HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sla7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Louber Antiles)
Subject: Bell's inequality rules out hidden varibaiables?  N O !
Reply-To: sla7@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Seth Louber Antiles)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 03:13:11 GMT

People on this group seem to keep claiming that Bell's inequality
rules out hidden variables. They claim that non-locality is
incompatible with hidden variables. 

Bell's inequality points out a false assumption in the EPR paper objections.
As Bell has himself *EMPHATICALLY* pointed out in a paper I once read
called (I think) "On the impossible pilot wave" his work does *NOT*
rule out hidden variables. In fact, this paper is aimed at making the
very point that people who claim that hidden variable are incompatible
with non-locality are *WRONG*. Bell seems supportive of hidden variable 
theories and thinks these should be actually be taught in quantum
physics courses along with the presently respected Bohr theory ...
some hidden variable theories explain results as well (i.e. no more
badly then the main quantum theory).
From: aephraim@physics3 (Aephraim M. Steinberg)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question 6
Date: 3 Jan 1993 02:12:23 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics3.berkeley.edu

In article <Jan.2.19.47.51.1993.14346@pilot.njin.net> jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:
>On the other hand, if a positron and an electron collide (say while
>traveling slow), the mass goes to zero and the energy increases,
>E = hbarnu.
> 
>I don't understand this!
> 
>Well, you say, in the case of the anihilation, the mass-energy doesn't
>change.  Why, yes that is true, it does look like mass is "converted"
>to energy and mass-energy is conserved, but in the case of the iceberg
>. . .

Well, actually, since E and p are both conserved, the invariant mass is
conserved: m^2 = E^2 - p^2.  in any frame, the total mass of the
system is conserved.

The problem is that mass must be defined as I did above for this to hold,
i.e., as the invariant length of the energy-momentum four-vector.  When
this is done, the mass of a system is NOT necessarily the sum of the
masses of its parts.  This is, of course, why E=mc^2 is so interesting in
the case of atomic nuclei: Helium-4 weighs less than four nucleons put
together due to its binding energy, and it is this "mass excess" which
is released in fusion.  

The "mass" of two photons speeding away from each other (as would happen
in e+e- annihilation, since there is no way to get 1MeV into a single
photon with no net momentum) is actually non-zero.  In the center of
mass frame, it is equal to the sum of the two photon energies (since p=0),
which will be slightly greater than 2 x 511 keV.

(Similarly, the mass of the e+e- system just before annihilation was
slightly greater than the sum of the individual masses.)


-- 
Aephraim M. Steinberg                    | "WHY must I treat the measuring
UCB Physics                              | device classically??  What will
aephraim@physics.berkeley.edu            | happen to me if I don't??"
                                         |       -- Eugene Wigner
From: matt@physics2.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why are elementary particles small?
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:53:58
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics2.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu's message of Sun, 3 Jan 93 23:50:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.235010.17976@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

> Why are elementary particles small?

More or less by definition, an elementary particle has to have a
radius of zero.

The point is: if something has spatial extent, then you can study the
pieces of it (for example, you can measure the charge distribution as
a function of radius), which, essentially, is studying its internal
structure.  If something has internal structure, then it's not
elementary.

Note the implication of this: whether or not we call a particle
"elementary" depends on the state of our knowledge.  If we can't find
any internal structure to a particle (and hence, if we think it has
zero spatial extent), then we call it elementary; if further
experimentation shows that it does have internal structure, then we no
longer call it elementary.

People used to call protons elementary particles; nowadays, we think
that leptons, quarks, and gauge bosons are elementary particles.
There are experiments going on, though, to find out if we can see any
internal structure in leptons or quarks.  Thus far, we haven't.
--
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: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: Wavelets & Coherent States ?
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 21:16:26 GMT

In article <qg62r5g@rpi.edu> sassoj@aix.rpi.edu (John J. Sasso Jr.) writes:

>quantum mechanics.  Although I have has a basic course in Q.M., can anyone
>explain to me what coherent states are?  Do they have anything to do with 
>phase-space localization?

   I can't explain them to you in a short note, but they are a
basically simple and also very effective way of rephrasing the quantum
theory of simple harmonic oscillators.  To find out about them do some
literature searching under the names of Glauber (Roy Glauber of
Harvard University) and possibly Louisell, and perhaps look for some
more modern and recent QM theory texts, not necessarily advanced ones
-- possibly by Cohen-Tannoudji, or Messiah.

   I also think you are perceptive in noting a possible connection
between wavelets and coherent states.  Coherent states provide an
"over-complete" basis for the SHO, which means that the expansion of a
given arbitrary SHO state in coherent states is not unique (although
there are preferred ways to do the expansion), and I suspect the same
may be true of wavelets.
From: markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden)
Subject: Re: Are there plans to perform a quantum eraser type experiment?
Keywords: quantum,measurement
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 93 16:26:57 GMT

In article <mcirvin.725862896@husc.harvard.edu> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
>...  I've seen one lucidly miswritten account, in Paul Davies' 
>book _Other Worlds_, that actually trots out the Flatland analogy to 
>describe the extra spatial dimensions in which the "other universes" 
>are supposed to reside.

Sounds like Davies has turned MWI into a bad western movie.

"Pardner, there ain't enough room in this here wave function for the
 both of us.  I 'spect you to git out into yaown spatial dimension by
 sundown!"


>I'd forgive someone who read such  
>a thing and assumed that the Everett interpretation involved some kind
>of bizarre cosmological rending in twain in place of collapse, even in
>the absence of further research.

I certainly agree that forgiveness is in order.  However, having been
brought up Catholic I can't resist throwing in a little penance:

"Say three 'Our Fathers', three 'Hail Marys', and spend one hour at
 the nearest physics library."

Actually, as an ex-Catholic I'd say skip the 'Our Fathers' and 'Hail Marys'
and spend *two* hours in the physics library.  Then go in peace!

Mark Corscadden
markc@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:37:50 GMT


" I always am amused at calls for greater signal/noise ratio in
     signalless posts.  'Discussion' is caused by people discussing.
     Feel free to do so.  However, even this is not quite as amusing as
     a) the assertion that Sarfatti's postings constitute 'the _only_
postings
     in this group which have tackled advanced theoretical ideas',
     b) Sarfatti has been somehow reticent about telling us about his
'work',
     c) The 'wierdnesses' of QM experimentation have somehow not
     been discussed here,
     d) Sarfatti is positively affecting the 'S/N ratio',

     I guess you must have missed Sarfatti's 500-part series on
     Gleick's new book on Feynman, including excerpts from probably nearly
     every page.  Give him half a chance and I'm sure he would be
     more than willing to flood your mailbox with postings on his
     'work'.

     Now where did I put that electronic copy of Heaviside's papers?
     Part 5006: Heaviside does London ...

                             dale bass          "
This is simply ugly - and is the sort of thing that I hope would not be
permitted in a moderated conference. Bass is green with envy.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Gamma ray emission under irradiation
Date: 30 Dec 1992 10:46 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 <1992Dec29.222543.2718@news.duc.auburn.edu>, weiyi@eng.auburn.edu writes...
>Dear Sir:
> 
>I wish this is the correct group to post my question:  
>which particle (proton or alpha) has more efficiency to generate gamma ray when they 
>bombard on materials with same energy(say 2 MeV)? 
>Are there any references on the problem?

There are many places to look up such information.  My favorite place to start
is KleinKnecht's _Detectors for Particle Radiation_, the book form of an
excellent review article, which has an introductory chapter on relevent
physical processes.  There you will find the formulae for bremstrahlung 
cross-sections, dE/dX energy loss, etc. which you might want to solve
your problem.  The exact answer will depend upon the details of the material
you have.  Bremstrahlung is usually negligible for massive particles like
protons and alphas.  I suspect that in a sufficiently heavy target, the
major source of gammas would be de-excitation of target electrons with
keV transition energies which were excited due Bethe-Bloch (dE/dX) energy
loss of the projectile.  If this is indeed the case, then the alpha 
is 4 times more effective than the proton due to Z^2, but less effective
by a factor (which *you* can calculate!) of 1/beta^2 due to it's lower
velocity.  

There may also be a significant contribution from brem photons produced
by knock-on electrons.  Again, all the necessary formulas are in 
Kleinknecht or the references therein.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"It is not a simple life to be a single cell,
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		 although I have no right to say so, having
				 been a single cell so long ago myself that I 
				 have no memory at all of that stage of my 
				 life." - Lewis Thomas
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Bayes' theorem and QM
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 02:32:34 GMT

jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:

>>When you say that quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic, do
>>you mean (A) QM is a probabilistic theory with no known deterministic
>>completion, or (B) QM is a probabilistic theory that is known *not* to
>>have a deterministic completion?

>Neither, since I'm not interested in so-called "completions" of
>quantum mechanics, which is already complete enough for me.

I don't care whether you are *interested* in deterministic completions,
to say that quantum mechanics is fundamentally probabilistic to me means
that there is no deterministic completion of quantum mechanics.

>What I mean is this.  In classical mechanics, all pure states are
>dispersion-free.  In quantum mechanics this is not so.

>Less tersely: in classical mechanics, in a pure state one can calculate
>a numerical value for every observable; an ideal measurement of this
>observable should give this number as an answer.  Probability
>distributions for the value of an observable are only different from
>delta functions in the case of mixed states (i.e., states in which one
>doesn't know a maximal amount of information about what's going on, as
>are used in statistical mechanics.)  We can say that probability theory
>is only needed classically if you have some ignorance about what the
>system is up to.  In quantum mechanics, even in a pure state one can
>only calculate a probability distribution for the value of an
>observable, and generically this is not a delta function, but has
>nonzero "dispersion" or standard deviation.

If this is supposed to explain why quantum mechanics is fundamentally
a probabilistic theory, it fails. The terminology "pure state"
*assumes* that there is no further deterministic completion of quantum
mechanics, that there is no more to know once one knows the pure state.

If there is a deterministic completion of quantum mechanics, then that
will simply mean that the terminology "pure state" is a misnomer.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY

P.S. By a "deterministic completion of quantum mechanics", I mean a
deterministic theory predicting (in principle) the values of all
observables as a function of past values of observables (plus possibly
"hidden variables") such that all the probabilistic predictions of
quantum mechanics are explained in terms of ignorance of initial
conditions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA       ABIAN replies to  KEITH THOMPSON
Summary: aa
Keywords: aa
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:12:40 GMT

Dear  Mr. Thompson

Thank you for your 12-29-92  e-mail message.  I feel more secure replying 
via TIME HAS INERTIA  (I am acting according to (A3)).

You raised good questions.  However, I  do not accept the statement:

"Surely all electrical charges were together prior to the big Bang"

I believe that prior to the BIg Bang  there was electrical neutrality.  
The dispersion of matter created positive and negative electrical
charges .  Thus, according to (A1) the space tends to maintain its
electrical neutrality by opposing further concentration of the elec-
trical like cxharges.  Thus, like charges repel and opposite charges
attract and neutralize each other.  But  neutral matters attract 
each other trying to maintain their pre Big Bang status.

Dear Keith,
  As far as "A THEORY MUST BE FALSIFIABLE TO BE ACCEPTABLE " my
objection is that  that statement (which itself is a Theory) is self-contra-
dictory . Indeed in order that the statement be acceptable it must be falsi-
fiable and therefore must not be acceptable.  

  Although we seem to have differing views I do not intend
to  impose my views on anyone, and, I enjoyed reading your views.

  With best 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)
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21789 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7143
From: david@scilab.lonestar.org (david burgess)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 02:33:51 CST
Organization: Science Lab; Arlington, Texas

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

> In <1992Dec21.92013.53@stephsf.com> wengland@stephsf.com (Bill England) write
> 
> >  Antimatter is about as weird and funky as you can get. AM has 
> >  been predicted to have negative mass (impies negative inertia and
> >  repulsion from normal gravity wells).  
> 
> No, antimatter has perfectly normal, positive mass.  What you're
> thinking of is "negative matter," described in a speculative
> article by Robert Forward. Because it has negative mass, negative
> matter would repel all other matter (including negative matter).
> (There is no evidence, however, that negative matter exists.
> 

Then again. There has not been any "conclusive" evidence of a "black 
hole", but even young children know about them.
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Second antigravity device puzzle
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:36:21 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <WOLF.92Dec23010233@doppel.first.gmd.de> wolf@first.gmd.de writes:
>
>I was wondering what happened with the second antigravity device
>puzzle.
>I never read any consistent solution nor a summary of it's author
>John Baez.
>Did I miss it completely ?
>
>wolf>
>
I beleive my solution was correct :"Deformed crystal has the bigger
mass; increase of mass=(increase of internal energy due to deformation)/c^2
Increase of mass leads to increase of gravitational binding energy"
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Link invariants and gauge theory
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:13:43 GMT
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA

In article <BzMAyM.Du2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu (Marty Gelfand) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.063339.27448@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>>Can anyone								  
>> [a] give me an example of a theory that is *not* diffeomorphism invariant
>> [b] explain to me whether "real" physicists "really" care about
>>Chern-Simonsology [meaning: do they actually have a concrete use for it,
>>or is it something that people do while waiting for the next theory of
>>everything to come along?]					          
>> ps I have no objection either to mathematical physics with no obvious
>>applications, or to things like conformal field theory that are
>>interesting but of no real use. Nor am I of the school who say say "so
>>what" when informed of the relationship between knot theory and QFT. I ask
>>merely for information.
>   Hey, who says conformal field theory is of no real use???  Down here
>in low-energy physics it has been fruitful in problems such as
>quantum spin chains, multichannel Kondo systems, and 2D finite-temperature
>critical phenomena (including random systems).

What string theorists can only dream of, condensed matter theorists can
check out in the lab!  Any descriptions of condensed matter theory
research, especially relating to conformal field theory and Chern-Simons
theory, would be received with great pleasure!!
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Budnik's objection against Aspect's expt. is wrong.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:14:04 GMT


Sarfatti comments on:
From: franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio)
Subject: Re: Aspect's experiment
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:14:03
Organization: CenterLine Software, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 140.239.3.116
In-reply-to: paul@mtnmath.UUCP's message of 30 Dec 92 16:53:16 GMT

-paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:

> However the experiment is still conceptually simple. You change the
> relative angle between polarizers and observe the times of detections
> at both locations. You will see a clear shift from many joint detections
> to few joint detections or the reverse depending on what direction
> you are changing the angles. QM predicts that this change will be fast
> enough that no local process could generate such a result. The time
> will be less that it takes light to travel from either detector to the
> *more distant* polarizer.  To prove this is truly the case you need an
> experiment where you directly measure the time when you change
> polarizer angles and compare this time to a statistical estimate of
> the time when the probability for joint detections changed. This estimate
> must be based on direct observations of detections.

Won't this experiment only allow conclusions of the form "There is a
33% probability that a non-local process is at work"?

After all, you might see the first third of the shift from few-to-many
joint detections happen in less time than it takes light to travel to
each detector from the more distant polarizer.  The remainder of the
shift happens "too late" to be evidence of a non-local process.

*Not only that but Budnik' very conceptualization of the point of the
experiment is not correct.
Specifically, "QM predicts that this change will be fast enough that no
local process could
generate such a result." is wrong-headed. All we need show is that the joint
detection
probabilities obey the law (cos@)^2/2 suitably corrected for low detector
efficiencies etc. in such a
way that for each coincidence, the choice of relative angle between
polarizers is made in a time
short compared to light  flight time between the polarizers. This is what
Aspect did with his
commutator acoustic driven switches. Budnik's criterion for what must be
done is totally way out
in left-field and I bet Aspect, Clauser, Shimony and other pundits would not
agree with him.
Is there anyone else reading this who agrees with Budnik and can defend it
clearly - I could be
wrong but I doubt it.* Sarfatti
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21795 rec.arts.startrek.tech:7144
From: nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,rec.arts.startrek.tech
Subject: Re: Accellerating Spaceship (yet another bird in a plane)
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:37:53 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas

In article <5ymFwB5w165w@scilab.lonestar.org> david@scilab.lonestar.org (david burgess) writes:
>> (There is no evidence, however, that negative matter exists.

>Then again. There has not been any "conclusive" evidence of a "black 
>hole", but even young children know about them.

	Then again, there has been no "conclusive" evidence of a unicorn not
	existing....
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Keep sci.physics as is
Organization: The World
Distribution: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:06:00 GMT

   There are worse things plaguing the physics community than some of the
wandering arguments that appear on sci.physics.  Is it really that much
of a hassle to skip over postings that the majority of readers would not
rather see?  Besides, one in a thousand or one in a million of these postings
might actually be significant.
   All I know is that it is getting harder to keep track of my favorite
USENET groups as they keep on fragmenting.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Keywords: think before speak, know before say
Date: 24 Dec 92 16:03:36 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <1992Dec24.063041.9108@netcom.com>, kmc@netcom.com (Kevin McCarty) writes:
> In article <448@mtnmath.UUCP> paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
>[...] 
> >Reading Everett
> >is a low priority on my long list of things I would like to do.
> 
> Now, if only posting about things low on the priority list of things
> to find out about were equally low on the priority list. <sigh>.

Interpretations of QM are of considerable interest to me. I do not think
Everett's work has much to contribute to the problem based largely on Bell's
brief discussion of it. Bell's analysis of Everett is a reasonable basis for
criticizing Everett in the forum of a newsgroup. I would be happy to see
a rebuttal to Bell's criticisms. If the rebuttal is good enough I might
change my opinion and decide I should read Everett myself.

Paul Budnik 
Newsgroups: sci.physics