HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: allenk@ugcs.caltech.edu (Allen Knutson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Question 6 (mass-energy equivalence stuff)
Date: 3 Jan 1993 01:13:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: torment.ugcs.caltech.edu

jmgreen@pilot.njin.net (Jim Green) writes:

>Qustion 6:

(Whence this terminology?)

>If a Bunsen burner is used to melt an iceberg, the internal energy
>of the iceberg (now water) increases, U = mLf (plus perhaps U = mcdT).
>But the mass of the berg (now water) has also increased, E = mc2!

I'd rather say that the mass has stayed constant, the energy has increased,
and because both mass and energy exert gravity, the ex-iceberg weighs more.

>That is to say that mass and energy are the same thing, ie both the
>mass and energy increase.

>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.

And a couple of photons are emitted, don't forget! This is where the
mass goes, having turned into energy (this one is a genuine mass-energy
conversion, unlike the above).

(Take the above with a grain of salt - I'm no physicist, and not sure about 
most people's conventions regarding what they call mass and what they call
energy. The difference I see between the two experiments above is in
measurements of the amount of rest mass around.)		Allen K.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: lbrader@sierra.com (Larry Brader - contractor)
Subject: Bucky Balloons
Organization: Sierra Geophysics,  Kirkland WA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:59:23 GMT


How big would a bucky ball have to be to obtain lift? 

Would the upper limit of a bucky ball be due to gravity 
or other forces causing deformation of the sphere?

What could you fill them with ? Or could a bucky structure
be built that can handle a vaccum to obtain lift?

Thanks,
Larry 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: PS on Budnik's "delay" in Bell's inequality test.
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 14:50:56 GMT

In article <BzHLnr.GK2@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
)
)I looked again trying to understand what is exciting Budnik so much. Does he
)not know that Aspect's experiment in 1982 has polarization orientation
)switching times that were short compared to photon flight times from source
)to detectors. So that the nonlocal correlation of (cos@)^2/2 that violates
)Bell's locality inequality is definitely observed across spacelike
)intervals. If that is his concern then the answer is simple. But it seems to
)be something else- he says the "delay" can be measured but he does not give
)a clear and complete procedure so that I conclude it is much ado about
)nothing. I would like to be proved wrong in this opinion if any one else
)thinks they understand Budnik's idea.

I'm curious too - I checked and I don't have ready access to the reference
Paul cites and I haven't followed up 'special ordering' it from our library.

One concern I had in thinking back over the experiment was the delay between
the emission of the cascade photons.  [I assume Aspect used cascade
photons.]
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: f92bw@efd.lth.se (Bjoern Wesen)
Subject: Re: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:53:50 GMT

Hi, what is the difference between a roomdimension and a timedimension?
Einstein says we live in 3 room dimensionas and one time dimension, while
the superstring theorists proclaim we have 10 roomdimensions (or something)
and a time dimension. So why not 5 roomdimensions and 6 itimedimensions?
Or is this fundamentally stupid to ask? 
 
Bjorn  f92bw@efd.lth.se
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: moderating sci.physics
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 03:14:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.015841.11925@u.washington.edu> sidles@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>Why impose extra constraints by moderating sci.physics?  Is
>the extra bandwidth imposed by eccentric postings really a
>significant burden?
>
>In my view, all persons of libertarian inclination should vote "no".
>The present mild anarchy is quite tolerable, even enjoyable.

     The pre-voting discussion is not a call for moderating
     sci.physics, but creating a new group that would be moderated.

                                 dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: boswell@well.sf.ca.us (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: Yet Another Quarter in the Jack Clue Fund
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: edge.com
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:39:41 GMT

In article <C01EpG.2nz@well.sf.ca.us>, sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack
Sarfatti) wrote:
> 
> The only true thing Boswell says is that I cannot be out-parodies that I
> am a Master of Self-Parody- from by Glbert and Sullivan training. Yes, I
> am like Richard Nixon at times - I have sent a copy of Boswell's post to
> his alleged employer Mitch Kapor the owner of LOTUS.


Three clues for you, Jack.
1) Mitchell Kapor does not employee me.
2) Mitchell Kapor is not the owner of Lotus.
3) When frothing at the mouth it is not necessary to reproduce the effect
   with poor syntax.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Boswell ...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:10:28 GMT


This the last I will post about this matter that others have put on
sci.physics where it does not belong- but for the record:
Article 1334 (67 more) in alt.sc
i.physics.new-theories:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Crocker's suggestion on Wolff's remark
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:42:21 GMT


OK, Steve Crocker has made some good points and I will not proceed further
with the lawsuit and contacting the fool's employer - but one these days
"Pow! a psychic whammy - a telepathic pop! Beware the Wrath of SAR!
Sweet Dreams, Dave! Who do the quantum voodoo? Control of
action-at-a-distance is quite practical in may cultures, African, Haitian,
Brazilian,Aborigine, Shaman - the use of dream time, astral projection,
out of body, precognitive remote viewing etc. Of course, it's all cargo
cult pseudo science - don't believe it. But remember Neils Bohr kept a
horseshoe over his door anyway. I suggest that Dave stock up on silver
bullets, wooden crosses, wooden stakes and lots and lots of garlic!

endo fthat post

The only true thing Boswell says is that I cannot be out-parodies that I
am a Master of Self-Parody- from by Glbert and Sullivan training. Yes, I
am like Richard Nixon at times - I have sent a copy of Boswell's post to
his alleged employer Mitch Kapor the owner of LOTUS.
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: sci.physics.research moderated etc.
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:00:45 GMT

In article <Bzs3sL.MB@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>Moderators should not be allowed to post their own stuff without it
>being reviewed by another moderator - this is especially important
>for Bass, Baez, Budnik, as well as myself - all of whom have what
>Lawrence Stern, in Tristram Shandy, calls "hobby horses".

    This is one thing I agree with as a matter of equity.

>There should be several conferences broken down according to
>subject matter - which will make it easier for every one
>e.g.
>1. philosophy of physics
>2. quantum mechanics
>3.solid state
>4.math methods
>5. relativity
>6. chaos
>etc etc.
>7. flames?

     There is a current proposal to create a single moderated
     physics group, independent of sci.physics.  That is what we are, 
     or should be, discussing.

     Feel free to use the well-established procedures for creating/modifying
     newsgroups to propose new groups/modify old groups for any other
     purpose.  Once again, I don't think that there will be great interest
     in such a detailed partitioning at this time.  This would be a rather
     onerous task for any moderators in any case.

                                  dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: Dale Bass on The Good, the Bad, and The Bogus
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 02:50:17 GMT


He also wrote in response to your press release about Uri Geller
      "Note the clear implication in Sarfatti's release that having his
      doctorate in physics made him specially qualified to rule out
      deception".  The whole tone of the article is skeptical, and some
      of the things you have stated above are actually quoted in the
      article as your own words, the rest are portrayed as your
      ideas, not Gardner's.   I wouldn't say the article is any kind
      of stunning validation.

                              dale bass
I never implied that Gardner's article is anything but skeptical - where
did I say it was a stunning validation? But Gardner is careful to hedge
with his remark that if I am right I would be one of the greatest physicists
of all time - not what he would say of an obvious crackpot. Was Bethe,
Morrison, Salpeter, Brueckner, Cummings and my many other professors who
examined me and granted three degrees in physics BA Cornel 1960, MS physics
1967, Ph.D physics 1969 - were they too busy with their research to properly
teach and examine? That's the only implication - I'll burn my degrees if
they return their salaries for the years I sat at their feet - not to
mention Bohm and Salam who had me come to Trieste etc.

No, the situation is not that simple. My point about Gardner's article is
that I was an obscure asst prof at San Diego State until I became a
useful idiot of un-named intelligence agencies - a pawn in a vast
geo-political game - some of the spooks revealed themselves to me in the
mid-80's. Gardner was part of this covert intelligence operation because
his article, more than any other factor, put me "in the thick of it" -
to quote British Intelligence agent Dennis Bardens in a remark to me
in Blue Boar Inn Cambridge UK spring of 74' the full remark was
"Dr. Sarfatti, it is my duty to inform you of a psychic war raging across
the continents between the Soviet Union and your country and you are to be
in the thick of it." It was no accident that shortly afet I received large
sums of money from Werner Erhard and started a program at Esalen that
finally let to Sid Coleman and Lenny Susskind havinf Feynman, Hawking, Gell
Mann, Finkelstein and many others come to meetings with Werner Erhard - the
elite of physics accepted money and favors from Erhard - so if you bring
up Erhard you open a Pandora's Box in the physics community. More later
if there interest in this.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Seventeen Simple Lectures on GR
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:40:18 GMT


Re the recent controversy about gravitational radiation here: I suggest
that people take a look at what Hans Buchdahl had to say in Seventeen
Simple lectures on GR theory. [John Wiley, 1982]. It may be that his
remarks have been superseded since then, but the sceptical tone should be
noted by those who claim that the subject is fully understood.		  
 By the way, although I disagree with much of what he has to say, I think
that Buchdahl is a must-read for students of GR. His prose style alone is
a balm for the mind after the comic-book style of MTW. His comments on
"gravitational energy" are particularly worthy of note.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu (Marty Gelfand)
Subject: Re: Link invariants and gauge theory
Organization: Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:44:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.051055.13451@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu (Marty Gelfand) writes:
>:    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).
>: 
>Can you be a little more specific? I must admit that I am sceptical, but
>maybe I just attended some bad talks. However, I am willing to have my
>prejudices dispelled.

For 2D critical phenomena, conformal invariance provides a variety
of unexpected relationships among properties of critical points,
in particular, between critical exponents, finite-size scaling amplitudes,
and (this was harder) critical amplitude ratios, because they are all
related to the "central charge" c  of the critical model.  Conformal field
theory provides a classification scheme for 2D critical points
(due to Belavin, Polyakov, and Z.m.l.chikov):  if c is in a certain range, 
it must take on one of a sequence of discrete values, and if it does,
then all the critical exponents of the model are determined.
John Cardy has a review in vol 11 of Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena
(Domb and Lebowitz, eds).

For applications to 1D quantum systems see, for example, I. Affleck et al,
J Phys A 22, 511 (1989) and references therein.   For other applications
take a look at anything done by Andreas Ludwig.

Sorry I can't give a brilliant exposition of this stuff, it's way 
beyond me.  --Marty Gelfand  marty@amaterasu.physics.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Why are elementary particles small?
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 93 23:50:10 GMT

Why are elementary particles small?

Clearly, the ones that comprise our bodies must be much smaller than
ourselves, but why are there no other elementary particles that are
the size of, say, a baseball?

If there were an elementary particle the size of a baseball,
what color would it be? What would happen if you touched it?

--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: nariani@utdallas.edu (Sushil Nariani)
Subject: transition probability question
Organization: Univ. of Texas at Dallas
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 00:55:32 GMT

	Ok, here's what that machiavellian prof. asked in our QM exam:

	An electron is confined in a one dimensional infinite well of
	width L. The electron is in the first excited state. Calculate
	the transition lifetime of the electron.

	Now quite a few questions which trouble me:
	1] If there is NO external disturbance, will the electron ever
	   jump to the lower energy state? Does it couple to virtual fields
	   and give up the energy difference?
	2] The prof. later said one should approximate the problem as a 
	   dipole interaction which is the first thing we did in perturbation.
	   But I don't see any dipole in this problem! He said something
	   about some approx. but I did'nt understand :( Anyone helping
	   hand ?

	Then this other sadist comes along and gives the problem another
	hideous twist. Says the one-D system has to be something like
	a thin wire in the physical world, in which case you also have to
	consider the radiation pattern of the wire as that will affect the
	ans. I don't have the faintest as to how you take this into a/c.
	
	Do Barbie dolls say, "Physics is difficult"??

	Sushil





Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: marki@netcom.com (Mark N. Iverson)
Subject: Recent article on QM in AJP
Followup-To: sci.physics
Keywords: QM, correspondence principle, Arnol'd cat
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 08:15:59 GMT


Well, just feel like stirring the orthodox pot a bit..... ;-)

Thought the following article might be of interest to the net/physics
crowd... I only copied the abstract, and any typos are mine...

Enjoy!

=======================================================================
     "Does quantum mechanics obey the correspondence principle?
      Is it complete?"

      Joseph Ford and Giorgio Mantica

      Am. J. Phys. 60 (12), December 1992

     This elementary review paper presents the compelling evidence which 
supports the notion that quantum mechanics is much too simple a theory 
to adequately describe a complex world.  Rigorous arguments based on 
algorithmic complexity theory are used to show that both the quantum
Arnol'd cat and a broad category of finite, bounded, undriven, quantum
systems do not obey the correspondence principle, implying that quantum
mechanics is also not complete.  An experiment, well within current
laboratory capability, is proposed which can expose the inability 
of quantum mechanics to adequately describe macroscopic chaos.  In its
final section, this paper describes a theoretical framework that 
provides a proper setting for interpreting these surprising results.
=======================================================================

I do believe I feel the "winds of change" a blowin'...

Happy Holidays to all....

Sincerely,

--Mark--

-- 
Mark N. Iverson
marki@netcom.com                    /  We dance round in a ring and suppose,
                   (scientists)--> |   but The Secret sits in the middle,
Disclaimer: mine, and only mine.    \  and knows.               -- R. Frost
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise + steam hammering
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:53:29 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <schumach.724980013@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>the boiler to bits. Steam bubbles explosively expanding and collapsing
>inside the plumbing of a heating system will move kg slugs of water
>at a good clip.

Just so. However even very destructive bubbles do not usually sound very
loud. They sound like sand running through the pipes, and so do not explain
the sound of clanging radiators.


Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Reluctant call moder(and sci.physics.research-NOT!)
Summary: Come on, man: Can't you read?  <FLAME WARNING>
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:24:37 GMT
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

I wouldn't bother responding to this were it not for the fear that the 
ignorance expressed may be widespread ...

An author who will go unnamed writes:

>Thus, my pitch to keep sci.physics as is and unmoderated.

For the umpteenth time, NOBODY in the current thread is suggesting changes to
sci.physics itself!!  Have you actually *read* the postings about a moderated
group?  What's being discussed is a *NEW* group, sci.physics.research (or
s.p.moderated or whatever) that will *coexist* with the unmoderated sci.physics
as it currently exists, not replace it.  Sci.physics will undoubtedly careen
onward as a venue for general public/New Theories/entertainment/whatever, just
as it should, while the moderated group goes off in its own, hopefully less
noisy direction.

Please try to do a better job of understanding what's proposed before stating
an opinion on it!

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matt@physics16.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Why no Nobel Prize in Math?
Date: 1 Jan 93 15:07:27
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
	<1i1qs8INNrfi@mtha.usc.edu> <1993Jan1.201815.18409@news.vanderbilt.edu>
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics16.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu's message of 1 Jan 93 20:18:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.201815.18409@news.vanderbilt.edu> mwmv@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (Michael Mogensen-Vermillion) writes:

> >  Similarly, I have read that the
> >real reason for the exclusion of mathematics is that it was not considered
> >a practical science; that Nobel excluded _theoretical_ sciences.
> 
> *Economics* is a _pratical_ science ?!?!!  Now I'm insulted.

The "Nobel Prize" in economics is, in fact, nothing of the sort.
Nobel's will does not provide for an economics award.

A private organization, unconnected with Alfred Nobel (the national
bank of Sweden, I think, but I might be wrong about that) set up a
"Nobel memorial prize" in economics a few decades ago.  Newspapers
generally tend to gloss over this distinction, and just call it,
incorrectly, the Nobel Prize.

There is, of course, nothing stopping some mathematics association
from doing exactly the same thing---the distinction, unfortunately,
being that mathematicians don't have as much money as bankers.
--
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!
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: moderating sci.physics - physics is everything - really moderating sci.physics.moderated
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:07:43 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Dec27.051444.767@dmp.csiro.au> lachlan@dmp.csiro.au (Lachlan Cranswick) writes:
>
>>sidles@stein.u.washington.edu (John Sidles) writes:
>>: 
>>: Not that sci.physics is perfect... it just isn't clear that
>>: moderation will improve it.  The main problem seems to be a
>>: paucity of well thought out, interesting & informative postings,
>>: not an excess of eccentric ones.
>
>Is there going to be moderation? - I hope not.
>
>Moderation implies that 1 or 5 or 20 people will define
>what physics "is" in this group.

     Please.  The proposal on the table is *not* to moderate sci.physics,
     but to create a new group sci.physics.{moderated,research,whatever}.
     It will not affect the mild anarchy here.

                             dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.physics