Newsgroup sci.physics 212006

Directory

In <58f0q2$86f@mari.onr.com> magruder@onr.com writes:
 > Would someone explain the following?:
 > 
 > Why would the weight of a person standing on the earth increase
 > should the earth rotate faster, yet that same person, in a 
 > space station, would decrease should the space station rotate
 > faster?  I am confused, given that weight is a function of
 > gravity and mass.  Any takers on this one?
The term "weight" is a little ambiguous.  But there's nothing
ambiguous about gravitational force; it depends on mass only
and not at all on rotation.  (Well, there's a General-Relativistic
effect, but it's tiny tiny.)
Here's what my be confusing you:  Relative to the SURFACE of the
earth, a body falls faster at the poles than at the equator.  You
might say that the rotation of the earth carries the surface out
from under it.
Ben

Moe Green wrote:
> 
> While attending school, I have discovered an interesting item.
> While at lunch the person next to me removed the end of his straw
> and fired the paper across, reaching 1 table over.
> Wow, big deal right.  Well, after discussing with him, he had several
> techniques.
> So I tried it, I got one table over.
> So I picked another straw out, this one has a curve at the end (not on
> purpose, thats just the way it is.)
> Using the same techniques, we were able to shoot paper coverings three
> tables away. We tried it serveral times all with the same outcome.
> 
> Is this due to the curve at the end of the straw?
> 
> Does anyone know?
> 
> Thanks for your time...
> Moe Green
   The curve in the other straw probably created some resistance, which
in turn helped raise the pressure inside it.  The higher pressure
resulted in higher wad velocity.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

> Watch out for spinning objects: they generate lift. For example, a
> spinning rifle-bullet in a cross-wind. The spin will either lift
> the bullet or make it drop faster.
   I'd love to see references for this.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

magruder@onr.com (Kevin Magruder) wrote:
>Would someone explain the following?:
>Why would the weight of a person standing on the earth increase
>should the earth rotate faster, yet that same person, in a 
>space station, would decrease should the space station rotate
>faster?  I am confused, given that weight is a function of
>gravity and mass.  Any takers on this one?
You have it backward. Earth rotates faster, you weigh less(mass is
unchanged). Space station rotates faster you weigh more.(again, mass
is unchanged.)
Re. gravity and mass, I'll stick to the Newtonian expalanation. The
more mass you have the greater the gravity. For an object such as
Earth the gravity is a function of mass and distance from the Earths
centre. On the surface of the earth, the gravitational acceleraqtion
is designated as 'g' = GMe/r^2 where G is the universal gravitational
constant, Me is the earths radius and r is the distance from the
earths centre. A space station in orbit at 160km height essentially
will still feel 'g'(when you add 160km to the earth's radius the
result does not change 'g' signifigantly. The reason the occupants in
a spacecraft experience weightlessness is that the spacecraft is
actually falling. Anything measured in this freefaling reference frame
appears weightless. The spacecraft although falling, falls at the same
rate the earth curves away from it and hence stays in orbit. Thats way
you need to rotate a spacestation to simulate gravity.(Assuming you
have built one designed to do that) Freedom, for example, will not be
able to simulate gravity in this way.Theres more to this and if you
want the maths of the rotation let me know and I'll post it for you.
DT
David A. Tatar, B.Sc
You'll always get my two cents worth!

mikemck@gate.net wrote:
> 
>         Forgive an amateurish inquiry.
> 
>         Am filling below-ground-level swimming pool from above-ground
> spigot, using public water supply and garden hose. If hose outlet is at pool
> bottom, will weight of water above it retard flow, or will "water seeks its level"
> prevail?
    Normal faucet pressure is about 60 psi.  I don't recall exactly how
tall a column of water it takes to create that pressure, but I know it's
a lot more than the depth of any pool.  Water towers are the height they
are in order to create that 60 psi.
-- 
                                 Bill
 ------------------------------------
| If everything is possible,         |
| nothing is knowable.  Be skeptical.|
 ------------------------------------

> 
>   I post this to alt.president.clinton because there should be some
> attention payed to the "advisory" system that goes on in the US. There
> is a strong argument that the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs and the
> Cuban Missile Crises were the work, for the most part, from the habit
> of the president of the US to surround himself with advisors who are
> idealistic dolts. To get from say Harvard or Princeton some college
> professor who is so idealistic that his advise gets the whole of the US
> into deep hot water.
>   Someone ought to review this US penchant of the president surrounding
> himself with Harvard professors whereas a more pragmatic advisory board
> is needed.
> 
>   And another point of concern. And I am thinking of Eisenhower mostly.
> That it appears bad for the US to have a war horse as a president. That
> these guys are too trigger finger happy. And on the slightest of
> provokations they jump in with a military answer. Witness Korea and
> Vietnam. I think the US people ought to think twice before ever
> electing a war hero into the presidency. I think war heroes or war
> horses, eg, Eisenhower make bad presidents for they are not bright
> enough and they are too dangerous in that office. If Eisenhower and
> Kennedy had not been presidents, I doubt that we would have had a
> Vietnam war.
>    I place the Vietnam War as mostly Kennedy's war. Anyone shed light
> on that assessment?
    Yes, I can, being 80% through a book on the subject. Kennedy was
very sensible about it and had no intention of fighting it. He
repeatedly rejected his advisors' recommendations to do pretty much what
Johnson did.  He did not regard it as an important part of his foreign
policy or a good place to fight a war--even though he was talked into
expanding the American commitment.
    I expect my book to be out in 1998.
           David Kaiser

I have the following books for sale :
Please note the books condition:
Brand New = (!)           Good    = (***)
Excellent = (****)        Average = (**)             Poor = (*)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- J. G. Kemeny, J. L. Snell, G. L. Thompson, Introduction to Fininte
  Mathematics, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1956, $19, (***).
- W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teukolsky, and W. T. Vetterling,
  Numerical Recipes in Pascal, Cambridge University Press, 1989, $39
  (!).
- F. G. Shinskey, Process Control Systems: Application, Design, and 
  Tuning, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1988, $29 (****).
- W. Kaplan, Introduction to Analytic Functions, Addison-Wesley, 1966,
  $24, (***).
- M. C. Gemignani, Elementary Topology, Second Edition, Addison Wesley,
  1967, $22, (****).
- R. C. Diprima, W. E. Boyce, Elementary Differential Equations, Third
  Edition, Wiley, 1977, $22, (***).
- P. R. Halmos, Measure Theory, Nostrand, 1950, $35, (***).
- C. L. Silver, From Symbolic Logic...to Mathematical Logic, WCB, 1994,
  $34, (!).
- J. A. Peterson, J. Hashisaki, Theory of Arithmetic, Second Edition,
  Wiley, 1963, $22, (***).
- B. V. Limaye, Functional Analysis, Halsted Press, 1981, $29, (***).
- R. E. Williamson, R. H. Crowell, H. F. Trotter, Calculus of Vector
  Functions, Prentice-Hall, 1968, $27, (***).
- G. Strang, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, Academic Press, 1976,
  $23, (***).
- J. Breuer, Introduction to the Theory of Sets, Prentice Hall, 1958,
  $18 (***).
- R. S. Burington and C. C. Torrance, Higher Mathematics with Applications
  to Science and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, 1939, $19 (***).
- E. Gaughan, Introduction to Analysis, Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.,
  $22 (****).
- T. W. Gamelin, Uniform Algebra, Prentice Hall, 1969, $24 (***).
- J. W. Keesee, Elementary Abstract Algebra, D.C. Heath and Co.,
  1965, $19 (****).
- K. Knopp, Elements of The Theory of Functions, Dover, 1952, $15 
  (***, soft cover).
- K. Knopp, Infinite Sequences and Series, Dover, 1956, $15, (***, soft
  cover).
- K. Knopp, Theory And Application Of Infinite Series, Hafner Pub. Co.,
  2nd ed., 1923, $22 (***).
- R. C. Jeffrey, Formal Logic: Its Scope and Limits, McGraw Hill, 1967,
  $25 (****).
- E. R. Stabler, An Introduction to Mathematical Thought, Addison Wesley,
  1953, $19 (****).
- P. W. Zehna and R. L. Johnson, Elements of Set Theory, Allyn and Bacon,
  1962, $25 (****).
- W. H. Richardson, Finite Mathematics, Harper & Row Publishers, 1968, $19 
  (****).
- M. R. Kinsolving, Set Theory and The Number Systems, International
  Textbook Company, 1967, $19 (****).
- M. D. Larsen, Fundamental Concepts of Modern Mathematics, Addison Wesley,
  $19 (****).
- A. H. Lightstone, Symbolic Logic and the Real Number System: An Introduction
  to the Foundations of Number Systems, Harper & Row Publishers, 1965, $19
  (****).
- E. J. Cogan, Foundations of Analysis, Prentice Hall, 1962, $19 (****).
- V. G. Sprindzuk, Mahler's Problem in Metric Number Theory, American
  Mathematical Society, 1969, $23 (***).
- D. N. Clark, G. Pecelli, and R. Sacksteder, Contributions to Analysis and
  Geometry, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981, $24 (****).
- G. A. Freiman, Foundations of a Structural Theory of Set Addition, 
  American Mathematical Society, 1973, $22 (****).
- R. T. Seeley, Calculus of Several Variables, Scott Foresman & Co., 1970,
  $19 (****).
- D. Saracino, Abstract Algebra: A First Course, Addison Wesley, 1980,
  $19 (***).
- J. T. Moore, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Allendoerfer Advanced 
  Series, The Macmillan Company, 1962, $22 (****).
- B. L. Van Der Waerden, Modern Algebra, Vol. I, Frederick Ungar
  Pub. Co., 1940, $25 (***).
- A. Clark, Elements of Abstract Algebra, Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1971,
  $22 (***).
- C. B. Hanneken, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, Dickenson Publishing
  Co., 1968, $22 (****).
- W. E. Barnes, Introduction to Abstract Algebra, D.C. Heath & Co., 1963,
  $22 (***).
- C. W. Curtis, Linear Algebra: An Introduction Approach, 2nd ed., Allyn
  and Bacon, Inc., 1968, $22 (***).
- J. Gilbert and L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, 3rd ed., PWS-Kent
  Publishing Co., 1992, $22 (!).
- M. R. Spiegel, Applied Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Prentice Hall,
  1967, $17 (***).
- M. L. James, G. M. Smith, and J. C. Wolford, Applied Numerical Methods
  For Digital Computation with Fortran and CSMP, Harper & Row Pub., 1977,
  $22 (***).
- G. A. Bekey and W. J. Karplus, Hybrid Computation, John Wiley & Sons,
  1968, $22 (****).
- F. R. Ruckdeschel, BASIC Scientific Subroutines Vol. II, McGraw Hill,
  1981, $22 (****).
- A. L. Edwards, Statistical Analysis for Students in Psychology and
  Education, Rinehart & So., 1956, $10 (***).
- P. R. Rider, An Introduction to Modern Statistical Methods, John Wiley &
  Sons, 1939, $10 (***).
- M. Rosenblatt, Random Processes, Oxford University Press, 1962, $19 (***).
- Z. W. Birnbaum, Introduction to Probability and Mathematical Statistics,
  Harper & Brothers Pub., 1962, $19 (***).
- R. B. Reisel, Elementary Theory of Metric Spaces, Springer-Verlag, 1982,
  $15 (!), Soft Cover.
- D. Moller, Ed., Advanced Simulation in Biomedicine, Springer-Verlag, 
  1990, $17 (!), Soft Cover.
- D. V. Chudnovsky, G. V. Chudnovsky, H. Cohn, M. B. Nathanson, Eds., 
  Number Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1991, $18 (!), Soft Cover.
- K. H. Borgwardt, The Simplex Method: A Probablistic Analysis, Springer-
  Verlag, 1987, $18 (!), Soft Cover.
- J. R. Dias, Molecular Orbital Calculations Using Chemical Graph Theory,
  Springer-Verlag, 1993, $16 (!), Soft Cover.
- L. S. Charlap, Bieberbach Groups and Flat Manifolds, Springer-Verlag,
  1986, $17 (!), Soft Cover.
- R. L. Gue and M. E. Thomas, Mathematical Methods in Operations Research,
  The macmillan Co., 1968, $25 (****).
- F. Hausdorff, Set Theory, 2nd ed., Chelsea Pub. Co., 1962, $29 (****).
- S. Bell, J. R. Blum, J. V. Lewis, and J. Rosenblatt, Modern University
  Calculus with Coordinate Geometry, Holden Day, 1966, $23 (****).
- P. Buser, Geometry and Spectra of Compact Riemann Surfaces, Birkhauser
  Boston, 1992, $25 (!).
- J. L. Schiff, Normal Families, Springer Verlag, 1993, $19 (!, soft cover).
- C. E. Froberg, Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Addison Wesley, 1965,
  $22 (***).
- H. Rutishauser, Lectures on Numerical Mathematics, Birkhauswer, 1990,
  $35 (!).
- G. F. Simmons, Differential Equations with Applications and Historical
  Notes, McGraw-Hill, 1972, $25 (***).
- P. G. Hoel, Elementary Statistics, Second Edition, Wiley, 1966, 
  $25 (***).
- S. Ross, A First Course in Probability, Second Edition, MacMillan, 1984
  $28 (!).
- J. Gilbert, L. Gilbert, Elements of Modern Algebra, Third Edition, 1992
  $27 (****).
- P. C. Shields, Elementary Linear Algebra, Second Edition, Worth, 1968
  $18 (***).
- I. N. Vekua, Generalized Analytic Functions, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.,
  1962, $25 (***).
- E. D. Rainville, P. E. Bedient, A Short Course in Differential
  Equations, Sixth Edition, Macmillan, 1981, $25 (****).
- H. L. Pazer, L. A. Swanson, Modern Methods for Statistcial Analysis,
  Intext Educational Publishers, 1972, $22 (****).
- P. E. Pfeiffer, Concepts of Probability Theory, McGraw Hill, 1965,
  $19 (***).
- J. S. Bendat and A. G. Piersol, Measurement And Analysis of Random
  Data, John Wiley & Sons, 1966, $19 (**).
- R. E. Walpole and R. H. Myers, Probability and Statistics for Engineers
  and Scientists, 2nd ed., Macmillan, 1978, $19 (**).

Hi! I am a senior physics student from Pennsylvania. I am doing an 
experiment on acceleration on the y-axis. In order to do this, I need 
help from people from different parts of the world (or country).  The 
experiment I will be asking you to perform is very simple, and will 
probably only take a few minutes of your time. If you are willing to help,
 please e-mail me at Good10@juno.com. If you'd like to write me on 
Prodigy, my address is TUSG02C. I would appreciate any and all help. 
Thank you in advance.
                                                 Thanks again,
                                                        Tara 
My address again is Good10@juno.com 
Just so there is no confusion, after the one, it is a zero, not the 
letter O.
-
  TARA TENGOOD Good10@juno.com

Esa Sakkinen wrote:
> In my model there are point-to-point connections in 3D-space.
> By means of space structure itself spatial units keep energy
> in causal order. 
It seems to be an important proposition here. Sorry for my ignorance,
any reference text about this? It seems really like a new school in
viewing Mach.
> When packet of energy moves at speed of light
> it has no inertia in direction of motion, but it has inertia
> besides! If light goes around itself it becomes to particle
> and gets inertia in all directions. So light can't take care
> of causal order in direction of its motion. Photon exists only
> in 2d-section of universe (plane towards its ray). Inertial
> plane for single photon can be distorted (I think) but when
> plane achieves direction of light ray single photon will
> continue as particle...
Do you mean, in the direction of polarization an EM wave packet gets
inertia as energy varies in that direction?
Fong

To do those fancy things that you have mentioned, your training in physics
is simply not enough, you do need a little bit of luck. You do need some
luck to beat 400 competitors to earn a $30,000 teaching or research
position. 
BTW, not every physics Ph.D. can go to Wall Street.
-- 
Minnie
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/6863
Craig DeForest  wrote in article 
> It seems to me you just can't go wrong with a physics degree:  you 
> get the skills you need to dive into just about any field, so
> you aren't locked into a lifetime in any one career.

In <58eq1m$msa@news1.epix.net> jart@epix.net (Jack Tucker) writes: 
>
>Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <32A670EA.6BD9@gasbone.herston.uq.edu.au> Warlock
>:  writes: 
>: >
>: >logical Scientist lover wrote:
>: >
>: >>  The work I have done suggests that Energy is universal in type
>: >>  and that its "condensation" states which we call the Elementay
>: >>  Particles of Mass obey a simple fifth power law!
>: >>  It would seem that Energy  ontainment (mass) is much more
>: >>  geometrically oriented than expected.
>: >
>: >
>: >Woah, woah, woah. Way beyond my league (see the response to
Hermital).
>: >I don't suppose you could repeat that in laymans terms could you?
>: unique "Physical Property Chart", which
>: shows the relationships between the physical
>: properties, in a few simple steps.
>
>: Tom Potter        http://pobox.com/~tdp
>
>I'm having a hard time getting a place to start on your theory.  Could
>you describe for some simple example how things work relative to
>textbook physics?
>
>I would suggest the following list is simple enough to make some 
>headway; yet the list extends over a large range of size, from 
>nuclei to a macro-sized coil of wire:
>
>	(1) Hydrogen.
>
>	(2) Positronium.
>
>	(3) Proton.
>
>	(4) Neutron.
>
>	(5) Electron.
>
>	(6) Deuteron.
>
>	(7) Particles in the magnetic field of a single-turn coil.
>
>	(8) Magnetic moment of particles and small nuclei.
>
>Two-slit diffraction, relativity and F = m*a are not on the list. 
They are
>related to the mass property which I think is too difficult to do,
although
>QCD is making some headway.  If you can calculate significant mass
>details from your theory, great!
If you download my physics tutorial,
you will see that it also contains
an "Atomic Particle Chart" which
shows the properties of atomic particles.
Most of the particles you mentioned are
on the chart, and if you draw a line
from the center of the chart, up between
the proton and the neutron, and extrapolate
the property values and the particles formed
by the combination of properties, you will
find that hydrogen, and all the other elements
and isotopes fall around this line.
If you sincerely go through the physics tutorial,
and understand each of the seven simple steps,
most of your questions will be answered.
Now, I have posted in this forum formula's
for determining ionization potentials,
the spectrum of hydrogen-like atoms
and such, but you can't expect me to
do all the work. It's hard enough
just getting the salient features of 
a new concept out of the noise level,
without being sidetracked on details.
I assert that reality is "property-oriented"
rather than "object-oriented" and that if
you recursively examine the intensions of
ANY object, that you will end up with a small
set of harmonic ( Quantum ) properties.
The fundamental unit property is just
cycles, and the most convenient and
sensible property to use to define all
other properties is time.
Now, if you start from this, and follow
it step by step, you can derive all of the
stuff you find in your physics books.
If you also read the articles at my Web site,
which were articles that I posted in this
forum, you will also find that my system
integrates Newtonian physics and quantum
mechanics. Rather than duplicate what
is on my Web pages, I would just state
that a mass can be expressed most fundamentally
as a time, and mass product of interacting masses
gives the "improbability" of the system absorbing
energy, and that the wave function is a function
of the reciprocal of the mass products.
Tom Potter       http://pobox.com/~tdp

In article <32AA4065.66B2@worldnet.att.net>,
Rob Pento   wrote:
>I do not purport to be a physicist.
>
>I would like FEEBACK (positive as well as negative) on the
>following IDEA.  Realize I name this idea after myself
>(so if it's valid or DUMB -- at least everyone knows who
>  said it; I'm not ashamed to be wrong since I tried)
I've been away from sci.physics for a while, partly because of all the
junk that appeared.  Now that I'm back, it's sad but I guess not
surprising to see that disclaimers like this are felt to be necessary.
>*************************** MY IDEA ****************************
>Thesis:  There exists an absolute temperature at which a substance
>possess the maximum amount of thermal energy possible.
>
>Theory/hypothesis:
>
>1) Given: No form of matter may achieve a velocity greater than the
>speed of light.
I had the same idea once.  Then it was pointed out to me that the speeds
have to be less than c, but the energy can increase without bound.  The
relativistic kinetic energy is
       K = m c^2 ( 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) - 1 )
If you can get through all those parentheses, you can see that as v goes
to c, K goes to infinity.
>My biggest "stumbling block" is that vibrating molecules would
>exhibit oscillatory motion, thereby going from positive to negative
>velocity (thus at some point have velocity =0, or more generally
>not constantly at the speed of light).
It doesn't really make sense to talk about the temperature of a single
point-like particle.  The temperature is a measure of the average energy
of a collection of particles, it's averaged over a certain volume and a
certain time.  So you're still okay on this point.
-- 
SPOON!

In article <58f5or$6ft@nr1.ottawa.istar.net> thornton@netidea.com (Steve Thornton) writes:
>From: thornton@netidea.com (Steve Thornton)
>Subject: Re: faster than light travel
>Date: 8 Dec 1996 19:43:23 GMT
>A friend called today, said he heard on CBC radio a story about a
>Univ. of Cologne scientist who had made something go 4.7 times the
>speed of light. I said nonsense. He asked me to look into it. Is there
>any substance (no pun intended) to this?
>Steve Thornton
>Nelson, BC
>thornton@netidea.com
>Steve Thornton, Nelson, British Columbia
>thornton@netidea.com
Yes there was something on "As It Happens" on Fri December 3rd.  I didn't hear 
it but here's the blurb from CBC's web site.  If you can find more let us know.
 AS IT HAPPENS:
Tonight on As It Happens...Modern science meets Mozart. An expert in theoretical physics believes he's made
a machine that can accelerate particles or waves until they move faster than light. To prove it, he transmits part
of a Mozart symphony at warp speed. He says you can hear the difference. Hear it for yourself tonight on As It
Happens, with Michael Enright and Barbara Budd at 6:30 (7:00 NT) on CBC Radio. 

A question to all:
So, my friends and I were sitting around at school, and we were
wondering about the following:
What happens to a pig if you shoot him into space?  More specifically,
if you release him from a space capsule in space to prevent him from
burning up when leaving the atmosphere.  Since he is mostly water, would
he boil away into the vaccuum?  Or would he freeze first?  What would be
the last thought to cross his mind?
Thanks to any and all who waste their time in replying.
Post and email replies please, to:
rfields@mail.med.upenn.edu
Thanks,
M, N, and R.

Nathan M. Urban  wrote:
>
>Your argument was well reasoned, but there is a flaw in your logic.
>The rods contract, but that doesn't make the circle get smaller, since
>its radius stays the same.  Rather, there are gaps in the circle of
>rods now!  They need to be filled.  If you did this experiment
>physically, say spinning a hoop at relativistic speeds, the hoop would
>get ripped to pieces rather than contract like a noose.
Sir,  I salute your patient and exact answer --  but you have activated
a small bugbear of mine:  I know you probably just left this out for
simplicity.
Whether or not the hoop would get ripped apart,  contract like a
noose,  or stretch like a rubber band depends on its detailed material
properties and the actual stress field in the hoop -- which in turn
would depend upon a detailed solution involving a combination of
relativistic mechanics and elasticity.
We only reach a logical contradiction in this sort of problem when we
assume an ideally rigid body,  from which it is tempting to extricate
ourselves by saying "it flies apart".  This is indeed a possible
outcome if the resultant stresses exceed the strength of the object,
but so is an elastic deformation.  Elasticity and relativity do live
in the same universe,  despite appearances to the contrary.  :-)
Shoot... I am sounding pompous tonight,  but damn it man,  it's the
truth!
Ed

CCD Data Acquisition   wrote:
>MW wrote:
>> 
>> What causes inertia?  <...>
>
>The truth of the matter is nobody knows.  I recall a Nova program
>where Richard Feymann said this himself.  As a matter of fact when
>you see a basic law of physics the question "why is it like that"
>the answer is "nobody knows". Look at special relativity. The first
>postulate is "The speed of light in an inertial frame of referenca is
>a constant.".  Nobody knows why. It just is.
Well,  Peter,  I agree with you totally about a "fundamental law of
physics" being,  almost by definition,  the point where we stop and
say "nobody knows" --  Like for example,  why Uncle Ralph wears
underwear with little pink bunnies on them.  He just does.
But as far as why the speed of light appears to be the same to a class
of observers labeled inertial,  I think I know,  or at least have a
partial reduction into more primitive concepts.  But we won't even go
there.  :-)
More than the existence of inertial mass the
equivalence to gravitational mass seems to be disturbing.
At least the former is integrated into mechanics in an
intimate way,  whereas the latter is a real pink bunny fact;  it's
just the way the universe puts its pants on.  There is a trip to
Stockholm in a unifying explanation for that,  I tell you.
Ed

In article <58f2pf$1h0@convolution.eng.umd.edu>, coolhand@Glue.umd.edu (Kevin Anthony Scaldeferri) wrote:
> In article <58cqbd$8du@csugrad.cs.vt.edu>,
> Nathan M. Urban  wrote:
> >I heard that the _average_ for Caltech was around 830 or so..
> >disgusting, isn't it?  :)
> Are you speaking of graduating seniors or incoming grads.  The AIP
> book claims this year's incoming grads had a median of 860, which is
> scary enough until you realize that the year before that it was 930.
I was speaking of incoming grads.  I must have been looking in an old
book.  Now I'm really depressed.  Guess I won't be going there.  :)
(Actually, I know someone who went there with mid-700's, but he had
excellent grades, recommendations, and research to make up for it.)
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

Tim Hollebeek  wrote:
>
>One can define things so that the boundary of a set looks like a derivative,
>(this actually makes a bit of sense; remember for example that the derivative
>of the volume is the surface area.  It takes a lot of work to make this
>simple concept precise though), so then one gets:
>
>  /           /
>  |          |
>  |    F  =  |  dF
>  |          |
>  / dB      /
>
>Simple enough? :-)
C_oo_el.  :-)
Throwing precision to the winds,  it suddenly becomes clear why there
is a class of such theorems...
/Two bit mathematical philosophy mode on/
All we need are a concept of volume,  surface,  and a sort of integral
thingie on the surface that has a crucial property -- the sign depends
on which side of the surface you are on.  Then all is simple...  We
cut up the volume into wee tiny pieces,  noting that the contribution
from all these new internal surfaces is zip,  until we get to a
fineness where the thing integrated on the surface is almost,  but not
quite,  constant.  Then we make a linear approximation,  discover
the derivative -- and the rest is history.
/Tbmpm off/
My thanks to all who took the time to write lucid explanations of
this.
Ed

SpectrumTuner allows you to scan though the electromagnetic spectrum
while simultaneously showing frequency, wavelength, and energy in 
selectable units. It can be seen at
http://www.seds.org/~smiley/java/SpectrumTuner
(it is a Java Applet).
Apologies for this 'ad' but I think this might have a wide appeal.
--
+----------------------->Guy Kenneth a.k.a Mr Smiley<-----------------------+
UA SEDS President 96-97 <        .     .            > C/C++ Java Perl Tcl/tK
student/webmaster/sysop >          .     .          < HTML CGI VRML POV UNIX
621-5904 Steward Rm 315 <                 *         > astronomy astrophysics
smiley@seds.org         > "Electrons For Breakfast" < planetary sciences
+==============================================+
" Keep on jumping around in a violent manner so as to transfer as 
  much kinetic energy to the person next to you."

Andy Mulcahy (mul@Islandnet.comTips) wrote:
 [ religion = indoctrination of children ]
Well, I couldn't agree more.  But it is done by brainwashed
people themselves, usually.  So it is more a kind of mental
"software" desease than a doctrine, a kind of selfish selfpropagating
state of mind.  The irony of it all is that religious ideas
(consider them religious software genes) are themselves the
result of a fierceful evolutionary battle and the most nasty
and sticky ones are now called worldreligions, and they infected
major parts of homo sapiens sapiens.  The less spread but
often more virulent variations on the theme are called sects.
Infection is most prone to happen to young minds, so the world
health organisation should make sure no young children come into
contact with any religion.
Probably children should be removed from infected parents.
cheers,
Patrick. 
:    "Religious hatred is a powerful force. It has now claimed
:  more lives than the plague, aids and cancer have combined."
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Rich Haller (rhaller@ns.uoregon.edu) wrote:
: To be more precise, are there any phenomena in the realm of things that it
: is reasonable to expect QT to explain that it does not?
: I am NOT talking about the problems involved with integrating QT with GR,
: and other well established theories, though those are things to be
: considered, I am looking for examples on the order of the photoelectric
: effect, something nice and clean and simple and 'physics'.
No.  None at all, as far as I know, if you mean: an experiment where
quantum mechanics says: you should read 3 V, and you look and see 4 V.
As far as I know, in every instance where QM could make predictions
(eg, the math problem was solvable) things came out that way.
cheers,
Patrick.
: Rich Haller 
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Eric Lucas wrote:
> 
> No, if *you* look further, you will find that Chris is right.  This is one
> of the principles that is taught in every college freshman inorganic
> chemistry class.  The aufbau principle has all of the nd orbitals filling
> *before* the (n+1)s orbitals.  This has been known for as long as people
> have talked about s, p, d and f orbitals.
> 
> Sorry.
> 
Dear Lucas 
*YOU* should learn a bit more about the atom before
telling that this property is well known, so basicaly that all 
students should know it.
Please look at http://www.afuu.fr/hcl/aip/p5-8.html, tableau 1, 
where the table of the atom configuration filling published by RP
Feynman is given. If you read french you can learn there about the 
QM structure of atom for which I reproduced the whole explanation
from Landau, Feynman among others 
As an organometallicist, I would have a lot to say about this 3d 
and 4s filling, however The quantum mechanics is drastic about it :
3d is filled up before 4s.
For more informations to learn (at last for you) the structure of atom :
16) Landau et E. Lifchitz, Mécanique Quantique, Editions Mir, Moscou,
1967, 2nd édition, chapitre X. 
17) R. P. Feynman, Mécanique Quantique, Version Française,
InterEditions, Paris, 1979, §19 
18) W. J. Moore, Chimie Physique, deuxième édition, Dunod, Paris 1965,
pp 604-605 
19) D. Hartree, Reports on Progress in Physics, 1947, vol. 11, p. 113. 
20) R. Latter, Phys. Rew., 1955, vol.99, p. 510 
Cheers
HCl

In article <58c411$15j@mack.rt66.com>,
Foreign Accents  wrote:
>>: My physics III professor could not answer this one. Could there be a wave
>>: that travels as both energy and matter?  Just have enough energy to become
>>: matter but unstable enough to break down into energy again.  I don't know
>>: what the implications of such a wave would be. It was just a question that
>>: popped into my head why we were reviewing Einstein's postulates.
Well, I'm not even sure what exactly this question is supposed to mean,
so I'm not sure how to answer it, but this doesn't prevent me from being
depressed that your professor wasn't able to :-).
What do you mean "enough energy to become matter"?  For that matter (no
pun), what do you mean by "matter"?
A common definition you may be using is rest mass.  In quantum mechanics,
everything (light, electrons, atoms, sound) is made of particles which
are described by wave equations.  Some of these particles, such as electrons,
have energy even when they are not moving: this is the famous E=mc^2.
Other particles, such as photons, have no rest mass, and as a consequence
always travel at the speed of light, with E=pc.
Since both energy and momentum must be conserved, a single particle cannot
change into a single particle with a different rest mass, in the absence
of additional interactions.  It can, however, decay into two or more
particles whose rest masses add up to less than its rest mass, the leftover
energy going into kinetic energy.  Or two particles can change into two
other particles.  An electron and a positron can annihilate into two
photons.  In principle, two energetic-enough photons could also turn into
an electron-positron pair.  In fact, given that in quantum mechanics,
everything that can happen does, a full description of the propagation of
a photon does involve it temporarily turning into e+e- pairs before
the recombine into a photon; in this sense, yeah, all light travels both
as energy and matter.  Since the rest mass of the photon is 0, the e+e-
never have enough energy to escape, and perhaps this is what you mean 
by "unstable enough to break down into energy again."
At a more observable level, a photon can be absorbed by a semiconductor
to produce a conduction electron (this is how photodiodes and such things
work).  Of course, it's not _producing_ an electron, but it's promoting
an electron into the conduction band, where it has observable effects
(like conducting current).  A full description involves thinking about
a particle which is part-photon and part-electron-hole pair propagating
through the semiconductor.
Ok?
-- 
Aephraim M. Steinberg        | "...scanning the sky for [signals] from
aephraim@physics.utoronto.ca | intelligent life.  One group has improved its
//www.physics.toronto.edu/   | ability to distinguish human signals from the 
                 ~aephraim/  | real things." Science 271, 1055.

gtclark@tattoo.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:
>	the quote you use is all very well, but the point remains: the
>bible does not give a date. A friend who read the whole of revelations a
>few weeks ago told me hat he thought it was implying that the whole
>thing was due shortly after it was written. People are always saying
Well, your friend was right.  He didn't give a date, but Jesus did say
that his second coming would occur during the lifetimes of some of the
people who were then present.
-- 
                                              ^-----^ 
 Michael Huemer         / O   O \
 http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl             |   V   | 
                                              \     / 

> I think that if you look further into the references Becky gave, you
> will see that she is right on all counts.  Just because we were all
> taught to fill 4s before 3d doesn't mean that that's the whole truth and
> nothing but the truth.
> 
> Steven Arnold
> Assistant Professor of Chemistry
> Oakland City University
> Oakland City, IN
Hi Steven,
AM I DREAMING ????   "Just because we were all taught to fill 4s before
3d doesn't mean that that's the whole truth ..." ??!?!!?!
Shall I apply this incredible postulate as " If some one tells you that
general relativity is verified, DO NOT BELIVE him !!" ??!!??
HOW SHALL I DO SCIENCES THEN ?????
Please can you be a little bit more scientific in your discussion ?
That would help !
Steven, as a chemist you should know that we observe always that3d is
filled up before 3d, especially organometalicists, but that the QM does
not agree with that experimental result.
The truth, Steven, the TRUTH, word that you use so easyly, requires that
we base our jugement on realities. One of those is that the chemist
observes that 3d is filled up before 4s, but the QM is not consistent
with it. My discovery gives at last an measurable and real evidence that
the chemist is right and the QM wrong.
Please do take a look on : 
* L. Landau et E. Lifchitz, Mécanique Quantique, Editions Mir, Moscou,
1967, 2nd édition, chapitre X. 
* R. P. Feynman, Mécanique Quantique, Version Française, InterEditions,
Paris, 1979, §19 
* W. J. Moore, Chimie Physique, deuxième édition, Dunod, Paris 1965, pp
604-605 
Cheers
HCl

rsansbury wrote:
> 
>   A few months ago I received some interesting responses to a post that
> speculated that the reason for the red shift of more distant stars etc
> was not that they were moving more rapidly away from us but that they
> were so much dimmer thean nearer stars etc.
>   The official view of Steve Willner and others was that although the
> correlation was almost perfect between dimness and red shift there were
> other unspecified reasons to prefer the red shift & distance correlation
> etc. Joseph Lazio said that the speculation was worthless unless I could
> back this possibility up experimentally.
>   If anyone is interested I have an experiment using a laser diode, a
> photodiode, a Pockel Cell module, a reflector at 50 feet (about
> 50nanoseconds in light speed) and fast logic circuits that seem to
> indicate that light speed does vary with the intensity of the source
> independently of distance. The details are available on request.
>    The experiment seems to show that light is not a moving wave or photon
> but rather the cumulative effect of forces at a distance that act in a
> matter of nanoseconds (or faster) as in Bradley's stellar aberration when
> the earth is moving in opposite directions beneath stars above the
> orbital plane of the earth.
>    Since it takes a longer time to receive a  light source that is weaker
> or more distant and therefore appears weaker at a receiver it follows
> that the greater delay also has a slowing down effect on the frequency of
> light oscillation.
>    This by no means implies that the blue shift of some stars and the red
> shift of other stars is due entirely or in part to components of their
> motion away from the earth.
>   So the Big Bang theory may be salvageable but probably not.
I remember an article a few years back that an astronomer from Univ. of
Azrizona did on something similar to this.  He thought that galaxies
gave off different shifts due to the formation rather than speed.  The
guy's name was Taft, but I can't remember exactly what issue of Popular
Science(?) that it was.  I could look around here....
-Dave

In article <58967k$1a7o@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> (V. Guruprasad) writes:
> Let's start with 2 dipoles not stuck to each other, but within range
> all the same.  If they happen to be oriented parallel initially,
> they'll repel and move apart, weakening the repulsion.  If they
> happen to be initially antiparallel, they will attract and stick
> together, resulting in net zero moment.  More likely is that they
> will be at some angle initially.  In that case, the mutual torque
> will cause them to align anti-parallel and come together again.  
> The attractive orientations thus outnumber the only repulsive
> orientation.  
However, the dipole/dipole attractive FORCE obeys an inverse-=FOURTH=-
power law, not an inverse-SQUARE law --- not at ALL like gravity...
> If we began with 3 dipoles, attraction follows in like manner, except
> that when the dipoles come togther, the moments cannot cancel out.  
There is =NO= number of additional dipoles that can convert an inverse-
FOURTH-power law into an inverse-SQUARE law. Thus, your "dipole" theory
stands already falsified...
> If we begin with more dipoles, chances are that they will never
> quite get to bind together in a tight bundle, like old fashioned
> match sticks in a box, but will bond at their ends to make a lattice
> structure.  Thus, we can construct a scenario where dipole moments
> can result in net attraction and yield something that resembles
> solid matter, and even the 1/r^2 character follows from the
> spherical symmetry in the large number limit.
One can EASILY work out the statistical mechanics of two interacting
clusters of dipoles:  the resulting ``dispersion forces'' *still* fall
off as an inverse-FOURTH-power law or faster (the exponent depends on
the nature of the dipole/dipole correlations between the two clusters).
BTW --- when operating between two atoms, the name for this
``dispersion force'' is ``the Van der Waals force.'' Between two
macroscopic dielectric bodies, it is called ``the Casimir force.'' 
Both of these forces are theoretically and experimentally QUITE well
understood --- and they are =NOT= the cause of gravity !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, would you =PLEASE= go find another wrong tree to bark up, 
Mr. Guruprasad ???  :-T
--  Gordon D. Pusch   
But I don't speak for ANL or the DOE, and they *sure* don't speak for =ME=...

Hello World,     [see   http://www.afuu.fr/hcl]
Few times ago we reported an unknown experimental fact : the very simple
distribution of the atomic ionization potentials (AIP) with report to
the atomic number. 
We have completed our set of datas with all the available one for atoms
with atomic number <= 54.
After a brief description of the new observable facts, we show that they
are not totaly compatible with the forecasts of quantum mechanics (QM)
about the atomic structure. 
__________!!!!!!!!! MOST IMPORTANT  !!!!!!!________________
QM DOES NOT FORECAST THE SIMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE AIP.
An other difference concerns the populations of the 3d and 
4s configurations : the experiment shows that 3d is hosted 
before 4s, at the contrary of what QM says. The same remark 
seems also true for 4d and 5s.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please do find all datas, figures tables and explanations at :
         http://www.afuu.fr/hcl
Friendly yours.
HCl