HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 15 Oct 92 01:24:26 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

John Baez writes:
>Okay, since not everyone is posting to alt.physics.new-theories who
>should be, I think it's time to develop a crackpot index.
>
>I think the simplest system is to add points for various indications of
>kookiness.

Although I like this idea (which reminds me of other useful numerical
indices, like the "Fog Factor" which expresses the muddiness of one's
paragraphs), it's a lot of work.

Frankly, when you said "crackpot index" I was hoping for a sort of
master list of crackpots who post to sci.physics, with brief
descriptions of their "theories" or sins against Orthodox Physics (TM)
and explanations of why they were wrong, or at least heretical.
It could be posted periodically, saving the labor of refuting
McElwaine, Abian et al every time they post silliness ...

On the other hand this sounds too much like an enemies list.
Forget it, let's go with the numbers (typical physicist behavior).
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE PRINCIPLE OF TENDENCY OF MAINTAINING THE
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:33:27 GMT

Does Spam have inertia?

				--Blair
				  "The moment of nausea is
				   proportional to the
				   thickness of the slice..."
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New group/groups : Branching of sci.physics
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:15:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.719028918

ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn) writes:

>There is already a division between sci.physics and 
>something.physics.new-theories.  (Sorry, but I can't remember the name.)

It's alt.sci.physics.new-theories, for those of you who might want to
post there. 

-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:29:14 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct7.201848.5499@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:

>>        I am actually suprised that nobody has built a "back-yard" 
>>nuke in their basement for "neighborhood nuclear 
>>superiority"....sq
>
>	This would actually be a pretty amusing home project.  Get several tons
> of natural uranium.  Process it into uranium hexaflouride and hope that you
> don't spill any nasty chemicals.  Probably would do much better using laser


This reminds me of the joke article back in Analog.  A person
wrote to the magazine soon after, saying, yep he's got the stuff
mentioned: the uranium, the explosives, etc.   But he couldn't
find any hydrogen flouride.  Maybe if he hydrated some flour...?

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:18:31 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Inc Irving TX

I can't resist:

1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

   The statement you are now reading is clearly false.

My score, please?  }=-)>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Subject: Re: Space Age
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:56:13 GMT

In article <7OCT199212461135@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>
>So if you want to see what I look like, and why I abandoned my theatrical
>aspirations for a career in physics, check it out.  And no, I don't really
>dress like that.  They made me put on someone else's clothing because
>my white shirt would not videotape well.
>

Well Scott, if you really wanted to show us what you look like, you would
post a GIF of yourself here.  Make it in two parts.  Make sure the picture
shows you holding a drawing of a neutrino-cage.  No, make it one of Dewey
Larson's BOOKS.

---Bill VanHorne

--------------------------------------------------
Please try to use the word paradigm in every post.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Time to develop a crackpot index?
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 04:27:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.181831.13283@asl.dl.nec.com> terry@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Terry Bollinger) writes:
>I can't resist:
>
>1) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
>
>   The statement you are now reading is clearly false.
>
>My score, please?  }=-)>

Your statement is false, but not clearly so.  So it is not logically
inconsistent (which would have racked up 2 points).  It is also not
widely agreed on to be false.  So your score is -5.   


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA AND REACTION TO PROVOCATION  
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:59:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.200103.8826@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>
>We get 452 points, if my addition is holding up.   Clearly Abian and the
>Larsonites are neck-and-neck, with perhaps Sarfatti as the only close
>contender for leading crackpot on sci.physics!  

Fie! I say.  Fie on you for demeaning the genius of
Sarfatti by comparing him with Abian.  In the world of
physicist crackpots, Sarfatti is a fucking artist among
these elephants-who-paint.

				--Blair
				  "Ten, maybe twelve years,
				   then we'll have him declared
				   a national treasure."
From: ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: VERY fundamental question
Date: 14 Oct 92 08:42:33 GMT
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S

First, an apology: I realize that this is very likely an extremely
fundamental question, one that might not belong in this group.  Or it
may be a frequently asked question; I don't read this newsgroup regularly,
so I don't know. In any case apologies if I'm being stupid.

But here goes... Consider the following conversation between two people:

A: Would you explain something, please?

B: Certainly, what is it?

A: How does a magnet work? I mean, when I place a magnet close to, say,
   a needle, the needles moves. What makes it move? How can the magnet
   exert a force on the needle over a distance? It seems like magic to
   me.

B: Well, it's not really magic. You see, the magnet creates a field, which
   propagates through space. It is the existence of a magnetic field around
   the needle, that makes it move.

A: That doesn't really explain anything, does it? I mean, how and why
   does the magnetic field then exert a force on the needle?

B: Er, well. The electromagnetic force is transmitted through photons,
   but...

A: Oh, I see. Little photons run out of the magnet, grab the needle with
   their tiny hands an pull it!

B: Er, well, not exactly. Photons only transmit a varying electro-
   magnetic field. In fact, their energy is proportional to the frequency
   of the oscillations of the electromagnetic field. In a static field,
   which you have here, things are a bit different...

A: So, how does the magnet make the needle move?!

What should be B's answer?

-- 
Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: ct@dde.dk
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel on women
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:23:55 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: soc.men,soc.women,sci.edu
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

I took off sci.physics and sci.math and put in sci.edu in the followups.  If
anybody from physics or math is interested in the early education thereof,
he and/or she can put it back.

In article <1992Oct6.224326.3834@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>If you have kids, I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about
>math, about what they like and what they want to do, rather than to worry
>about what 'Barbie' says.

I agree, and I'll raise you one.

Uncritical acceptance of the notion that a girl child will be primarily 
influenced by cultural minutiae such as Barbie and needs to be protected
from such evil influences is probably the worst thing one can do to a child.

It tells the child this: "I am not going to consider the possiblity that
you have a brain, which (with my help) you can use to determine what you want
to think.  Instead, I will protect you from all bad outside influences, and
you will simply ride through life.  In the process, you will learn that the
best way of solving a problem is to get someone responsible to take away all
the bad stuff for you."

I don't know if it is cultural or innate, but there seems to be a tendency
in human beings for the PROTECT and TAKE OVER lights to come on a lot faster 
when they see a girl being frustrated or challenged than a boy.  Perhaps the
relative lack of women in mathematics is explainable completely by this.  In
mathematics it always eventually comes down to you and the paper, and excessive
coddling doesn't prepare one for this experience.

It really doesn't take much time to sit down and talk to your child.  My
father sat down and explained things to me in detail maybe a dozen times
a year.  He did two things which are very important:

  1) He did not talk down to me or assume that I could not understand
     something he said, i.e., he did not protect me from confusion or 
     frustration.

  2) He did not prevent me from taking the wrong path in an investigation
     or experiment, i.e., he did not protect me from failure.

-EMP
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:16:22 GMT

In article <8OCT199210103877@csa2.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.154736.680@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>, pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes...
>> 
>>A gedanken experiment is an act of faith.
>> 
>
>Only if you do it wrong.  Experimental error is a major problem with
>gedanken experiments.

Major problem, eh?  I looked in the Guinness book of records for the
largest experimental error ever made with a gedanken experiment,
without success.  Anyone happen to know its order of magnitude?

>But when properly executed, they are a good way
>of trying to connect your assumptions about the world with the inevitable,

As Reagan would say, "There you go again."  "Inevitable" when applied
to unexplored territory is an article of faith that the predictions of
the best current theory will hold there too.  I would not object
however to "extremely likely" in place of "inevitable."  (I too have
faith.)

-- 
=================================================== In short, I am floundering
Vaughan Pratt   pratt@cs.Stanford.EDU  415-494-2545 around and don't take what
=================================================== I say seriously.
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Mattel protest
Date: 8 Oct 92 09:05:50 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <1avqs0INN4k5@agate.berkeley.edu> E. Mark Ping writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.163944.15794@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>}In article <1992Oct5.084600.26398@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>I'm sure that any child who heard the words "Math class is tough" over and
>over again would tend to believe it, whether it came from a toy or a friend.
   My money is on the kid saying 'Tell me something I don't know'
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John Hagerman)
Subject: Re: How do you draw a straight line?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
	<1992Oct6.030213.20215@galois.mit.edu> <jim.718586962@st-michael>
	<1992Oct9.134136.14139@mlb.semi.harris.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:25:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.134136.14139@mlb.semi.harris.com> geg@beep.mis.semi.harris.com (Gregory E. Garland) writes:
>
[reference to Jim Easton's article which included the linkage picture elided]
>
> Assuming I'm visualizing how this thing works; it will only draw
> a line for a small arc oscillating back and forth.  Got any pretty
> pictures of something that will turn continuous full revolutions into
> a straight line?
>
> -- 
> Greg Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational force

Here's something I made up.  The two circles represent meshed gears,
where the meshing requires that they turn in opposite directions at
the same rate.  The two linkage points inside the tops of the circles
are attached to the gears; the other linkages are as usual.  The point
at the top oscillates up and down in a straight line as the gears turn
continuous full revolutions.

Do you forbid gears?

- John

%!  To draw a linkage that will draw a straight line
72 72 scale
4 3 translate 0 setlinewidth

newpath
-1 0 1 0 360 arc stroke
1 0 1 0 360 arc stroke
-1 0 .05 0 360 arc fill
1 0 .05 0 360 arc fill
-1 .9 .05 0 360 arc fill
1 .9 .05 0 360 arc fill
0 4 .05 0 360 arc fill
-1 .9 moveto 0 4 lineto stroke
1 .9 moveto 0 4 lineto stroke

showpage
--
hagerman@ece.cmu.edu
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: What does QM predict about *when* a photon traverses a polarizer?
Summary: I retract my retraction.
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:17:35 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

(Do you get negative points on the crackpot index when you are obviously
struggling to understand something. I may need them.)

In article <316@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
 

> ... The distribution as a function of time
> of detecting a particle with a given polarization at each site is
> determined by the wave function. From these two distributions the
> distribution as a function of time of a joint detection can be computed.
> From this one can compute the distribution of the delays between when a
> polarizer changes state and when detections are affected by that change.

The problem with this argument is that one has to invoke collapse in some
form to compute the probability of a joint detection. If the polarizer
is changing I do not think quantum mechanics tells us how to do this
collapse. See the following post on `Re: A proof that QM is an incomplete
theory' for an analysis.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Questions of transparency
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 03:34:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.022256.11742@prim> prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes:
>Sorry, I'll rephrase the question. If one single photon enters the glass
>block, is it absorbed and retransmitted en-route, or does it pass straight
>through unimpeded? Seems like quite an important point since much
>discussion about QM inteference experiments assume single photons passing
>through polarizers, beam splitters and so on.
>
>If the photon _does_ fly straight through, why does it slow down? The gaps
>between atoms are a vacuum and it should whizz through at the speed of light!

I don't really know what you mean about "straight through" versus
"absorbed and retransmitted".  Also, I'm not expert on optics.  But my
hunch is that

1)  Even a single photon sent through glass will be slowed according to
the refractive index.  (Linearity makes me think this.)

2)  Unless the photon is rather unlucky (glass being not 100%
transparent after all), there will be no molecule in the glass that 
absorbs the photon, pops into an excited orbital, and pops down
re-emitting a photon.  If this were how light passed through glass
one would expect a lot of scattering in all directions, or at very least
the destruction of coherence in a laser beam sent through the glass.
(This "absorb and re-emit" scenario might actually be what's going on
in opalescence, but I'm not sure.  I'm pretty sure something along these lines
occurs in luminscence, e.g. dayglo paint.  But these are very different
from transparency.)  

Anyway, thinking of a photon as a teeny pellet that somehow manages to
whiz betwen the atoms in the glass is a wrong picture.  The wavelength
of visible light is about 5000 angstroms while the radius of hydrogen is
about 1/2 an angstrom.  So light - even a single photon - passes through
glass like a wave on a lake passes through a region that happens to have
a little sawdust sprinkled on it.  (Take all metaphors with suspicion.)
The presence of the sawdust simply changes the speed of the wave a bit.
I.e. the glass molecules interact with the light only by changing the 
dielectric constant through their polarizability.

Here of course the tricky thing is the wave-particle duality.  Rather
than arguing about whether it's better to thikn of your photon as a wave
or a particle, it is better to inquire over the results of certain
experiments, or ask someone in quantum optics what equations they use,
e.g., to study fiber optics.
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Quantum Zeno Effect, Part 1.
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:02:30 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Oct7.123638.5290@ugle.unit.no> kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim
Gunnar St|vring yhus) writes:
>There are exponential decay systems different from nuclear ones.
>F.ex. excited atoms in vacuum, the spontaneous emission of yellow
>light from a sodium (natrium) lamp. Lasers are something entirely
>different.

But in atoms, too, I believe that the period over which the free-space
decay is nonexponential is predicted to be of order one period of the
emitted radiation. Thus, an experiment that would be sensitive at the
appropriate time-scale would be unable to distinguish the excited
state from the ground state (Delta E >= hbar/Delta t)

>The quantum zeno effect have been used to stop some trapped excited
>atoms from emitting light, so in practice, it's possible to stop
>exponential decay. [Scientific American]

I'm not aware of the suppression of spontaneous emission. Could you
give a more complete reference. I am only aware of the experiment by
Itano et al.  (Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990)), which saw suppression of
_stimulated_ transitions, not spontaneous ones.

>If one excited atom is placed in a small mirror-blank cavity, it will
>oscillate regularly between the states of emitting and absorbing its
>own photon. This oscillation do have an X^2 dependece as usual.

Yes. This should work in principle, although the experiment would be
quite difficult to perform. This approach is suggested by Itano et al.
in their paper.

Basically, the requirement would be for the atom to be coupled to a
single cavity mode, where the cavity dissipation would be small
compared to the vacuum Rabi frequency. You would then make
measurements at a much greater frequency than the vacuum Rabi
frequency and presumably see atom stay in the excited state for a
longer time.

The requirements for cavity Q and vacuum Rabi frequency would make
this experiment exceedingly difficult. See, for instance, Thompson,
Rempe, and Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1132 (1992) on vacuum-field
Rabi splitting for a single sodium atom in a cavity of finesse 80 000
(vacuum Rabi rate = 3.2 MHz, cavity decay rate = 2.5 MHz, atomic decay
out of the cavity mode = 0.9 MHz).

>So, can the start of an exponential decay be quadratic because of
>re-absorption when the emitted photon is still close to the atom?  Or
>when the particle is close to its decayed nucleus?

Yes. This is a common heuristic explanation (referred to as
re-scattering) for the predicted nonexponential decay of unstable
states. (See L. Fonda et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 587 (1978), who
credit I. Ersak, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 9, 263 (1969) for this
explanation).

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in cavity QED, so although I have tried
to be careful in my description of decay within a cavity, it's
possible that I have erred somewhere. If so, corrections would be
welcomed.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The H-Bomb secret is out
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:18:04 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <Oct.9.11.57.12.1992.16385@ruhets.rutgers.edu> bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>alison@wsrcc.com writes:
>>The Rosenbergs may not have given any valuable information away, but
>>they _were_ disloyal, so I for one don't feel bad about their
>             ^^^^^^^^
>>execution.  I'm only sorry the Walkers won't meet the same fate.
>
>Ouch!  And who defines what is "loyal"?
>Oh well, it's probably a good thing you weren't on the committee
>inquiring into Oppenheimer ...

     Giving aid and comfort to an adversary usually qualifies
     as disloyal.  Simply being a loudmouth (as Oppenheimer) usually does 
     not.  And I think the court did a reasonable job of making
     such a decision.

>By the way, is there some reason my site only gets half of the
>messages in this thread?  [Other than that I'm a security risk ;)]

     Your site must be immediately upwind or downwind of mine.
     No conspiracy, I think it's weasels in the lines.

                             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,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech