HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt)
Subject: Re: New Ending - Impure Mathematics
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 19:33:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug29.020144.19531@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>You're right about the "downright outrage". The experimental evidence
>strongly suggests that people like feminists, the religious right, etc
>etc, whose moral outrage is easily provoked, are unusually stupid.
>True,the original story was also stupid and unfunny.: 

Scathing tone as always. This is untrue...people who are easily provoked
have strong emotional traumas, not low intelligence. There is no particular
correlation with intelligence per se. It just is not true that intelligent
people recover faster or better from emotional trauma, nor that they
experience fewer.

If anything it has been suggested that there is an *inverse* correlation
between mental health and intelligence, on average.
	Doug
-- 
Doug Merritt	Preferred: doug@netcom.com   (or: doug@eris.berkeley.edu)
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary	Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
From: cdost+@pitt.edu (Constantin D Orogo)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Gyro Compass
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:02:32 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Hello, networld! ANybody out there know of a place I can buy a gyro
compass? Thanks in advance.
-Constantine Orogo
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:23:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc8.mcirvin.715209788
 <1992Aug30.001443.22249@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> <mcirvin.715196487@husc8> <1992Aug30.201153.18351@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>

muttiah@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:

>True enough.  But let me ask you why you think these theories are
>"radically at odds with our intuition."  These theories gave explanations
>for experiments conducted in regions (I'm not sure what else to call it...
>"experiment space" ? ;-) never tested by humans before.  

That's not *quite* the case, in the sense that quantum mechanics gave
explanations for things like spectral lines and blackbody spectra,
which could be and were observed by 19th-century scientists, yet were
radically different from anything predicted by classical physics.  But
by and large, it's true that the regions where common sense fails
utterly are regions where it ought to be expected, at least with
hindsight, to fail utterly.  The strangeness of quantum mechanics
manifests itself primarily on a small scale, and relativity's oddities
occur under extreme conditions as well, or are vanishingly small
effects.  

What I meant is that, if you didn't know any better, you would
consider it probable that the sorts of phenomena you see around
you every day-- a clear demarcation between space and time; a
universal notion of simultaneity; arbitrary measurements with
precision limited only by the delicacy of the apparatus; objects
occupying definite places in space and possessing definite momenta--
would also apply to regions where the objects become very small
or the speeds very large.  The fact that they don't perhaps should
not be surprising, since the conditions are really so different.
Yet a person living in a realm of large objects traveling
at low speeds in a weak gravitational field necessarily has a
working model of the world that depends on these ideas and shapes
behavior and beliefs, and some revising of it is necessary if
one wishes to think with any ease about things happening in
very different parts of "experiment space."  

The enormity of this conceptual leap is, I admit, very often
oversold.  It's not as great a leap as it's sometimes hyped up
to be, in the sense that you don't have to abandon anything you
might have thought about what happens on the scale of your
everyday life, or your ideas about ethics or society or (usually)
religion.  It is also neither necessary nor desirable to wipe your
brain clean of older ideas about physics, since in many instances
all that's needed is a small correction, if that, to results
calculated using 17th-to-19th-century models, and it can be very
useful to think about things in a "semiclassical" way.  But when you
enter the realm where the old ideas no longer apply at all,
it's necessary to think about objects and their properties
in a different way.
 
-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Weird idea 
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 07:55:47 GMT

Here is a very strange idea I'm throwing out (I won't even call it
a theory), but if someone gets a nobel prize from it be sure to tell
them you heard it here first :-)

The recent discussions of biological evolution keep reminding me of
particle physics for some reason.

Assume for a minute that this is not coincidence. What if particles
are alive in some sense or even represent an entire hurd of "creatures".
The laws of physics would simple be the results of "natural selection"
among possible states.
Now for an even more bizarre idea:
The universe (or maybe just some area) of it was started when this
"life" arose out of chaos. The "life" quickly reproduced producing
what we see as the big bang, eventually it used up some resource and
stopped reproducing leaving us with the particles we see today.

Why this idea came up:
 Assume you have some form of chaos, I've heard the idea that the universe
was a quantum fluctuation, however it requires a giant fluctuation :-)
Wouldn't it be simpler to have a fluctuation that resulted in a self
reproducing system? Given infinite time/space if a self reproducing system
is possible it will happen and quickly expand.
-- 
>>Unix/C Contract worker available 5 years C/unix work experience<<  ______
Available for Telecommuting/Travel and contracts on the T Line       \    /
in the Boston MA area. Send me e-mail for a copy of my Resume.        \  /
       -- VWIS 508-793-9568 (2400 baud), Linux support BBS.--          \/
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: E=mc2?
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:06:18 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Sep1.041046.7302@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:
>: gross@maxwell.ucsc.edu (Mike Gross) writes...
>: >But nuclear weapons _do_ turn matter into energy.   ....
>: 
>: Springs do the same thing. A compressed spring has kx^2/2c^2 more mass than
>: a relaxed one. So releasing a spring turns mass into energy.
>: 
>That's right. So to say that nuclear weapons are connected with E=mc^2
>makes about as much sense as saying that your bedsprings are nuclear
>powered. 

No.  Bedsprings are atomic powered.  ;-) 

The real point, if my memory is correct, is that the connection between 
nuclear weapons and E=mc^2 arose because of the role of Einstein's letter 
(composed by Szilard) to Roosevelt on the need for a nuclear weapons 
program.  What I do not recall, and keep forgetting to check at home 
where one of my books contains a copy of said letter, is whether the 
formula appears in it.  In any case, the reporting after the first 
explosion was made public made much of the conversion of mass to energy 
according to the new (still very new at that time) formula and it is 
this news coverage that makes the association so strong. 

>         In all these instances, all we have is energy  being converted
>to other forms of energy. Of course I am neglecting
>particle-antiparticle things, but I am told that in fission bombs most
>of the energy comes from releasing nuclear binding ENERGY. Correct me if
>I am wrong about this.

Yes and no.  It is the change in binding energy, not the actual disappearance 
of particles as would be the case in a matter-antimatter explosion, that 
is the source of the energy released.  However, the change in binding 
energy is measureable as an actual change in total mass of the stuff you 
had before and have after the reaction.  I think total fission of 1 kg 
of U-235 gives a reduction in mass by about 1 gram, if memory is accurate. 
(200 MeV is about 1/4 of an amu, so about 1/1000 of total mass)

Binding energy is deduced from the mass differences; it is not 
something you can see directly any more than one can see the actual 
kinetic and potential energies of the various constituent particles 
at any given instant.  After all, the nucleus is a complicated many-body 
system that does not have a fixed number of particles: it can contain 
Deltas or nucleon-antinucleon pairs as part of its wavefunction, as 
well as the neutrons and protons one finds when one takes it apart. 

--
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)
From: mcfarlan@corona.math.washington.edu (Thomas J. McFarlane)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: E=mc2?
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:41:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug31.094157.17751
Organization: University of Washington, Mathematics, Seattle

(Mike Gross) writes:
>(Mcinnes B T (Dr)) writes:
>>I am also very curious about the origin of the notion that nuclear
>>weapons are in some special way related to E=mc^2. Even today there are
>>textbooks which seem to imply that these devices operate by converting
>>matter into energy. I find it hard to see how such a misunderstanding
>>could have arisen.
>
>But nuclear weapons _do_ turn matter into energy.

Moreover, even chemical reactions convert matter into energy, the
difference in mass corresponding to the lost energy in the chemical
bonds.

Tom McFarlane
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why do protons outnumber antiprotons?
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:58:32 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <12950075@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM>, ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes...
> 
>>beta decay:  n -> p + e + nu.  How does your picture account for
>>the production of an electron without leaving a positron around somewhere?
> 
>Well,,, I really don't know! But for one, this situation includes more
>than just electrons and positrons. For two, it does leave an (?) anti-
>electron neutrino around. For three, is energy not conserved in beta decay?

Energy is always conserved, even in beta decay.  But it's a good question,
which received much study long ago.  Chadwick, of neutron fame, did some
extensive calorimetric measurements of beta decay which strongly suggested
that energy was in fact *not* conserved.  The day was saved by the 
neutrino, which carries off the missing energy.

>If it is then the overall picture remains the same: no imbalance of energy
>results and total particle energy plus total anti-particle energy remains
>constant. Or doesn't it? (50 years old! Man, I'm out of date! I never
>did like 1/3 charges. Can this ever be directly verified? And why can't
>I consider an n as a 4 dimensionally bound state of p, e, and nu?)

There was an attempt to do something similar to what you describe. 
It's called the "Sakata Model", if I remember correctly.  But it just
isn't so.  The substructure of the neutron can be probed in deep inelastic
scattering experiments to reveal the 1/3 charged scattering centers which 
we now call quarks.  There simply is no proton or electron in there.  And
the antineutrino is far to weakly interacting (having no electric charge)
to form part of such a bound state, given the properties of the neutron.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Satellite spying
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:31:29 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower) writes:
  I believe you are underclaiming Hubble and ground based resolution by about
  1 order of magnitude. My copy of "the New Cosmos 4th ed" by Aldrech Unsold
  gives Hubble resolution as .008 arc seconds and best ground based resolution
  as .03 arc seconds in chapter 3. Now this hubble resolution is in a different
  mode where spectrum and field of view are resricted and it sounds like some
  sort of photomultiplier is used to enhance the image brightness.

I'm not familiar with the 4th ed., but the 3rd ed. of Unsold and
Baschek, while not bad, has the problem of sometimes being, well,
wrong.  I think it's mostly poor editing (seems like a Springer-Verlag
problem).  Maybe they misplaced a decimal point.  Hubble was
_supposed_ (sniff wah) to get DLR (~0.08") but it couldn't possibly do
better.  A big ground based telescope has DLR of maybe 0.03" but
in astronomical practice anything under 1" is cause for celebration,
due to atmospheric seeing.  On the other hand looking down, and at
things which are zillions of miles away, makes it less of a problem
for spies, as other people have shown here.
From: baez@ucrmath.ucr.edu (john baez)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Report on Philosophies of Physicists
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:25:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: galaxy.22210
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Sep4.120349.2437@sei.cmu.edu> firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
>In article <2726@news.cerf.net> mitsu@nic.cerf.net (Mitsuharu Hadeishi) writes:

>>Although the basic concepts seem rather
>>simple and "obvious", I have found that when attempting
>>to discuss them with people who have not done any serious
>>work in philosophy (Western or Eastern), I cannot seem to make
>>myself understood clearly.

>"Whatever can be said, can be said clearly"

Hear, hear!  It's also worth noting that are those of us here who HAVE
done serious work in philosophy.

As for your fears that there will be an irascible minority who will not
understand even the clearest exposition -- don't worry about it!  Ignore
them, if you wish.  Usually when I teach math there are those in the
class who don't understand it.  Only in USENET do they have the gall to
put up a fight over it, instead of quietly going to sleep in the back row.  :-)

I post a lot, probably too much, and one of the secrets of my success is
to have realized that I don't need to argue with everyone who wants to
argue with me.
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Impure Mathematics
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:58:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

In article <1992Aug28.192954.7343@newshost.lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
>People are more sensitive these days to jokes about rape than about
>brutal murders: that is a function of social context not an objective
>position.  When you find an *objective* criterion for what kinds of
>misfortune are not appropriate for humor, let us know.  Or is all
>humor bad?

I am making no attempt at objectivity. I don't believe objectivity
exists, nor am I sure that it would be desirable if it did exist.
However, a simple rule I try to follow is never to entertain myself by
offending other people. I follow the subjective standards of people
who say they are offended by my jokes and I change my behavior
accordingly. Is there any reason for us all not to follow this simple
suggestion in dealing with others? Does simple civility require any
less of us?

The reasons why many women find the subject of rape particularly
touchy are too complicated for me to do justice to them here.
However, let me just note that the suffering of murder victims is
rarely trivialized the way those of rape victims are and murderers are
not let off with the excuse that the homicide was consensual.  For a
comprehensive account of one very intelligent and articulate woman's
ideas on rape, read Susan Brownmiller's book _Against_Our_Will_.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.
From: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Why do protons outnumber antiprotons?
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:46:41 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa3.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.198
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <12950074@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM>, ric@hpspdla.spd.HP.COM (Ric Peregrino) writes...
> 
>The way I understand our current understanding of say electrons and
>positrons is that an empty universe is actually a universe completely
>filled with electrons below zero energy minus the energy of an 
>electron. If you add at least twice the electrons energy, one electron
>can pop up to zero plus the energy of an electron and leave a hole
>behind. That hole is a positron. So for every electron there exists
>a positron.

This interpretation is about 50 years out of date.  Consider a simple
process, beta decay:  n -> p + e + nu.  How does your picture account
for the production of an electron without leaving a positron around somewhere?

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
From: tekman@ecn.purdue.edu (Erkan Tekman)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: LaTeX submission to Phys. Rev. ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:02:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <dedmunds.714873384@sfu.ca>, dedmunds@selkirk.sfu.ca (Darran Edmundson) writes:
|> Has anyone actually submitted a paper to Phys. Rev. electronically in
|> the LaTeX format?
|> 
|> I would be very interested in talking to someone who has been through
|> the process successfully.  Specifically, what style do you use and
|> how do you handle references (BibTeX???) and figure captions?


The best way to do so is to use the macro package REVTEX by APS staff. You
may get more info about that by sending a note to tex@aps.org. They will
send you both the macro package and some manuals as well. The references and 
captions are all in the package and very easy to handle.

By the way, you may also send figures via e-mail if you have them in
postscript format (not the encapsulated one, though).

E. Tekman
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Axiom of Physics
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:44:54 GMT
Distribution: na

doug@netcom.com (Doug Merritt) writes:

>In article <mcirvin.714873508@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>>  The constancy of c is usually taken as an axiom of relativity  [...]
>>  One could still construct a completely
>>different theory with a different set of axioms, though it would
>>be wrong as a description of reality.

>Not quite. A different axiom or set of axioms can, and very frequently *has*,
>been used, with the invariance of c then being a derived theorem rather
>than an axiom.

Yes, I know; I was referring to the case in which the different
axioms actually have different consequences.  I was going to put
in a statement to this effect-- I think it's very important too--
but I covered it elsewhere in the article.

-- 
Matt McIrvin, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
From: voros@physics.monash.edu.au (Joe Voros)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Rotating Bucket of Water in a Gravitation Field
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:19:44 +1000
Organization: Physics Department, Monash University, Australia.

wdb3926@zeus.tamu.edu (BRUTON, WILLIAM DANIEL) writes:
> Anyone ever proved that the surface of water in a bucket rotating
> in a gravitational field is a paraboloid? 

Many moons ago, yes.  Also, that if the bottom of the paraboloid just
touches the bottom of the bucket, that the amount of water left in the
bucket is exactly half, if it was full to begin with.

-- 
Joe Voros
Department of Physics, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia.

Quantum Mechanics is God's way of telling you to mind your P_i's and Q_j's.
From: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Facts and Values (was Where it came from)
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:15:37 GMT
Reply-To: schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
Distribution: na
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center

In <25732@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>Among the rules that every graduate student in HEP knows are
>(1) c = 1
>(2) c = 1 foot/nanosecond
>(3) 1 year = 10^7 seconds

Probably because it's a little more important to astrophysics to get
closer to the right number, astrophysics grad students learn that 1
year = pi x 10^7 sec (which is almost right).  Along with pi^2 = 10,
it comes in very useful.

>(4) a proton weights 1 GeV (see rule (1)) 
>(5) All computers are too slow.

>Only (1) and (5) are strictly true.

>-Scott
--
--------
Paul J. Schinder
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov
From: gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan Gilligan 303-497-3861)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: LaTeX submission to Phys. Rev. ?
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:10:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology

While I have not submitted a paper to Phys. Rev. using LaTeX, I can
pass some information along. You should use the RevTeX macro package
for the paper. BibTeX is not officially supported, although Chris
Hamlin (email mis@aip.org) has written an experimental prsty.bst,
which you can get from him. However, you may well need to hand-edit
the .bbl file to get it to work right. This is because there are some
shortcomings with bibTeX (such as inability to handle cross-references
gracefully and the inability to format multiple entries like
A.A.~Author, Phys.\ Rev.\ A~{\bf 45}, 8729 (1991); B.B.~Badger Phys.\
Rev.\ Lett.~{\bf 49}, 9153 (1982).) You can get the RevTeX macros by
anonymous ftp from niord.shsu.edu.  You can get a printed manual on
electronic submissions by writing to Chris Hamlin at wbytex@aps.org
and asking him to mail you a copy.

I have used the revTeX macros to format submissions for the last two
PRA articles I've written, but decided not to submit electronically
because the version of the Computer Modern Fonts they used was
terrible. There were terrible breaks in the hairline curves on `S' and
some other majescules and aliasing that was distracting even when I
read the Review at arm's length.  The laser printer in my office
produced better-looking output! In the last six months or so, I have
seen a great improvement in the quality of their fonts, but I still so
dislike the appearance of a typeface as light as Computer Modern on
the paper that Phys. Rev.  uses, that I would be reluctant to submit
electronically unless they waived all or a significant part of the
page charges as an incentive.

To see what I'm talking about, put a page printed in Computer Modern
(perhaps PRA 46, R1155 (1992)) next to one printed in their
conventional typeface (perhaps PRA 46, R1159) and see how much easier
their conventional typeface is to read and how much more clearly it
will photocopy. After all, the idea is to publish your work in a
format that will encourage others to read it.

Since using TeX as a markup language does not commit anyone to using
the Computer Modern family of fonts (the American Mathematical Society
typesets its journals using TeX, but using typefaces native to their
typesetter, rather than Computer Modern), there's no reason not to set
the Physical Review in a consistent manner. In fact, according to the
APS News (Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 3--6), the APS is looking into
accomodating other fonts in their LaTeX electronic submissions
program.

---Jon
-- 

Disclaimer --- The government probably disagrees with my opinions.