HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Apology
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:06:10 GMT


Yes, damn it! I did make that typo error not changing e to o in second
term of |a,b> eq at very start -f argument - so no wonder Gallis said the
notation was confusing. Sorry!
For the record the correct eq. is

|a,b> = {|a,e,+>|b,e,+> + |a,o,->|b,o,->}/sqrt2

the action of phase plate in e path and half wave plate in o path is

|a,b> -> |a,b>'

|a,b>' = {e^iphi|a,e,+>|b,e,+> + |a,o,+>|b,o,->}/sqrt2

and the point of disagreement with Ramsay is that I say that

|<a,e,+|a,o,+>| = 1

because of thation of half-wave plate in o space path rotates state of
linear polarization by 90 degrees from initial - state to final + state.
Since, |a,e,+> and |a,o,+> have same direction of polarization I say
they are not orthogonal in vector space but differ by a unitary phase
factor. Ramsay says they are still orthogonal.
erratum line above "because of the action of half-wave plate.."
so Rmsay says

|<a,e,+|a,o,+>| = 0

Ramsay insinuates that I am a "crackpot" because of this disagreement.
If that's all it takes then I admit it! We need more crackpots in that
case if there are to be fundamental advances.

Again - sorry for the confusing typo error at very beginning - pisses me
off - it must be the Gremlins or Time Travelling Dwarves from Zeta Rediculi
working their psychotronic mischief again. They don't want you Earthlings
to get their secrets!
From: sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No big crunch?
Date: 5 Nov 1992 11:30 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.197
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Nov5.045829.27744@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes...
> 
>     I prefer wildebeest as my universal motivating force.

You probably meant to say "Perfectly Normal Beast."  Don't Panic!

-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: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: Splitting physics conference&multiple listings.
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:29:18 GMT


I suggest that sci.physics be split into three sub-conferences:
1. sci.physics.orthodox
2. sci.physics.foundations (where FTL & philosophy etc. stuff would be)
3. sci.physics.education (questions of pedagogy, for students etc.)

I volunteer to edit 2.

I notice lots of multiple postings between sci. math and sci.physics - yet
when I put some optics related stuff in sci.optics I was immediately jumped
upon for wasting bit space with multiple listings - what gives? I was
told that the objection had nothing to do with content or value of the
posting.
PS the review of Gleick's book etc. would be in 3 - I volunteer to edit 3 as
well.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: dale bass on astrology
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:44:45 GMT

He simply cannot understand how anyone can think that science has
anything to say about it. You will never "prove" that it's wrong, you
know.
From: ejlund@coos.dartmouth.edu (Eric J. Lund)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Barbie is Right! (was: Mattel on women)
Date: 8 Nov 92 22:01:39 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

ajackson@ernie.Princeton.EDU (Andrew William Jackson) writes:

>Men are inherently better at math than women are.  Culture is not a force
>unto itself but a reflection of our fundimental nature.

Evidence, please. Also remember that correlation does not imply causation.

Here's some evidence to the contrary (source: _Physics_Today_, August 1992).
Some 45% of the bachelor's degrees in mathematics (excluding accounting and
business math) awarded in the late 1980's were earned by women. Given the
amount of prejudice in this country that "girls can't do math", this figure
is surprisingly high. Those who attempt to study physics or engineering
face even more discrimination (again, see the article in _Physics_Today_).
Remember how this thread got started: a major corporation propagated a
sexual stereotype in a product aimed at young girls.

I have encountered several incompetent male physicists, some of them tenured
profs, in my career. However, I have never encountered an incompetent
female in physics above the freshman level.

Just my $0.02
Eric Lund
ejlund@coos.dartmouth.edu
ejlund@einstein.dartmouth.edu
From: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Campfire and plasma musings
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd.

In article <ZOWIE.92Nov8173659@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
>In article <baz> jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
>   In article <bar> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>   >In article <foo>, slovick@Apple.COM (Linda Slovick) writes...
>   >>2.) Is a flame a plasma?
>   >Yes. 
>
>   Anyone know HOW ionized a campfire flame is?
>
>Not very.  If you assume that the ionization potential of a typical
>air molecule is ~10V, (Nitrogen's is 14V, according to my handy CRC),
>you'd need to get ~10eV/particle of thermal energy to ionize most of
>the gas.  The temperature is just 10eV/Kb, or 110,000K (210,000F).
>This is about a factor of 20 times hotter than a typical campfire
>flame!

It also depends upon pressure and at an atmosphere of pressure 1.6ev
will due just fine to ionize the air (Saha).  

>Campfire flames glow because they're hot enough (~3,000K) to give off orange
>light by blackbody radiation, not because their charges are re-associating.

One can also observe the effect of natural CO2 laser mode patterns in 
the glowing coals.  Much of the gross patterns are produced by air 
currents, but with careful observation, one can also see the jumping 
of brightly glowing mode patterns in the hot ash of coal's surface.  
Burning charcoal is a more sensitive visualizing detector for CO2 
output than uv pumped phosphors that change decay rates with 
temperature induced by the heating of absorbed 10.6 micron radiation.  

>The best/most common places to see plasmas on the Earth are (a) fluorescent
>lights, including most city street lights, and (b) spark discharges 
>(lightning, spark plugs in cars, etc.).

One can slip a magnet in his pocket and visit a local tavern to see
how a magnetic field can move the plasma around in a beer sign plasma 
tube.  They are usually low enough to reach. However, stay away from 
the electrodes, transformer, etc  and that goes doubly for leaning 
parts of your central anatomy.  
>--
>Craig DeForest -- astrophysicist for hire.   DoD#314159; PhD#271828
+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (T. Little)
Subject: Re: color of AC/DC ???
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 08:56:48 GMT

ahamad@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>I have a question
>I have been working with circuits for quiet some time now. I have noticed
>a phenomenon of difference in color of the sparks at the switches depending on
>the type of current used.
>for the DC the sparks are brilliant white
>for the Ac the sparks are blue with touch of yellow

I used to muck around with high-voltage equipment quite a lot, and I haven't
noticed much difference.  I get a lot of blue-white sparks, some with green
tinges (I expect from copper contacts), but no consistent difference between
AC and DC sparks.

Besides, I wouldn't expect any low-frequency differences like 50 or 60Hz to
make much difference in sparks that have millisecond duration.

> please note that I did not have a capacitor in the circuit(honest)
>and this seems to hold true for comparable voltages

*What* comparable voltages?  DC voltages are pretty unambiguous (unless you
have non-negligible inductances in the circuit - just try to get rid of them!),
but AC voltages come in RMS, Peak-to-Peak, half-peak, and a few less-well-known
ones.

>I have been using this phenomenon of observing the sparks and figuring
>what type of current the circuit carries when I dont have a meter handy
>(not a good practice, I have fused many a I.C by not being carefull , but beats
>the method of working blindly) 

It does?  What are you doing, that knowing whether a circuit carries AC or
DC (or a mixture) is important enough to destroy parts of the circuit?

Hmm - what sort of circuits are we talking about here, anyway?
Are we talking 5V, mains power, or HV stuff?

>also note it is possible to figure if the circuit has both the components ( Ac
>and DC)
> dose the key lie in the fact that a lamp on dc gives white (?) light compared 
>to lamp run on ac pale yellow ?

For the same mean power, both seem to give about the same colour light to me 
(now talking about 12V incandescent lamps, since 240V DC high-current sources
are not easy for me to find, and HV tends to blow lamps - AC or DC).


This probably appears skeptical and negative, maybe I could be more helpful if
you gave more data on what you are doing.
--
T. Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
From: ahamad@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: color of AC/DC ???
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:01:47 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I have a question
I have been working with circuits for quiet some time now. I have noticed
a phenomenon of difference in color of the sparks at the switches depending on
the type of current used.
for the DC the sparks are brilliant white
for the Ac the sparks are blue with touch of yellow
 please note that I did not have a capacitor in the circuit(honest)
and this seems to hold true for comparable voltages
I have been using this phenomenon of observing the sparks and figuring
what type of current the circuit carries when I dont have a meter handy
(not a good practice, I have fused many a I.C by not being carefull , but beats
the method of working blindly) 
also note it is possible to figure if the circuit has both the components ( Ac
and DC)
 If some kind soul could explain the basis of this phenomenon I would
be very much obliged.
 dose the key lie in the fact that a lamp on dc gives white (?) light compared 
to lamp run on ac pale yellow ?

Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: sarfatti@well.sf.ca.us (Jack Sarfatti)
Subject: PS fix some more minor typos
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:58:57 GMT


[<a,o,-| - <a,e,+|] H(o)*H(o)[|a,o,-> - |a,e,+>] = |1 - e^ix|^2

= 2(1 - cosx)

therefore, local unitarity of H(o) (i.e. invariance of inner product)
requires that x = pi/2

* so that |a,e,+> = i|a,o,+>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Size of a PHOTON?
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:53:26 GMT

dsg@impmh.uucp (Dave Gordon) writes:

>This relates to something I have been wondering about for a while now:
>is there an upper bound on the freqency of electromagnetic radiation?

>Consider a single photon: as its energy increses, its "size" decreases
>(assuming that size is related to wavelength).  Since energy is
>equivalent to mass, at some point it must become so dense that it
>collapses into a black hole!

The "size" that one uses to calculate densities is not the same as
wavelength, so this isn't exactly true (even ignoring the whole
issue of "photon mass," for which the sci.physics FAQ entry on the
subject is illuminating.)  *However,* the thinking among some people
who work on quantum gravity is that gravitational effects may indeed
cut off quantum field theory at very high frequencies.  This would
apply to everything, not just electromagnetic radiation.  The relevant
energy is the Planck scale, which is far above any machine human
technology can currently build-- it corresponds to giving a single
particle an energy roughly equal to the mass of a flea.

Now, if you believe in Lorentz invariance, there shouldn't be anything
wrong with giving a single particle an arbitrarily high kinetic energy.
The place where the cutoff comes in is, roughly speaking, in situations
where the energy transferred from one particle to another in an
interaction is very large.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: ande@sierra.com (Ande Rychter)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:39:06 GMT

In <1992Oct30.090305.25085@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> John Snyder writes:

>>Indeed.  But my "water and fire" comment did not imply any social reality.
>>It is hardly difficult to understand why 90% of Americans are religious if
>>you consider that 95% are scientifically illiterate.  Incredible as it may
>>seem, the equilibrium between science and religion appears to be shifting in
>>favour of religion. -AR.

>Then how do you explain the large number of people who are both scientists
>and are religious?  Surely there is a sizeable number of such people.
>They apparently feel that science has important things to say about
>some areas of life, and religion has important things to say about other
>areas of life.

I wouldn't try to explain this since I have no idea what the number of 
religious scientist is, nor do I know of a reputable study of this issue.  
My own guess (hope) is that the number is small.  I personally consider 
the phrase "religious scientist" an oxymoron. -AR.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: Gordon_Wong@mindlink.bc.ca (Gordon Wong)
Subject: EINSTEIN'S SCHOOL DAYS
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:42:16 GMT

I read that Einstein was a very poor student in his early years. Was it
because he just didn't bother to go to school because he found that what was
being taught just wasn't stimulating enough for him or was it something else?

Xref: sparky sci.physics:18176 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2173
From: johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Johan Wevers)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:05:34 GMT

collins@eol.ists.ca (Mike Collins) writes:

>I agree, science and religion are fundamentally different. The kernal
>of science is scepticism, everything is open to scrutiny, even the
>process of science itself.

and:

> but the must be a way to mutate science into an
>equally extensible spirituality. one that is based on equality
>and respect, and above all a profound reverence for the natural
>world.

No, there isn't a way to mutate science in such a way AND keep
consistent with the scepticism. Equality and respect seem to be
concepts which you consider as desirable, but you can't say a priori
that they are.

The only way to use science for this is to recognize that evolution
results in a relative favour of better functioning societies. Because
each species is aimed on survival of the species (if a specie wasn't,
it would die out automatically).

Maybe equality and respect are things which give a civillisation a
favour about others. Some care of the environment certainly does.
But research has to be done to find this out.
-- 
********************************************************** 
* J.C.A. Wevers                *   The only nature of    * 
* johan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl *   reality is physics.   * 
********************************************************** 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: Religion & Physics Don't Mix
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:11:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.192955.7367@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>Neither the believers nor the atheists have a *scientific* basis for their
>beliefs.  Which is as good a reason as any not to argue for or against the
>existence of God/gods in sci.physics; perhaps the discussion should be
>taken to e-mail.

     That is the whole point here.  Science should have nothing to say
     about such unfalsifiable concepts.  The fact that certain people
     wish for science to have a bearing on such subjects
     is wishful thinking on the part of those people and is
     inappropriate.

                             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: matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes)
Subject: john baez on astrology
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:46:53 GMT

He has pointed out, and will point out again, that no solutions are
known, at least in 4 dimensions. Some progress has, however, been made
with 2-dimensional astrology.
From: stieger@cco.caltech.edu (Ronald David Stieger)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: The Great Pumpkin Drop
Date: 7 Nov 1992 22:30:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:

>It has been a tradition at Caltech to drop a 78 K (that's "kelvins", not
>"kilograms") pumpkin from the tower of the Millikan Library at midnight on
>Hallowe'en to smash on the tiles below. I have a reliable report that a flash
>of light has been seen to accompany the destruction of the pumpkin. I can
>report myself that the *sound* made by a similarly prepared Canadian pumpkin
>when dropped ten meters to concrete is quite exceptional, if not particularly
>illuminating.

>While I have not done work in this field for some time, and though I have never
>been acquainted with the literature, I'd like to know if any progress has been
>made lately. Was there a pumpkin drop this year? What resulted? Is there a
>corpus of scholarly publication on this worthy topic?

Yes, there was a pumpkin drop this year.  No, I don't believe any blue flashes
were seen, although with all the camera flashes it was hard to tell.  In fact,
from what I've heard, nobody's seen a flash for at least a few years back.
Actually it was all just a rumor planted by KGB agents so that Caltech 
students would all be caught off gaurd when the late Soviet Union invaded the
US.  But it's still cool to watch.


-- 
--Ron Stieger                      **** JUST VOTE NO. ****
  stieger@cco.caltech.edu
You know you're in trouble when math is the only class you DON'T use a
calculator for.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: pratt@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU (Vaughan R. Pratt)
Subject: Re: TIME HAS INERTIA . CORRECTION OF TYPOS IN ABIAN's DIFF. NOTES
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 02:27:10 GMT

In article <abian.720910802@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu> abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>
>   So, MY DEFINITION is:
>
>      An n-dimensional differentiable manifold  M  is a connected
> subdomain of  an  n+k  dimensional  Euclidean space such that
> at every point,   M  has an n-dimensional tangent hyperplane.

If you require manifolds to be connected, what does coproduct in the
category of manifolds become?  (I.e. how do you add two manifolds
together?)  Does coproduct even exist then?  Seems unlikely.

I'm guessing connectedness doesn't damage coequalizers.  Anyone know
for sure?  John?

Otherwise this looks like it could be close to right for the case r=1,
	  1
that is, C -continuous manifolds.  It seems to leave out some of the
more exotic manifolds such as the "long line" (one copy of [0,oo) for
every countable ordinal, placed end to end in that order), but then I
can't see the point of such monsters, which don't even serve the needs
of abstract nonsense (unlike dropping the connectedness requirement,
which serves a much more basic purpose).

Does the above omit anything physicists need?  r not big enough for
example?  Anything else?

I think I'm gradually getting the hang of these manifold thingies.
Computer scientists don't normally have anything to do with them, but
they don't seem so bad when you get used to them.  Thanks, Mr. Abian!
-- 
Vaughan Pratt				There's no truth in logic, son.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
From: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore)
Subject: Re: New Group sci.physics.orthodox
Organization: University Of Wollongong
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 19:40:34 GMT

phillies@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (George D. Phillies) writes:

>Is it just me, or is the crackpot and fringe material
>drowning out the real physics?  Perhaps it is time for
> 
>sci.physics.orthodox (moderated?)
I wholeheartedly agree!
Do it, please.

>sci.physics.orthodox is open to discussions of orthodox 
>physics of all branches.  Contributions that question the 
>fundamental bases of Schroedinger-Dirac quantum 
>mechanics, special relativity, or electromagnetism will 
>not be accepted.  Descriptions of gedanken-experiments 
>that purport to show inconsistencies in orthodox physics 
>will not be accepted.  (Descriptions of pedagogical 
>gedanken experiments that appear to show paradoxes, for 
>the purpose of creating a cognitive dissonance in a 
>student's mind, are acceptable if the paradox is given a 
>full explanation.) 

>My motivation for this is the suspicion that this group 
>is not in contact with the physics community at all.  
>Note that approximately two months ago I posted an 
>announcement of a tenure-track physics opening at my
>institution.  Before the ad appeared in Physics Today,
>a month later, we received perhaps two applications.  
>We'renow up to around 60, with an end-of-the-year 
>deadline.  Since people usually tell their friends and 
>students about job openings, I infer that well under 1%
>of the real physics community actually reads this group.

>George Phillies
>phillies@wpi.wpi.edu
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: No Spin in 2 Dimensions?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:30:21 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: astro
Originator: richard@astro.West.Sun.COM

<CCB104@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I heard it said by a former physics grad student that a certain professor
>of his said that it is *obvious* why there is "no spin in 2 dimensions"
>(i.e. in a 2-dimensional differentiable manifold of some sort?). What might
>they have meant, please? Any ideas?

Just taking a guess at what the professor might have meant:

In QM, the commutator of any two different angular momentum operators is
a constant times a third angular momentum operator linearly independent
of the other two.  If you have two dimensions and only two independent
angular momentum operators, what is their commutator?  Since you can't
produce something with the algebra of an angular momentum in 2 dimensions,
any set of "spin" operators you do produce can't properly be called an
angular momentum.

Classically, which direction does the cross product, RxV, point in two
dimensions?  (Though you can get around this by saying that angular
momentum isn't the pseudo-vector RxV but rather a rank 2 antisymmetric
tensor).

     Richard M. Mathews			F oster 
					 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM		  I ndependence and
					   F reedom!