HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: New Physics,Healing & Paranormal 2 "White Paper"
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:06:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: sei.1993Jan27.080659.11198
Organization: Software Engineering Institute

In article <C1H5D6.6Jr@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:

>Future "final causes" or purposive "teleological" karmic
>influences also co-determine the intermediate behavior of the particle from
>its preparation to its detection.

Nope.  Neither teleology nor karma involves causes in the future of
their effects.  Examples:  when you stop at a MacDonalds for lunch,
that's "teleology" - the reason for the present action is to be
found in the future.  But it's still compatible with asymmetric
causality.  Likewise, if you are born a slave, it's because in a
past existence you were a bad master (or some such) - again only
forwards causality is operating.

Final causes are also a problem.  In classical mechanics, the entire
behaviour of a system can be deduced from its final configuration, ie
the equations allow you freely both to predict and to retrodict.  But
that carries no implications about causality, since it is a result
compatible with asymmetric causality in either time direction.


A better view, in my opinion, is to throw out the d/dt stuff altogether,
and use integral equations and optimisation principles.  As another
example, many problems in optics are readily solved using Heron's
brachistochrone principle, which can be viewed indifferently as involving
forwards causality, backwards causality, or entelechy.  This should
convince you that "causality" is in the interpretation, not the physics.

>1. Given a set of indistinguishable alternative histories, add their arrows
>and then "take the square" to compute the probability of that
>indistinguishable set.

Again, that's the math, but the idea that the states of a superposition
represent "alternative histories" takes some swallowing.  Example: a
photon that has just come through an H filter is in a pure state of
horizontal polarisation.  Change the basis set, and presto! - it is
in a superposition of states of left and right circular polarisation.
One history or two?  The question doesn't apply - we're talking coordinate
systems, not real entities.

>Brian
>Josephson, a Nobel Prize Laureate in physics at Cambridge University thinks
>that complex living systems, which unlike inorganic matter are not in
>thermal equilibrium, break the unitarity barrier of standard quantum
>mechanics by some new principle not yet understood.

Huh?  The universe is full of examples of inorganic matter not in thermal
equilibrium.  Stars, for instance.  Indeed, all known life is parasitic
upon existing inorganic energy gradients - life eats negative entropy,
to use the pop phrasing.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:24:34 CST
From: <U16072@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Hobby of the Future
Distribution: sci

In article <HAGERMAN.93Jan20225855@rx7.ece.cmu.edu>, hagerman@ece.cmu.edu (John
Hagerman) says:
>
A bag of pure oxygen will do, if you make it spherical (not necessary but

makes the approximation easier) and the raduis equal to the distance from the s
un to the average jupiter orbit.
>What would it take to make a black hole?  This is obviously a fanciful
>question, but I'm looking for real answers, not Star Trek answers like
>"beam a whole sun into the space of a sugar cube."  How much mass do I
>need to collect?  How much pressure do I need to subject it to?  Where
>do I keep it?  How long will it last?
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 11:18:20 -0500 
From: Paul Karol <pk03+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: ATOMS & ELECTRONS

Excerpts from netnews.sci.physics: 25-Jan-93 Re: ATOMS & ELECTRONS by
Benjamin Weiner@ruhets.r 

>Scott, I think you're misinterpreting him.  If one assumes that the
>electron in the ground state doesn't radiate for some mystical reason,
>then you can pretend that it's on a "Bohr atom" circular orbit, and the
>reason it doesn't crash into the nucleus is the same reason that the
>Earth doesn't crash into the Sun: conservation of angular momentum
>(or energy or whatever). 

There's a difference.  The electron makes approximately 10^15 'orbits'
per second in the Bohr model whereas the total number of orbits the
earth has made is (arguably) 4 X 10^9.  Any slight cumulative effect on
the electron (still ignoring radiation due to acceleration) would be
much more easily observed.  Anyway, what's the point of all this?  I've
lost sight of the motivation for this fantasy.

Paul J. Karol
Nuclear Chemist
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Gamma Burst Mystery
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 21:05:37 GMT


ref NY TIMES Jan 26, 1993 B5
Gamma ray bursters near or far? 10^8 ev . Bursts range from 10^-3 sec to
several 10^2 sec., no correlation with known celestial objects in other
wavelengths.. from neutron stars? Compton observatory saw 150 bursters
spread evenly across sky.

I suggest that some kind of correlation analysis be tried to see if there
is any kind of pattern that suggests intelligent activity like artifical
nuclear explosions.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: petitc@nuge101.its.rpi.edu (Christopher Jon Petit)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:39:34 GMT

lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay) writes:


>sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>>It is also true that Geller fails rigorous tests set up by
>>other stage magicians.

>You're understating. Geller has been outright caught cheating, by
>plural people, plural times.

>For example, the reporter who visited Geller in a hotel room.  She
>noted that the edge of the coffee table had three notches in it, just
>as if someone had bent a key, three times. When Geller "psychically"
>bent her key, she noticed that the coffee table had just sprouted a
>fourth notch.

  Hehe. I can imagine Geller trying to talk his way outta THAT one...

  "You see, to bend a key, I must use immense amounts of psychic energy.
That energy came from the table, but was too much for it, so another notch
appeared."


-- 
"Protect endangered species!  Contribute to the Exxon Supporter's Fund!"
"Pay no attention to that little man behind the keyboard."
"If you want to look for fish, best not to look in desert."
"The greatest beauty in the world is beauty that is private."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re: integrity and competence of moderators
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:14:10 GMT


OK, perhaps, insistence on Ph.D. may not be necessary. For example,
Aephraim Steinberg does not yet have his Ph.D. - but he would be well
qualifed to be a moderator. He is definitely competent. He is always
polite and fair in the best spirit of science.

I doubt that men of the stature of Yakir Aharonov, Steven Weinberg etc.
would allow themsevles to be moderated by the present slate of moderators.
If the whole point is to get men of that staure to contribute, then
you must have a prestigious set of moderators. As it is the present fact
is that the moderated conference will be a power trip for Bass et-al.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: buell@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell)
Subject: Re: The Big Bang Never Happened
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:57:11 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:


>ethan@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:

>> Just thought I'd point out that shock waves that radiate efficiently ...
>> are unstable on time scales comparable to the sound travel time ...
>> and produce persistent density fluctuations of order unity.  Also, gas at
>> 3 K does not radiate like a blackbody unless it is optically thick.

>     Ethan, I did not describe the "local superbubble" origin for the
>microwave radiation in sufficient detail for critiqing -- that was not the
>purpose of the message.  But what I had in mind was a roughly spherical
>hole blown in the local interstellar medium (as observed).  Then the
>portion of that medium that has already reached thermal equilibrium would
>radiate at 3 degrees Kelvin.  That radiation would be rather isotropic when
>observed from the inside of the bubble, since the radiation density depends
>hardly at all on the details of the shape of the bubble because it is
>coming from the optically thick interstellar medium beyond it.  -|Tom|-

How thick is your ISM? Does its density eventually drop off somewhere?

>-- 
>Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

Jim Buell

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,rec.arts.startrek.tech
From: relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert)
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:09:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.035336.6911@Princeton.EDU>, rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:
> In article <C1H02x.K38@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
> >Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates.  The real world is a wondrously interesting place!  Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre a> nd interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
> >
> I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
> real world is interesting.  But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
> the above list is "demonstrable!"
> 

OK, perhaps "demonstrable" is the wrong word.

black holes      -- predicted by cosmologic theory, several unconfirmed candidates
                    exist, such as the one in Cygnus
wormholes        -- well, quite far out, but Einstein was a pretty smart guy...
quasars          -- plenty exist, we just don't know what they are, exactly
quantum wells    -- appearing soon in a semiconductor near you
point particles  -- electrons, for instance
superconductors  -- all over the place, these days

The point is that all of these guys are (a) really weird and (b) implied by orthodox theory and accepted by mainstream science.  My point is that it is 
not necessary to go back to the Middle Ages (when, curiously enough, they believed in magic, faith healing, possession, etc) to find unexplained phenomenon.

Isaac Asimov said that the so-called New Age is really just a very Old Age, all over again.  I don't need magic pixies or telepathy to make my world interesting and meaningful.  Some, apparently, do.

Eric Lippert
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Super-Strings
Date: 24 Jan 1993 10:14 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan24.015612.4614@scorch.apana.org.au>, adawal@scorch.apana.org.au (Adam Walsh) writes...
>Pardon My ignorance but what is a Super String?

Strings are supposed to be the fundamental objects in the 
Universe, microscopic 1-dimensional loops of stuff which look like
zero-dimensional point objects at suffiently poor resolution. 
Superstrings are strings with a Supersymmetric Lagrangian.   I hope
that this helps. :-)

-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
From: sjayanna@wam.umd.edu (Sanjeev Jayanna)
Subject: Feynmann lectures on Physics
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:52:08 GMT

    Does anyone know if there is an independent problems manual to 
the FEYNMANN LECTURES ON PHYSICS, and if there is could you send me
information on how to obtain it.

thanks
anil

e-mail addrs sjayanna@wam.umd.edu


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: Feynmann lectures on Physics
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:05:21 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

>    Does anyone know if there is an independent problems manual to 
>the FEYNMANN LECTURES ON PHYSICS, and if there is could you send me
>information on how to obtain it.

"Excercises in Introductory Physics" by Leighton and Vogt covers
Vol I of the Feynman Lectures. Addison-Wesley. ISBN 0-201-04215-0.
From: ame@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Abdulrahman M El-Koubysi)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: What is Yttria stabilised zirconia??
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:58:51 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Summary: I was trying to find out why they use (YSZ) as substrates for HTS
Keywords: HTS, substrate, yttria stabilised zirconia


I was reading an article lately about High temperature superconductors. The
article mentioned that they use yttria stabilised zirconia substrates. What
is special about this substrate? what makes it different than previously 
used substrates such as silver? Are there companies out there that 
commercially produce these substrates or are they custom made??


A. R. El-Koubysi          | Internet: ame@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
College of Engineering    | Bitnet  : ame@ksuvm
261, Durland hall, KSU    | Phone   : (913) 532-5600 
Manhattan, KS 66506       | Fax     : (913) 532-7810 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (brett mcinnes)
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:07:13 GMT

A*ian has been reincarnated!
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:39:48 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>What your asking about is the "quantum efficiency" of the detector.

>  ... It is easy to see that you
>can't hope to get 100% qe, infact real devices seldom do better
>than 25%. I think the best photomultipliers are something less
>than this. If you consider quantum noise or S/N it just lowers
>the qe more. Although it is much more mathematically complicated.

Quantum efficiency of any detector is strongly dependent on the
incident waveband - but it can get pretty high, at certain wavelengths:
P. Lena's _Observational Astrophysics_ has a graph (p.172) which
shows a thinned CCD achieving 80% quantum efficiency in the range 
450-800 nm, which is why people sometimes say CCD's detect practically
every photon (in the waveband!).  Thinning the CCD has its own problems ...
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: ATOMS & ELECTRONS
Date: 22 Jan 1993 17:11 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes...
>                                                       It appears that
>we can never hope to answer the most fundamental questions about the
>nature of the universe. Our greatest aspiration is the reduction of the
>number of such questions to the smallest value which can be reached, and
>it is possible that we shall never know what that irreducible number is.

For this reason we cannot answer questions regarding "fundamental" physics.
But the question which started this thread was not such. In fact you answered
the question in your post, i.e. the nucleus is too constrained for the
claustrophobic electron. Or more precisely, a confined electron has too
much kinetic energy. This combined with the implicit concept of stationary
energy states answers the question.

Didn't we beat this 'fundamentals' problem to death with Andrew and the
blue sky thread? As I recall he didn't like the Rayleigh scattering answer
because it didn't include Olber's paradox! :-)

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
From: prissi@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Markus Pristovsek)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: below absolute zero?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:37:05 GMT
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
NNTP-Posting-Host: marie.physik.tu-berlin.de

An easy way to construnct "lower than zero"-temratures:

All you need is a magnetic material and a strong magnet.

Then 1) Cool the whole thing and switch an the magnet.

2) Wait until ALL spins are orientated upwards.

3) Change the direction of the field.

So the spin are all looking against the lines of the field. The is identified
with negative absolute tempratures. But this is only a statistical definition.
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23445 sci.misc:2062 sci.space:19767
From: gt7692b@prism.gatech.EDU (Constantinos Malamas)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.misc,sci.space
Subject: Re: ques about earlier "suicides" of SDI scientists
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:26:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


	This 'grand conspiracy theory' reminds me of the '3rd Alternative'.
Now, _there_ is something to talk about in sci.space.conspiracy ...


Costas Malamas________________________________________________________________
Georgia Institute of Technology
Internet: gt7692b@prism.gatech.edu
From: rev@enh.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: RE: photon 'detectors' - how reliable?
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:15:29 GMT
Organization: NIST

In a previous article, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) wrote:
>You erased, as others who poited this out, where I specified detectors
>that exploit the the photo-electric effect. I don't know enough
>about Charged Coupled Devices, do they use the photo-electric effect?

CCDs are semiconductor based technology based on photons being absorbed in the 
creation of electron-hole pairs in a diode.  One of the carriers (say
electrons) are shipped to the back side of the diode by the internal
potentials and charge up that region.  The charge is measured after some time
period and that (with the known quantum efficiency of that element) allows you 
to measure the accumulated photon flux since the last measurement.  The charge 
is dumped after the measurement.  CCDs are usually (maybe always?) multi-
element arrays used for producing spacially resolved images.  If you're not 
interested in an image, but just in a measure of photon flux you can get a 
simple photodiode for less money.  (CCDs have some electronics included in the 
package that photodiodes don't as well as being multi-element and therefore a 
more complicated to make.)  Photodiodes use the same physical principle, except 
that you measure the photocurrent directly instead of accumulating charge.

I work with diodes, not CCDs, so this description may not be entirly correct,
but I think it's the right general idea.

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+  From the desk of:            |        rev@enh.nist.gov OR rev@nbsenh       +
+    Rob Vest                   |---------------------------------------------+
+    National Institute of      |  Why are all the good quotes taken by       +
+      Standards & Technology   |            some other .sig file??           +
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: peters@physics.ubc.ca (Dan Peters)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: THE DIVINE MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE
Date: 27 Jan 1993 07:52:40 GMT
Organization: The University of British Columbia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.ubc.ca

mmalak@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Jay Malak) writes:

>Dear friends:

>Extensive analysis, using contemporary technology, has revealed
>the secret truths contained in this document.  Please close your
>window shades.  Burn before reading.  The Computer is your friend.

[lots of revealing stuff deleted]

Providing such information is treason. Report for termination immediately.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Drin
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think I think, therefore I think I am." 
- Descartes' failed attempt to discard the notion of objective reality.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.physics:23587 news.groups:26473 sci.misc:2070
From: brahm@cco.caltech.edu (David E. Brahm)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: below absolute zero?
Summary: Gravitational systems have negative heat capacity
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:59:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

mmalak@cco.caltech.edu (Michael Jay Malak) writes (with regard to a finite
spin system):
> Intuitively, you would think that adding energy to a system should make
> it hotter.  This is correct.

I thought I'd point out (though it's tangential to the original discussion)
that gravitational systems do not obey your intuition.  A gravitationally
bound collection of hydrogen, for example, radiates away energy, thus
collapsing and becoming hotter!  (Eventually it becomes a star.)  This
system has negative heat capacity.  Since heat flow then makes hot things
hotter and cold things colder, for gravitational systems higher entropy is
associated with greater inhomogeneity.  That's why the homogeneous early
universe is considered a very low-entropy state, and why the ultimate
result of graviational collapse, black holes, have entropy associated with
them.

I've just been reading this stuff in "The Physical Basis of the Direction
of Time", ch.5.  Great book!

--
Staccato signals of constant information,  |  David Brahm, physicist
A loose affiliation of millionaires and    |  (brahm@cco.caltech.edu)
  billionaires and Baby ...                |---- Carpe Post Meridiem! --
These are the days of miracle and wonder,  | Disclaimer:  I only speak
And don't cry, Baby, don't cry, don't cry. |   for the sensible folks.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Physics News Update #111 (1/21)
Keywords: physics news interesting banana dumb joke
Date: 23 Jan 93 21:49:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>>SQUID DETECTORS OPERATING IN THE MILLIATTOVOLT range ...

>Does anyone know how they shield their detector from stray electric
>fields down to the zVolt level?  Seems like a tall order to me.

Although squids are often considered to have primitive nervous
systems, they are very good at certain tasks such as this kind of
S/N discrimination - possibly due to environmental selection for it.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Attracting Top Physicists to Moderated Group
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:46:12 GMT


Looking over the list of voters there are no famous (other than me)
physicists using sci.physics. I mean men like Josephson, Weinberg,
Aharonov, Chiao, Thorne, Wheeler, Gell-Mann etc.

Therefore, Matt Austern, or some one , should launch a campaign to
let them know such a new moderated conference exists. One easy way
to do this is to contact Berty Schwarzschild at Physics Today and
ask him to make an announcement.

It is particulalry important to try to get Aharonov and his students.
They are doing the most imaginative work in QM e.g. observability of
the complete wavefunction, time machines etc.

PS any one knowing of resources on internet about biophysics
including instrumentation please let me know. I need info for my
white paper for the financiers of World University.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal,alt.conspiracy,alt.pagan,alt.magick,alt.alien.visitors,rec.arts.startrek.tech