HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.204345.1200@prim>, prim!dave@germany.eu.net (Dave Griffiths) writes...
>In article <25SEP199209055315@utahep.uta.edu> sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer) writes:
>>In article <92Sep24.232130.15043@acs.ucalgary.ca>, shteinbo@acs.ucalgary.ca (Boris Shteinbock) writes...
>>> 
>>>Strange thing. We talk about physics using all this different words
>>>and phrases like mass, energy, time, particle, wave ,field, etc.
>>>but this words don't make any sense if you'll look more carefully
>>> 
>>> 
>>>What is Energy ?
>>> 
>>>What is time ?
>>> 
>>>What is field ?
>>> 
>>>What is ... ?
>>> 
>>
>> Posts like this really piss me off. Take a couple of physics
>>courses, then ask "What is energy ?"
>>
> 
>That's better than studying the subject for a few years and believing you
>now _know_ what these words mean. I hate to go metaphysical on you, but
>aside from the mathematical definition of time as a variable in your
>calculations, what _is_ time? Given that most physics is time reversible,
>how do you know that you're going forward in time?
> 
>Do you believe that fields really _exist_, or are they just a mathematical
>device? If the former, how do you imagine something that is infinite?
> 
>Just curious.
> 
>Dave Griffiths

  See, the question you pose (Are fields real ? Why are some processes
time reversible abd others not ?), are btter formulated and more given
to concrete discussion than a nebulous sophmorism like "What is _ ?"

  As I said before, do have problems with the definitions, with particular
applications of the definitions, or what ? 

  Just as matters of opinion, I feel that :
1) We know we are going the same direction in tine (if you want to give it
   a positive sign, fine) just because of those handful of processes which
   are not time-reversible.
2) Are fields real ? Sure, why not ?
  You have a charge distribution "out there". You measure the force on a test
  charge. You take the test charge away : You haven't changed any thing about
  the original charges - there is still a field. 

   It's all this psuedo-Buddhist Tao-of-Physics 
  does-a-tree-in-the-woods-make-sound neoidealist sophistric
  twisting of straight-forward physical ideas to which I object...

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

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington                        

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Subject: Re: hanna-maria1.gif (01/03)
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:51:45 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.012034.14076@qedqcd.rye.ny.us> mmm@qedqcd.rye.ny.us (Mike Miskulin) writes:
>Really?  Perhaps you have forgotten that not every site in Usenet
>has a T1 line?  Have you heard of UUCP connections?  There are many
>of these still out there.  And probably many other slower means
>of getting news.  Don't presume that everybody and every site can
>afford what yours can.

Unless you're on one, please stop whining.  If you are
on one, please stop dragging down the aggregate performance.

>Usenet was *not* created for you only.

Oh, I dunno about that.

Someone ask Spaf.

				--Blair
				  "SLOW
				 VEHICLES
				   USE
				  RIGHT
				   LANE"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: mvb@chopin.udel.edu (Maurice V. Barnhill)
Subject: Re: Rishon
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 12:34:58 GMT

In article <1OCT199211553820@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <BvFxun.626@news.udel.edu>, mvb@chopin.udel.edu (Maurice V. Barnhill) writes...
>>Rishons were hypothesized as constituents of quarks.  The general idea was to
>>explain the prolification of quarks by describing them as the bound states
>>of a smaller number of constitutent particles.  The proposal didn't lead
>>anywhere useful and the idea was abandoned.
>
>Your definition is correct, but I don't agree with your conclusion.  Rishons
>in particular may not be useful, but the general idea of quark constituents
>drives a good deal of experimental work looking for substructure.   
> [further comments deleted]
>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

 I agree completely.  I meant only that the rishon model itself was not being
actively considered, not that the idea of quark constituents in general had
been abandoned.  Thanks for the clarification.
       Maurice Barnhill
       University of Delaware
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: LARSONIAN Physics and Astronomy
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:29:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: sei.1992Sep28.152917.18502
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <1992Sep28.113438.9059@hplb.hpl.hp.com> davids@spira.bri.hp.com (david sixsmith (contractor)) writes:

>	'THE validity OF a scientific theorem is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to
>	 the USEAGE OF CAPITAL letters.'

You beat me to it!  Well, better late than never - my train of thought
was to ask, How bogus would real science look if typed like that?

	The ORBIT of a planet is an ELLIPSE, with the SUN
	at one FOCUS!

	Every BODY persists in a state of REST, or of UNIFORM
	MOTION in a STRAIGHT LINE, unless acted upon by an
	EXTERNAL FORCE!

	The planet VENUS is a COMET, ejected from JUPITER, that
	has had several CLOSE ENCOUNTERS with the EARTH!

Oh dear, one of those is wrong, isn't it?  This style does rather numb
the critical faculties.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Response to  PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT ... and   TIME HAS INERTIA
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:57:03 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <abian.718034226@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>   My statements concerning PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT
>OF THE EARTH and TIME HAS INERTIA need no further elucidation, justifi-
>cation or proof.  They are explicit, self-explanatory and self-evident.
>They are true and they are the way of the future.  I do not necessarily
>need the approbation of the so-called guardians of "truth" and "reality".

     If they are self-evident, then one shouldn't even need to post
     them, much less explain them.

     As far as approbation goes, some evidence would be a start.  You don't
     get approbation for physics from us, you get it from nature.

>   People will alter the orbit of Venus and the orbits of other planets
>(Terraforming is not a radical enough solution).  People will alter the
>Tilt of the Earth to avert the persistent occurrences of meteorological
>catastrophes, disasters and calamities.

     Don't you think, just one teensy-weensy bit, that moving the
     axis of the earth around (assuming for grins we could or would
     want to) would cause a bit of meteorological distress? 

> 
>   People will conclude that TIME HAS INERTIA and that Principles of
>Conservation of Energy and Consistency of the Speed of Light must be
>rejected.
>
>   People should study my proposals and further develop them.  Their 
>implementation is inevitable.
>                                                 Alexander ABIAN

     I await the burgeoning groundswell.

                               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
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:00:52 GMT

kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus) writes:
:  > 
:  >   You don't seem to realize forest from trees. I meant ordinary peoples
:  >   mental suffering, which is caused by these undeveloped peoples.
: 
: Those people I described look quite ordinary to me. By undeveloped peoples
: I suppose you mean your 'atheistic scientists'. And I have observed and
: experienced MUCH more suffering from religion than science. I have also
: observed and experience much more pleasure and happiness from science than
: from religion.

Not surprising, when much of the Bible teaches fear of God. How can you be
truly happy when you are in constant fear of an omnipotent being who may,
out of whim, strike you dead without warning and send you to a place of
perpetual suffering called Hell?

Bill
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Possible?: 2 integers specifying a point in 3D space.
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:59:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.717523188

gauthier@ug.cs.dal.ca (Paul Gauthier) writes:

>Is it possible to specify uniquely, an arbitrary point in 3D space using 
>only 2 integers? IE: You point to any point in space (using a conventional
>three-tuple (x, y, z)). Is it possible for me to respond with 2 integers
>which corrispond to that point and no other?

As someone else pointed out, since the reals are an uncountable infinity,
the answer is no.  But you *can* specify points that are a dense set in
3D space, namely points with *rational* coordinates.  Represent the
three-tuple as a trio of fractions with integer numerator and denominator.
Write down the numerators and denominators in decimal (or any base you
like).  Pad with leading zeros so that the numerators are all the same
length and the denominators are all the same length.  Then interleave
digits from the numerators and denominators to make your two integers:
the first three digits of integer 1 are the first digits of numerator
x,y, and z, the next three are the second digits of the numerators, and
so on.  Do the same thing with the denominators for the other integer.
Now you've got two numbers that correspond uniquely to that point (though
the *numbers* aren't unique unless you specify that the fractions have the
smallest possible denominator, or some such thing).  If you go by groups
of six instead of three and pad all the numbers equally, you can encode
the rational point as one integer.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, posting nonsense again 
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.philosophy.tech
From: hporopudas@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME (at numerous requests)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:53:49 GMT


In article <BvDon1.MrI@newcastle.ac.uk>, Mark.OLeary@newcastle.ac.uk
(M.D. O'Leary) writes:
>>     In the end of this conversation I would like to remind to all readers
>>   that I have tried to be only as accurate clerk in this matter as possible.
>
> Your careful attention as clerk certainly appears to have developed young
> Hanna-Maria's abilitys greatly
>

  No, I have been forced to correct my own mistakes some times during
  this matter.

>>     And because this inhuman and hostile environment of science to amateurs
>>   I have some doubts that will Hanna-Maria ever become scientist when
>>   she grows up. This kind of hostile and unhuman environment could injure
>>   her seriously.
>
> I note that some parents have trouble dealing with their charges 'imaginary
> friends'... Does one talk to them, or ignore them until they go away?
> Making the wrong choice at such an impressionable time could be just as
> damaging as the hostility of scientists who demand a rational basis for
> discussion rather than faith in a deus-ex-machina.
>
> I hope that Hanna's imaginary friend is allowed to fade away, rather than it
> becoming the instant ticket to attention. Since the world is full of nasty
> scientists, we don't want to leave her harbouring such a weakness.
>
> If she turns out to be right, of course, I'd like to be the first to lay a
> place at table fro her 'imaginary friend'... 8)
>
> Mark
>

    She has never told about any 'imaginary frends' when she has told these
  matters. Of course girl of her age has additionally her own
  'fairy-tale world', but these drawings and her explanations about them
  seemed to be something completely different.
    Her talking about hundreds of thousands of 'radiation peripheries'
  around the 'diamond' and about fine structure of 'radiation periphery'
  called 'space-potaoe', exotic particle formed from neutrinos, arose my
  amateur physicist's interest about her drawings, and also because ordinary
  girl of her age should not know these kind of things.
    As an amateur mathematician I have always been open minded towards
  new thoughts and models. I think that this is necessary condition to
  have any possibility to achieve any new knowledge.


>>     "I think that atheistic scientists are fully reponsible for ordinary
>>   peoples sufferings in all over the world, when they have instructed them
>>   to reject God's good doctirine given in The Holy Bible. This doctrine
>>   teaches ordinary people to respect good. Now this kind of respection
>>   does not exist and good peoples who respect good are considered to be mads.
>>   You all "wise scientists" should know that this means only one thing,
>>   namely that all kind of evil will be in full power in all around the world."
>
>
> Ahh. I see.
> Thanks... Do you quote yourself here? Hanna-Maria? I'm keen to read more.

  Yes, that is mine.

           Hannu.
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:01:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: newshost.1992Sep30.230105.11618
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article <1992Sep30.184855.1294@riacs.edu>, danforth@riacs.edu (Douglas G. Danforth) writes:
|> In <1992Sep30.171247.784@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov 
|> (Jim Giles) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> >Since no *action* at a distance is predicted by QM, there is no
|> >problem.  Only *correlation* at a distance is predicted.  Such
|> >correlation is quite commonplace in non-QM contexts using hidden 
|> >variables.  The QM difference is that hidden variables have been
|> >shown *not* to be involved.
|> 
|> Detector efficiency is still a loophole that needs to be closed
|> before hidden variables can be ruled out.

Ok, but if you find you can't rule out hidden variables, then there's
*really* nothing mysterious about QM.  Correlation at a distance with
hidden variables is commonplace - as I said. 

-- 
J. Giles
From: jkn@ohm.york.ac.uk (John Nicoll)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: references please: electron spin/travel gedanken expt.
Keywords: electron relativity spin
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:35:10 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

Hello all
(this posted for a friend - pleas forgive the garble!)

A friend is interested in finding some references to a
thought experiment he read in `paradigms lost' by
Casti (?). It ring bells with me too, but I
can't place it. The expt. regards an atom
ejecting two electrons with opposite spin,
& taking one of them `far away'...
leads to a contradiction with relativity
& faster than light communication.

If there are references to this paradox other
than in `popular' books I'd like to know.
email replies preferred - I don't often read this
newsgroup.

	thank you
		john Nicoll

-- 
john nicoll (jkn@ohm.york.ac.uk)
Department of Electronics  University of York
Heslington   YORK YO1 5DD U.K
NEW PHONE! Tel +44 (904) 433221   Fax +44 (904) 432335
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu (Steven E. Hoell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: RESONANT AIR COLUMN EXPERIMENT
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:47:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

The fundamental node does not yield accurate data because
the antinode isn't precisely at the opening! (I'm not sure
why.)

In my experience, the best results come from taking distances
between the nodes of a few harmonics; some students get an
accuracy of 2-3%.

Sometimes it's possible to distinguish the higher overtones,
but I have yet to pinpoint the torsional modes of the fork.

And don't forget the air temperature!

Steve Hoell                       |Just a couple feet to the left
seh@neutron.physics.arizona.edu   |and...
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Subject: Re: Interested in "magical" tones!
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 03:07:05 GMT

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

>Actually during the Baroque era the standard was about A=415 Hz.  This
>is a fairly large difference (half a semitone?) 

It's almost exactly a semitone lower.
(If you tune to A=440 Hz, a G# will be about 415.3 Hz, assuming an
equal-tempered scale.)
--
-----------------
Gutted - Flame NA
From: carlip@landau.ucdavis.edu (Steve Carlip)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: How old is the universe?
Date: 26 Sep 92 20:11:29 GMT
Organization: Physics, UC Davis

In article <19tid9INNo1h@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics.Berkeley.EDU (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
>[much deleted...]
>The question is 
>what is meant by the phrase "a typical Universe"?  Presumably, a statement
>like "A typical Universe has a lifetime of x" means that if you take
>a large ensemble of Universes, drawn from some random distribution of
>possible sets of initial conditions, some significant fraction of them
>would have lifetimes not too different from x.  What bothers me about
>this is that there is no natural measure one can impose on the set
>of possible initial conditions for Universes in order to make that
>statement meaningful.
>[...]
>You can't make convincing statements about the properties of "a typical
>Universe" for two reasons.  The less important (IMHO) of the two is
>that we only have one Universe to look at, so we have lousy statistics.
>What's far more troubling to me is that statements of this kind are 
>meaningful only if there exists a measure on the space of possible
>Universes (since only in that case can we define probabilities).  It's
>not just that there is no single natural choice for such a measure;
>there aren't even any possible choices of measure.  (The space of
>possible Universes is "too big" for measure theory to deal with.)
>[...]

I certainly agree that without a suitable measure on the space of 
universes, it's tricky (at best) to talk about issues like naturality
and fine-tuning.  Ellis, for instance, has recently written about
inflationary models with Omega less than one, and has argued that
without a measure on the space of initial conditions, one can't
argue that these models are unnatural.

But I don't see why such a measure can't exist in principle.  In fact,
there's a fair amount of research in quantum cosmology on precisely
this question.  Hawking's "no boundary" wave function (now playing in
a theater near you...), for example, would provide a measure on the
space of possible universes, as would a number of other proposed
"theories of initial conditions."  

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that there is no
possible measure on the space of three-geometries (or maybe
three-geometries plus initial configurations of matter fields).
This seems unlikely to me; do you have a proof or a reference?
Would you argue that a path integral is impossible in principle
in general relativity, for instance?

Steve Carlip
carlip@dirac.ucdavis.edu


From: apm@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Andrew Merritt)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 10:35:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Feynmann diagrams
Organization: Hewlett-Packard ISG-SBU-PWD, UK.
Newsgroups: sci.physics

rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth) writes:
>
>Are there any computer programs  for drawing and manipulating Feynmann
>diagrams?

It may not be exactly what you need, but from the FAQ for TeX:


]34) How do I draw Feynman diagrams in LaTeX?
]
]    Michael Levine's macro package for drawing Feynman diagrams in LaTeX
]    is available via mail-server from physics.utoronto.ca. Send a message
]    containing the line ``send INDEX'' to mail-server@physics.utoronto.ca
]    for information on how to retrieve it.

(Disclaimer:  I have never even installed the package, but just remembered
it was there)

Andrew
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Understand...!!!!
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 02:26:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.210054.17335@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>I've got a great answer for the question of 'what is time'.  I don't recall
>where it came from, but it's really simple:
>
>Time is what you measure with a clock.
>
>Philosophically, this is the viewpoint that once you have something defined,
>(such as a way to measure it, for example) it has *some sort* of reality.
>
>When you define a 'clock', you are defining 'time'.  There are lots of way
>to build clocks, and an 'ideal' one may be an abstraction as opposed to
>any particular implementation, but those are the breaks.  We'll just have
>to say that people have some idea of 'clockness', and that we can build
>clocks that people generally agree are pretty good ones  nowadays (rubidium
>or cesium standards, for example).  People agree that grandfather clocks
>with weights aren't really so good - they can be affected by the environment
>in ways that 'better' clocks are not.

This definition of time is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't
quite answer the question of what is a "good" clock.  Determining which
clocks are better than others is both a philosophically interesting
question and rather important practically.

A good clock tends to agree better with other good clocks than a bad
clock does.  Just as people who are good at addition tend to get more
similar answers to other people who are good at addition than do people
who aren't.  Bad clocks might argue that the very notion of a "good
clock" is elitist... but luckily most clocks don't talk.

In quantum gravity this problem raises its head in a most daunting
manner.  It's called, naturally enough, the problem of time.  In
general relativity the Hamiltonian appears simply as a constraint, so 
we get H = 0.  (Apart from the asymptotically flat case.)   This doesn't
do much good when in the quantum theory we would like to evolve states
using the old exp(itH) business.  Of course, that old business has no
place in quantum gravity, since there is no preferred "time" to evolve
along, at least until we do gauge-fixing.  So it is common to try to 
couple gravity to matter and "build in a clock."  I.e., we can try
to use the observables associated to the matter to "tell the time"
just like how you tell the time by seeing where the hand of a clock is.
So far, results have been mixed.  Clocks have a tendency to break
under strong gravitational fields.  :-)  (but true)  In cosmology one
can try to use the radius of the universe as a clock, although it
has a disturbing habit of running backwards if the universe starts
contracting.  More and more people are breaking down and deciding that
time in the linear sense is only an approximately useful concept, and
that, for example, the right answer to "what happened before the big
bang" is not "there was no before" but "as you approach the big bang,
time makes less and less sense."