HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books)
Subject: Re: Three-sided coin
Organization: FSU nuclear physics
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 17:16:02 GMT

I now see a thread about rolling this three sided coin.  Why?  If I lay
my normal coin on the floor with heads up and slide it my chance of the
coin coming up tails is almost 0.  This has nothing to do with the chance
of it coming up tails if I flip it.

Roger
books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu
From: ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:37:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Covariant vs. Lie Derivative in Gen. Rel.?
Organization: HP Stanford Park - Palo Alto, CA
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Supernova explosion of crackpot radiation!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:42:00 GMT


I must admit - this Larsen stuff, this Abian stuff, but even stuff on
education and religion etc (which whule not crackpot) should perhaps be
in a special pedagogy conf.

It there a way of making sever categories?
sci.physics - standard
sci.physics- foundations (this would include disciplined stuff on ftl
assuming relativity, basic qm etc are all essentially correct).
sci.physics. cultural
 (education, religion, women, etc.)
sci.physics.mad dogs
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:15:51 GMT

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

>Thanks for the offer of a graceful exit, but I think I'll just plunge
>in ... What's the rest mass of a photon?  What Lorentz frame would
>you measure it in?  As Matt Austern says, the best definition of rest
>mass is probably "the mass of the object as measured in the frame in which
>it is at rest."

This is one reason I don't like the term "rest mass."  "Proper mass" is
better.  A nice definition of it is "the square root of E^2 minus p^2,
measured in *any* frame you like."  By this definition each individual
photon has a mass of zero, but the whole system has a nonzero mass.
The mass of the whole system is conserved.  If you add up the masses of
all the particles, that's not conserved, but that's not the mass of the
system. 

-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: hfg@physics11.berkeley.edu (H.F. (Rick) Goldstein)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: A least action problem
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:47:21
Organization: UC Berkeley Department of Physics
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics11.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rowell5@cats.ucsc.edu's message of 17 Nov 1992 02:19:05 GMT

In article <1e9kqpINNfhu@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rowell5@cats.ucsc.edu (Corbett Ray Rowell) writes:
>   Remember the bead traveling between two points and the question is
>   "What is its path?"  and it turns out to be a cycloid.
>   My questions are:
>   1) What if the bead has a velocity near the speed of light?
>   or 
>   2) If the bead were a point charge in an electrical field, a vertical
>   electrical field?
>

I did a version of this problem as my undergraduate honors project.
My advisor kindly helped me to publish it.  I don't have the precise
reference with me, but to good first approximation it is:

H. F. Goldstein and C. M. Bender, "Relativistic Brachistochrone," 
     J. Math. Phys., early 1986 (sorry, don't know the month off hand).

Warning: I took the easy way out and neglected radiation.  A group
from India published a follow up article in Phys. Rev. A about a year
later which did try to deal with radiation, but I'm not sure they did
it right.  You can try to find that paper using the Science Citation
Index; I don't have a copy, myself.

Hope that helps.

Rick Goldstein
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why is "Physics Today" so expensive? (Are there student discounts?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:10:23 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

I must have missed this thread when our feed was broken, but the answer 
to the question posed in the subject line is that Physics Today (and 
Physics News, also monthly) is sent free to all APS members, and 
student memberships are $20.  Only requirement is that you be enrolled 
full time at an educational institution.  

In article <1eb3knINNjml@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:
>In article <41095@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
> writes:
>>PS. Also, are there other general physics periodicals which net.people
>>recommend?  Nothing too technical -- just the facts, ma'am.
>
>Science News is very good.  It doesn't concentrate of physics though.
>But the biology articles are readable by a non-biologist etc.

I second that.  Science News is a weekly, and provides very prompt 
coverage of news events and conferences as well as interesting 
developments in the journals.  It is written at a level that can be 
read by any informed scientist, and is quite broad in its scope.  I 
find it invaluable for keeping up with important papers in journals 
I cannot read reqularly; when I look up an article on Nature or 
Science (and sometimes even PRL if I have been lazy) based on their 
guidance, I have always found the guidance to be correct.  Physics 
is covered, in some form, almost every week.  Check it out at 
your library and see if you are interested in it. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix (really New Math)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.020150.8786@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>     Where did you get the idea that 2+2 = 4?  Take two protons (rest mass
>     assumed to be 1) and another two protons  (again rest mass of 1),
>     put them together and you get a helium atom with a rest mass somewhat 
>     less than 4 (in our assumed units).  Sometimes 2+2=4, sometimes it
>     doesn't.
>
>     You are confusing mathematics with science.

      I hate it when I muck up a good point with error.  Actually,
      as pointed out by Al Aquilino, I have created a rather unstable
      Beryllium atom.

      I knew I should have simply gone with my original deuterium-deuterium
      example.  Ya go and try to get cute ...

                         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: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject: Re: Ferromagnetism and the Clash of Cultures
Organization: MIT, Department of Mathematics
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 16:45:29 GMT

Ben Weiner writes:

>One factor for sci.physics is that much of this discussion is driven by 
>people trying to explain to novices, and novices tend to ask about the
>gee-whiz stuff.  Even outside the realm of crackpots, people tend to
>want to hear about the flashy, big, often highly theoretical things.
>And physics has a long-standing tradition of "theoretical macho,"
>where he who is most mathematical wins.  The converse is that in such
>a forum as this, the professional physicists will ask questions
>which are out of their realms of expertise, and often that means moving
>up the theory scale, so to speak.

All quite true, but I really wish there were more talk of condensed
matter and such here -- suitably watered down for an intelligent but
ignorant audience (e.g., me).  I guess what I should do is learn enough
to ask lots of stupid questions, and then start asking them.  

I bet, for example, that there are plenty of people out there who have
become experts on interpretations of QM by reading sci.physics, but
still haven't the foggiest idea of what a "band" is, and why condensed
matter folks are always talking about 'em.   This stuff is, in fact, as
beautifully mathematical as a lot of things we chat about in sci.physics.


Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Why I don't use regular journals.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:47:51 GMT


Several people have asked why I don't publish in regular journals.
I have one 22 page paper on this faster than light stuff in a peer
reviewd journal called Physics Essays (Vol 4, No 3, Sept 91) from
University of Toronto Press.

They billed me over a $1100.00 in page charges which I did not pay since
I am generally broke and do not have an institution to pay page charges
much less put ms in proper formats etc. Physical Review is even more
expensive - what would 22 pages cost in Physical Review?

So no more elitist cracks or pot shots about regular journals - we
homeless hobos can't afford them, also they are too slow anyway. It's
a new world of instant communications with feedback - gorget 16th century
technology it's the 21st century.

The Feynman picture suggests connection communication is possible but the
Dirac kets with unitary maps, completeness, orthogonality absolutely forbid
it - problem with Feynman picture is ambiguity of decifing when alternatives
are indistinguishable or not.

Invariance of the bra-ket forbids the connection signal - what kind of
theory could break that invariance? Does Weinberg's (if any one has access
to Weinberg's paper in Annals of Physics please let me know. I am not near a
proper library.

*replace "decifing" by deciding above*

I need a device that will transform <ae+|ao-> = 0 to <ae+|ao+> = e^ix
that is a device such that

<ae+|D*D|ao-> = e^ix when <ae+|ao-> = 0, this D is not unitary I agree
so it is not allowed in standard quantum mechanics. Brian Joesphson in
Fdn of Physics Letters implies that living matter can make such a D - the
elan vital?

Also if we look at Penrose's claim that quantum gravity affects ordinary QM
measurment collapse - we might get back into the FTL business. But as of now
it looks like a long shot and I'm not placing bets or holding my breath any
more - good thing I got super-lungs!
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:30:50 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>No, I think it's more than that.  I can't remember the details (which
>is why I tried to find the reference that the original poster quoted),
>but we've been through this Bondi thing sometime in the past.  It may even
>have been the same poster.  ....  There
>are no peer-reviewed papers on his work so far as I can tell.  I think
>that he is the European equivalent of these guys who "publish" abstracts in
>the APS bulletins and then reference themselves from year to year. 
> ...  You will notice that he [Martin] has
>so far refused to do more than tell us all to look it up.  He is incapable
>of explaining it himself.

Oh.  I had thought the "Bondi" in question was Hermann Bondi, the
cosmologist, who had one or two odd ideas but undoubtedly knew special
relativity.  Maybe there's another Bondi who attempts to capitalize
on the name.  Kind of like when there were three Robert Caseys in
Pennsylvania politics, and the original one had to run ads calling
himself "the real Bob Casey" after one of the obscure Bobs nearly got
elected treasurer.  (Apologies to the person named Robert Casey who
posts to sci.physics, by the way.)

I agree that Martin seems to be unwilling to actually explain himself
or Bondi, or do anything other than insult American librarians, in fact.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: rwmurphr@wildcat.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Number of "religious scientists"
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 04:43:53 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA


>      By the way, in no way should you consider yourself alone.  The 
>      appropriation of 'science' as a new religion has a long past, and
>      there are currently many who would agree with you.

>                               dale bass

Historical examples of "Science" as Religion.

The Temple of Reason in the French Revolution.

Comte's 19nth Century religion of science with its prieshood of
sociologists.

I've seen Theosophy described as a 19nth century contatenation of
science and religion.

The current generation of Physics and Zen types(Fritz Capoff look out).

The Religions of Evolution-George Bernard Shaw a believer possibly?

Did any of these survive very long, except for Theosophy and Christian
Science (Mary Baker Eddy)?  

I think alot of science fiction has as its unspoken foundation the 
notion that the survival and spread of the descendants of earth 
outside the earth is a religeous goal (seems pretty stupid to me)
which is a sort of religion of evolution.

I wonder if 200 years from now any of these new religions of science
will seem as worthwhile in retrospect as even the worst ancient
philosphical stoics or epicurians?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: Pure energy (Was: Re: energy, mass, and all that)
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:25:41 GMT

sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
: 
: 
: This is a good point.  "Pure energy" is meaningless.   Only particles
: or collections of particles (virtual or otherwise) can have energy.  
: Perhaps you can make some sense of the notion by defining pure energy
: to be the total energy of a bosonic field, so that the energy is not
: carried by fermions.  A bath of photons, for example, or the energy
: stored in a static EM field (virtual photons) comes as close to my
: notion of what "pure energy" is as anything I can think of.

I think that it is useful to distinguish "mass" [a number] from "matter"
[that stuff,you know]. The question of whether mass is conserved in a
given situation is easy. The question as to whether MATTER is converted
to energy in a nuclear explosion is then a separate question, depending
to some extent on semantic questions: is nuclear binding energy a form
of "matter"?
Now when we turn to energy, we do not,unfortunately, have two words.
Permit me, therefore, to Abianise and write "energy" for a number [or
component of a 4-vector, etc] and ENERGY for that stuff out there. Then
if you want to , you can say that photons are a kind of ENERGY, and as
such this ENERGY can have a mass [zero in the case of one photon,
usually non-zero for 2 photons or more] as well as an "energy".
 In practice, I suspect that you will find that ENERGY is pretty
useless: it is easier to say "photons" or whatever. However, I do think
that this device helps to clarify some of these arguments.
In a related vein: there are endless arguments about whether
gravitational waves carry "energy". Now obviously they do not carry
ENERGY [as electromagnetic waves do], for the right hand side of the
Einstein equation [which I am reluctant to name, but if pressed will
call the "matter and other stuff tensor"] is zero. However, the question
as to whether they conserve "energy" is a separate issue: it is up to us
to find, if we can, a number which is conserved and which helps us to
calculate interesting things. That is fine as long as we do not
hypostatise and start imagining that gravitational fields contain
ENERGY; if we do, then we start spouting gibberish like "gravity
gravitates" etc etc etc:
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 22 Nov 92 22:17:09 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)

In article <MATT.92Nov22131728@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics (Matt Austern) writes:
>> and for mass it is just the inertial resistance to an acceleration.

>This isn't a terribly good definition of mass, since force and
>acceleration aren't proportional---i.e., the acceleration an object
>undergoes is not parallel to a force that is applied to it.  [...]

I agree that I left out all the details.

>In a relativistic context, however, I think a more useful definition
>of mass is that an object's mass is the energy of that object in its
>rest frame.  [...]

I also agree that other uses are around for good reason.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu (John Snyder)
Subject: TIME HAS INERTIA
Organization: Physics Department, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 01:25:34 GMT


Mr Abian:

You have stated on numerous occaisions that TIME HAS INERTIA, that the total
energy of the universe is decreasing exponentially, and that energy is
irretrievably lost in order to move time forward.  Furthermore, you have
stated that this energy is lost by ALL THE MATTER in the universe.  

You have also stated that the only way to test this is to use a cosmic
energy-meter coupled to part of the universe.  I beg to disagree.


I have designed a simpler experiment with which to test your theory:

Suppose I very accurately measure the energy levels of single
electrons in a collection of identical systems here on earth.

Now suppose, *100 years* later (during which time, according to your
theory, ALL MATTER has been exponentially losing energy), I very
accurately measure the energy levels of single electrons in an
identical collection of identical systems here on earth.  (These
collections being identical to that earlier collection.)

We then compare the latter measurements to the former measurements.
If the energy of all matter in the universe is exponentially
decaying, surely we should be able to observe it in my electrons,
should we not?  And such experimental confirmation would surely 
win the Nobel Prize for you (the originator of the theory).


[...Aside to those of you who think that you know the results
of my experiment already:  I would like to suggest that you
refrain from discussing it until Mr. Abian has answered my post...]



John
snyder@henry.ece.cmu.edu


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.     V.R.PRATT's LATEST COMMENT ON FTA
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 05:17:29 GMT

In article <abian.722489461@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>                                                11-22-92
>Dear Mr. Pratt:                                  
>
>  In your 11-20-92 posting you correctly quoted my  11-11-92 abridged
>proof.  Here are your words:  
>
>>For the record here's Abian's proof (that 1+z+z^2 has a zero) again.
>
>>>  PROOF.  Assume on the contrary, and without loss of generality, let
>>>     1 + z + z^2  have no root, i.e.,  1 + z + z^2  never vanishes.
>>>Long divide  1  by  1+z+z^2  in two ways - in descending and ascending 
>>>powers of z,  i.e., 
>>> 
>>>    1/ (1+z+z^2)  =   1 - z + z^3 - z^4 + z^6 - ...
>>> 
>>>    1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 
>>>   
>>>The two expressions on the right side of =  must be identical. But 
>>>they are not.  Contradiction.  Hence our assumption is false and the 
>>>Theorem is proved.
>
>    You notice that I said  "The two expressions on the right side 
>of = must be IDENTICAL"  (by virtue of the well known uniqueness
>of the expansion of Analytic Functions). The reason that in the 
>unabridged version  I mentioned the "singularity" -because  people 
>would have then asked "Why they should be identical" - in fact someone 
>asked !
>So I used both versions, one in the abridged form the other in the unab-
>ridged form.
>    How come you did not note my word "IDENTICAL" on 11-11-92 ?

It was a holiday.

I was laboring under the delusion that you were still appealing to the
"essential singularity" of

>  1/ (z^2+z+1)  =   1/(z^2) - 1/(z^3) + 1/(z^5) - 1/(z^6) + ... 

which was giving everybody trouble, and failed to notice that you had
replaced that controversial argument with a more rigorous identity
argument.  Very sorry about that!

So I guess the general form of your original argument is that your two
division processes yield *distinct* series (I'll buy that), one valid
near z = 0 and the other near z = oo (I'll buy that too), and that in
the absence of poles these two domains of validity can both be expanded
without limit until they overlap (I'll buy that).  But a function
cannot have two distinct series valid on the same domain (that I buy as
well).

Ok, sold!  Thanks for a nice proof.

(What did you think of the Liouville's-theorem argument?)
-- 
Vaughan Pratt	  		A fallacy is worth a thousand steps.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.)
Subject: Re: Compelling Mysteries (II)
Followup-To: sci.physics
Keywords: compelling, mysteries, partridges and pear trees
Organization: International Society of Unified Science
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:41:12 GMT

Answers from the Reciprocal System of Physics:

In article <1992Nov10.183620.483@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>
>(a) We had atoms, then subatomic particles, then quarks.  Is there an
>ultimate structure of matter,

Yes. No quarks tho.

>or will we find more and more fine structure
>for ever?

No. The basic particle is an actual unit of space-time.

>
>(b) Why has almost every theory of 'small stuff' since Newton thrown up
>these wretched infinities?  We have them in gravitation, electrostatics,
>classical electrodynamics, and all over quantum physics.  Is this the
>consequence of a single bogus assumption,

No. Multiple bogus assumptions.

>and is that assumption indeed
>the assumption that spacetime is continuous?

One of them.

>
>(c) Are there magnetic monopoles?

No.

>More importantly, is there a way to
>decide this other than by hunting for monopoles - some simpler experiment
>that will disprove one model or the other?

A theory that is otherwise complete and consistent with no monopoles
is pretty good evidence.

>(e) Do antiparticles really travel backwards in time?

That is equivalent to the statement "Do particles really travel backwards
in space".  Anti-particles travel every which way in 3-d time.

>  I mean, could you
>use the spin state of a positron to send one bit of information into the
>past?
>

No.

-- 
Hoyt A. Stearns jr.|hoyt@          | International Society of Unified Science|
4131 E. Cannon Dr. |isus.tnet.com -| Advancing Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal  |
Phoenix, AZ. 85028 |ncar!enuucp!   | System- a unified physical theory.      |
voice_602_996_1717 telesys!isus!hoyt The Universe in two postulates__________|
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Art L Kotz <alkotz@mail.mmmg.com>
Subject: Re: W-waves
Organization: 3M/Applied Technology Lab (ATL)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 21:33:51 GMT

The "kooks" who submit abstracts to the APS meetings still exist.  Some of the
more original abstracts sometimes attract a crowd of people who are there just
to see if someone is willing to get in front of an audience and present their
ideas.  Often these abstracts can be identified by a non-university street
address in California.  My experience is that they are usually in the
theoretical physics sessions.

On a slighltly different track, I am told that the editors of Physical Review
regularly discard abstracts from street addresses in CA after superficial
examination.  So regularly in fact, that a retired emeritus professor from some
CA school had to have a collegue friend write a letter to the editors asking
them to read his submission (sent from his home) before throwing it away.

Art
--------
<alkotz@mail.mmmg.com>
Disclaimer: I might have said that, but I didn't mean it :-)
Newsgroups: sci.physics