Subject: Re: Closed fluid filled pipe+heat = boom..always?
From: hatunen@netcom.com (DaveHatunen)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:44:26 GMT
In article <58j8ce$8f6@news.chatlink.com>,
renewable wrote:
>
>I am trying to find out if one can fill a tube
>with *some type* of fluid, cap the tube
>and heat it with, say 1800F, and not
>have it rupture.
>
>The Magic cooking wand that you stick
>in a pot roast, to make it cook faster
>may be an example of this. (maybe not)
Please don't try this at home, children.
>I would think that if a partial vacuum was also
>in the tube so that the tube was not totally
>full of said fluid, that the expansive quality
>of the liquid would not rupture the tube?
It's not the expansive property of a liquid that's the problem; it's
the vapor pressure.
>If the tube was completely full of said fluid,
>then it's expansion due to heat would
>certainly rupture all but the strongest
>of tubes. Neutronium?
Pressure vessel design is a fairly straightforward thing, and most
jurisdictions have made the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code law.
>I am sure this could probably start
>a rather interesting argument..
Nonsense. This is is well settled engineering.
>I hope I hope.
You hope you start an argument? Why?
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
* Daly City California *
* Between San Francisco and South San Francisco *
*******************************************************
Subject: Re: NASA lies, again.
From: hesperos@netcom.com
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:15:26 GMT
Kevin D. Quitt (Kevin@Quitt.net) wrote:
: And by the way, the surface of the moon is not a vacuum.
Not a perfect vacuum perhaps, but it would be better (harder) vacuum than
that which can be produced in any laboratory on Earth.
: Depending how cold the ice is, and how much pressure there is, there's
: no reason for the ice to sublimate.
Quite so.
For example at 190 K (-83 C) the sublimation pressure of water is only
0.032 Pa, (1995 CRC handbook, Sublimation Of Solids, p6-65) and I would
expect the temperature of a permanently shaded crater on the moon to be
considerably lower than that.
Bright Blessings,
Hesperos, ACS
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
| "No hay mal que por bien no venga." -- Gloria Estefan |
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Subject: Re: Closed fluid filled pipe+heat = boom..always?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Dec 1996 16:27:06 GMT
The answer before the question, to save hot air:
The construct is called a heat pipe (thermosiphon). You take a hollow
tube, line it with mesh or sinter for capillarity, evacuate it, then add
enough volatile working fluid of appropriate vapor pressure for the
temperature working range (liquid ammonia, methanol, water) to retain
both liquid and vapor phases, evacuate, and seal.
If the heat source is at the bottom, the heat sink at the top, and the
tube held vertical, heat is conveyed source to sink through the latent
heat of vaporization of the liquid (return path is via the porous
internal wall. Note that water has a specific heat of about 1
cal/gram-degree C, but a heat of vaporization of 540 cal/gram.
The tube is evacuated so that the only gas phase is the vapor of the
liquid, to speed mass transfer of working fluid.
Heat tubes are commercial products, as in Alaskan oil pipelines.
soltherm@chatlink.com (renewable ) wrote:
>
>I am trying to find out if one can fill a tube
>with *some type* of fluid, cap the tube
>and heat it with, say 1800F, and not
>have it rupture.
>
>The Magic cooking wand that you stick
>in a pot roast, to make it cook faster
>may be an example of this. (maybe not)
>
>I would think that if a partial vacuum was also
>in the tube so that the tube was not totally
>full of said fluid, that the expansive quality
>of the liquid would not rupture the tube?
>
>If the tube was completely full of said fluid,
>then it's expansion due to heat would
>certainly rupture all but the strongest
>of tubes. Neutronium?
>
>This is not really a frivilous question,
>for I would like the tube to convect heat
>to , say one end of the tube, when that
>end of the tube is a extremely cooled..
>
>I am sure this could probably start
>a rather interesting argument..
>
>I hope I hope.
>
>dsg
>
>
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Complex Numbers in C
From: ws@aix1.ucok.edu (Bill Stockwell)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 16:16:51 GMT
Henry Baker (hbaker@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <57nf9l$12q@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
: mcclure@math.ohio-state.edu (Mark McClure) wrote:
: > In article ,
: > M. TIBOUCHI wrote:
: > >For more flexibility, you can define complexes as a 2x2 matrix.
: >
: > I'm not sure I understand the advantage of defining a complex via a 2x2
: > matrix? Would anyone care to elaborate?
: One can 'conceive' of a complex as a 2x2 matrix, and have it inherit all
: of the usual matrix operations (whatever they may be). You can learn a
: lot of linear algebra by specializing all that nxn stuff down to 2x2 matrices,
: and trying to understand how the general operations work in very specific
: instances.
: Enjoy!
I think you need to elaborate a bit more. After all, representing a complex
by a 2x2 matrix uses twice as much space as it needs to; moreover, the normal
matrix multiplication it inherits would NOT correspond to complex multiplication;
I fail to see ANY advantage to doing this. Linear operators acting on complex
numbers are nicely represented with 2x2 matrices, but not the complex numbers
themselves.
--
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Bill Stockwell | "The President will keep those *
* Computing Science | promises he INTENDED to keep" *
* U. of Central Oklahoma | -- George Stephanopoulos *
*------------------------------------------------------------------*
Subject: Re: Temperature measurements and blackbody radioation : limit 4000 K ?
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Dec 1996 16:13:15 GMT
C++ Freak wrote:
>Some arc welding instruction books claim a temperature of 7000 C
>(12000 F) in the arc, which I consider as totally exaggerated.
>A temp of 3000-4000 C (7000 *F*) seems more reasonable to me.
>Or are the first values determined theoretically by thermodynamics ?
>And if yes, how ?
An arc welder produced a plasma plume. Said plume radiates hard into the
deep UV. If you don't wear your helmet and leathers you are goig to lose
your eyes and skin. 7000 C is not unreasonable given the health effects
noted. The workpiece may not be at 7000 C, but something in that actinic
spark sure is.
>To my opinion it is VERY HARD to measure any temperature above
>3500-4000 C (7000 F) with rasonable accuracy, unless blackbody
>radiation curves can be obtained which is only possible on stars
>(which are nothing but huge spheres of hot gases radiating blackbody
>curves, originating from nuclear fusion in their nuclei).
>Otherwise a solid is required, either as thermocouple or as
>a filament of an optical pyrometer. Above 4000 C there are no
>solids at all. And as electric arcs are no blackbodies at all,
>measuring the temps in an arc is very difficult.
>Flames can however be measured, as the temperature, even of an
>oxyacetylene flame is at most 3200 C, so holding a piece of
>tungsten in the flame can be measured by an optical pyrometer.
A blackbody is a thermodynamic construct. The state of the emitting
matter is irrelevant. The Stephan-Boltzmann law can also be used to
estimate temp by total power/unit area radiated, and all you then need is
a bolometer to integrate energy emitted. You can also look at the
wavelength of maximum emission to get the thermodynamic temp. You can
put the arc in an axial magnetic field and measure the electron cyclotron
resonance frequency to get their energy, and hence temp.
A plasma plume which is not equilibrated (SOP) will have very hot
electrons and much cooler atomic ions. So, what is the temperature of
the mix?
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: sunburn dosimeters
From: CCD4MCS@leeds.ac.uk (M.C. Sugdon)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:09:53 +0000 (GMT)
The compounds you are talking about are triphenyl methane dyes and their
homologues. The leuco compound used is known as Brilliant green leuco cyanide
and is prepared by the condensing two moles of di-ethyl aniline with
benzaldehdye. This produces a cationic dye, treatment of this with KCN
produces a cyano leuco compound. These compounds are colourless, however when
irradiated with UV light form a green dye, due to the disruption of the C-CN
bond.
It is interesting to note that these types of dyes are used even though they
have poor stability to light, so prolonged exposure will lead to fading of
the material and give a false result.
Similar compounds are also used for detecting gamma radiation (has advantage
that it does not have to be developed)
As far as I know methylene blue is not used in this capacity but is used in
thermally sensitve papers for fax machines as it has good light fastness.
More information on triphenyl methane dyes can be obtained either on my
lecture course (a little impractical as you have to go through the first two
years before you get to this bit) or in books such as 'colorants and
auxillaries' Vol 1 chap 5 by G Hallas or any good colour chemistry book such
as Zollinger or 'modern colorants, synthesis and structure' Ed Peters and
Lee.
Hope that this helped.
Mat.
Subject: Re: Are there any phenomena that Quantum Theory fails to explain?
From: Rich Haller
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:43:44 -0800
> 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?
As far as I can tell from the responses to my post, the following are
true:
1. there are no predictions that QT makes that are wrong
2. there are no phenomena which fall within the realm of things that QT
should be able to explain, which it clearly does not. In particular,
there does NOT appear to be the kind of smoking gun equivalent of the
phenomena which suggested 'classical' physics was in trouble, and which
lead to QT itself (e.g., the black body radiation problem, aka, the
ultraviolet catastrophy).
One poster (Wayne Shanks ) suggested that there
_might_ be a problem with the solar nutrino deficit, but lowed as how,
the jury was still out on that one.
It is also obvious from some responses (which while valid did not
address the question I had in mind) that I did not make myself clear
enough. Here goes again.
1. I AM NOT talking about the problems experienced with integrating QT
with GR or into a TOE. While this is something that needs to be taken
seriously, it is NOT A PROBLEM AT THE LEVEL OF PENOMENA per se.
2. I AM NOT talking about the fact that QT is disquieting to many at the
level of a description of REALITY. (I am adopting Nick Herberts usage
"Quantum Reality" here where we distinguish between the observed and
what goes on _between observations_.)
Along these line, I think, one poster (Fred McGalliard,
frederick.b.mcgalliard@boeing.com) notes:
> I think the problem is that QM provides a
> surprisingly usefull mechanism, especially
> considering it's simplicity. But it does not provide sufficient
> understanding of why it should work to lead us to an understanding
> of what exactly can be done with it
and gives the example of Cooper pairs.
(On the other hand, my memory tells me that it is claimed that much of
the solid state electronics (e.g., tunnel diodes) we are using as I type
comes directly from insights provided by QT.)
To be sure, there is something troubling about the notion of the
collapse of the wave function, but that has to do with our need to try
to interpret QT in a way that 'makes sense' to us based on our everyday
world. I might add that I personally don't feel at all comfortable with
this, and that is one of the reasons why I posted.
In struggling with this (despite Feynman's advice to avoid it), I am
taking the approach to try to stay as rooted in phenomena as I can. What
is it that we are trying to explain? That is why I asked for phenomena
that QT DOES NOT EXPLAIN. They may give hints of whatever problems there
may be, if there are.
I have started with the two slit experiment, this time taking Feynman's
advice that it contains all the problems that QT proposes. At the same
time, I am trying to keep in the back of my mind other important things,
including the need to integrate with GR and ideas in developments like
Superstring theory.
Thanks to all of you who have taken the time to comment.
Just for the record, I give the URL under which I will put my own
musings as they develop. I apologize for the naivite that will be
evident to any physics major. I do welcome any corrections or comments.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rhaller/physics/qt.html
Rich Haller
Subject: Re: Lorenz, relativity and galaxies
From: throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:23:40 GMT
: raven@david.silesia.pik-net.pl (Grzegorz Kruk Ph.D.)
: In all the examples you used with people making round trips to other
: planets and accellerating in and out of earth's "rest" plane (as you
: know earth is actually a non-inertial frame), one cannot use the Lorenz
: transformations to predict.
That turns out not quite to be the case. While it's true the lorentz
transforms can't be directly applied to accelerating frames, they DO
lead to the "minkowski metric" of t'^2=(t^2-d^2) (modulo sign
convention), and use of a bit of differential calculus can then predict
proper times for accelerating objects (and observers). And this is all
well within the scope of special relativity: it's covered in most
textbooks on special relativity, eg
Wheeler&Taylor;'s "Spacetime Physics" (1992)
Rindler's "Introduction to Special Relativity" (1982)
French's "Special Relativity" (1964)
Mould's "Basic Relativity" (1994)
All of these show how to treat accelerated objects and observers
with special relativity alone. That general relativity is required
to treat the behaviors in these cases is a widespread but incorrect meme.
See also the physics FAQ, which now has a section on the treatment of
accelerations in special relativity.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/acceleration.html
which says, eg:
Special relativity gives a completely self-consistent description of
the mechanics of accelerating bodies neglecting gravitation, just as
Newtonian mechanics did.
The difference between general and special relativity is that in the
general theory all frames of reference including spinning and
accelerating frames are treated on an equal footing. In special
relativity accelerating frames are different from inertial frames.
Snipped out of context like that, the above is a bit of an
oversimplification, but it captures the necessary gist. For more
details, see also http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/twin_spacetime.html
for more about treatment of accelerations via s^2=(t^2-d^2), in this
particular case the acceleration that occurs in the famous old
relativity puzzle, the twin paradox scenario. And finally,
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/twin_gr.html for more detail on
why general relativity isn't needed to model accelerating objects.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
throopw@cisco.com
Subject: Re: Bell's Theorem
From: gunter@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (David Gunter)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 16:26:17 GMT
Gustave Rabson (cu630@cleveland.Freenet.Edu) wrote:
: I am looking for a clear, concise statement and proof of Bell's Theorem.
: I know I read one - with an elementary proof - about 5 years ago
: but I do not remember the reference.
: Can you help?
: Please reply to me personally rather than to the newsgroup.
: Thanks.
An elegant demonstration of Bell's Theorem was given by N. David Mermin,
"Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody", in the
American Journal of Physics, 49(10), October, 1981. There's no proof offered
but he does list references to the experiments that have been done to verify
the theorem. One of these references is by J.F. Clauser and A. Shimony in
Reports of Progress in Physics 41, 1991. I haven't located the latter yet,
but I do have a copy of the Am. J. Phys. article. If you can't get it
elsewhere let me know and we can work something out.
--
david gunter
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/people/gunter/
-------------------------------------
"When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find
sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite
different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it."
- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:47:09 GMT
Troy Dawson (td@twics.com) wrote:
: Ken Fischer wrote:
: >
: > MW (wtwyatt@mailhost.mnsinc.com) wrote:
: > : What causes inertia? I know a lot of people will say "mass", but why
: > : does mass resist when you push it? What's blocking it? I mean, if it's
: > : space all around it then there's nothing holding it back, nothing to
: > : attach to. I was just curious because we know so much about physics, so
: > : there must be an answer.
: > : M.W.
Troy, you neglected to include my quote.
: Gleick's book on Feynman had a good discussion of the impenetrable mysteries
: of physics...
: At some point, the 'why' questions become meaningless.
This is not even reasonable logic, it seems to me to
reflect either egotism or vanity, attempting to relay the
incorrect impression that "if my colleagues and I haven't
figured it out, then it is not possible to figure it out".
: (Feynman recalled his respect at his father's answer of 'nobody knows'
: as to his young question why the ball in a wagon keeps rolling after
: the wagon stops.)
Maybe his father was just singing the song by that name.
This type of problem is more difficult to solve because people,
not scientists or anyone in particular, recite and think what
they know and have been taught and trained.
Inertia certainly has a physical cause, as does gravity,
and it most likely is less complex than the ideas of Mach and
Newton regarding inertia and gravitation.
I think one of the Commissioners of Patents and trademarks
once stated that "all that is possible to invent has already been
invented".
Then came radio, controlled flight, television, lasers,
transistors, computers, and a couple million more patents,
including mine on Stealth Shapes.
I would hope that everyone would try to explore new
concepts, discuss and criticize them, but not be the judge
and jury on what is possible.
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Subject: Re: The Electrostatic Source of Magnetism and Gravity
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:05:03 GMT
Gordon D. Pusch (pusch@mcs.anl.gov) wrote:
: 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...
[snip other points made]
: 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
Gordon, Mr. Guruprasad did not initiate this thread,
I think you might have more correctly directed this advice
to the originator of this thread, it has been posted over
and over by user ID rsansbury.
Several people have pet theories on electrostatic
gravitation, but I don't see them as any worse than Newtonian
gravitation or the concepts of Mach.
I hope you will do me the honor of vigorous criticism
of my Divergent Matter hypothesis, I feel slighted by all
the attention others are getting. :-)
Respectfully,
Kenneth Edmund Fischer - Inventor of Stealth Shapes - U.S. Pat. 5,488,372
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Tony Schountz
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:27:36 -0500
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
> You are missing my point. You can analyze until doomsday and the
> ABSOLUTE MOST you can ever show by science is that your model (ANY
> model) is consistent with the facts. You can never, ever PROVE without
> direct observation that your model MUST have been the case.
Science isn't about "proofs." It does have, however, great utility in
providing disproof. Can you provide any tangible, experimental evidence
to support your contention? Can you suggest a model that accomodates
the facts better than the theory of evolution?
> So you
> think it is 'un-Christian' to believe the Bible means what it clearly
> says?
So why didn't Noah take seven pairs of clean beasts and fowl onto the
ark, like God commanded (Gen 7-2,3).
> That is a very strange position to take for someone who stakes
> their eternal salvation on the truth of Jesus Christ as revealed in
> Bible, don't you think?
I don't think I need to lie for God, like creationists do.
>
> > Inference works. If it didn't, we'd still be picking berries and
> > scavanging carcasses just to survive.
>
> Sure it works, 'for some things'. The problem with evolution is trying
> to take inference and use it to prove something which is absolutely
> impossible to prove with inferrence.
That's called "science." Its strength lies in its explanatory and
predictive capabilities. ToE is science, while creationism is not.
>
> > > Anyway, God TOLD us
> > > that He created everything. If we ignore what God plainly tells us, how
> > > does that make God a liar?
> >
> > Does Genesis tell us the *mechanism* of creation?
>
> That's a non sequitur, my friend. The fact that God didn't tell us
> everything doesn't mean what He did tell us is wrong! If you're going
> to 'infer' all truth, you had better get your thinking cap on straighter
> than that! ;) When you see God, you can straighten Him out because He
> didn't tell you everything you wanted to know. ;)
That reminds me of a story. A collegue of mine was having a debate with
a creationist, and the creationist, losing badly, threw his hands in the
air and said something to the effect, "God told me so!" To which my
collegue replied, "You know, that's funny. Why just the other day God
spoke to me and He said, 'I don't understand these creationists, I lay
all this information right before their eyes and they still just don't
get it.'"
>
> > I've a simple question for you. I've asked this many times of
> > creationists, and not one has had an answer. If Adam and Eve were
> > created in the literal sense of Genesis, and we are all decendents of
> > them, then there can be, *at most*, only 4 alleles for any give genetic
> > locus. Yet we know for a fact that many loci are represented by more
> > than 4, and some are represented by *dozens* of alleles.
>
> Sorry, but you're asking a question outside my expertise.
This is a question about evolution. Thank you for admiting that you do
not know what evolution is. Now I have to ask you, how can you
critisize something you know nothing about?
> I've noted
> one thing, though; man is constantly being surprised by things he
> thought he understood but didn't.
And I'll bet you that in almost every instance it was science that found
it.
> --
> Judson McClendon judsonmc@ix.netcom.com
> Sun Valley Systems http://www.netcom.com/~judsonmc/sunvalley.html
Regards,
Tony
Subject: Re: Mystery Found in Relativity
From: glird@gnn.com ()
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:53:27
In article <850024059.31056@dejanews.com> crebigsol wrote:
>Relativity states that the quotient of the circumference of a
>circle divided by the diameter can be measured as greater than pi
>(3.14159265…), if the measurement is done with rigid moving-rods
>along the circumference of the circle. But, where is the
>mathematical proof?
> It seems that the only mathematical support for this statement
>found in relativity is in the following quotation:
> "This is readily understood if we envisage the whole process of
>measuring from the ‘stationary’ system K, and take into
>consideration that the measuring-rod applied to the periphery
>undergoes a Lorentzian contraction, while the one applied along
>the radius does not." This quotation appears in the article
>titled "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity", by
>Mr. A. Einstein, published in 1916.
>
> This quotation, if mathematically sound, however, should lead us
>to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: The quotient we seek
>with the same process of measuring should be smaller than pi, and
>even approach zero if the measuring-rod escalates its speed.
> Is there any way to reconcile the contradiction between
>Einstein’s larger-than-pi statement and his subsequent
>mathematical support? Please help!
The actual contradiction is in Einstein's internally
self-contradictory relativistic "logic".
1. He holds the size of the spinning disk physically constant -
except as measured by a differently moving system. {This was in
accord with Minkowski:1908.}
2. He then lets a unit rod, at rest on the perimeter of the disk,
PHYSICALLY contract as a function of its own instantaneously
inertial velocity. {This contradicts the relativistic mantra that
"it's only as viewed by a differently moving observer".
3. He then lays this contracted unit rod end over end around the
perimeter of the unshrunken disk to measure its circumference.
{Obviously, as determined by the shrunken unit-rods the value of
the circumference of the unshrunken disk will be greater than it
actually is.}
4. He then devides this spurious value by the constant radius of
the disk - as measured by the no-longer inertially moving rod - to
find that the ratio is greater than pi.
From THAT, modern physics decided that empty space is
"non-euclidean". {Since empty space has NO metric, it is neither
euclidean nor non-euclidean in the first place. But that's beside
the present point.}
Glird http://members.gnn.com/glird/reality.htm
Subject: Re: Challenge!
From: pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:35:21 GMT
In article <58a2v2$jhp@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz wrote:
> The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial
> brouhaha:
>
> You have a mostly parallel bundle of 200-1000 glass fibers about 6
> micrometers in diameter each, The bundle is between one and ten feet long
> (negotiable). You want to pot, pultrude, injection mold, or otherwise
> imbed the fibers (here comes the kicker) more or less evenly distributed
> in space (equidistant from each other) still more or less parallel, in a
> plastic rod (methacrylate, polycarbonate, almost anything transparent)
> one inch in diameter. You need 100 feet of rod/week, then possibly 500.
> Bonus points for continuous ten foot lengths.
>
> If your answer touches screens, channel plates, or swellable terminal
> pottings - it's been tried.
1) Take each rod and give them a big negative charge.
2) Keeping them insulated (i.e., not grounded), load them into a similarly
insulated tube. The static charge on each rod will make them repel
each other so they are evenly spaced in the tube.
3) Still insulated, pour in your favorite transparent resin.
Does this violate your constraints?
More importantly, would this work at all?
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pcp2g@virginia.edu
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
* --> Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
* and my daughter Zoe.
Subject: Question about the relationship between defects or dislocation and index refraction.
From: "Ken J. Chan"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:25:25 -0800
Hello, netters
If a material, for example thin film on a substrate, has defects
or dislocation, is there any influence to the index refraction? If the
index refraction is changed due to the strain, can anybody explain the
reason? Thank you for your kindness.
Ken J. Chan
E-mail:kssakuma@ecst.csuchico.edu
Subject: Re: Challenge!
From: "Rene S. Hollan"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:34:51 -0500
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
O.K. Al, I'll bite:
Clad a single fibre with a UV-activated polymer (? are there any
transparent ones?), with "dimples" around the edge.
Layer on additional fibres, aligned in the dimples, more polymer, and
set these (? are the monomer/polymer adhesive characteristics similar to
the cohesive characteristics of the polymer?).
Repeat.
I see a problem when the circumference gets large w.r.t the fibre
diameter.
Anyone know that the requirement's can't be met? (I always thought that
ignorance was a help, not hinderance, when brainstorming).
In Liberty,
Rene S. Hollan
Liberty, Property, Reciprocity.
Subject: Re: Should a theory explain why?
From: sanders@lhe.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Michael Sanders)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 10:11:06 -0800
On 9 Dec 1996 23:00:05 GMT, Marty Tysanner wrote:
>[distribution expanded from sci.physics.relativity to include sci.physics
> and sci.physics.research]
>
>Nathan M. Urban wrote:
>
>> Marty Tysanner wrote:
>
>>> Nathan M. Urban wrote:
>
>>> one of the foundations of the
>>> scientific method is a quest to understand "why" things are the way
>>> they are. By "why" I mean a clear understanding of the cause for
>>> what we observe.
>
I haven't followed this thread, so my apologies if this is an old story,
but...
Isaac Newton was much criticized for not answering the question: "*Why* do
all bodies attract each other?"
His reply (in the "General Scholium" of the Pricipia) was:
"Hypotheses non fingo."
This was rendered in the (semi-official) English as "I do not frame
hypotheses."
Newton, of course, framed many hypotheses. I am not a classical scholar, but
fingere is cognate to our English "feign." The verb in modern Italian means
exactly that. I do not think it is a "false friend." Newton meant to say, "I
won't pretend to have an answer on that level."
--
(T.) Michael Sanders internet: sanders@umich.edu
Physics Department URL: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sanders
University of Michigan phone: 313/936-0799
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120 FAX: 313/764-6843
Subject: Re: NASA lies, again.
From: pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 17:59:26 GMT
Oh, these attributions are out of control. They may be wrong.
Also, some newsgroups edited out.
In article <1996Dec6.165937.12106@atl.com>,
David B. Greene wrote:
>pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter) says:
>>Darkstar wrote:
>>>In article <585l9h$jhm@news1.halcyon.com>, elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) says:
>>>> sfk@zipcon.net (Shea F. Kenny) writes:
>>>>> Well, as any number might suppose, I've devoted a bit of time
>>>>>to considering lunar exploration, and various means of determining
>>>>>the useful features of the lunar surface, and subterrain. NASA's
>>>>>claim that there's water on the moon in a deep crater, seems on the
>>>>>face of the claim, simply false.
>>>One question raised that I would like to see answered is: If it is
>>>ice, why has it not sublimated by now, being in a vacum?
>>The article in Science news has references which talk about how ice
>>on the Moon "could be stable over geologic time". Why not get all the
>>facts before you post?
>whoa, twist, so it is now politically incorrect to ask a simple science
>question?
It is considered impolite on USENET to ask a question that can easily be
looked up by the asker.
There are far too many people willing to question results they hear on the
nightly news before they are willing to find out what the actual story
is. That is why I said "Why not get all the facts before you post?"
--
* Phil Plait, Pee Aytch Dee pcp2g@virginia.edu
* My home page-- http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~pcp2g/home.html
* --> Humor, supernovae, Bad Astronomy, Mad Science
* and my daughter Zoe.
Subject: Re: question to all of you !!!
From: "Robert. Fung"
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:41:53 -0500
Ayhan Cicek wrote:
>
> We know that energie , angular momentum etc. are quantumized ...
> The question is : Why isn't displacement quantumized ?
> Maybe that's why the uncertainty of heisenberg dx dp = h/2 exists ???
>
> Any suggestions ?
>
>
In that big black book with the awful index:
"Gravitation", by Misner Thorne and Wheeler,
the idea that the shape of space-time is affected
by the relation you state, is only conjectured about
in one of the very last chapters. So this is newish
but not too new [0]
But what does it mean to quantise displacement ?
What's in-between the quantizations if not space,
worm holes, forbidden zones ? I think we've seen these
in the tunneling [1].
One can ask if the wavelength is quantised and that
should be the same thing [2]
[0] http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph/1/space-time/0/1/0/all/1/0
[1] http://av.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=tunneling&hc;=0&hs;=8&b;=1
[2] ever since Einstein mapped time onto frequency and
displacement onto wavelength in the Special Theory.
Subject: Re: PIGS IN SPACE?
From: vanesch@jamaica.desy.de (Patrick van Esch)
Date: 9 Dec 1996 19:50:41 GMT
Ryan G. Fields (rfields@mail.med.upenn.edu) wrote:
: 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?
I don't know if he'd boil away or freeze. But the last thought
would be, without any doubt: "Oh, no ! Not _again_ !"
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail: vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de
Subject: Re: "Time is an illusion!"- Albert Einstein
From: Christopher R Volpe
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:27:45 -0500
Bob Cecil wrote:
>
> Not my quote but Einstiens in a letter to his best friend's (Michael
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Besso) wife at the time of his death.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Time is not linear in any fashion, curved, slower or faster or
> otherwise.
>
> Time as we define it and "seem" to live it (ie: I'm 45 yrs old) does
> not exist.
>
> One cannot go backward or forward in time from our present point in
> existence because those points do not exist in reality.
>
> Yes the past exists in our memories and in our history books and yes
> the future exists in our dreams and science fiction books and yes we
> do definatly have a large impact on how things occur but all of those
> "time visions" are created by our limited 5 senses and our brain.
>
> There are no definitive physics experiments to prove that time does
> really exist.
>
> Our lives and that of the Universe just change instantly, change by
> change under the real laws of physics, which we don't yet fully
> understand
>
> The sooner modern physics and math understands this monumental
> misunderstanding in our concepts of the Universe the quicker we will
> finally understand more of it.
Was this supposed to make Mrs. Besso feel better?
--
Chris Volpe Phone: (518) 387-7766
GE Corporate R&D; Fax: (518) 387-6560
PO Box 8 Email: volpecr@crd.ge.com
Schenectady, NY 12301 Web: http://www.crd.ge.com/~volpecr
.
.
.
.
Subject: Re: Temperature measurements and blackbody radioation : limit 4000 K ?
From: Scott Hinman
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 11:41:10 +0000
C++ Freak wrote:
>
> Some arc welding instruction books claim a temperature of 7000 C
> (12000 F) in the arc, which I consider as totally exaggerated.
> A temp of 3000-4000 C (7000 *F*) seems more reasonable to me.
> Or are the first values determined theoretically by thermodynamics ?
> And if yes, how ?
> To my opinion it is VERY HARD to measure any temperature above
> 3500-4000 C (7000 F) with rasonable accuracy, unless blackbody
> radiation curves can be obtained which is only possible on stars
> (which are nothing but huge spheres of hot gases radiating blackbody
> curves, originating from nuclear fusion in their nuclei).
7000 C is probably not unreasonable. Temps of 4000 to 6000 K
are often estimated for DC arc spectrometers. Plasma torches
for cutting have advertised temperatures up to 50,000 C. What
temperature actually means at these values is another question.
Complete thermodynamic equilibrium usually doesn't pertain here.
Hence translational temperatures (related to the rate at which
atoms are moving), excitation temperatures (related to population
of excited states), ionization temperatures (degree to which atoms
are ionized) are distinguished and not equal to each other.
Excitation temperatures are probably the ones most often quoted.
These are measured by determining the relative emission intensities
of particular lines emitted from atoms in the plasma. The intensity
ratios are related to temperature through a Boltzmann distribution.
Check out a text on atomic emission spectroscopy for more info.
Regards, Scott
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Jerry
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:51:45 -0500
Trinition wrote:
>
> This, and other, Creation vs. Evolution debates are absurd. It's not just
> that the people involved are too stubborn to consider the fact that there
> years of belief ma ybe wrong. It goes much deeper than that. Religions
> are designed to defend themselves indefinately from science. The
> scientific method, though it may not have been written down, has been
> around for as long as religion at least. Religion relies on a leap of
> faith, and the fact that it can't be disproven. Sciece relies on our
> inborn ability to draw connections between events. One cannot pull the
> support from beneath another. The best anyone can hope for in these
> discussions is for someone to finally coonsider an alternate possibility to
> what they have always believed.
>
> Brian
Comments from Jerry:
If people were going to buy a new car and the salesman said that the car
gets 100 miles per gallon, the buyer would want to see the data or take the
car on a test drive to prove it. The most religious man would not take the
word of a salesman when the statements are absurd.
Absurd statements in religion are taken for granted. The religious salesman
guarantees eternal life in paradise. All you need is a seat in his church.
And to make matters worse if you don't take a seat in his church you will
suffer eternity with a hot rod up you butt.
Religious leaders are great salesmen. They sell what no one can see. They
sell a product no one can test drive. They sell something that no one can
verify the quality of the product. And if you don't buy their product, you
are tortured in hell forever.
If they were selling a car you could report them to the better business
bureau. Yet because they claim special priviledges they can sell you a line
of nothingness and take all your money and your mind and get away with it.
To make matters worse they attempt to impose their will upon those who
choose not to buy their product.
The God of the Universe is shown in the many processes which occur in
the visible world. There has never been a recorded case in history where the
God of the Universe has ever appeared before the masses of mankind and let
Godself be known. Thus in truth, religious people are selling only what
some men have imagined. Religous people are selling the ideas of philosophers
of long ago. A Prophet of God is a philosopher who hallucinates. Thus the
only difference between a Prophet of God and an ordinary philosopher is
that one is sane and the other has bouts of insanity.
Thus the religions of man are products of people who hallucinate and
other people who try to make sense out of the madness of the Prophets.
Now it is quite okay to say that people should believe in a particular path
to the world of the dead because the hallucinations of one group of people
are correct. There certainly is a degree of truth in madness. However one
must then apply logic and reasoning to the madness. Thus if God never appears
to sane mankind then whether one believes in God or does not believe in God
has no bearing upon ones fate in death. Thus the atheist and the believer
must share the same ultimate fate since a God of the Universe would have
to possess properties similar but higher than ourselves. Thus this God would
have to have a sense of ultimate justice. In addition as we love what we
create such as the work of an artist, then this God must love God's creation.
And since we have a sense of ethics, this God must be ethical.
The net result is that for an ethical God there can be no difference in the
salvation of those who believe and those who do not believe. Thus the fate
of the believer and the atheist must be identical all other things being
equal. In addition since this life is one of pain and suffering, Godself must
also feel pain and suffering when God exists alone. Thus a God of mercy and
compassion cannot sentence even one man to any suffering in death.
In addition a God of ethics cannot reward one group of men to eternal
happiness at the expense of another group of men to eternal suffering.
In the end, the God of the Universe is limited in the judgement of man to
taking the memory of the man, and not the man himself, and creating new
life out of the memory of the chosen and selected and elite of God. Thus
no man himself is rewarded nor punished but the soul of man which is the
memory of man is either used or discarded. Thus the fate of the atheist and
the believer are identical and the fate of one religion or the other is
identical. In the end man of this Earth dies out but the collective purified
soul of man lives on. This is justice for all, ethical treatment for all,
and love for all.
Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical and Loving and Just God)
Subject: Re: ATOM discovery : 3d configuration is filled up before 4s
From: thweatt@prairie.nodak.edu (Superdave the Wonderchemist)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 19:30:01 GMT
e.net> <32AD85A6.3694@afuu.fr>:
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN)
Distribution:
As an aside, I have found that in the cases of "hypervalent" Si, the
mulligan overlap populations of the 3d orbitals of Si is no greater than
in the four coordinate cases (it will be part of an article by Phill
Boudjouk et. al. in an upcomming issue of Inorganic Chemistry, also read
Mark S. Gordon et. al. _J. Phys. Chem._ 1990, vol94 p.8125-8128).
I checked my results with minimal, split-valence, and triply split
valence basis sets including polarization (d) functions on heavy atoms.
The d functions seem to be more important as polarization functions than
anything else.
-Superdave The Wonderchemist (I also undersell travel agents for overseas
airline tickets, e-mail me for info)
Subject: Re: Challenge!
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Dec 1996 21:39:56 GMT
"Rene S. Hollan" wrote:
>Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
>
>
>
>O.K. Al, I'll bite:
>
>Clad a single fibre with a UV-activated polymer (? are there any
>transparent ones?), with "dimples" around the edge.
>
>Layer on additional fibres, aligned in the dimples, more polymer, and
>set these (? are the monomer/polymer adhesive characteristics similar to
>the cohesive characteristics of the polymer?).
>
>Repeat.
>
>I see a problem when the circumference gets large w.r.t the fibre
>diameter.
>
>Anyone know that the requirement's can't be met? (I always thought that
>ignorance was a help, not hinderance, when brainstorming).
We may dip the ends in glue, then salt, to build up end spacers. We
considered sand, but that might make the production area a beach and
require a full-time OSHA-certified lifeguard.
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Challenge!
From: Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
Date: 10 Dec 1996 21:37:59 GMT
pcp2g@karma.astro.Virginia.EDU (Twisted STISter) wrote:
>In article <58a2v2$jhp@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz wrote:
>
>> The following has arisen in the day-to-day insanity of industrial
>> brouhaha:
>>
>> You have a mostly parallel bundle of 200-1000 glass fibers about 6
>> micrometers in diameter each, The bundle is between one and ten feet long
>> (negotiable). You want to pot, pultrude, injection mold, or otherwise
>> imbed the fibers (here comes the kicker) more or less evenly distributed
>> in space (equidistant from each other) still more or less parallel, in a
>> plastic rod (methacrylate, polycarbonate, almost anything transparent)
>> one inch in diameter. You need 100 feet of rod/week, then possibly 500.
>> Bonus points for continuous ten foot lengths.
>>
>> If your answer touches screens, channel plates, or swellable terminal
>> pottings - it's been tried.
>
>
>1) Take each rod and give them a big negative charge.
>
>2) Keeping them insulated (i.e., not grounded), load them into a similarly
> insulated tube. The static charge on each rod will make them repel
> each other so they are evenly spaced in the tube.
>
>3) Still insulated, pour in your favorite transparent resin.
>
>
>Does this violate your constraints?
>More importantly, would this work at all?
You've never cast resin, have you?
--
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject: Re: Creationism VS Evolution
From: courton@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Steve Courton)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 21:42:29 GMT
In article <32A0B403.4CBA@ix.netcom.com>,
Judson McClendon wrote:
>
>You haven't studied the Bible carefully. If you study the original
>Hebrew for Psalm 104:6-8 you will see that it can be understood to say
>that the mountains 'stood up' and the valleys 'sank down' when 'at your
>rebuke the waters fled' (referring to God). Many Bible scholars
>understand it this way: At the flood the ocean floors may have lifted
>somewhat, and possibly the mountains were lower, or lowered as well.
>Perhaps this is what is meant by the 'fountains of the great deep' in
>Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. When the flood left, the reverse transpired, as
>described in Psalm 104 above. Note that if this happened, there would
>be truly mind-boggling 'tidal waves', maybe 1000 feet high, which would
>come crashing across the continents, sweeping all before them. Untold
>billions of tons of animals and plants would be swept into huge piles
>and covered up. Rich material for fossil, oil and coal formation, no?
Lets see, 1000 foot tidal waves hits wooden ark, can you guess what the
result is? Not to mention there will be more than just one tidal wave.
Of course the whole ark story is stupid, a few flaws are below:
1) Humans living extremely unrealistic life spans before flood.
2) Wouldn't it be simpler to just kill all the unjust humans. Why wipe
out all the innocent animals.
3) No way to get animals from all parts of the world to ark and back to
there native lands. Also problems with food for carnavores and genetic
diversity.
4) ALL scientific evidence contradicts ALL parts of the story.
5) Difficult to beleive all races came from Noah's family.
6) Really unrealistic to beleive that only Noah was good, every one
else evil.
7) Why was God mad? Isn't he all knowing. He then should have known
this would happen. It's his fault for not making us better in the
first place. Its like I purposely made a robot that I knew would
disobey me, is it then right to get mad at the robot or get mad
at its creator?
8) All sea life would die since old habitats would be in no-light
zone and silt would kill them also.
9) What happened to fresh-water fish? Was the new water salty or
fresh? Both fresh and salt water species couldn't survive.
10) Where did water come from, where did it go? Why didn't the polar
ice caps melt?
I am sure there are many more flaws, these came off the top of my head.
In fact I doubt there is a single realistic sentence in the entire
story. Only a moron could believe something so stupid.
Steve
Subject: Flux density in a transformer
From: fdeutsch@bfm.com
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 15:51:04 -0600
Hi everyone,
I need your help in resolving a small dispute which has arisen concerning
the flux density in a transformer core:
Essentially, I believe that the mu (permeability) of the core material and
the magnetic length of the core both affect the flux density in the core
for a given quantity of current run through the primary. In our dispute,
we are only concerned with the unbalanced DC in the primary winding, and
we need to determine the Bdc (flux density due to the DC current). I base
my belief on a simple analysis of Gauss' Law and Ampere's Law; I derrived
Bdc in an air-gapped toroid to be:
N Idc muCore mu0
Bdc:gapped_toroid = ---------------------------
Lcore mu0 + Lgap muCore
Where:
N = Number of primary turns
Idc = DC current through primary
muCore = core permeability (actually Km mu0)
Lcore = magnetic path length of the core
Lgap = length of an air gap in the core
I then reasoned that as a gapped toroid has less flux leakage than a true
E-I core transformer, the Bdc of an E-I core transformer must therefore be
lower. (I readily agree that this is a very simplified derivation, as it does
not take into account variations in the magnetic path length within the core,
the variability and hysteresis in muCore, or flux leakage.)
My "opponent", however, believes that the magnetic path length and
permeability parameters do not affect the Bdc value (but that both do
affect the inductance); he believes that Bdc is given by:
N Idc
Bdc:Lafevre = ----------- (in lines/in^2)
2 Lgap .313
(This equation is from "New Procedure for Designing Linear and Swinging
Chokes" by Irving Richardson, which appeared in _Electrical Manufacturing_
sometime in 1957.) (I should also mention that Mr. Lafevre is a
designer/manufacturer of transformers for audio equipment.)
(My impression of this dispute is that the Richardson equation is making
some assumptions about core permeability, magnetic path length, and flux
leakage, but Mr. Lafevre insists that there are no assumptions.)
Thanks in advance; any help is appreciated!
-frank
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Subject: Re: Complex Numbers in C
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 22:02:12 GMT
In article <58k2dj$ntl@frazier.backbone.ou.edu> ws@aix1.ucok.edu (Bill Stockwell) writes:
> : One can 'conceive' of a complex as a 2x2 matrix, and have it inherit all
> : of the usual matrix operations (whatever they may be).
...
> I think you need to elaborate a bit more. After all, representing a complex
> by a 2x2 matrix uses twice as much space as it needs to; moreover, the normal
> matrix multiplication it inherits would NOT correspond to complex multiplication;
> I fail to see ANY advantage to doing this.
Represent a + bi as
[ a -b ]
[ b a ]
and show in what way matrix multiplication does NOT correspond to complex
multiplication.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Subject: Re: Temperature measurements and blackbody radioation : limit 4000 K ?
From: andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 19:05:04 GMT
In article <32AD339A.7A9F@nl.compuware.com>,
C++ Freak writes:
>Flames can however be measured, as the temperature, even of an
>oxyacetylene flame is at most 3200 C, so holding a piece of
>tungsten in the flame can be measured by an optical pyrometer.
I doubt this would be accurate because of the flame having
very little heat capacity compared with the metal, and the
metal would never get to the flame temperature due to
radiation and maybe conduction.
Another method for flame temperature is to use spectral line
reversal, to match it to the temperature of a [separate]
black body, and then measure the temperature of that black
body. A possible candidate is the electrode of a carbon arc
(not the arc itself).
--
Andrew Gabriel Home: Andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk
Consultant Software Engineer Work: Andrew.Gabriel@net-tel.co.uk
Subject: Abian vs Einstein
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 22:06:12 GMT
In article <58ipjh$e46@news.iastate.edu>, Jay wrote:
>
>In article <582cr1$gd3@news.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>|>
>|> Abian answers:
>|>
(omissions)
>|>...... I very briefly will repeat my previous explanations, and,
>|> I would appreciate it if .....................
>|>
>|> (0missions)
>|>
>|> (A*) An Abian unit (i.e.,1 Abian) is taken as the mass Mo of the Cosmos at
>|> the Big Bang, i.e., at T = 0 Abian. For practical considerations
>|> Mo can be taken as 1O^n (for a suitable n) Abian units. Thus,
>|>
>|> (1) Mo indicates the Mass M (in Abians) of the Cosmos at T = 0 (Abian).
>|>
>|> The following initial conditions are assumed:
>|>
>|> (2) 0 |>
>|> where " |>
>|> Based on the above considerations, I propose the following equation to
>|> describe the relationship between M and T
>|>
>|> (3) M = Mo exp(T/(kT - Mo)) with scalar k < 1
>|>
>
> What evidence do we have that the mass/energy of the universe is
> changing. We seem to have decent examples of energyconservation.
Abian answers:
The standard examples are all at a very small scale compared to
the Cosmic scale. And these examples do not necessarily imply
the Conservation of mass/energy in Cosmos.
Mr. Wacker continues:
> Where is this energy going into? Does energy just pop up into
> the wild blue yonder spontaneously at a random location or is
> it evenly distributed for all space?
Abian answers:
That energy is going into moving Time forward and is
irretrievable as the past itself
Mr. Wacker continues:
> To me (on just a rough guess) this seems that it would alter
> the age of the universe to something less than the age of most
> stars...
Abian answers:
Why ?
>|> decreases exponentially with the passage of Cosmic Time T.
>|> Next, based on (3), we give a mathematical formulation of m mentioned
>|> in (A). From (A) it follows that m = Mo - M where M is given by (3).
>|> Thus
>|> Abian
>|> (4) m = Mo - M = Mo (1 -exp( T/(kT - Mo)))
>|>
>|> >from which it follows 1 - (m/Mo) = exp (T / (kT - Mo)) and therefore
>|>
>|> (5) T = -Mo(Log (1 -(m/Mo))/(1 - k Log(1 - (m/Mo))
>|>
>|> where Log is the natural e-log.
>|>
>|> We note that (4) as well as (5) expresses the equivalence of Mass and
>|> Time. For instance they say that m units of Cosmic mass is
>|> spent to produce T Abian units of Cosmic Time.
>|>
>
Mr. Wacker continues:
>Another thing this presupposes is that there is such thing as absolute
>time and that everyones time is exactly the same as everyone elses...
>else the mass of the universe depends on the rest frame you are in.
Abian answers:
Yes, I am speaking about absolute Cosmic TIME and has nothing to do on
the rest frame of anyone.
Mr. Wacker continues:
>
>We have good experimental proof to show that the lifetimes of particles
>is dependent on their velocity relative to a restframe... how does
>your theory account for this?
>
Abian answers:
Maybe, but that would depend on your concept of "Time". For the
Establishment of Physics it seems that "Time is what the dial of a
watch indicates". There is extremely fundamental difference between
that and my concept of cosmic, Universal TIME and its equivalence
to If time dilation isn't true, how do we maintain the belief that all
>of natures laws are manifestly covariant? Do we just give this up...
>I guess this isn't so radical after you've given up the conservation
>of energy. Should we give up any other conservation laws?
Abian answers:
I am glad that you said "if" and "maintain the belief" . One must
not fanatically maintain any belief (of course including what I
just said) Most probably many other conservation laws must be
modified or simply rejected.
Mr. Wacker continues:
>Relativity seems to work... we seem to observe conservation of energy...
>
>The burden of proof lies upon you to prove WHY these laws are true.
Abian answers:
On the contrary the burden of proof lies upon you - you believe
in the veracity of these laws - not me ! But that is not important.
I am not asking you to prove anything - I am merely stating that my
notion of TIME is quite and radically different from the notion of
Time as accepted by the Establishment. For me TIME is another
manifestation of Mass and I tried to explain it by (4) above,
observing and stressing many times that (4) is just a rough re-
presentative of my ideas. The essential theme of mine is that
TIME is not what the dial of a watch (whose watch?!!, what watch !!
made by whom ??!!) indicates. For me TIME is that mass of the
Universe which is spent to overpower the inertia of present
instant to stand still.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Subject: Re: Are there any phenomena that Quantum Theory fails to explain?
From: sidles@u.washington.edu (John Sidles)
Date: 10 Dec 1996 22:08:46 GMT
In article <32AD18E1.9A8@compuserve.com>,
Michael Ramsey <74553.2603@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Rich Haller wrote:
>>
>> In article <32A84B64.4E15@wam.umd.edu>, Wayne Shanks wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> Thank you Wayne, that is basically what I had in mind though my emphasis
>> is on observed phenomena which it does not predict correctly, rather than
>> predictions that it makes that turn out to incorrect. That seems to me to
>> be roughly the same thing from two different POVs.
>>
>> [snip]
>
>There are problems with QM. Nobody can explain very well what causes
>the Schrodinger wave equation to collapse. There is nothing in the
>mathematics to motivate the jumping between stationary states. That is,
>QM has a problem explaining why the real world is particulate. Clearly,
>the math is either not the whole picture, or it is incomplete.
>
>--Mike
Not the case! This issue is addressed in a preprint recently
posted to "http://xxx.lanl.gov", preprint no. quant-ph9612001,
entitled "The AC Stark, Stern-Gerlach, and Quantum Zeno Effects in
Interferometric Qubit Readout".
For the benefit of students new to quantum mechanics, we
remark that introductory textbooks often contain simplified
or axiomatic descriptions of measurement processes which
sometimes lend an unnecessarily paradoxical aspect to
well-understood phenomena like the Stern-Gerlach effect.
The results presented in this article are in accord with an
increasingly dominant modern view\,---\,but a view
requiring substantially more complicated calculations than
are typically included in introductory texts\,---\,in which
measurement processes work gently and incrementally to
create correlations between macroscopic variables (like
photodiode charge~$q$) and microscopic variables (like
qubit polarization~$z$). At the end of an interferometric
qubit measurement, all but an exponentially small fraction
of data records agree that the Stern-Gerlach effect is
present, but it is both unnecessary and impossible, even in
principle, to identify a specific moment at which the qubit
wave function collapsed.
The bottom line is, introductory QM textbooks make the math as
simple as possible, at the expense of making the philosophy more
mysterious. They're good for getting newbies started, but are
not intended as the final word on QM.
The above-quoted preprint adopts the opposite tactic, which is
becoming increasingly dominant in the literature, if not yet
in the QM textbooks: once a student has mastered QM
computations at the level of (say) Weissbluth's textbook
(Photon-Atom Interactions), then they are equipped to analyze QM
experiments in a detailed manner which removes some of their
philosophical mystery. Plus, one obtains very specific predictions
which help to engineer practical devices.
So if you are mathematically cool after your first QM course,
but philosophically puzzled, one rational strategy is to learn more
math so you can analyze those puzzling QM experiments in more detail.
There are several 21st century technologies which (hopefully)
will be based on measuring and manipulating two-state systems.
There is an emerging consensus that the old collapse paradigm
will fall into disuse when it comes time to engineer practical
two-state devices, not because it is wrong, but because it is is
very awkward to apply. Modern formalisms involving decoherence,
etc. are more convenient. The abstract of an invited talk I'll
be giving at the March 1987 APS meeting describes my view of the
current situation (you are free to comment):
> \Title{Single Electron Detection
> with the Magnetic Resonance Force Microscope}
> \AuthorSurname{Sidles}
> \AuthorGivenName{John A.}
> \AuthorAffil{University of Washington,
> School of Medicine,
> Department of Orthopaedics}
>
>
> The 21st century will witness the attempted development of
> several radically new technologies involving the measurement
> and manipulation of individual two-state quantum systems.
> Among these technologies are: (1) imaging the 3D structure of
> individual molecules by magnetic resonance force microscopy
> (MRFM), (2) the solution of non-polynomial algorithms by
> quantum computing, and (3) nanoscale, ultrafast electronic
> devices based on the manipulation of single electron states.
> These technologies address urgent unmet needs of human
> society, and in addition raise fascinating issues in both
> fundamental and applied physics. The first part of the talk
> will consider physics issues which are common to all three
> technologies. Specific emphasis will be placed on the AC
> Stark effect, the Stern-Gerlach effect, and the Quantum Zeno
> effect, as manifest during the measurement and manipulation
> of two-state quantum systems. The second part of the talk
> will be specifically concerned with the design, fabrication,
> and operation of practical MRFM devices for achieving
> single-spin detection and imaging. Which approaches work?
> Which approaches have been shown not to work? Which
> approaches have not yet been tried, but are promising avenues
> for further research? The final portion of the talk will
> consider the as-yet-unsolved problem of molecular structure
> determination more generally. What new solutions can the
> physics community offer?
>
Hope this helps! I would *especially* welcome feedback from
grad students who have read the preprint. Any feedback I get
during the next week, I'll incorporate in a revised version.
My explicit goal was to write an article on quantum measurement
which could be understood by a nonspecialist grad student.
Best wishes ... John Sidles
