appearance of a centrifugal force. There is a discussion
of this in Eddington's book: Space, Time and Gravitation.

Hope this is of some help

julian
From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Subject: How old is the universe?
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:49:42 MDT
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept

How old is the universe is seconds?  


How much time is left before it crunches back together?


Where might I find these figures in reference texts?

Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.pets.cats
From: ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA (Greg Neill)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Are redshifts discrete?
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:40:55 GMT
Organization: Environment Canada (CID), Dorval, QC

In article <18o520INNf34@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
>In article <5323@tuegate.tue.nl> johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers) writes:
>>malova@venus.iteb.serpukhov.su writes:
>>>
>>>   Some years ago I read about discrete distribution of redshifts. 
>>>   What is now? Is the idea alive?
>>
>
   <<<stuff deleted>>>
>
>These results have not been confirmed, and there have been suggestions
>that the statistical significance of the effect has been greatly overestimated.
>From my vantage point, which is somewhere on the periphery of this
>field, it looks like most of the experts don't believe the effect is
>real, although a thoroughly convincing refutation of the work
>has not been offered.
>
>-Ted


A recent article (few months back) in either Sky & Telescope or
Astronomy addressed this topic.  It seems that a new study which
included a much broader sampling of galaxies also showed the
quantization effects, consistent with the original study.  According to
the article every effort was made to eliminate systematic errors as
a possible explanation.  So who knows?

Maybe we're seeing a result of some neat physics from the inflation era?
Could it be that inflation occurred in shells, like an onion exploding
layer by layer?  Hey, maybe this basic quantization size will turn out
to be the width of a proton as expanded from the BB to the present!

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Neill,               | Roman rule:
HNSX Supercomputers   Inc.|  "The one who says it cannot be done should
ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.ca    |   never interrupt the one who is doing it."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What do we know about choice of groups?
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:35:58 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 <MATT.92Sep10231327@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes...
> 
>Well, one constraint that most theorists believe in is that a gauge
>theory has to be anomaly-free.  I really don't feel like explaining
>what that means just now; for the moment, let's just say that it is a
>technical property which is necessary for the theory to be
>renormalizable.  This excludes most possible gauge groups---still
>leaving an infinite number, but a much smaller infinity than without
>that constraint.                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

??! Are you sure?  They are a countably-infinite set to start with, no?

-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: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Less Groups! More Representations! (was: Symmetries, groups, and categories)
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:48:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.715643332
   OLUMBUS.92Aug25114146@strident.think.com> 
 <22035@galaxy.ucr.edu><mcirvin.715559228@husc8> <COLUMBUS.92Sep4095352@rachmaninoff.think.com>
Distribution: na

columbus@rachmaninoff.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:

>In article <mcirvin.715559228@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>   Indeed, the first course I took in abstract algebra dealt *only* with
>   finite Abelian groups!

>Only finite Abelian groups?! Matrix groups were not even mentioned? (I
>don't mean anything elaborate, just the bare fact that, say, GL(n) is an
>example of a group.) 

I think they were mentioned, yes.  But we never worked with them.

>How about Cayley's theorem?

Nope.  The class was pretty pathetic.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:03:06 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
Summary: He meant to say "Cambridge"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <1992Sep12.071024.11573@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes...
>>>and
>>>if it is we certainly don't have enough data (total mass (including unobserved
>>>stars and "dark matter"), total kinetic energy, where the center is[...]
> 
>Surely you're joking, Mr. Sutherland!  The "center"?  Everyone knows
>that it's in Boston!  Seriously, there is no "center" as far as anyone knows.

I think you meant to say "Cambridge," not "Boston."  We all know that the 
center of the Universe is a couple of miles down the road from that little
red schoolhouse, don't we?  

-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
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Interesting books
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 04:53:27 GMT

Here's a new book from the UC Press series "California Studies in the
History of Science."  I guess it's not out yet 'cause the ad says
"December" on it.  It might be interesting.

From c-Numbers to q-Numbers
The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory
Olivier Darrigol
ISBN 0-520-07822-5

...Darrigol illuminates not only the history of quantum theory but also
the role of analgoies in sicentific thinking and theory change.
Unlike previous works, which have tended to focurs on qualitative,
global arguments, Darrigols' study follows the lines of mathematical
reasoning and symbolizing and so is able to show the motivations of
early quantum theorists more precisely - and provocatively - than ever
before.  

Here's one from World Scientific that caught my eye.  It's been out a
while - anyone read it?  Care to write a review?

Mathematics and Science
ed. Ronald E. Mickens
ISBN 981-0234-2 (pbk)

The purpose of this review volume is to present the opinions of a
nubmer of distinguished individuals who have given careful thought as
to why mathematics is so "unreasonably effective" when applied to the
analysis of the natural sciences.

---
... which gives me a chance to give my own definition of physics: "the
study of those aspects of nature to which mathematics can most
fruitfully be applied."
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:50:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.716597407
 <Sep.14.17.21.17.1992.29178@ruhets.rutgers.edu> <193dkgINNdrl@agate.berkeley.edu> <Sep.15.15.57.43.1992.13699@ruhets.rutgers.edu>

bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:

>I was trying to emphasize that
>the "open vs. closed" issue which used to dominate popular accounts
>of cosmology is, for the moment, a non-issue.

I wouldn't say that it's so much a non-issue as an issue that's taken
a back seat to other, related things.  If there's a tremendous amount
of dark matter it might close the universe, but the real question is 
(1) what this putative stuff might be and (2) whether it really does what
it's supposed to do in the models, i.e. explain large-scale structure.

Certainly both data and favored theory are on the side of openness or
at least very long life.

There are still accounts of the question of "missing mass" which describe
it as "the mass required to close the universe," as if cosmologists were
universally possessed by some kind of Procrustean obsession to prove
the universe closed in spite of all the data indicating otherwise. 
These descriptions have always struck me as misdirected. 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.physics