HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Bayes' theorem and QM
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:12:38 GMT
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <SRCTRAN.92Dec13221623@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
> Speaking of Bayes Theorem, one theorem I never see mentioned in many of
> these discussions, and I am almost afraid to mention it (since it can
> spawn many pseudo theories) is a theorem due to Gregory Chaitin at IBM,
> who proves that if you accept the basic properties of Integers, then it
> follows (in a very pretty argument) that statements about reality are 
> all probabilistic, that any theory that uses the integers implicitly
> is bringing in randomness  (or that's how I interpret his work).

I have just read a manuscript by Chaitin in which he discusses something
along these lines you describe. Chaitin has defined what he calls the
halting probability:

   Omega =   Sum	2^|-p|
		   p halts

(p is the Godel number of a TM.)

Chaitin has constructed a two hundred *page* exponential diophantine equation
(presumably not by hand) that has a finite or infinite number of solutions
depending on whether a particular bit of Omega is 1 or 0.

The significance of this result lies in the fact that in a formal axiomatic
system that is N bits we can decide at most the values for N+c bits of
Omega. This number is not only not computable but no matter how powerful a
formal system we have we cannot determine more bits (within an additive
constant) of Omega than the the total bits it takes to define the formal
system.

Chaitin says of this number:

	Okay, so what have we got?
	We have a rather simple mathematical object that
	completely escapes us.  Omega's bits have no structure.
	There is no pattern, there is no structure that we as mathematicians
	can comprehend.  If you're interested in proving what individual
	bits of this number at specific places are, whether they're 0 or 1,
	reasoning is completely useless.  Here mathematical reasoning is
	irrelevant and can get nowhere.  As I said before, the only way
	a formal axiomatic system can get out these results is essentially
	just to put them in as assumptions, which means you're not using
	reasoning.  After all, anything can be demonstrated by taking it
	as a postulate that you add to your set of axioms.
	So this is a worst possible case---this is irreducible mathematical
	information.  Here is a case where there is no structure, there are no
	correlations, there is no pattern that we can perceive.

The `random' numbers that Chaitin defines are algorithmically random and
not nondeterministically random. Far from being undetermined they encode
the solutions to recursively unsolvable problems. There is no mathematical
way to define what we mean intuitively by a nondeterministic random sequence.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: smay@boi.hp.com (Scott Smay)
Subject: Re: Freq. response of eyes (was: Why is the sky blue?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:32:11 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Christopher J Burian (cburian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: zellner@stsci.edu writes:
: 
: >So why do our eyes contain structures specifically sensitive to light of 
: >wavelength 4300 to 4800A?  Physiology, really accidents of evolutionary history.
: 
: Wow, Lots of responses!  And I thought I was asking a dumb question. :)
: 
:
In my reader, I can't find any responses to the question at all! I presume the
answers referred to the sharp notch in the absorption coefficient of liquid
water between approximately 4000-7000 angstroms. What subject were the answers
posted to?

cheers,
scott smay 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 20:54:37 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: scientists who write literature 
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Dec10.153147.17142@statoil.no> day@fou.tr.statoil.no (Simon Day) writes:
>How about Primo Levi?
>
>Italian chemist who wrote a number of books and short stories, fiction
>and autobiography. Includes one book of short stories with each story
>related to an element.

Primo Levi's "The Sixth Day" is a superb collection of short
stories/essays.  

Recommended to all as a mind stimulus.
His finest work.

russ
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:21:20 GMT

In article <schumach.724117382@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>>but I was.  I don't see why I can't enjoy (and understand) both Hannah 
>>Arendt and Oppenheimer or Feynman.  Please recall that Mr. Feynman 
>>specialized in physics but also painted and played the bongos, among many 
>>other endeavours not normally associated with 'scientists'.
>
>Not true!. Many scientists are interested in and appreciative of the arts.
>You must be thinking of engineers.
>
>
>

At this point I feel I must remind you that engineering is by definition
a blending of science and art. ;^)

(much liberty taken in my definitions....  :^) )

-AIP
>
>


Xref: sparky sci.physics:21206 sci.math:16953
From: columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Chaitin's Omega and QM (was: Bayes' theorem and QM)
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:20:22
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
	<SRCTRAN.92Dec14122532@world.std.com>
	<COLUMBUS.92Dec14142145@strident.think.com>
	<1992Dec14.223229.22348@galois.mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: strident.think.com
In-reply-to: jbaez@riesz.mit.edu's message of Mon, 14 Dec 92 22:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223229.22348@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu
(John C. Baez) writes: 

   I quote DeMers:

   For Kolmogorov Complexity in general, the best place to
   start would be with
   an introduction to the notions of Kolmogorov Complexity and
   its application to a number of different problems which can
   be found in:

   Li, M.  and Paul Vitanyi, Kolmogorov Complexity and Its
   Applications, in
   Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, (J. van Leeuwen, Ed.)
   North-Holland, 1989.

I might add that Li and Vitanyi do a meticulous job recounting the history
of the subject (about as tangled as usual).  If you want to know who proved
what when, this is the place to look.  Besides Solomonoff, Kolmorgorov,
Chaitin, and Martin-Loef, already mentioned in this thread, Leonid Levin,
Peter Gacs, and Robert Solovay also made important contributions.

According to Li and Vitanyi, priority for the concept of algorithmic
entropy (or information) should go to Solomonoff, with independent
rediscovery by Kolmorgorov and by Chaitin.  Somewhat ironically they use
the term Kolmogorov complexity throughout!  (I used the term
Chaitin entropy in my last post.)  Probably the best term is "algorithmic
entropy" or "algorithmic information content", which Zurek uses.

Oh well.  The cubic formula was discovered by Scipio del Ferro,
independently rediscovered by Tartaglia, and first published by Cardano who
gave credit to Tartaglia (I don't remember if he also credited del Ferro).
So of course it is almost universally referred to as Cardano's formula.
(Look up the history of L'Hospital's rule sometime...)
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - NewScientist Article
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:18:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.724717112
 <1992Dec12.195654.7419@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>   
 <1992Dec14.023025.20353@dmp.csiro.au> <1992Dec14.055311.10343@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <1992Dec15.060749.3517@coplex.com>

chuck@coplex.com (Chuck Sites) writes:

>There may be a test of this theory, alabet a tricky one.  A friend of mine
>asked the following question: If a neutrino has no mass, then it should
>not be effected by gravity. (Photons have zero mass, and are effected by 
>gravity, but they are also our gage stick for c, so it might be interesting
>to look at other massless paticles to resolve time.)  He argued that since
>a neutrino is massless and weakly interacting it is not effected by gravity,
>and should pass linearly with the time-inertia even where space is warped,
>and thus there is a good probability for neutrinos to be FTL particles.

If general relativity is right, neutrinos are affected by gravity in
exactly the same way that photons are.  That they have no strong or
electromagnetic interactions has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what this has to do with time having "inertia," though.

>I was kind of perplexed by question, although I could see that the 
>electro-weak model might provide a way out but I wasn't sure how.  The
>experiment is then, to find a distant neutrino source, and see if
>it bends with the normal space-time model.

According to the electroweak model neutrinos travel either at the
speed of light or at a lower speed, depending on whether you put in
neutrino mass terms.  

As for a distant neutrino source, supernovae are the obvious choice--
but it's currently quite difficult to get any kind of directional
handle on where detected neutrinos are coming from, let alone do the
kinds of high-resolution observations that would be necessary to 
detect neutrino gravitational lensing.  On the other hand, the
detection of neutrinos from supernova 1987a (if true) does provide a nice
indication that some electron neutrinos, at least, travel very, very 
close to the speed of light-- they arrived almost contemporaneously
with the first visible indication of the explosion, after racing the
light all the way from the Large Magellanic Cloud.  I think they
actually arrived hours *before* the first visible indication of the
explosion, which is to be expected if they travel at c, since
neutrinos can pass unimpeded through the outer layers of a star
from the core, where the explosion starts.

I remember reading (in Scientific American?) that someone had done
a calculation implying *lethal* neutrino fluxes in the vicinity of
the supernova.  That's a lot of neutrinos.

-- 
Matt McIrvin
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21438 sci.math:17190
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Can space-time intersect itself?
Date: 18 Dec 92 22:45:26 GMT

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

>Toon Moene writes:

>>Well, ok, I know (and appreciate) that one. I, however, still don't  
>>understand why it is a question *whether* the manifold describing *our*
>>space-time structure wouldn't be embedded in some R^n. I read the  
>>aforementioned theorem as saying: Either you prove that your manifold  
>>isn't seperable, or it *is* embedded in some R^n. Whether there is a  
>>constructive proof of it doesn't interest me. Besides, it bothers me that  
>>one needs this to be able to prove or disprove that a manifold can 'bump
>>into itself'. This somehow contradicts your last paragraph.

>---
>The spacetime manifold might as well be assumed to be separable.  That's
>not the point.

>We're getting mired in semantics here.  The mathematical theorem says
>any separable manifold CAN BE embedded in some R^n.  It doesn't say it
>IS embedded in some R^n. 

I might add that there isn't any way to embed *spacetime* in some higher-
dimensional *Euclidean* R^n in such a way that the metric restricts 
to the one in our spacetime.  This may be seen trivially by observing
that Euclidean R^n will never have vectors with negative squared length.

I get the feeling sometimes that something like this is what people
want when they express a fondness for an embedded universe: you have
a four-dimensional spacetime, and you explain curvature by saying 
that it "curves through some still higher dimensions."  You can do this
if the bigger manifold is Minkowskian, of course, but it takes away
some of the elegance of the idea.

A difference between "can be embedded" and "is embedded"
is that the former doesn't *require* the space to intersect
itself, whereas the latter well might!  I can embed a Klein bottle
in R^3, but if I do it requires that the Klein bottle intersect
itself.  This doesn't mean that a Klein bottle always has to intersect
itself; it gets along by itself just fine with no self-intersection.

This is the difference that is relevant to this discussion.

(By the way, is the word "embed" right in this context?  Is what
you do to a Klein bottle in R^3 an embedding, or just an immersion?
Are all immersions embeddings?  An immersed manifold certainly can
intersect itself, or, more properly, its image under the immersion
can.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: sawyer@utahep.uta.edu (Lee Sawyer)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Reluctant call for moderation of sci.physics
Date: 13 Dec 92 17:44:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: utahep.13DEC199211444059
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington High Energy Physics Group
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


     I have in the past thought that sci.physics should be unmoderated. The
current flood of Abianology has caused me to change my mind. Is it possible to
switch this to a _loosely_ moderated newsgoup for, say, six months, then 
switch it back to unmoderated when the wackos have either calmed down or
popped a blood vessel ?

    Short of this, can anyone suggest a way in VNEWS to tailor a kill file
to filter the TIME HAS INERTIA postings ? Could a script be written that
automatically redirects these to alt.physics.new-theories (or whatever that 
group is called) ?


       ================                           
         Lee Sawyer                                  

         Dept of Physics                          
         Univ. of Texas                            
               at Arlington                        
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA - ABIAN REPLIES TO GREG NEILLE
Keywords:  Greg Neille, pschology, crank, blithering idiot
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:55:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.193627.26120@cid.aes.doe.CA> ynecgan@cid.aes.doe.CA (Greg Neill) writes:

Dear Mr. Neille,

You write

>In article <BzD4v8.J31@news.cso.uiuc.edu> met48546@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marc E. Talbot) writes:
>>abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>>
>>>   I COUNT ON BRILLIANT  READERS OF  TIME HAS INERTIA AND THE YOUNG
>>>IMAGINATIVE AND AGGRESSIVE MINDS FOR DEVELOPING AND INTRODUCING
>>>(A1), (A2), (A4)  based on the CORNERSTONE OF THE NEW REVOLUTION IN THE 
>>>PHYSICS  -  (A3)
>>>   I was told that in Russia they are very seriously considering the
>>>ramifications and implication of  TIME HAS INERTIA - very seriously,
>>>without sarcasm, without childish kiddings, without putting me down
>>>without sardonic remarks, without mockery, without vilification,
>>>without slander and wretched brutish and beastly envy and hostility.
>>
>>Told by whom?  What research group?  What university?  Are you sure someone's
>>not just sending you fake Email?  Or are you just making this up?  Come on,
>>answer this one....
>>
>
>
>  It might be interesting to note that the last refuge of the hopelessly
>deluded is to assert that they have gained enormous support from a
>growing following of "true believers" in some far off place, usually 
>claims which cannot be substantiated or refuted without undue effort.
>
>  Note that in this instance the deluded one names no names, quotes no
>quotes, and makes nothing but vague references.  Typical.
>
>  Time to refer the patient to sci.psychology?  Could be worth a term
>paper or two to someone with nothing interesting to do.
>



   Mr. Neille,  you are one of the best experimental evidence of
my (A3).  It shows to what drastic extent  people will go and to what
hysterical methods they will  resort  just to GAIN A FEELING OF SECURITY.

   BRAVO  (A3)  !

 P.S. I don't have to give you any proof or any evidence or any names.
      If you are so impressed by my success and the admirers of my
      theories you find them yourself.  THey are In Russia, in Zchecho-
slovakia, In England, in Sweden, in Australia , etc., etc.  
     
    With love                Alexander Abian
-- 
   The tendency of maintaining the status-quo, Reaction to provocation and
                The tendency of maintaining again a status-quo.  
    TIME HAS INERTIA  and some energy is lost to move Time forward  
  E = mcc  (Einstein)    must be replaced by    E = m(0) exp(-At) (Abian)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: quantum cosmology
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:29:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.194012.20679@galois.mit.edu> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C.
Baez) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.171644.74@vms.huji.ac.il> tabitha@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>>A question about quantum cosmology from a non-physicist.
>>
>>If space and time came into existence with the big bang, in
>>what would the quantum fluctuation have occured?
>
>This is one of those questions they only tell you the answer to when you
>get your PhD, and they make you promise not to tell anyone.

It is also said that Mozart included the answer to this in his first version of
Magic Flute, which had a libretto in Linear A, written by
a guy he had met at a Shriner's convention.
From: ucap22w@ucl.ac.uk (Martin S T Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: scientists who write literature
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:19:02 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

day@fou.tr.statoil.no (Simon Day) writes:

>How about Primo Levi?

>Italian chemist who wrote a number of books and short stories, fiction
>and autobiography. Includes one book of short stories with each story
>related to an element.

And what about C.P.Snow, admittedly long since deceased? A distinguished
atomic and molecular physicist in his time, as well as a well-respected
novelist.
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.engr,alt.psychology.personality
From: kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA  -     Libelous Statements by  Gunnar and Hall
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:40:59 GMT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology

In article <abian.724811082@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
 > 
 > Mr. Gunnar and Mr. Hall
 > 
 >   There were many extremely personal libelous and defamatory postings
 >   posted by  Bass, Gunnar and Hall.  I said that I will comment on 
 >   these postings.  Your unfounded extremely defamatory personal remarks 
 >   are libelous and I am warning you of that.
 >   Keywords: LIBEL IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW        Alexander Abian

Hah! Yet again Abian show how EVIL he is!!!
Accusing ME of _libelious_ things when he himself have done it for MONTHS!
And worst of ALL, he is THREATENING with   P U N I S H M E N T   B Y   L A W !

Stop being so GRUESOME, Abian the saaAaAAADISSSSSsSsssth !

Gunnar.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Why Wave Functions aren't Physical (Was: Re: QM non-causal?)
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 03:45:14 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>P1: If A and B are correlated, then there is either a causal chain such
>that A causes B (possibly A causes C causes D causes E causes B), a
>causal chain such that B causes A, or a causal chain such that some event
>C not related to A and B causes them both (through a causal chain).

Not necessarily. For example, if there were some unknown mechanism
that prevents me from finding out the results of B except in the cases
where B happens to be correlated with A, then I will perceive a
correlation between A and B, even though there is no causal
connection.

>P2:  Mathematically, if some measurable phenomenon C affects the
>probabilities of both A and B, one can mathematically state that
>
>P(A) = intergal of Pa|c() * delta P(C)
>P(B) = intergal of pb|c() * delta P(C)
>
>where Pa|c is the 'conditional' probability of A given C
>(I belive this is known as Baynes thereom)
>
>Given both of these propositions, one directly runs into a problem with
>the results of the Bell expiriment regardless of one's definition of
>physicality of wave functions.

A loophole for this proposition is that there can be a *nonmeasurable*
phenomenon C causing both A and B. This is the way out offered by
Pitowsky's spin-1/2 function model for the EPR experiment.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
From: ehling@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu (Teresa A. Ehling)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: New book on Nanotechnology
Date: 17 Dec 1992 19:51:40 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rice-chex.ai.mit.edu

Now available from the MIT Press!




NANOTECHNOLOGY
Research and Perspectives

edited by BC Crandall and James Lewis

Advances in physics, molecular biology, and computer science 
are converging on the capacity to control, with  molecular 
precision, the structure and function of matter. These twenty 
original contributions provide the first broad-based 
multidisciplinary definition and examination of the 
revolutionary new discipline of molecular engineering, or 
nanotechnology. They address both the promise as well as the 
economic, environmental, and cultural challenges of this 
emerging atomic-scale technology.
  Leaders in their field describe current technologies that 
feed into nanotechnology -- atomic imaging and positioning, 
protein engineering, and the de novo design and synthesis of 
self-assembling molecular structures. They present 
development strategies for coordinating recent work in 
chemistry, biotechnology, and scanning-probe microscopy in 
order to successfully design and engineer molecular systems. 
They also explore advances in molecular and quantum 
electronics as well as reversible computational systems and 
the fundamental physical constraints on computation. 
Additional chapters discuss research efforts in Japan and 
present the prospects of nanotechnology as seen from the 
perspective of a microtechnologist.
  The final section looks at the implications of success, 
including the prospects of enormous computational power and 
the radical consequences of molecular mechanical systems in 
the fields of medicine and life extension. 


Contributors: Robert Birge. Federico Capasso. BC Crandall. 
K. Eric Drexler. Gregory Fahy. Richard Feynman. John Foster. 
Tracy Handel. Bill Joy. Arthur Kantrowitz. Joseph Mallon. 
Norman Margolus. Ralph Merkle. Lester Milbrath. Gordon 
Tullock. Hiroyuki Sasabe. Michael Ward.


ISBN 0-262-03195-7   CRANH
381 pp. -- 136 illus., 29 in color 
$39.95, hardcover


From your enlightened bookseller or order directly from 
The MIT Press.

The MIT Press
55 Hayward Street
Cambridge, MA  02142


Tel orders: 1-800-356-0343  -or-  617/628-8569