Newsgroup sci.physics 195214

Directory

On 13 Sep 1996, David L Evens wrote:
> Brian J Flanagan (bflanagn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu) wrote:
> : On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Dave Morgan wrote:
> 
> : > Patrick, take your epistemological definitions of science over to 
> : > alt.philosophy...this isn't the place! All scientists know that 
> : > nothing is really "proven" to be true. What we call "knowledge" is our 
> : > current collection of data and the theories which do a good job of 
> : > explaining them. No other definition is useful. Your discussions of 
> : > "projections onto the presumed external world" are just plain CRAP to 
> : > a scientist. 
> 
> : Bohr, Einstein, Newton, Helmholtz, Schrodinger and Maxwell were all 
> : interested in such issues.
> 
> They were also interested in what the price of milk was, too.  That 
> doesn't make it relevant to the NG.
> 
BJ: A coincidence, no doubt.

K
>
>No good Jan. Maybe i should make myself a FAQ :-), but for now take a
>look at the "Gravitational Red Shifts connection QM to GR" thread, and i
>hope you'll see what i mean. Although not everyone does! 
>
>To realy prove the reality of time dilations,it is essential that clocks
>are compared while stationary and adjacent, both before and after one of
>them takes a trip, like done by H&K;, only BETTER !
The obsession with clocks is understandable but the  so called proof of 
time dilation and indpendent support for the time dilation etc 
interpretation of the MM experiment lies in the large number of mass 
energy intraconversion experiments and Einstein's deductions from the 
Lorentz Voight transformation equations(plus the rejection of the 
absolute rest frame of reference premise). Beyond this, what would you 
suggest.And more importantly why would you bother since the mass energy 
intraconversion and mass increas with velocity experiments have other 
more general interpretations that do no require mass increase or energy 
intraconversion. eg the increase in mass of beta electrons in the 
Kaufmann experiments is more generally the decrease in the rate of 
increasing responsiveness to a magnetic field applied to the beta 
emissions of radium nuclei.

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Patrick Reany wrote:
> 
> I believe that what Galileo wanted to get at is a "best measure of
> qualities." And he regarded humans as a poor instrument for making these
> measures. I agree with that. 
BJ: No; his stance was considerably more radical than that.
Of course humans experience sweetness in
> sugar and thus sweetness is associated with sugar in some fashion, but
> this is not good enough for Galileo. He wanted science out of the
> dominion of the vagaries of human sense perception. 
BJ: Galileo had geometry in one hand and the means for measuring primary 
qualities in the other. 
Indeed, because of
> hypnosis or a bad association or even by a quirk of birth, a particular
> person's sense of sugar may be completely opposite to my sense of it.
> What is sweet to one may be bitter to another.
BJ: It is observer dependent.
> 
> All Galileo wanted is that any unqualified use of "is this" or "is that"
> would be relegated to instruments and not to the vagaries of human
> perceptions.
> 
BJ: Standard clocks and measuring rods? But our perceptions of these are 
also observer dependent. And what of the measurement problem--in all its 
unholy intricacies?
> Although humans may differ among themselves on how they preceive the
> world, they may also universally "mis-measure" some world events due to
> illusion. I can offer the ordinary desert mirage as an example, but an
> even better one is the so-called "moon-illusion." When the moon looms
> just above the horizon it appears to be unreasonably larger than when it
> is at zenith. The theory predicts that the opposite should be the case,
> and indeed measuring instruments agree with the classical theory. Thus
> humans aren't very good at making even classical measurements consistent
> with theory.
> 
Yes, these are among the well-known data of psychophysics. Both phenomena 
you mention are quite predictable, and various neural mechanisms have 
been put forth to account for them. 
Let us look at vision. We are able to see under a vast range of 
stimulus intensities--from faint starlight to the full blaze of the sun. 
I forget the numbers, but it really is an impressive feat. It appears
that we are able to do this in part because our neurons employ a log 
relation: The photon flux reaching our eyes must intensify 100X before we 
experience a 2X increase in brightness. Now, I think it is quite 
suggestive that the relevant neural firing rates also follow this log 
relation--the stimulus must increase a 100-fold before the firing rate 
doubles. 
I must underscore the fact that I'm working from longterm memory here; if 
you like, I believe I still have the text this material comes from on 
hand. Then again, that text is now perhaps 20 years old, and may be 
out-of-date. 
But again and again we find that, where our perceptions differ from what 
our instruments tell us, there is a compelling evolutionary reason for 
it. In the case of vision, we usually see an object's "true" color, even 
under all sorts of weird lighting conditions, where the spectral 
composition of the incident light varies widely. And here again, the 
system appears to be "operating" upon the photonic input vectors to 
achieve a relatively stable visual field. Many more examples could be 
adduced, but no doubt you get the general idea. 

On 14 Sep 1996, gus wrote:
> I heard a little about this subject, please explain me what
> is this really about and what is the best text about it.
> 
> 
> thank you very much
> 
> 
You can do no better than to pick up Feynman's beautiful little book, 
*QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter*. I'm sure that title is near 
right; just getting over my annual bout with hay fever and my head seems 
to be all mucked up. Anyway, the book is a real treat and I guarantee you 
a fascinating time with it.

On 11 Sep 1996, Markus Lehleiter wrote:
> Hallo everybody!
> I am an 18 year-old pupil and I'm interested in quantum physics.
> Does anybody know a good book that introduces into quantum-physics.
> The math should not be too difficult.
> Thanks in advance
> Markus Lehleiter
> 
*Inward Bound*, by Abraham Pais. There's some math, but don't sweat 
it--the math may come to seem quite obvious once you get the concepts down. 

Wayne Throop wrote:
> 
> :::: If and only if they are separated can it be that "each is younger
> :::: than the other".
> ::: Yes, that's what will be interesting to confirm.
> :: It might be interesting to confirm that reality can be accurately
> :: modeled by such a formalism.  But there's no need to "confirm" that
> :: that the condition "each older than the other" is a consistent,
> :: logical, abstract-state-of-being.  Just as there's no need to go out
> :: and cut strings lay out measuring rods and build pyramids to
> :: "confirm" that right triangles are possible.
> : tsar@ix.netcom.com
> : It's (as you put it) the "modeling of the formalism confirms reality"
> : that I think is the interesting part.  Don't you?
> 
> It is not the only interesting part.  But I agree it is interesting.
> 
> But again, we were talking about what SR predicts, and whether two
> clocks are predicted to each have less elapsed time than the other when
> separated and brought back together.  This has absolutely nothing
> to do with whether this happens to real clocks or not.  The question
> of whether it happens to real clocks or not is *interesting*, but
> the conversation simply didn't have anything to do with whether this
> happens to real clocks or not (until tsar brought it up as a
> non-sequitur in the exchange above).
> 
Again I point out that the discusion has not been limited to what SR
predicts. We have certainly been discussing for some time what SR predicts,
and the reality SR proposes to model.
> :: Remember, we're talking about WHAT SR PREDICTS, and observations
> :: cannot possibly be of any use in determining this.  It cannot
> :: possibly be "confirmed" by observation.  Observation be useful in
> :: discovering if what SR predicts is ACCURATE, but as to what the
> :: prediction IS, reality has absolutely no bearing.
> : Not really.  This is where you are in error.  What SR predicts is
> : interesting, but reality is primarily interesting.
> 
> Yes?  And what does this have to do with what I just said?
> Was I talking about whether the prediction, or the reality,
> was "interesting", or which was more interesting than the other?
> No, I was not.  So how does asserting that this or that is
> "interesting" have anything to do with tsar's claim that I
> am "in error"?  Let's read on:
> 
The claim that you are "in error", perhaps better said we are arguing two
separate positions at times when I'm discussing reality and you are 
discussing the predictions, is relative to the fact that my end of the
discussion was never limited to SR's predictions.
This is also why you "did away" with the c/2c spaceship senario by resolving
it exclusively within SR (as did P.A.), when my position was pose the 
thought experiment in such a way as to compare predictions of SR with the
proposed reality of the experiment. It's seems obvious that if one limits 
the analysis to the predictions of the theory one does not get the same 
answers if one considers all the alternatives.
> : There may be some merit to the position that it cannot possible be
> : confirmed by observation, but there's no basis to suppose it cannot be
> : unconfirmed by observation.
> 
> Ah, this at least is vaguely relevant.  But it's nonsense.
Again because we are a cross purposes in the discussion ... as the following
illustrates.
> What SR predicts is what it predicts.  You can observe
> up a storm, and you will never, NO BLOODY WAY, "unconfirm" what
> SR predicts.
Yes agreed! Long long ago!
>  You can unconfirm that it correctly models reality,
> but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion,
> which was, does SR model two clocks, separated and brought back
> together again, as each having less elapsed time than the other.
>
It is/was always the topic under discussion from my point of view. 
If I've not clearly said it before, I'll say it now, mutual time
dilation [as PREDICTED by SR] is not confirmed to be "really" possible.
It may never be confirmed to be "really" possible, but it may be 
possible to confirm that it doesn't occur as SR predicts ... "really".
> ( So as not to keep folks in suspense: no, SR does not predict
>   this, never has, never will, and no observation of clocks being
>   moved around will change this. )
How many times must I say I erred in posting that conclusion, never 
believed it, realized it was wrong when both you and P.A. pointed it
out, immediately replied that it was not accurate? Is it reasonable
to assert as a standard in the discussion that if one makes an error
it cannot be corrected, and one must be called on to defend it to the
death even though he doesn't agree with it? Should I now peruse all
replies with a microscope for typos, spelling, grammar, logic of 
composition, and simple errors, and declare that all comments are
locked, can never be restated, and any errors must be incorporated
into all future positions that the author advances? 
> 
> Look.  I play "Karnak".  I take an envelope, put it to my forehead,
> adopt a posture of faux-concentration, and then proclaim "in this
> envelope, is a note saying ``foo''!"  Now, that's what I predict.
> Actually opening the envelope and reading the note has nothing
> to do with what I predict, and cannot possibly change it.
> 
Ah, I see. So, in line with the analogy, I am the charlatan, and throopw
the "Amazing Randy". So that my argument is actually a calculated deception.
(Hmmmm. I'd think this would be a poor audience indeed to attempt any such
sleight-of-hand with physics.) 
> Just so with (some subset of) tsar's "vexations".  Tsar claims
> SR predicts thus-and-so, when it does not; tsar in effect claims
> that I've predicted "bar" above.  But the prediction is "foo",
> not "bar", and no amount of observation of reality changes this fact.
So which is it? Tsar made an error on a particular point and corrected it,
and thus really does not claim SR predicts thus-and-so when it does not? 
Or tsar calculated that the audience was gullible, and so poorly informed
as to their own field that they would not catch the deception?
If a corrected error why insist tsar believes what he corrected? And if 
deception, then he must have known the actuality also. So it what sense
does throopw claim tsar claims SR predicts thus-and-so when it does not?
Could this be an error on throopw's part? If so should he be allowed to
correct it, or must he forever more defend his insistance that tsar is
claiming that which is patently and obviously untrue?
W$

I have done some more thinking about what I mentioned in the post on 
the Dirac field. The more I think about the nicer it seems :)
The Klein Gordon expansion:
        n-1
	---
    G_n | | ( D_vv - (u_j)^2 ) G_0,	D_vv := Laplace - 1/c^2*d^2/dt^2 
	j=0				u_j  := constant   (like 2pic/h*m_j )
I made some simple investigations and it seems that the above operator
will guarantee a local minkowski metric for each n.
( 
  It should be considered as some kind of operator for some "particle", and
  if m_0 = 0 maybe it could be thought of as some sort of spacetime vacuum?
  In the sense the "path" of a massless particle in vaccum. G0 is the 
  first quantized vacuum wavefunction.
)
Roughly I think this will occur...
	E^2 - (pc)^2 = (mc^2)^2 + Korrektion(x,y,z,t)
where for case Gn=0, m^2 := m_0^2 - m_1^2 - m_2^2 ... - m_(n-1)^2
This will naturally break down if m^2 becomes negative. It's interesting 
note that if the above is valid a massless "particle" must remain 
strictly massless at all orders n.
It's also worth noting that a global minkowski metric seems to be a 
possible solution assuming spacetime inifite, i.e "no boundaries".
Concerning the meaning of spacetime coordinates it in fact should not 
matter what kind of clock and ruler we use.(We must fix them though.)
The equations will remain the same given that the measurements are
local measurements, local here also implies "with respect to our 
clock and ruler" since. But "light" would be a sensible ruler, 
defining length in terms of c. Thus G0 is a local wavefunction and must be
transformed to another observer if comparasions are to be meaningful.
Formally it should also be possible to transform G0 to an observer not
only at other locaation but also with another set of (clock, ruler)
assuming they have a defined relation. I don't want to be a pessimist 
but this might be kind of tricky when it comes to details ;-)
This seems like a cool idea to me, does anyone know if anything similar
to this has been done? 
Does anyone see any advantages and disadvantages of the approach?
Thanks.
 /Fredrik

estaylor@cris.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Mr. Sarfatti,
> 
> Thought you might have missed my comments addressed to you which were bundled in
> a previous note so I'm sending them directly. I'd appreciate some direct
> feedback, since you post regularly these totally theoretical,
> reductionist/determinist-oriented speculations about consciousness in the
> physics section of the intuition network. Two related questions I have are:
> 
> 1. Why try to approach "consciousness" at a "quantum" level at all? 
Because consciousness is a quantum process.
> It appears
> to be that biological models dealing with the neurological/cellular/molecular
> level are far more promising in the long run, even if so far they've been
> woefully inadequate (an understatement).
Wromg. They cannot, in principle, explain the "hard problem" of how we
have felt-awareness i.e., the physical mechanism of qualia.
>We still scarcely know where to look,
Speak for yourself. I know exactly where to look.
> but individuals such as Roger Sperry, Oliver Sachs, G. Edelstein have provided
> very useful insights and speculations. 
They only contribute to the details of the brain-beable not to the
fundamental quantum field of qualia that guides and is guided by that
beable. That's the point you miss.
> The stream of speculation you're
> presenting, which has no hard empirical or clinical verification whatsoever,
> should honestly be presented as the purely THEORETICAL discussion which it is.
> I'm not saying you don't know this, but the casual visitor to the physics forum
> could be confused.
Nonsense. Of course it's theoretical. But it has the same force as
general relativity. Einstein knew that gravity would bend light with the
new factor of 2 BEFORE Eddington did the observation. Similarly, I know
the conscious quantum computing chip will work before it is built. I am
now even more confident now that Worden has added his two-cents to the
data base. I have no patience for faint-hearted sentiments. Damn the
torpedos and full speed ahead.
> 
> 2. Raw consciousness, which you are presenting one unproven conception of, is
> one thing. Do these speculations have anything to do with intuition? Intuition
> is something else entirely - but most involved in the Intuition network (and
> most people, I believe, period) consider it a *bridge* to understandings of
> reality - NOT only the innumerable MECHANISMS (which include sense experience,
> emotion, memory, abstract reasoning and tons more) of understanding reality but
> humans' ABILITY TO GRASP the QUALITY and VALIDITY of their perceptions. And the
> quality and validity issue is higher than science can take us. Or thought of
> differently: How can "back-action quantum mechanics" (if you prefer to "reduce"
> to this level) explain my intuitive belief in G-d?
Intuition is simply precognitive remote viewing in the sense of the
CIA/DOD supported experiments of Puthoff and Targ e.g.,
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/psiwars.html
The theoretical explanation is back-action from brain-beable to mind
quantum pilot wave. It is the consequent distortion in the statistical
predictions of orthodox quantum theory which over-rides Eberhard's "no
FTL signal" theorem and permits local decoding of messages from the
future state of the mind to a past state of the same mind without the
need to correlate. Intuition is simply time-reversed memory from the
future. It happens with less reliability than ordinary memory because of
the arrow of time-- but it happens. Precognition is the dynamo of all
human creativity.

  The similarities between the magnetic force and the force between 
electrostatic dipoles has inspired a century long futile search for 
magnetic monopoles. Maybe there is  another possibility;  that magnetism 
itself may be due to electrostatic dipoles inside electrons and atomic 
nuclei. New and reinterpreted old experiments supporting  this view are 
described below. Criticism on the same level as this is written is 
welcome. But I'm beginning to doubt the existence of more than one or two 
usenet users capable of having an intelligent conversation on any 
subject.
   Charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei has been shown 
not to exist after their spin, that is their magnetic aspect, has been 
allowed for; see, for example, The Electric Dipole Moment of the Cesium 
Atom, a New Upper Limit to the ELectric Dipole Moment, by Victor Weiskopf 
et al in the Physical Review Letters 1968 v21p1645.  But we can attribute 
the magnetic effect of an atomic nucleus normally attributed to its spin 
instead to an electrostatic dipole inside the nucleus; Similarly for 
electrons. We summarize in the third paragraph how the magnetic forces 
between parallel current carrying wires and be attributed to charge 
polarization inside atomic nuclei and free electrons transverse to the 
wires. Although the existence of such dipoles of varying magnitude does 
not require a mechanism, we propose a mechanism that also goes against 
accepted theory. That is we regard the nucleus as made up of a positive 
core orbited by a much smaller oppositely charged mass such that the net 
charge is as observed; similarly for the electron; and elliptization of 
the orbit and a displacement of centers of positive and negative charge 
produce the dipoles. Therefore the concept of spin is an unnecessary 
circumlocution to avoid directly stating the existence of a mass orbiting 
a central point in any circle on an imaginary sphere of radius about 
10^-15 meters moving as a spinning surface of this size would have to 
move at tachyon velocities in excess of the speed of light; but a 
convincing argument for  speeds increasing to and beyond the speed of 
light without mass becoming infinite at that speed is summarized in the 
next paragraph. A further advantage of regarding spin as an electrostatic 
dipole is that the evidence from the emission spectra of ammonia for 
nuclear quadrapoles as part of the nuclear force of N14 on its orbiting 
electrons can be more systematically represented That is now,  to the 
Coulomb potential which is the first of a sum of terms of the Taylor 
expansion of the potential of an unknown distribution of charge inside 
the nucleus we must add a term which is not part of this expansion, 
namely the spin of the nucleus, and then we must skip the second term of 
the Taylor expansion and add the fourth term which is the quadrapole 
term. But we can also throw out the spin term and define an equivalent 
term which is of the form of  the dipole or second term of the above 
Taylor expansion(see Coles and Good in the Physical Review of 1946.
   The premise of an orbital system inside a free electron, a bound 
electron, or an atomic nucleus implies superluminal speeds. The apparent 
increase in the mass of a beta electrons ejected from radium nuclei at 
speeds near the speed of light was first observed by a good vacuum maker, 
Walter Kaufmann in 1903 experiments on these beta electrons some of which 
could be made, with the application of an electrostatic field to have the 
trajectory, to pass through a crossed electrostatic and magnetic field 
before impinging on a photographic plate. The marks where they impinged 
on the photographic emulsion indicated their trajectory; those moving 
fastest were least deflected by the electrostatic field but if they were 
not too fast they would be more deflected by the magnetic field. Those 
that went straight and did not appear to be deflected by the magnetic 
field in spite of their great velocity perhaps increased in mass or 
perhaps more generally their magnetic responsiveness decreased at an 
increasing rate as an elastic limit-the speed of light -was approached. 
If the latter interpretation is correct then the proposed orbital system 
inside electrons and inside atomic nuclei is possible without resort to 
tachyons.
  But would such a system be stable and not run down. Yes just as in the 
case of Bohr's orbital system for atoms, orbital systems near one another 
arrange themselves according to the priciple of least energy so that 
oscillations of one orbital system are opposed by a neighborin orbital 
system half of the time and half of the time are heleped by the 
neighboring orbital system. Picture two clock faces on a wall side by 
side; a charged object in the righthand clock goes in an arc from 6 to 9 
when a similarly charged object in the left hand clock goes in an arc 
from 12 to 3 in both cases due to central forces; Note that these charged 
objects are opposing each others motion. But then as the righthand clock 
charged object continues from 9 to 12, the lefthand similarly charged 
clock object goes from 3 to 6 and they are helping each others motion 
giving back the energy they had previously lost; Continuing in this way 
we see that there is no net loss of energy. When an orbiting charged 
particle moves between a larger and a smaller orbit radiation is not so 
cancelled and familiar emission spectra are observed and can be recorded
  The force between parallel current carrying wire sements can be 
expressed as the force between electrostatic dipoles transverse to the 
segments where the magnitude of the dipoles per unit length of wire is 
proportional to the currents i and i', to the distance of separation of 
the wires,r, and to the ratios of i to i'or i+i': 
(r)(i^2)/[(3^1/2)(c)(i')] and  (r)(i'^2)/[(3^1/2)(c)(i)] where i=nAev 
etc. where c denotes the speed of light, n denotes the density of the 
wire, A, the crosss section area, e=1.6 times 10^-19 Coulombs denotes the 
charge of a free electron and v the velocity of the electron in the 
direction of the current flow. Substituting these values in the formula 
for the force between electrostatic dipoles, one obtains Ampere's formula 
for the magnetic force between parallel current carrying segments. The 
dipole per fre electron and per nucleus (r)(v^2)/cv' and (r)(v'^2)/cv 
cannot of course exceed the interatomic distance in the conductor, about 
one Angstrom for solids; one of the nuclei and free electrons increase in 
size as the dipoles within them increase in size. Another inhibiting 
influence is the interference from the parallel current carrying segments 
and its transverse dipoles.  We propose that the mechanism producing the 
dipoles is the effect of the longitudinal emf force driving the electrons 
but also acting on a charged particle inside the free electrons orbiting 
the central core of the free electrons casusing a transverse 
elliptization of the orbit as described in detail below. The same emf 
also produces a similar elliptization withing the lattice nuclei of the 
conductor. The rapid movement and spacing of the orbital elecgtrons 
prevents them from opposing the unidirected emf force. The field of the 
transverse dipoles of one wire at the second wire is perpendicular to the 
longitudinal emf force driving the free electrons in the second wire and 
tends to produce elliptization in the longitudinal direction and so 
reduces the transvers dipole in the second wire. The above can be 
generalized for any relative orientation of the a pair of wire segments.
   One might object to this theory on the grounds that electrostatic 
shielding is not effective in shielding against magnetic fields; the 
answer is that a large number of similarly oriented small electrostatic 
dipoes inside the nuclei and free electrons of a piece of metal produce 
entirely different fields than an excess of free electrons on one side of 
the piece of metal and a deficiency on the other; this can be shown 
mathematically as well as by the experiments cited below.
   One might also object that each pairwise force between one wire 
segment carrying current i(1) and many other sements would imply 
different dipoles associated with the same segment;  Now it is true that 
a dipole inside one wire segment cannot at the same time be the product 
r(1,2)s(1) and also r(1,3)s(1) where s(1)=i(1)/c and  the distance 
between segments 1 and 2  denoted r(1,2)
is not equal to r(1,3), the distance between segments 1 and 3. But the 
actual dipole involved here, r(1)s(1), where r(1) is yet to be determined 
is equivalent in its effects to the sum of dipole-dipole forces involving 
different dipoles for the same wire segment The mathematical procedure 
for determining r(1) etc and the unique dipole r(1)(s(1) etc is as 
follows:
   The force on the first of three current carrying wire segment due to 
the  other two  wire segments is [ks(1)s(2)r(1,2)^2]/r(1,2)^4  
+[ks(1)s(3)r(1,3)^2]/r(1.3)^4 where k denotes a constant of 
proportionality and the other terms are as defined above. We set this 
expression for the force equal to another expression,  in terms of 
unknowns to be determined, for the same force, namely 
[ks(1)s(2)r(1)r(2)]/r(1,2)^4 + [ks(1)s(3)r(1)r(3)]/r(1,3)^4. Note this 
equivalence will only be valid if r(1)r(2)=r(1,2)^2 and 
r(1)r(3)=r(1,3)^2; that is if r(1)=r(1,2)^2/r(2) and 
r(2)=[r(1,3)^2/r(1,2)^2]r(3). The force on the second wire segment due to 
the first and third gives a similar equation which will hold under 
similar conditions. Now we have enough to solve 
r(2)^2=[(r(1,3)^2)/(r(1,2)^2)][r(2,3)^2] and r(1)=[r(1,2)^2]/r(2). 
Proceeding in this way we obtain r(3) and thus unique dipoles for each 
segment. The procedure generalizes for many however oriented current 
segments even if the currents are of different magnitudes.
   In 1984 I was invited to MIT to repeat some experiments carried out 
several years before at the Polytechnic University of New York. The 
experiments involved measurements of small attractive forces about 
10^(-7to-5)Newtons, between uncharged current carrying wires(900Amps to 
25Amps) and a charged cm^2 foil(2kV) and two oppositely charged foils 
separated by a thi, eg 1mm dielectric(.42kV). The attraction appeared to 
increase with increasing currents contrary to the accpeted theory that 
the magnetic force of current carrying wires was independent of the 
electrostatic force of charged conductors(Note that induced oppositely 
directed currents cause repulsion). The first experiment was published in 
the Rev Sci. Instr.(3/85), a brief discussion appeared in the Electrical 
Engineering TImes(12/28/87). A related patent was accepted by the US 
patent office(4,355,195) and a paper purporting to be a duplication of 
one of the first experiments using completely different apparatus and 
orders of magnitude of currents presented results which did not confirm 
my original findings(RSI, kD.F.Bartlett 10/90). And why should it. 
Because it was not as advertised an honest duplication of the original 
experiment cited.

In article , lajoie@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) says:
>
>In article <504j4u$e0r@rpc16.gl.umbc.edu>, Daniel  wrote:
>>For all the attacks on Pat Robertson and his stupidity, I doubt there
>>is nay one on this ng with more impressive credentials. Dr. Pat
>>Robertson got his Bachelors, Summa Cum Laude, from Harvard, his Ph.D. 
>>from U. of VA, his J.D. from Yale, etc. How many Harvard Summas have 
>>posted here yet????!!!!!
>
>Humm. Certainly takes the prestige off of going to Harvard and Yale,
>doesn't it? But degrees in Religion (i.e. a B.S. in "making things up
>for fun and profit") are not that hard to come by, and certainly don't
>qualify one to dictate that schools should have fairy tail hour or teach
>make believe in place of science.
>
>>Clowns!
>
>Wow! He went to clown school too!? Now, THAT'S HARD!
>
>-- 
>Steve La Joie     | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
>lajoie@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
>                  | In this manner, the people are made to fall in line 
>                  | with the principles of the government"  A. Einstein
 Since genuine science always begins as a study of pre-existing facts which
leads to the forming of a hypothesis based on those facts, I submit that
evolution is not science. What makes is so comical is that we have the 
technology to study organisms right down to their DNA and RNA structures
and even when two species look superficially similar, their genetic structures
tend to be radically different. Couple this with the fact that even the 
simplest cell is a complicated engine built like a house of cards in which
every part of the cell is in some way dependant on at least one other part
of the cell for it's function. Take away one part and the rest of the cell
ceases to function. 
 Evolution is accepted on faith more than fact. Evolution is stated as fact
because "..hey, we exist, so we MUST have evolved, right?"
 Sorry, that's just circular logic. If I stumble across a stopwatch laying
in the dirt, I wouldn't guess that it had been spontaneously produced by
a lightning strike that fused some metals together and just happend to 
form the necessary gears and hands and crystal, etc....
 I would sooner assume that, though, than assume that an infinitely more
complex mechanism ( a living cell ) would be produced in such a manner.

In <32399A0E.F41@hp.com> Barry Vaughan  writes: 
>
>Terry Smith wrote:
>> 
>> > From: Anthony Potts 
>> a> Date: Sat, 7 Sep 1996 12:55:32 GMT
>> 
>>  > country. At least the people who go fox hunting are able to
>>  > mitigate their actions slightly by arguing that the foxes
>> would be
>>  > culled anyway, to protect livestock on farms, but the people
>> who go
>>  > out murdering 'roos don't even have this excuse.
>> 
>> Many of the people who cull [grey] 'roos do so because they get
>> distressed by the sight of them dying of starvation and thirst
>> during drought periods. Many large populations develop near
>> artificially constructed water-holes during rainy periods, then
>> starve en-masse when the dry years come.
>> 
>
>It's a bollocks argument anyway. Shooting Foxes in an overpopulated
>region, or shooting rogues that raid chicken coops is culling.
>Chasing a random Fox across the country side does not effectively 
>kill the rogues or reduce the population. It's just blood-lust.
>
>Barry.
>
>(p.s. The majority of British are anti-fox hunting. It will be banned
>if the Labour party are elected in '97)
>
>-- 
>E-mail: Barry_Vaughan@hp.com
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>"Bosh," answered Grant. "I never said a word against eminent men of 
>science. What I complain of is a vague popular philosophy which
supposes 
>itself to be scientific when it is really nothing but a sort of new 
>religion and an uncommonly nasty one." - G.K.Chesterton, TCoQT
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Hewlett-Packard Ltd.
What!  Ban one of Britian's most colorful and quaint rituals?  And they
said the sun would never set over the world's bastion of civilised
behaviour.  Tsk.
Bill Mayers

: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: You cannot define time by light signals unless you know what's
: happening with your light signals.  This is elementary,  Mr. Throop.
One can define anything one likes.  It is indeed elementary,
so it is odd that bjon continues to misunderstand.
: Is this a real distortion due to absolute motion or merely an
: observer-dependent "distortion"?
In special relativity, there is only distortion in one coordinate
system relative to another.  Bjon likes to imagine that one coordinate
system is special, and distortions of objects moving relative to
this coordinate system are "real" distortions.
Going along with bjon's gag, the distortions of the disk are real,
the way bjon uses the term.  Specifically, the line drawn on the
disk is distorted to be curved in the "one true frame".
Of course, the slower the disk rotates, the less this curvature.
But the slower the disk rotates, the less curvature required to
exactly Einstein-synch the clocks.
: Again, real or observer-dependent distortion?
Again, the way bjon uses the term, it's real distortion (since
it's a distortion in the One True Frame).  To Einstein and
other relativists there's only one kind of distortion,
the frame-relative kind.
: If merely seen-as-distorted WRT the "rest" frame, then this type of
: mythical distortion cannot affect the outcome of any experiment. 
Dream on.  Nevertheless, if as Einstein said, and SR is right about
all physical processes being lorentz invariant, then the spinning
disk will be lorentz invariant and Einstein-synch the clocks.  The
calculations showing the distortion in the disk (in the One True
Bjonish Frame) is simple enough.  As tsar points out, the only
way to really and for true know if disks act the way SR predicts
is to spin one up, and try 'er out.
However, given that this behavior of disks is just a variant on
length contraction (made a bit more complex, but still the same
effect), and we're pretty sure length contraction occurs, I'm not
sure much of anybody but bjon and glird would be surprised by the
outcome were it done.
Note: "made complicated", because there is differential length
contraction perpendicularly across the disk (which is what bends the
line), just as there is differential lift in a helicopter blade. 
: Sigh, Throop is still confused about which type of distortion he is
: talking about -- actual distortion that would hurt the experiment in
: some real way, or mere observer-dependent distortion. 
I'm not confused.  I suppose I could be mistaken, but I'm not confused.
In bjon's terms, the distortion is real.  (It happens in the One True Frame.)
Just becase the same distortion occurs between *any* two coordinate
systems in relative motion is IMHO no reason to call all other
cases "mere".
: If there is real distortion (the ONLY kind that matters in a real
: experiment), then something must cause it.  Guess what this might be. 
: It might be that very absolute motion whose existence Throop so
: vehemently denies
Well, sure, since it pleases bjon to call "motion relative to the
One True Bjonish Frame" ``absolute motion'', I certainly agree that
in this sense it is ``absolute motion'' that ``causes'' the distortion.
Of course, Einstein and most physicists call this "relative motion",
since in fact there isn't anything physically special about
the One True Bjonish Frame bjon likes to fantasize about.
It's not so much I "vehemently deny" the existance of absolute motion.
It's just that it's a useless concept in the context of relativistic
length contraction and related phenomena.
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

On 14 Sep 1996, Paul Stowe wrote:
> ...
> 
> Since I have neither been abusive or argumentive I don't understand
> the vacillation of personnel in this group to comment or discuss the
> material that I have offered up for just that purpose. ...
I missed your original post, also. Your current missive is quite wordy 
and not always correct--"vacillation" is not the word you want, e.g. I 
see that you are making an effort to be precise, however, and for that 
you have my appreciation. Generally, the people you are trying to reach 
are quite busy and have their own sets of interests. They contribute to 
this forum out of a love for the subjects discussed here. (Or, at worst, 
to whack their puds.)
You need to "excite" a response. 

:: in this case the disk will "distort" relative to a frame in which the
:: disk translates in just such a way as to E-synch the clocks.  Proof
:: is left as an excersize for the interested masochist, but hint:
:: consider the angular velocity of a particle which is constant in the
:: disk rest frame, and see how that looks in the (mythical) absolute
:: frame. 
: bjon@ix.netcom.com (Brian Jones)
: If you're considering a free particle, such is not a part of the given
: apparatus.  The point is, there's no way for the disk to "wiggle" in
: any direction.  Just exactly what type of "distortion" are you
: referring to?
I meant, consider a particle that is part of the disk; 
presuming it is "free" is unnecessary.  What is a smooth
circular motion in one frame is not in another.
But another way of approaching the problem that may be more
intuitive; consider that the disk will undergo differential length
contraction across the line perpendicular to its motion (when considered
in the frame in which it moves; that is, considered in the One True
Bjonish Rest Frame).  Thus, a "straight" line drawn across the disk
will "bend", moving back and forth once each rotation.  Just enough
to Einstein-synch the clocks.
This "bending", "distortion" and "back and forth" is "real" in the sense
bjon uses the word; it happens WRT the (superfluous) One True Bjonish
Frame.  But it causes no "stress" or "fatigue" in the material of the
disk, since the forces holding the disk together are lorentz invariant. 
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org  http://sheol.org/throopw
               throopw@cisco.com

Followups restricted.
In article <51erk8$c14@news.global2000.net>,
Roamer  wrote:
}                          What makes is so comical is that we have the 
}technology to study organisms right down to their DNA and RNA structures
}and even when two species look superficially similar, their genetic structures
}tend to be radically different.
How about chimps and humans? 
-- 
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston

OnScreen Science, Inc. now has a web page with annotated links to a number
of web sites useful for teaching particle physics. Go to OnScreen Science
homepage (Chamber Works), scroll down to the "OTHER SITES" link and click.
URL is http://members.aol.com/onscrn.
--Bob Estes  
onscrn@aol.com

Followups restricted.
In article <50n4np$q3v@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
Matt McIrvin  wrote:
}                                                               There's
}probably no hope of convincing an argumentative creationist of the
}error of his ways.
}
}However, it is also a scientific and political issue; [...]
No, it hasn't been a scientific issue for more than a century.
-- 
-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net
-- http://www.access.digex.net/~huston

Don Wilkins wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:05:31 +0100, Paul Greenwood
>  wrote:
> 
> >I have recently fallen victim to the expensive task of replacing parts in
> >my central heating boiler because of a build up of limescale rendering
> >the heat exchanger useless!
> >
> >I have seen on the market a device which claims to eliminate this. As far
> >as I can see, it is just a magnet which wraps around the cold water feed.
> >I cannot see any way in which this could possibly work - but, being an
> >engineer I will not dismiss it until I really know whether it is a load
> >of crap or not.
> >
> >CAN ANYBODY SHED ANY LIGHT ON THIS???
> >
> Why not post a summary of your replies. I vote for pure unadulterated
> scam.
   Scam.

In article <51cm7s$f25@news.tuwien.ac.at>
avl@fsmat.htu.tuwien.ac.at (Andreas Leitgeb) writes:
> what you still haven't understood is, that peano's axiomes are not
> really axioms in the way you understand axioms, but they are rather
> a definition of what peano thought the integers were.
  This is good, for I learn something here also. I have for a long time
wanted to know what is a definition , really. And now that I have seen
axiom and definition in the same paragraph , I now understand what the
concept "definition" is. It is another form of "axiom".
  Which side of the light is a wave or a particle issue, would you have
been on if you had been born 1790? Would you have said in the 1800s
that light is both and neither or would you have been on one side and
shouted at  the other side?
  Which side of the neutrino rest mass issue would you have been on if
you had been born 1930?
  Which side of the photon rest mass issue would you have been on if
you had been born 1950?
  Which side of the NonEuclidean geometry issue would you have been on
if you had been born the year of Bolyai's birth?
  Which side of the Naturals = Finite Integers or Naturals = Infinite
Integers would you have been on if you were born prior 1980?
  One item you fail to realize in all of this Andreas Leitgeb, with
Naturals = Infinite Integers there is no need to define finite, what
the concept "finite" is. And the bonus is that there are no Cantor
plethoras of infinities. There is only one infinity. One and Only One
kind of Infinite when Naturals = Adic Integers = Infinite Integers.
  I am not going to convince the math community that Naturals =
Infinite Integers. Physics will force this idea down the throats of the
math community. All it takes is for the physicists to show that the N,
L, M_L , M_s are written in P-adics.   Say goodbye to your Naturals =
Finite Integers forevermore.
  Physics for centuries has booted out false ideas and fake theories.
Mathematics on the other hand has seldom booted out fake theories. Now
it is time for mathematics to boot out its hugest fake theory Naturals
= Finite Integers.

In article <51dj7n$ka8@news.cais.com>
Bernhard Schopper  writes:
> I suggest you come up with a plausible theory as to what powers quasars.
> It's certainly not plutonium.
  I have. And I suggest to you that you think about what the Pauli
Exclusion Principle says. It forbids such critters that you call black
holes.
  It is frustrating to talk to people who are so far gone brainwashed.
And it is a lesson to all societies , that no society of the future is
immune to a massive worldwide brainwash. How we can have such modern
science and modern physics and yet have a majority of the general
public and even college degree wielding persons yet believing in
something which violates one of our most confirmed principles.
  If you believe in black holes then you automatically deny that the
Pauli Exclusion Principle is true. PEP has been confirmed decade after
decade to a high degree of precision experiments. 
  Yet outerspace we are finding paradoxes and contradictions year after
year and we still do not know the missing 2/3 neutrino count from our
own Sun and yet these so-called science people talk about something
they call a black hole.
  You know, a lot of science people hate to be labelled in the category
of "faith" and religion. But that is exactly where this black hole
baloney has lead to. It will get to the point where you guys, you black
hole believers will continue this charade by saying that even though no
black hole has ever been confirmed that the onus of proof is on us to
show that none can exist.
  We cannot prove no monopoles exist, nor prove the Higgs does not
exist. Likewise , we cannot prove that a black hole can never exist.
Science prudence is the path of the most reasonable. And as of 1996,
the fact remains that if you want black holes you have to eject
overboard the Pauli Exclusion Principle. You cannot have both.
  I have given a explaination of quasars, it deals with my PU theory
and too long to write here. The 20th century for physics was a great
century in that QM was born and before the century ended, PU theory was
born, the realization that atoms are all and everything. But the 20th
century for the most part was plagued by a sideshow of fakery and
con-artistry. For some reason the 20th century scientists believed in
gravity, Einstein and black hole garbage, more than they believed in
QM, Bell and the PU theory. Which is understandable because humanity in
large part has been under the yoke of religion for milleniums. Religion
endorses a stupid and fake theory like black holes because it stays
away from encroaching upon religion territory. 
  Try thinking Bernhard, before being another victim of brainwashing.
  A theory such as PU theory would be enemy number 1 by all religions
except for a few, because its main idea is that god=Atom.

I am searching for where p-adics are in quantum mechanics, such as say
N, L, MsubL , MsubS
I know many of you scientist will not have heard of the p-adics before
or know little about them
What I need is some area of physics or physical chemistry where p-adic
integers are necessary and where the Natural number integers are not.
I may be surprized in that it comes not from QM at first but from say
optics or some other place in physics.
I have the hunch that any day it will be reported where the p-adic
integers are essential in physics. I need to know this for its
importance to mathematics is just as important if not more so than for
physics because it will start to straighten-out the math community.
  This is a very good premiss to abide in:  If a piece of mathematics
is useful and used in physics, then that math is true math. The reverse
is even more true. That if a piece of mathematics has no use to physics
and no forseeable use to physics, chances are that such math was a fake
and phony. Examples of this are Cantor transfinite infinities, higher
dimensional Poincare conjecture, Langlands- Taniyama -Shimura
conjectures.
  In short, all true math connects with physics.
  Are there any physicists out there who are well versed in p-adics who
know of an area of physics that requires the p-adics as opposed to the
Naturals?

  In the last week I am looking for p-adic use in physics where the
regular counting numbers the set Naturals = Finite Integers are false.
I have found it, Eureka. It is the Quantized Hall Effect. Another way
of looking at the P-adics
  and my generalization of   Naturals = Infinite Integers = p-adic
integers
  is the geometry of p-adics  --- missing middle thirds
  The Quantized Hall Effect that Klaus von Klitzing with the bizzarre ,
what he and others thought were Rational numbers but are really p-adic
integers or, the Counting Numbers since p-adics are the Counting
Numbers.
--- start quoting Acad. Amer. Enyc. ---
         Topic:  von Klitzing, Klaus
          Text:
     The German physicist Klaus von Klitzing, b. June 28, 1943, for his
discovery of the quantum Hall
     effect, won the 1985 Nobel Prize for   physics. The ordinary HALL
EFFECT involves a metallic
     conductor that is carrying an electric current in a perpendicular
magnetic field. Von Klitzing
     observed that if the metal is made thin and attached to a
semiconductor, the magnetic field made
     strong, and the system cooled to very low temperatures, then the
current obtained is quantized in
     integral multiples of fundamental constants (see ATOMIC
CONSTANTS). This phenomenon is called
     the quantized Hall effect. It facilitates accurate     measurement
of these fundamental constants.
--- end quoting AAE ---
  What this means is that the four quantum numbers of N, L , M_L and
M_s are not gauged by the old falsehood and fakery of Naturals = Finite
Integers
 Instead the four quantum numbers are the Naturals = p-adic integers =
Infinite Integers

Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
> 
> edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Conclusive evidence of life after death actually has been available
> >for more than a quarter-century.
> >
> >This opinion is shared by two of the world's foremost authorities on
> >death and dying, Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross and Dr. Bruce Greyson.
> >They agree that the proof had been provided by a pair of Pennsylvania
> >coal miners who, back in 1963, revealed that Pope John XXIII had
> >appeared to both of them at the same time during their 14-day
> >entombment following an underground cave-in near Hazleton, Pa.
> 
> [merciful snip]
> 
> I heard it was Rumplestilskin who appeared.  The rescued miners made a
> fortune spinning straw into gold.  Authorities are probing the
> disappearance of their first born children.
    Well he didn't really appear. He had been there the whole
time. The miners needed fuel for light , so they started
chopping at a coal vein, one of them loosed a big pile of
it and out fell old R*! (However, he did not say much
because he was completely fossilized.) 
     The dallas cowboy cheerleading squad was scheduled to
appear after the pope but there was not enough room, so
they had to cancel at the last minute. So the pope
had to appear twice. They didn't specify if
he was wearing pope hat or not, so it may have just
been a personal visit. 
> --
> Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
> UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
> http://www.netprophet.co.nz/uncleal/        (best of + new)
> http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm  (lots of + new)
>  (Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz (uncleal0@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: It's a surface tension thing.  Objects wetted by water and floating will 
: attract.  Objects not wetted by water and floating will repel.  The 
: reason is the same that an internally wetted capillary has a thread of 
: liquid rise, and a not internally wetted capillary excludes liquid.
	That's not much of an explanation you gave.  At least insofar as
cheerios can be approximated as vertical cylinders, (or especially 
vertical infinite planes), there is no contribution to the force from
surface tension itself because the liquid always makes a characteristic
angle with a surface.  As I explained, the force is due to the hydrostatic
pressure difference that arises because the milk is pulled up higher when
it is near to cheerios on both sides, instead of just on one side.
	This is discussed a little in my other post and on my home page
under misc.
	Gravity sets the characteristic length scale of the interaction,
especially in the perturbative regime where all cheerios are far from the
others.  There is then a Yukawa force with a characteristic length of
(s/(rho g))^(1/2), about (1/(1000 * 10))^.5 = .01 m for water.
	Does anyone know the surface tension of milk?
                         - - - - - - -
              Jacques Mallah (mallahj@acf2.nyu.edu)
       Graduate Student / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
                http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/

In article , mexitech@netcom.com 
(Patrick) wrote:
> I want to see Puff the Magic Dragon fly over Gardena myself.  No movie 
> magic, no special effects, the real thing, full metal jacket, GE gatlings, 
> going for the gold!
Pilot to Navigator: I'm gonna take some pictures so people will know
what Gardena _used_ to look like!
Regards, Forja Ree
for the Senior Librarian, due back any minute now, and is he ever
going to be ticked when he finds out what the rest of us have been 
doing with his war library! Time for a general staff vacation--
see you when the Senior Librarian cools off...
    /\      WAR LIBRARY CANADA
_/\|  |/\_  BIBLIOTHEQUE CANADIENNE DE GUERRE 
\        /   
 >______<   dmanzer@wimsey.com
    /