HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:23:06 GMT

In article <Nov.4.20.34.21.1992.1961@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>Dale Bass and others object to the hypothesizing of loads of extra
>dark matter lying about in order to fix up our various estimates
>of the matter density, etc.  I have sympathy for this, especially
>when it comes to postulating Mystery Particles (tm) but one thing
>is that there is good reason to believe in a fair amount of
>baryonic dark matter.

     In turn, I am much more sympathetic to baryonic dark matter if
     it can be made to work.  However, we seemed to be talking about
     'pixie' matter, a quantity that can probably be invented to 
     explain anything.   About 'fixing up' omega, I am not sympathetic
     at all.  There seems to be no compelling need from my perspective
     to have omega be one.

     I was under the impression, though, that such baryonic dark matter
     ran into trouble somewhere.

>Somebody just quoted Jerry Ostriker to me: "In astronomy, the only
>real mass determination is a dynamical determination."  Just 'cause
>we can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

     Absolutely, but that is no real reason to invent large amounts
     of unknown matter with unknown properties.  Unknown matter with
     known properties seems more reasonable.

                            dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: spock@maths.tcd.ie (Thomas G. Hayes)
Subject: Simple poser about the earky universe
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:56:07 GMT


 I was just reading the other day that some satellite (Hubble I think)
 has found variations in the background radiation of the universe.
 Now, some astro-physicists would like to take this as strong evidence
 for the inhomogenity of the early universe, whereas others take the
 variations to be a result of the gravitational waves created during
 the inflationary period of the universe.
                              Now, the question I want to ask is this:
 Could not the gravitational waves have actually caused the 
 inhomogenities in the first place? If an area of space is compressed
 by a gravitational wave, surely this area is more dense than the 
 surrounding areas? If not, why not?

                               
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ Death?- Death is the biggest  ~~  spock@maths.tcd.ie   ~~ My other   ~
~ kick of them all. That's why  ~~  tghayes@unix1.tcd.ie ~~ computer's ~
~ we save it until last...      ~~  Thomas G. Hayes      ~~ a CRAY..   ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Scientists Plan to Blow Up the World!
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:17:58 GMT

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

>jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin) writes:
>:sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) wrote:
>:> Our vacuum state is not absolutely stable only meta-stable.  It is
>:> conceivable that some of our high-energy physics experiments could be
>:> dangerous by inadvertently triggering a vacuum instability.

>:This one has always struck me as a really neat gift to the jaded worrywort.
>:  ....  you can now lie awake at night sweating at
>:the thought that somebody at CERN might set off an interaction that de-
>:metastabilizes the vacuum for the entire universe.  Ice-Nine with knobs on.

>There's an anecdote about Yakov Zeldovich calculating in a frenzy
>to figure out if a CERN experiment that was coming on line could create
>a domain wall that would blow us all out of existence ... the
>answer was no, I believe.

All of this, as well, is predicated on our vacuum state in fact
being only metastable, which is by no means clear.  In the Standard
Model, for instance, the world is generally built upon the true
vacuum.  Still, it is a lovely thing to frighten yourself with.

I once opined to Eric Carlson that this was an idea that had been
insufficiently exploited in science fiction.  He pointed out to
me that "it would be a very short novel."
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:32:40 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: Iowegia Public Access Usenet/UUCP, Clive IA USA.

craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN) writes:

> >>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 


Doug,

        It has been my experience that when a true professional 
scientist is challenged- science vs. beliefs, they will invariably 
admit that they are truly atheistic, and wear the religion as a 
badge because it was a heritage of their parents, etc.

        When I was younger, I believed in a deity.  I prayed and 
all that.  I also noticed nothing happened.  I took up science, I 
experimented and all that.  I also noticed that GREAT things could 
happen!  Needless to say, I am a scientist today- but above all, I 
am a complete unequivocal atheist.  I have no beliefs or need for 
belief in any form of deity.  I believe in science..........sq

(but I work with a bunch of GOD heads...)
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: A Solid-State thread (Was: Re: New Group sci.physics.orthodox)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 12:03 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <2179@eagle.ukc.ac.uk>, aw3@ukc.ac.uk (Alan Wilson) writes...
>> 
>I'm not sure about the real physicists being driven out, but having 
>watched this group evolve for a year or so I definitely get the
>impression that the coverage of physics is rather narrow and confined
>to either fairly high level stuff on QM, GUT's and GR, or rather trivial
>(but sometimes interesting) stuff at undergraduate level (mainly
>mechanics, SR, FTL etc....). What is definitely missing is what the
>vast majority of physicists do (myself included), which is use their
>physics background in interdisciplinary research... I'm sure there are
>lots of solid state experimentalists, materials scientists, theoreticians
>etc, etc out there who are reading this newsgroup, but not contributing
>because their expertise lies elsewhere (ie other than subjects listed
>above).
> 
>Come on - lets hear about other aspects of physics !!!!!......

Absolutely.  The problem seems to be that there are few people asking
questions which would get threads started on these other areas of physics.
But I for one would welcome the opportunity to hear more on more diverse
subjects.  So I'll try to start one.  Let's see... OK.  Can one of you
normally silent types tell me a little about the most fundamental unanswered
questions in solid-state physics?  

-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
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Wanted: curve-fitting or minimization software
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:21:33
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu

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.
--
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!
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:58:33 GMT

matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>The problem is that there is evidence for dark matter on all distance
>scales, but when you look on longer distance scales, the amount of
>dark matter appears to be greater.  (I find it fascinating, actually,
>that this effect seems to be monatonic.)

Besides my remark on the similarity to cosmological constant, I want to 
state that such an effect could perhaps be modelled by a finite range
model for gravity, i.e. something like "massive" gravitons. BTW, the
cosmological constant appears in the linearized Einstein field eq 

        ,lambda
  h                + Lambda ( eta      + h     ) =
   mu nu   ,lambda               mu nu    mu nu

        = 8 pi G ( T      - T eta     )
                    mu nu        mu nu

also as a mass-like term for h_{mu nu} or g_{mu nu} (g=eta+h, of course).
--
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring \yhus)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 18:29:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.153142.17712@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:
 > Those who claim that 'truth' and 'reality' are synonyms are ignoring
 > the existance of emotional truths, which have no objective existance
 > (are not part of "reality") outside of the people who experience them.
 > This comes up not just as part of religion, but as the basis of
 > literature and much of the rest of the arts.

You divide reality into 'subjects' and 'objects'.
Science don't.

Science just compares models against reality, whether it is 'subjective' or
'objective'.

I, and most other people, consider their feelings very real, and thus a part of
our reality.

It seems you mean something different by 'reality' and 'science'.

And science DO consider things hidden for most people.

Kim0
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: 9 Nov 1992 01:43:06 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com
Keywords: Evidence gravity falsified

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.

				--Blair
				  "And it better not stink,
				   because I want some bad."
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: heavy doubly magic nuclei
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:46 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Bx8CGq.HsK@news.iastate.edu>, fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils) writes...
>sci.physics
>	While reviewing my 300 level quantum bokk I came upon a
>section that hadn't impressed me as much as it does now.  It's
>in reference to possibility of doubly magic nuclei at Z=114
>and N=184 (Shell model) or perhaps more accurately, Z=110
>and N=184 (Collective model prediction) with decay on the order
>of 10^8 years via alpha or spontaneoius fission.
> 
>	Has anyone got any good references or heard anything about
>this subject?

Funny, I was just telling this story to my new officemate.  As you
correctly point out, there are supposed to be two islands of stability
in the (Z,A) plane which would allow the existence of "superheavy"
nuclei.  Their discovery would be (a) a tremendous boost to the
nuclear model builders and (b) a great playground for studying nuclear
properties under extreme conditions.  

The basic way you look for these guys is to collide very heavy nuclei
together at low energy - just enough to overcome the mutual coulomb
repulsion - to make them "kiss."  Some of them should fuse to form
the superheavy nucleus you want to study.  The superheavy will be in
an excited, unstable state, and you should be able to detect its presence
from the new unique set of spectral lines or decay fragements that
you capture in your detector as it de-excites.

People have mounted many experimental searches with no success.  The
current belief is that it is an experimental problem.  The islands of 
stability are very shallow - the nuclei are bound, but only with very
little net binding energy, making their production a tricky process.

People are still working on the problem, albeit not with the zeal that
the field once had.  There is at least one guy here at LBL we has recently
worked on refined mass calculations for superheavies, and there still
is experimental interest as well.  New facilities are probably required,
with high intensity heavy ions at low energy.  There are no such facilities
on the drawing board, at least that I know of in this country.  Europe has
been doing somewhat better at supporting such work, Germany in particular.

Any nuclear physics book will discuss this topic.  Segre's book is a 
good place to start.  For modern history, you will have to look for conference
proceedings and that kind of thing.

-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
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The size of electrons, and Fanciful misc  SAGA
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:56 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov4.134033.368@prim>, dave@prim.demon.co.uk (Dave Griffiths) writes...
> 
>Surely physics is more than just a branch of engineering? You seem to take
>the attitude that if there are conceptual difficulties, they can be swept
>under the carpet - provided the model is effective and you can crank the
>handle and get good predictions, who cares?

It's exactly the opposite.  However, I take a practical approach.  How do 
you expect to learn how to correct the conceptual problems if all you have
is a theory with conceptual problems which always agrees with experiment?
There are are two choices on how to proceed:

(1) Speculate about new models which don't have the given conceptual 
difficulty.
(2) Vigorously pursue the experimental science until a discrepancy is 
revealed.

The problem with (1) is that there is no rational way to discriminate
between models if they all predict all  the experimental data.  There is
no way to know what parts of QM might need modification to produce a 
better theory.  All you can do is wait until someone follows path (2)
to the point of success.  In the meantime, you must understand the limits
of applicability of the model and the range of data it was designed to 
explain, and accept the fact that without more data you are never going
to do better than to construct a model with explains all the data you
already have.  

So it's not that I say "who cares?," but rather "what you are going to
do about it?"

-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
From: taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu (C. Taylor Sutherland III)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:13:24 GMT
Organization: Clemson University

royd@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roy Daniel) writes:

>Just a little citation from the Hitch Hicker's Guide to the Galaxy:

The Hitch Hicker's Guide?  or how about the Hitch Hickey's Guide.  :)
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

-- 
	     We're not hitchhiking anymore.  We're riding!
		     -The Immor(t)al Ren & Stimpy-
         The Fly Boy  <| E-MAIL:  taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu |>
+--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA  -    DOOLEY's REACTION to PROVOCATION
Keywords: TIME  is MATTER
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:15:17 GMT

In <BxM482.14y@helios.physics.utoronto.ca> dooley@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Kevin Dooley) writes:

>In article <abian.721544742@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>     My principle (A1) is the best scientific principle.  It describes
>>behavior of particles and people and everything in between.  In case you
>>have forgotten, it states:
>>
>>(A1)   THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO, REACTION TO PROVOCA-
>>       TION AND THE TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING AGAIN A STATUS QUO.
>>
>>    (A1)  is scientifically verifiable  your actions, my actions, the
>>actions of Uranium, plutonium, etc., are all governed by (A1).

>Yes, but it is an utterly empty statement because you have not defined
>what a status quo is.  

ABIAN answers:                        11-12-92
 
Dear Mr. DOOLEY,

   Your statement above is utterly empty, because you have not defined
the  following words in your statement:

  "Yes", "but", "it", "is", "an", "utterly", "empty", "statement", 
  "because", "you", "have", "not", "defined", "what", "a", "status"
  "quo", "is".
 
 Mr. Dooley, what do you mean by  the above words ?
 
Also, you write:
 

>Just go away and do it right and you will see what I am talking about, 
>but please stop clogging up the net with your drivel.


 Your above statement proves strongly the validity of my (A1). You
are showing an utterly bitter, hysterical reaction to my provocation
of questioning the Principle of Conservation of Energy.  You are
telling me  "Just go away".  Why don't you tell to yourself

      "JUST DON'T READ the Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA "

 You see how impressive my postings are.  You cannot resist the  tempt-
ation to read them - because they have content, yes content 
without beta-sigma.  (Read my recent answer to Mr. TALBOT)

   As far as clogging up the net, you have clogged up the net with
TWO PAGES OF PURE BETA-SIGMA.

  With best wishes and regards.        
                                       Alexander Abian



-- 
   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: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca (DOUGLAS CRAIGEN)
Subject: Re: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.024228.19183@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
>Subject: Scientists debunk astrology...and what else?
>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:42:28 GMT
>I have tried [without much success] to follow the thread on mixing
>science and religion. I note that many people argue that the two are
>indeed immiscible. I wonder how these people feel about astrology? Many
>of us feel that scientists have a moral obligation to speak out against
>popular delusions of this kind. Are we mistaken? Should we take the view
>that astronomy and astrology don't mix?

   There is an essential difference here.  Whereas mainstream religion by 
and large does not lay claim to scientific ground anymore, astrology, the 
new age movement and many others on the fringes will to varying extents make 
empirical claims or even claim to be new sciences.  So for example, we can 
obtain data to determine whether storing razor blades under a crystal really 
extends their life (it doesn't), or whether hospital emergency rooms and 
police stations are really busier during a full moon (they aren't)......  To 
the extent that the general public is being bombarded with claims such as 
these which have a straightforward empirical answer, they should also be 
presented with data to prove or disprove the claims.

   Claims such as "Jesus rose from the grave and ascended into heaven" are 
in very different ground.  One could argue about the consistency of 
accounts, reliability of witnesses etc., but these are a very different sort 
of evidence than starting with a control set, attaching appropriate probes, 
checking reproducibility over many trials etc.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: debates
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:59:14 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Nov6.153132.7988@midway.uchicago.edu> sl26@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Frankly I'm quite surprised that there exist people who believe the
>realistic view of science, which I thought were dead long long time ago. 
> ...

Maybe as far as philosophers go, but I know plenty of physicists who take 
the "realistic" view, both theorists and experimentalists.  Often it was 
this view that got them interested in physics in the first place.  And, 
of course, ones view of epistemology does not necessarily affect how 
you do your science: an external observer may have very different 
opinions of what is going on that the actual participants. 

>However, one should never fail to discern theories from real hard facts.

I suppose the same statement applies to theories about how scientists 
decide what is a "fact"....

--
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)