HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Note to Budnick - a reminder.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:54:54 GMT


From well (Whole Earth Electronic Link)

Topic 279:  Mad Scientists II
# 12: Epigone of Koestler (rcl)      Mon, Sep 14, '92  (17:58)      16
lines

Praising Sarfatti in front of his face certainly won't alter his character
for better or worse, so let me say this. He strikes me as one of those
unusual American originals, The Existential Hero. Such people don't often
exist outside the fiction of Hemingway or Mailer. Perhaps Sarfatti has
drunk deeply of the Mailerian spring. Whatever drew him into this way of
life, the fact remains that he's obeying Nietzsche's maxim, live
dangerously; and he's pursuing Whitehead's ideal of the Adventure of Ideas.
This he is doing not as an insensate sleepwalker, but fully conscious and
aware of the dangers he runs and the glories he might gain.

Too bad that some blockheads among us writhe with envy at the spectacle of
a gifted soul aiming at stardom, and who spit gall rather than applaud a
trapeze artist flying high, netless, over marble.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: re:Budnick's idea on "delays" in testing Bell's inequality.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:11:36 GMT


Based on e-mail Budnick is acting like a Nudnick if not a crackpot on this
"delay" pseudo-problem. Perhaps, I am wrong in saying that his idea is
totally confused and misses the point. Does any one else out there think
they understand Budnick's point and , if so, can they explain it in their
own words. My mind is open, though Budnick is too ego-involved at the moment
to be objective.  If he has a valid point that I am blind too will some one
try to explain it since he is not willing to answer my very clear objection.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Where is background energy going?
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:11:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

baylissb@topaz.ucq.edu.au writes:
>[I wrote] 
>> This, I don't understand.  Ordinary refractive materials don't significantly
>> change the wavelength of an incident beam, just its direction (speed,
>> equivalently). 

>What sort of change in wavelenght are we talking about (magnitude of change,
>etc)

OK, from the spectrum of a quasar we can see that it is at a redshift
of, say, z=1.  (Up to z=4 have been seen.)  
z = change in wavelength / wavelength , so z=1 implies that the wavelengths
of spectral lines from that quasar have doubled.  (i.e. 6562 angstroms
goes to 13124, etc.)

>> In any case, the universe is mostly vacuum and there is nothing to do
>> the refracting. 

>Are we really sure!!!! Has anybody been able to measure the 'vacuum' of space
>say on the other side of the milky way??  If not, how can we be sure???

We can see through it.  This is one good reason.  I could cite limits
on the density of interstellar hydrogen from the Gunn-Peterson test, but
would you really care ... Why do people always assume astronomers are
too stupid to have thought of their wonderful ideas?
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: parson_r@cubldr.colorado.edu (Robert Parson)
Subject: Re: Scientific writing 
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:28:39 GMT

In article <Dec.11.15.24.48.1992.2096@ruhets.rutgers.edu>, bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
> 
> Mermin is about the _only_ person who ever writes creatively in Physics
> Today.  I am sure there are more who could, but the standards of the
> community are such that they do not.  That is the issue.  Attempts to
> start a war with the English department are just a distraction.
> 
 Yes, Mermin is an outstanding prose stylist, in his technical papers (e.g. the
 famous one where he proves the instability of two-dimensional crystals,
 ~1965 I think). 
 Three others of equal literary merit:

 Michael V. Berry (the 1983 paper on "his" phase is a masterpiece.)

 H. C. Longuet-Higgins, who anticipated Berry's phase by about 25 years.

 Philip Pechukas.

 Pechukas, a theoretical chemist at Columbia, is the only author who has
 ever made me laugh out loud while reading a technical paper. (The sentence
 said, "the entire calculation can be made less juvenile by adopting an
 obscure notation.")

 Robert
Xref: sparky sci.physics:21496 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2575
From: jbeason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Joseph E. Beason)
Subject: Re: Richard P. Feynman
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:01:00 GMT

Oh, God!
What am i going to do?????
I've got a BS in electrical engineering, am getting a master's in applied
stats, and a PhD in psychology.  I write fiction and hang out in art
museums.  I'm a gay man who tries not to talk like a woman, but, well,
we just can't help ourselves.

I just love it when people who've never met me seem to know all about me.
But I'm an engineer, I'm just not that senistive. Except I'm gay, which means
I'm more senisitive.  I need therapy; are psychologists voting that gays
are sick or well this year, I forget.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA.
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:27:28 GMT

kim@Lise.Unit.NO (Kim Gunnar St|vring yhus) writes:
: Warning to new readers of Abians postings concerning his principle.
: 
Oh, come on, we all enjoy laughing at him. Don't tell me that you have
not found him amusing. One of these days he'll be carted away and we will
all miss him.     					                      : If you
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG)
Subject: Re: Metals in liquid Nitrogen !!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:07:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.192622.6719@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.171454.3158@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kpearce@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (BULLDAWG) writes:
>
>[discussion of boiling in nitrogen deleted]
>>
>>But at this point, the metal makes a phase transition from one kind of
>>metal crystal to another (bcc to alpha).  Whenever a substance under goes
>>a phase trnsition it gives up heat.  So what was happining was that the
>>metal was bubbling away as it cooled down giving up heat in a straight-
>>forward way and then at a centain temperature, the metal says "hey, I'm in the
>>wrong shape, and I have too much energy" and then gives up that excess energy
>>_in_addition_ to the heat energy it was giving up to begin with and then
>>as soon as it makes the phase transition, the copper goes to cooling down as
>>before (the bubbles slow down).
>
>     So all metals have discrete phase transitions near the boiling point of
>     nitrogen?   And these phase transitions involve increased cooling
>     /increased heat transfer?

Of course not.


>
>     I think you'll find that it is just changes in the heat 
>     transfer characteristics of the metal/fluid interface down near 
>     the boiling incipience point that are the real cause.  
>
>     See my earlier posting for details.
>

I saw the earlier post.  The data shown is over a range of temperatures.
All LN2 that is found in an open dewar will be 77K.  Refering to his chart, 
the LN2 should be boiling furiously (and is not, I just took a look to 
make sure).  The data that you show in your chart just doesn't apply to this
process (since it is all taking place at 77K).



>                             dale bass
>-- 
>C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
>Department of Mechanical, 
>     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
>University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926


Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (J. Giles)
Subject: Re: QM non-causal?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:19:40 GMT

In article <433@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
|> 
|> Unless you say what principles you are calling into question it is not
|> possible to debate the issue. Any claim *might* be false if *all* principles
|> of mathematics and science are called into question.

But, I'm not making a scientific point - I'm making a 
philosophical one.  Namely that mathematics is a formal system 
invented by humans and its only connection with science is
whatever properties can be verified independently.  Those
properties of mathematical models which do not correspond
to verifiable properties of reality are simply not demonstrably
real and should not be touted as facts.

-- 
J. Giles
From: murphy@npri6.npri.com (David P. Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. ABIAN replies DAVID P. MURPHY
Date: 14 Dec 92 05:12:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


 >Dear Mr. MURPHY,
 >
 >  In your 12-9-92 posting which refers yo my (A3) and (A4), i.e.,
 >
 >    The behavior of a particle as well as a galaxy, in fact, as well as
 >    the entire Cosmos is motivated and based on:
 >
 >(A3)     GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY
 >
 >and
 >
 >(A4)    LIFE IS AN INEXORABLE, RELENTLESS PROCESS OF DOING EVERYTHING IN
 >        ORDER TO GAIN A FEELING OF SECURITY
 >
 >
 >YOU DID NOT OBSERVE THAT:
 >
 >   in the moments of extreme catastrophe, extreme disasters, extreme
 >   situations threatening the existence of any nation, THE MOST
 >   MAGICALLY DRAMATIC WORDS UTTERED BY THE AUTHORITIES TO SAVE THE
 >   NATION (invariably) ARE:
 >
 >           " we should act for  THE SECURITY of our nation "
 >
 > Do you need a more experimental verification and testability of (A3) and 
 > (A4) ! ?
 >
 >abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)

hello alex.  sorry about your e-mail being permanently broken --- good thing
your net access is still working!

NPRI's company policy specifically forbids rude and obnoxious behavior
when posting; this includes calling you names and using foul language
to emphasize a point.

you are not quoting me.  in fact, i don't think you're quoting anyone but
yourself.  as those who know me well could tell you, though, a little thing
like that won't stop me from following up :-)

re your statement that i "did not observe":  please distinguish between
a normally dramatic phrase and a magically dramatic phrase.

re your remark about "act for the SECURITY of our nation":  please check
with your doctor immediately to ensure that you are ingesting the proper
dosage of your prescriptions.

re your query as to whether i need "more verification" of A3 and A4:  the word
"more" is used inappropriately in your sentence.

re this thread in general:  are you making this stuff up by yourself,
or do you have a few friends helping you out on the rough parts?
either way, whoever came up with the line about "everything i _say_ is
physics, _is_ physics" is the definite winner so far.

ok
dpm
-- 
murphy@npri6.npri.com 602 Cameron St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (703) 683-9090

              When every one is dead the Great Game is finished.  Not before.
                              --- Hurree Babu, "Kim"
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Cappucino Noise
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:19:07 GMT


1/ You get the same sort of frequency shift when pouring hot coffe vs cold
coffee.

2/ I think the pitch is a function of entrained micro-bubbles.  As the size of
these bubbles gets larger, the pitch lowers.  The bubbles are evolved gasses
that changes state from dissolved to free.  The hotter the source liquid, the 
bigger the bubbles.

3/ The capucino 'steam' is a complex admixture of hot liquid, agglomerating 
bubbles and free vapor.

4/ At that point, my crystal ball goes hazy.

For those of us that remember steam heat, explain the clanging of pipes when 
hot steam is first introduced that day.
From: bweiner@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Crackpot update, New Scientist
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:39:47 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

I tracked down the New Scientist squib on sci.physics, T**E H*S I*****A,
and the crackpot index ... it's in "Feedback," a gossipy page at the 
back of the magazine (p.80, 5 Dec 1992).  Reprinted without
permission ... all errors are theirs and theirs alone.

from the "New Scientist," 5 Dec 1992:
--------
   All editors know that when they receive a letter written in green ink 
   and capital letters, it's likely that the writer will turn out to be
   persecuted by microwaves from the Russian Embassy.  The world of
   electronic communications has its equivalent: the message on your
   screen liberally sprinkled with capitals.
   
   For some reason the physicists' area of the academic network Internet
   attracts more than its share of this.  Prompted by an especially
   striking outburst from a retired mathematician insisting that TIME has
   INERTIA, users have developed a Crackpot Index.  Forewarned is
   fore-trashed. 
   
   You get 40 points for claiming a revolutionary theory that gives no
   concrete, testable predictions; 10 for comparing yourself favourably
   to Einstein or Darwin (but 20 for Newton); 10 for claiming that
   special or general relativity, quantum mechanics or the theory of
   evolution are fundamentally misguided; 5 for each word in caps and for
   each string of exclamation points; 10 points for pointing out that you
   have been to college, as if this was evidence of sanity; 30 for
   claiming that the scientific establishment is engaged in a conspiracy
   to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved recognition; 20
   for stating that you deserve a Nobel prize; and so forth.
   
   Naturally, someone took the time to write a program to mark messages
   automatically.  Due to the difficulty of getting a computer to
   understand the concept of "favourably", the programme gives you points
   just for mentioning Newton, Darwin, Velikovsky, or the Bermuda
   Triangle.
   
   The result?  A bundle of spoof messages aiming for maximum score.
   And the index's author himself ranked number 6 in the crackpot league
   table.

--------
Well, John Baez may be thankful his name wasn't mentioned, anyway.
It's too bad that Ab**n gets all the credit for prompting the
crackpot index, I'm sure mc*lwre, H*nnu, et al. had something to
do with it.  And does anyone know why New Scientist use both "program"
and "programme"?
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics-new,theories
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Feynman 37: vacuum structure & spin-statistics connection
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:39:49 GMT


Feynman 37  vacuum structure in semiclassical positron theory

5 "An alternative way of obtaining absolute amplitudes is to multiply all
amplitudes by Cv, the vacuum to vacuum amplitude, that is, the absolute
amplitude that there be no particles both initially and finally.  We can
assume Cv = 1 if no potential is present during the interval, and otherwise
we compute it ias follows.  It differs from unity because for example, a
pair could be created which eventually annihilates itself again.  Such a
path would appear as a closed loop on a space-time diagram."

Note these Feynman vacuum polarization loops have finite positive energy
(of 2mc^2 or greater - though effectively less if we weight it with the
probability of a virtual pair being created in a process involving low
energy atomic, molecular or solid-state processes) in the forward-in-time
(FIT) sense and should not be confused with a positive energy particle on a
closed time-like loop which has zero total energy in the FIT sense.  It
also should not be confused with the transactional probability density
Amp*Amp which also has zero total energy in the FIT sense though a closed
time like world line in the GR sense does not appear to play a role unless
it does because of the Penrose graviton collapse idea.

"The sum of the amplitudes resulting from all such single closed loops we
call L.  To a first approximation " (note "A" for em vector potential
replaces "V" general potential, an "v" means vacuum. "sp" for "spur" or
"trace" "sum over all possible spins", also A is 4D inner product of 4-
vector potential with the 4 Dirac "gamma matrices".) "

L1 = -(1/2)S^2{sp[K+(2,1)A(1)K+(1,2)A(2)]d1d2}         (28)

- from iA each factor, Feynman proves that L2n = 0 "Furry's theorem".

L = S(n)L2n+1 (n =1 to infinity)

  There are also Feynman diagrams for multiple virtual pair loops which
Feynman shows leads to "The total vacuum to vacuum amplitude"

Cv = e^-L  (30)

"... -L is a consequence of the Pauli principle....Symmetrical statistics
would lead to Cv = e^+L. "The quantity L has an infinite imaginary part
(from L1, higher orders are finite)....

Pv = |Cv|^2 = e^-2ReL

ReL > 0 "as a consequence of the Dirac equation and properties of K+ so
that Pv is less than one.  Bose statistics give Cv = e^+L and consequently
a value of Pv greater than unity which appears meaningless... Our choice of
K+ apparently requires the exclusion principle."

This is an interesting remark on the spin-statistics connection.

"Charges obeying the Klein-Gordon equation .... the real part of L comes
out negative for this equation so that in this case Bose statistics appear
to be required for consistency."
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Special relativity is SOOO irritating!
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: sci
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:16:07 GMT


> > > Anders Ivner:
> > >
> > > Consider a staff, one meter long. Now, given the speed v it 'shrinks'
> > > to half a meter. We then have a wall, and an easily controllable
> > > hatch placed .75 meters from the wall. The staff passes through the 
> > > hatch, and we close the hatch behind it (BEFORE it hits the wall!)
> > > The staff hits the wall, without being deformed (somewhat unrealistic!),
> > > and since its speed now changes to 0 it is now fully 1 meters long.
> > > What the **** happens????

> > Radford Neal:
> >
> > ... lets assume that
> > the staff is equiped with *many* rocket motors, distributed along its
> > length, which all fire simultaneously, in the rest frame of the the staff.
> > It's then not necessary for the rod to be enourmously rigid.
> >
> > The answer to the problem then seems to me to be pretty simple. In the
> > rest frame of the wall, these rocket motors *do not* fire simultaneously.
> > The ones toward the tail of the staff fire first. The observer at rest
> > with the wall is then hardly surprised that the staff gets stretched out
> > to a full meter. In fact, if my space-time diagrams don't lie, this
> > happens before the tail passes through the hatch, so we never get to
> > close it at all.

> Anders Ivner:
>
> There is one problem with this theory:
> (First, let's say that the staff has a sensor in the front, that starts
> the rocket motors when the staff is, say .05 meters from the wall).
> What if we, when we notice that the staff begins to decellerate, remove the
> wall? (which, in our frame of reference occurs _before_ the front of the
> staff reaches .05 meters from the wall). It would then have no reason
> to decellerate... (sounds like one of those time-travelling paradoxes to me)


The point of my rephrasing of the problem was to produce something that
is physically realizable. Your suggestion is not. The rocket motors must
fire _simultaneously_, in the rest frame of the staff. This can't be done
if it's in response to a sensor at the front, since the signal to turn on
the rocket motors will propagate no faster than the speed of light. I was
assuming that the whole set up is pre-arrainged, so the firings can just
be controlled by timers at each rocket motor.

If you prefer, we can assume that the staff really does impact the wall.
In this case, however, one can't assume that the staff is perfectly rigid,
since that would require that the impact be propagated to the end of the
staff instantaneously. What will happen is that the staff will be compressed
(in the intertial frame in which it was previously at rest). We _can_ assume
that this is temporary, and that the staff will later rebound to its origninal
length. In this case, the answer is that the hatch can be closed, and that
the tail end of the staff will smash into it when the staff rebounds to its
full one metre length.

    Radford Neal
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:45:09 EST
From: <CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Simple Analogy for *Attractive* Exchange Forces?

There is a well known, simple "analogy" for *repulsive* exchange forces.
But is there an "analogy" for *attractive* exchange forces?
Thanks!
Carey
ccb104@psuvm.psu.edu
ccb104@psuvm.BITNET
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.physics.research moderated
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:49:13 GMT

In article <1gouilINN3v5@news.UU.NET> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
writes:
>This is a request for discussion about creating a new moderated group
>for discussion of physics.

OK, I'll vote in favor. I want to point out that such a measure will cure some
of the problems, but it may wind up with the Phys Rev Letters of the net.
That's probably OK, because it will stop getting read, just like PRL.

The biggest clutterer of these newsgroups is cross-posting. I can avoid "ABIAN"
(I've never read what he says - I have an aversion to people who use lots of
caps) and the others of his ilk; I just don't read 'em. On the other hand, I
usually do want to see what Matt Austern has to say, for example, but not
twice! I've never understood why anyone feels what he has to say is worth
putting two places (or more). I don't do it, but I must admit that republishing
scholarly work in multiple journals still seems to be done from time to time.

One of the requirements for acceptance of an article to this new group should
be that its author must agree not to publish it or substantially identical
material elsewhere in the news. Violators would be killed.

Leigh
From: andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA. SURRENDER TO (A1),(A2),(A3),(A4) NO OTHER WAY
Keywords: GAINING A FEELING OF SECURITY - THE SOLE MOTIVATING FORCE 12-11-92
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:22:41 GMT
Organization: Renaissance Technologies Corp., Setauket, NY.

In article <1992Dec12.181444.5588@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> lnh@soliton.physics.arizona.edu (sometimes a Wombat) writes:

>Praise Bob and pass the slack.

Yes, I knew this reminded me of something I'd seen before.

Actually, I remember a guy named Scott who was studying Physics at Princeton 
when I was in grad school whose hobby was tracking weird religions. Now
Hannu and Alex make it easy for him. All he's got to do is read sci.physics.

But you have to hand it to Abian. His theory _can_ explain how the 18th
century physicians scorned Freud; you see the time difference was distorted
by the inertia of the status quo. Sort of like PDQ Bach's anticipatory
plagiarism.


Later, (sooner?)
Andrew Mullhaupt
Newsgroups: sci.physics