HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:30:30 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1e4ef2INNl2m@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
>
>Sam Ting spoke on these results at the DPF meeting this week.  (For those
>who have been on Mars, Ting runs the LEP group)  Afterwards, he spoke on
                                  ^^^

I am sure Ting *wishes* he ran _the_ LEP group, perhaps (heh) he even 
wishes he ran CERN!  But Ting runs L3, one of 4 groups at LEP. 

(Of course, I am sure Chris knows this, but the thought is too amusing to 
let it pass.  He may even know the "P.P.Ting" story ... say HI to Bob Ball 
for me if you see him.) 

--
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: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Subject: Re: History of AC vs DC Power
Keywords: alternating current, direct current
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.204405.29722@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Nov11.154425.8399@speedy.aero.org> steve@pepe.aero.org (Steve Sedlacek) writes:
>>A question came up at lunch yesterday:  Why is our power system completely
>>AC?  
>
>Well, actually it isn't.  Isn't there some stupid rule that puts large
>taxes on AC power transmission across state lines?  I seem to remember
>that there is, and that what the power companies do is convert the
>power to DC on the transmission side of the line, send it across (tax
>free), and then change it back to AC on the other side for further
>transmission (a process referred to as 'wheeling', if I'm remembering
>correctly).

Apart from possible taxes, there's a good, physical reason to go to DC
on occasion: grid synchronization.  Take the situation of state A
exporting power to state B; just imagine what would result if the power
fed by A were 180 degrees out of phase with A's grid: big trouble!  If
you don't use AC->DC->AC as a "phase buffer", you need to keep
synchronized the grids of all states that want to be connected
together, which is pretty hard on a continental scale.

To deal with that problem, Hydro-Quebec recently built a high-voltage
DC line from James bay right down to the U.S. border, for the express
purpose of exporting power to New-England.  As far as I know, the
DC->AC converter is north of the border, so that the power is exported
as AC; only this one converter, however, needs to be synchronized with
the New-England grid.

>Even with the power losses involved in the two changes
>and the expense of the 'wheeling' stations, it works out to still be
>cheaper than paying the tax.

For a long line, these losses and costs can be offset by the higher
carrying capacity of the line: the power carried is P = V_rms.I_rms; in
an AC line, the insulators have to be able to stand the peak voltage
V_max = V_rms*sqrt(2); in a DC line, V_max = V_rms, so for the same
line you can jack up the voltage and carry more power, or you can build
a less expensive line to carry the same power.

Disclaimer: I'm no engineer, so if I overlooked some important
practical limitations in the above, please limit your flames to the
mild variety.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:16:57 -0500 
From: "Robert J. Knapp" <rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA ABIAN replies to INDRA

Dear Prof. Abian:

You say:

>But then when I ask them "PROVE THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF
>ENERGY" they shrug their shoulders in bewilderment and with a blunt 
>expression on their faces they tell me  "Oh, boy, are you a heretic 
>or what ! Everybody accepts and believes in that Principle" And they
>give no proof !!! They say it is a Principle and needs no proof !
 >Well, at least I gave a proof of (A2)!

Check a book I have sugested to you before:

Fowels: "Analytic Mechanics"
(I'm not sure of the chapter or page, but if you cannot 
find it I'd be more that happy to forward a copy to you.)

This principle is very simple to prove;
Here we go in one dimension(Newtonian Mech, it's easier):

Say we have a force dependant on x: call it F(x)

we know F=ma:

F(x) = m (dv/dt)

using chain rule:

F(x) = m (dx/dt)(dv/dx)

but, dx/dt is defined to be v (the velocity):
so ,

F(x) = mv (dv/dx) so

integrating both sides

Int(F(x)dx) =1/2 mv^2 -1/2mv(intial)^2

and if F(x)=0 then:

1/2mv^2=1/2mv(initial)^2

To my knoweldge the potential energy is DEFINED
to be conserved. So we have (Adding potential to both sides (which we
can seeing it is conserved)

1/2mv^2 + Potnetial = 1/2mv(intial)^2 + Potential(@initial space position)

Rather simple really.

Rob "Money is not our God" Knapp

Open a book,				|	LEGALIZE
and open your mind			|
the only thing they can't censor	|	[MNIBG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
is logic.				|
-------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is something to be experinced through the eyes of a child."
                   			-Me
From: ivar@unixg.ubc.ca (ivar jonsson)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Heat sink efficiency
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:44:39 GMT
Organization: UBC Pulp & Paper Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: poplar.ppc.ubc.ca
Keywords: Heat removal, Heat sinks, electrical circuits

Does anybody know about good ways to model or simulate Heat Sinks
specifically its physical behaviour with regard to heat removal.
Is there any S/W packages available which might already include this?

Any suggestions will be helpfull?

Regards,

Ivar Jonsson

Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: beckmann@spot.Colorado.EDU (BECKMANN PETR)
Subject: Re: Why I don't use regular journals.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:10:02 GMT

In article <By76Bs.6vz@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>
>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?
    Galilean Electrodynamics does not charge a cent in page charges. After
the article is reviewed and accepted it is printed free of charge. Clearly it 
is not a crackpot journal if it prints articles by physics professors of the
U. of Conn., U. of Wisc., U. of Nevada, Taft Univ., U. of Texas, and numerous
foreign universities.
   Petr Beckmann
From: lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: down with inertial frames
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:39:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Society for the Appreciation of Janni Lee Simner

matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
> 
> It is easy to imagine how one could teach a course in SR without ever
> mentioning inertial frames. 

???

	Larry "What???" Hammer
--

LNH@physics.arizona.edu   \   One like a wombat prowled obtuse
GEnie: L.HAMMER2           \  and furry  -- Christina Rossetti
From: habersch@husc9.harvard.edu (Oren Haber-Schaim)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: safety of halogen lamps
Date: 23 Nov 92 21:37:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc9.habersch.722554626

siegemun@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Stephan Siegemund-Broka) writes:

>I saw an article in the NYTimes a while ago that said that
>halogen lamps produce a lot of radiation in the UV-b region.
>This is supposedly a harmful part of the spectrum.  The authors
>were irate  over the fact that manufactures of the these lamps 
>do not in general supply some sort of a cover to filter these rays out.
>Any comments???
>Thanks 
>Stephan Siegemund-Broka
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>University of Oklahoma

Unless they compared the relative UV output of tungsten-halogen
lamps (I assuming you meant tungsten-halogen) with 
ordinary fluorescent bulbs, I wouldn't be impressed by the
article.   

In any case, the temperature of tungsten filaments is less than
2/3 of the sun's effective 6000 K radiation temperature, so
there is far less relative UV output than sunlight's, not
to mention an order or 2 of magnitude less overall intensity
than in an office environment.

ALso,  t-h bulbs with screw-in bases for general household use
have relatively modest filament temperatures to get long life,
compared to those used for slide projection etc. which have
a life of tens of hours, vs. thousands of hours for the former.


Oren Haber-Schaim
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sawdey@matterhorn.ee.umn.edu (Aaron Sawdey)
Subject: Re: hubble and black hole
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, EE dept.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 21:15:48 GMT

In <FRANL.92Nov21141214@draco.centerline.com> franl@centerline.com (Fran Litterio) writes:

>llew@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Lok C. Lew Yan Voon) writes:

>> anyway, nbc news had a short piece 2 days ago that the
>> space telescope had resolved the nucleus of a galaxy
>> to a much better resolution than b/f, i think it's
>> supposed to be a 100 times smaller than previously
>> believed. from the picture they showed, one can easily
>> discern the boundary plus a jet-like structure emanating
>> from one of the poles.
>> 
>> apparently, it's highly unlikely to be anything but a black hole.

>I want to know why it can't be a really massive neutron star.  Don't
>they have accretion disks and spew jets of hot gas out from their
>magnetic poles?  What data is available other than the image from
>Hubble?

It's too big. I think that an object with neutron-star density
and a mass greater than 3 or 4 solar masses (somebody: what's
the real figure for this?) turns into a black hole. The structures
imaged by Hubble have scale measured in 1000's of light-years (they're
45 Million light years away). I don't think a neutron star big enough
to create these effects could exist.
From: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez)
Subject:  Re: ferromagnetism: the QM basis
Organization: MIT Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 22:31:02 GMT

pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt) writes:

>Experimentalist: someone with their facts straight.
>Theorist: 	 someone with their arguments straight.
>
>Experimentalists who get their arguments straight can fool a theorist
>every time.

Unless, as in the present situation, the theorist doesn't understand
them well enough to be fooled!  I'd gladly be "fooled" in this case but
it seems I am too foolish!
From: ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca (Keith Ramsay)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: One Ramsay error in no-go FTL
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:59:02 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <Bxw26v.M72@well.sf.ca.us> sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us 
(Jack Sarfatti) writes:
>Ramsay writes:
>
>"If f and g differed only by a phase, then there would be
>constructive and/or destructive interference everywhere, uniformly,
>according to what that phase difference was."

...and Sarfatti goes on to point out, correctly, that if the phase
difference is +- pi/2, it is neither constuctive nor destructive
anywhere (but still uniformly).

Keith Ramsay
ramsay@unixg.ubc.ca
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: PLEASE HELP!
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:50 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <q1TiuB3w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca>, norm@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Norman P. Paterson) writes...

>- Take a aluminium ball with a voulume of 100 cu/meters.  Say that this 
>ball is indestructible.  The ball is filled with helium gas on the ground 
>(the gas is 99.9% pure).  Now, take this ball to an alititude of 100,000 
>feet.  What would the internal pressure be of the ball (or helium)?

Since you have chosen an aluminum ball rather than a bag, the total volume
of the helium will remain unchanged.  So the equation of state, PV = NRT
will give you Pfinal/Pinitial = Tfinal/Tinitial, i.e., the only thing
you have to worry about is that it is cold up there and the pressure of the
gas will decrease proportionately.

If you had used an expandable bag instead, then the volume would change.
The cold will naturally make the gas volume constract at constant pressure,
but the atmospheric pressure is not constant.  In fact, it decreases so
much at 20 miles up that the volume of the gas in the bag will shoot way
up in spite of the temperature decrease.

-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: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.  Att;  PRATT - ABIAN's PROOF OF FTA
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:55:13 GMT

abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
: In <abian.721303213@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
: 
:      Mr.  PRATT   (I hope this will reach you - something is wrong 
:                    with my computer)                         

Many people regard brains as computers.
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. att:   WEISS. The so called Low-Skol. Paradox
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:53:02
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: abian@iastate.edu's message of Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:59:26 GMT

This doesn't really belong on sci.physics anymore, but I think "TIME HAS
INERTIA" has effectively become a separate newsgroup.

I think we are in substantial agreement on all mathematical points.  Your
finite model does correctly illustrate the non-absoluteness of the concept
of "countability", which is the heart of the Loewenheim-Skolem "paradox".

You say:

     One can give explicitly tables for countable models  which 
   satisfy many of ZF axioms.  For the entire ZF - I have proposed a 
   countable model where sets are symbolized by any set-theoretical
   formula which starts with the "THERE EXISTS" symbol and which is 
   derivable in  ZF.
    In other words, I make a set from any formula which is derivable from
   ZF axioms and which asserts the Existence of a set , i.e, a derivable
   from  ZF  axioms formal formula starting with an  "Existential Quantifier".

This sounds a lot like the usual proof of the Loewenheim-Skolem
theorem (or the closely related Goedel completeness theorem). There are
a couple of important technical points you don't discuss (free variables in
the formulas-- usually dealt with by introducing Skolem functions; and
modding out by the equivalence relation "provably equal"), but presumably
these lurk behind your warning of messy notations.
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
Date: 22 Nov 92 17:51:48 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)

In article <20NOV199207183499@csa3.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa3 (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>>If energy and matter are not interconvertible, where does all the energy
>>>of an atomic bomb blast come from?  

>>Simple.  The energy that used to be binding is now blast, light, heat.
>>While it was binding, the energy was localized enough that we could
>>weigh it directly, and so the bomb weighed E-bind/c^2 more than it
>>would have otherwise.

>This follows nicely upon my previous post, in which Dan Platt stretches
>the definition of mass so as to never convert mass to energy.  Now you
>are going to stretch the definition of energy so that we never have to 
>convert energy to mass.

Why don't we *define* energy and mass before complaining about definition
stretching?  The naive notion for energy is just the ability to do work,
ie, accelerate mass through a distance, and for mass it is just the
inertial resistance to an acceleration.  The two are distinct physical
notions.  In the 19th century, energy was defined and numerous versions
of it identified.  No one (or at least, no one once the dust had settled)
ever said electric current *was* energy, even though you could extract
energy from something containing a current.

In 1905, Einstein pointed out that there is an inertia associated with
energy.  T=E/c^2.  (Not E=mc^2.)  That meant that if you had two equal
systems vis-a-vis their _matter_, they would weigh differently if the
one was at a higher temperature than the other.

Of course, if you want to use other definitions of energy and mass, be
my guest.  Just don't express exasperation that other people can and do
understand atomic bomb explosions as something other than mass to energy
conversions.  See Taylor and Wheeler SPACETIME PHYSICS, for example.

>			  You are willing to say that when we weigh atoms
>that we are weighing their energy and not their mass?  [...]

I never said anything like that.  Although that is, of course, the goal
of numerous theorists.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: W-waves
Date: 17 Nov 1992 11:37 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

It is unbelievably unlikely that someone will discover a "missing piece"
of a unified field theory by measuring the spacings of plant leaves.  I
can't say anything very constructive without some more detail, but it
certainly *sounds* like you wasted $20.  The crackpot give-away is that
these waves travel faster than the speed of light.  Half of all crackpots
invent theories that predict antigravity or faster-than-light travel.

I have not heard of this guy before this, which probably means that he has 
not published in any of the major journals, or received any attention from
the scientific press in general.

Anyone who feels like it may now flame me for being closed-minded.  I don't 
care.  I've seen too much of this stuff to aways bend over backwards to
allow for the possibility that this guy is another Galileo or Einstein.

-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
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.    ABIAN's .sig
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Principles (A1)  and (A2).  Repelling Forces explained
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:23:00 GMT

In every piece of malarky  he posts, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes...
>  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)

Friend, your units don't even agree.
       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 10:12:21 -0500 
From: Steven Timm <st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Higgs Spotted?
Distribution: world

The coupling strengths of the higgs are proportional to the mass of the 
particles it couples to.  So one reason people think that these events
are _not_ Higgs is that a Higgs should also couple to quarks.  Ting
reported that an extensive search was made for events which included 
quarks (jets) in the final state with diphoton masses of this type,
and came up empty.  A Higgs decay to two photons (and two photons only)
is not impossible but rather unlikely.  Nevertheless, SSC detectors
all have plans on how they will see that mode because it is one of the 
unique signatures.

Another poster made some comment about the Z width.  The Z partial 
width has been shown to be the same for e+e-, mu+ mu- and tau+tau-.

Steve Timm
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: energy, mass, and all that
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:27:11 GMT

matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:

>bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>: 
>: Look, Martin, it seems that you do understand this.  Rest mass is not
>: conserved in e+ e- -> photons.  

>Err...Ben...would you like to modify this a little? Surely the rest mass
>has to be conserved if the 4-momentum is?

Heh, heh.  The rest mass of the whole system, yes.  The rest mass of the
individual particles, no.

I'm so glad to see sci.physics drop into this quagmire again... it's
like an old friend.

-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Lowneheim-Skolem theorem (was: Continuos vs. discrete models)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Nov21091802@bast.sics.se>
	<1992Nov23.014417.14551@galois.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:56:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.014417.14551@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu 
(John C. Baez) writes:

   >What do you mean by the "physics of the real numbers".

  Nothing in particular. I merely assumed that articles in sci.physics about
the real numbers deals with the physics of the real numbers.

   >I didn't mean anything in particular by "using".

  Right.
  
   >My whole point was that you can go do whatever the heck you please with
   >models of an axiom system but that it will not affect what theorems can
   >be proved in the axiom system.  

  I submit that this doesn't mean anything in particular either.
Newsgroups: sci.physics