Newsgroup sci.physics 212688

Directory

odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>    Warp drives that rely on contracting and expanding space, such as
>the Alcubierre drive, will not be able to get past c. As the ship
>approaches c, it encounters the equivalent of the sound barrier-the
>light barrier. Since distortions in space propagate at c, space can not
>move fast enough to get out of the way of the ship. It seems that the
>only way to get past c is via a wormhole. If a ship carries a one
>lightyear wormhole generator, then it can make succesive one lightyear
>jumps. Would it be possible for the wormhole generator to go through
>the wormhole that it generates?
Optical boom in condensed media is Cerenkov radiation.  We all know what 
sonic boom - matter displacement by an object travelling at supersonic 
spped - can do to eardrums, windoss and masonry.  One imagines a 
superluminal ship would be quite the thing to observe - from a distance!
-- 
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!

In <58ujeu$rp3@sjx-ixn8.ix.netcom.com> Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz
 writes: 
>
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>>    Here is an alternative explanation for relativistic mass increase
>>in particle accelerators. Magnetic flux propagates at c. The number
of
>>magnetic field lines that cut across a charged particle moving at
high
>>speed is less than the number of field lines that cut across a
particle
>>at low speed.
>
>The field is stationary, the particle is moving (in an accelerated
path - 
>a curve).  The faster the particle the more field lines/second it 
>intercepts.  In point of fact a relativistic particle moving in a 
>magnetic field experiences a beta-amplified response.  This is the
reason 
>charged comsic rays (e.g. hyper-relativistic protons) are funnelled by
>the Earth's weak magnetic field to impinge at the poles.
>
>The balance of your post is, of course, unfounded based upon this 
>observation.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>-- 
>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!
>
>
    How can what you say be true, Mr Schwartz? The only way you can
accelerate a charged particle is with magnetic flux. The magnetic flux
lines must cut across the particle to impart acceleration to the
particle. If a particle is moving faster, the magnetic field lines that
cut across the particle will necessarily be fewer than a slower moving
particle because the field lines are oriented transversly to the
particle.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

mari0021@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
: In article ,
: Anthonie Muller   wrote:
: >association. However, during deja vue I do not feel that I
: >recognize something, but I feel that I experience something for a
: >second time. The first experience (with which the contemporary
: >experience is compored) is however often vague, and I often
: >wonder whether this first experience was during a dream or not.
: >During recognition one is in general sure on whether one (1) has seen it
: >before, or (2) has not seen it before, or (3) whether one is unsure. Such
: >a division is not typically made during deja vue. (I do not find this a
: >strong argument myself, by the way). 
: >I have the impression that deja vue occurs especially upon
: >relaxation from a state in which one is very busy. Deja vue is also dream
: >like in this respect that the details of the experience are easily
: >forgotten. 
: then again, maybe deja vu[e?] results from a telepathic[?] commlink
: between ourselves in the future[transmitter] with ourselves in the
: present[receiver] using tachyons? But tachyons are repelled by tardyons
: (which make up the brain among other things) so this commlink would then
: have to be at another level (dimension?) between our soul in the future
: with our soul(life-energy) in the present?
Yeah, that's *much* simpler. :)
--
Marta Korolev Bobbles Republic of New Mexico Juan Chanson Della Lu Marooned
S ()    ()   ()  Paul D. Shocklee   ()  Princeton University   ()    ()   () 
Peace War Wachendon Suppressors Singularity Tinkers Jason Mudge Vernor Vinge

Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 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
: 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
It's all right from time to time to tell people in a separate subject
about your home page.  But I don't think a followup should tell the
reader to "go somewhere else, read everything there and I'll be here to
answer any questions you might have".  You might remember that 6
months ago I downloaded your .zip and viewed it.  Maybe I didn't
do it justice.  Maybe you've improved it.  I would prefer a
manuscript and would be willing to pay for it.  If you insist that
the only way I can appreciate your theory is to grasp it in its
entirety and only from your home page then I'll put it on my list of
things to do.
Phil Fraley
jart@epix.net

JC  wrote in article <32B13430.41C6@oyster.co.uk>...
> He offered me one but it was blueberry flavour, and they
> make me come out in hives.
Shouldn't play around in hives.  You're sure to get stung.  And then where
would you bee?
> >   But I would like to know if coconuts are more susceptible to
> > rotteness than other fruits?
> 
> I'd love to answer this, but unfortunately I'm too shy.
Besides, there's already just too damn much rottenness in the world today!
	Eric Lucas

Allen Meisner wrote:
>
>     How can what you say be true, Mr Schwartz? The only way you can
> accelerate a charged particle is with magnetic flux. The magnetic flux
> lines must cut across the particle to impart acceleration to the
> particle. If a particle is moving faster, the magnetic field lines that
> cut across the particle will necessarily be fewer than a slower moving
> particle because the field lines are oriented transversly to the
> particle.
> 
I don't know why you are saying this.
Consider a picket fence.  If Tom Sawyer drags a stick against the 
fence as he is walking by, it goes twick-twick-twick.
But if Tom is running, it goes twicketa-twicketa-twicketa-twicketa.
Well, I'm sure you can see that he is hitting more pickets per 
second when he is running!
Best Regards, Peter

In <58uogu$l7k@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M.
Urban) writes: 
>
>In article <58umte$h2h@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>> The only way you can accelerate a charged particle is with magnetic
flux.
>
>Electric fields work too.  In fact, a magnetic field does no work on a
>particle.
>-- 
>Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia
Tech
    Yes, but particle accelerators use magnetic flux. Since it takes
work to generate the magnetic flux, the magnetic flux is doing work on
the charged particle.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

In <58t6a4$ad6@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>    Here is an alternative explanation to relativistic mass increase
>in particle accelerators. Magnetic flux propagates at c. The number of
>magnetic field lines that cut across a charged particle moving at high
>speed is less than the number of field lines that cut across a
particle
>at low speed. For example, for a given distance d, if the number of
>magnetic field lines that cut across a particle moving at 100 meters
>per second is, say 100, then the number of field lines that cut across
>a particle moving at 1,000,000 meters per second, would be, say one,
>for that same distance. The work done on the faster particle is much
>less than the work done on the slower particle. The change in kinetic
>energy of the faster particle would therefore be much less than that
of
>the slower particle.
>
>Edward Meisner
    It seems to me that the only reason we cannot accelerate particles
to c is not because of relativistic mass increase, but because, at
speeds close to c, the particle is outrunning the magnetic flux field
lines. In other words, the particle passes through the section of coils
that is generating the propagating magnetic flux lines, before the
magnetic field lines have a chance to cut across the charged particle.
Edward Meisner

>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                WATCH THIS SPACE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
sea :-?
-

In article <58umte$h2h@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
> The only way you can accelerate a charged particle is with magnetic flux.
Electric fields work too.  In fact, a magnetic field does no work on a
particle.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

Peter F. Curran objectively babbled:
-> My feeling is that time is a property of the universe and
-> it couldn't give a damn whether we were conscious or not!
-> A person's notion of time is too dependent on his "meat
-> machinery" to be accurate, which is why we employ simpler
-> mechanical devices to measure time.
-> 
More likely the existence of "meat machinery" is dependent both
on awareness of it and on motion (i.e., time).  Time is...
immeasurable.
-- 
Greg Nixon 
"Ya yé, moin nan sang hé!"

In article ,
	merk077@servtech.com (Gregoire) writes:
>Peter F. Curran objectively babbled:
>
>-> My feeling is that time is a property of the universe and
>-> it couldn't give a damn whether we were conscious or not!
>-> A person's notion of time is too dependent on his "meat
>-> machinery" to be accurate, which is why we employ simpler
>-> mechanical devices to measure time.
>-> 
>More likely the existence of "meat machinery" is dependent both
>on awareness of it and on motion (i.e., time).  Time is...
>immeasurable.
>
>-- 
>Greg Nixon 
>
>"Ya yé, moin nan sang hé!"
Immesurable?  Not so!  We have lots of ways of accurately
measuring time which all tend to agree with one another.
The only real discrepency is our subjective "feeling" of
time.  Time exists independently of us, and our minds
were never intended to be accurate chronological measuring
devices.
  - Pete

In article <32b3b771.23012033@news.demon.co.uk>,
	malcolm@pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) writes:
>On 13 Dec 1996 18:34:05 GMT, curran@remove_this.rpi.edu (Peter F.
>Curran) wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey, first off the above was meant as humor, (it something I thought
>>of as a kid)!  No fair attempting to apply hard science to a joke!
>>
>
>It _is_ an intersting subject though because the belief that we move
>from birth to death is an almost inevitable one. It's almost
>inescapable. Yet trying to explain that in terms of physics is deeply
>difficult.
>
I agree!  Time is a challenging subject.
>>>
>>>My own feeling is that the "motion" of "now" is tied up with the
>>>interface between consciousness and matter and so can never be
>>>objectively measured. You move fast through time merely by falling
>>>asleep. If there's an independant variable in the motion of now it not
>>>a continous one but rather the accumulation of acts of observation and
>>>will.
>>>
>>
>>My feeling is that time is a property of the universe and
>>it couldn't give a damn whether we were conscious or not!
>>A person's notion of time is too dependent on his "meat
>>machinery" to be accurate, which is why we employ simpler
>>mechanical devices to measure time.
>>
>
>I don't deny the existance of time as a fourth dimension as a part of
>space-time. But the objective, physical view of absolute time doesn't
>even begin to explain our experience of progression. It doesn't
>explain the meaning of past, now or future.
>
>---------------------------------+----------------------------------
>I was born weird:  This terrible | Like Pavlov's dogs we are trained
>compulsion to behave normally is | to salivate at the sound of the
>the result of childhood trauma.  | liberty bell.
>---------------------------------+----------------------------------
>Malcolm
There are several ways to measure physical time to great
degrees of accuracy totally independently of own perception, 
and they are more or less in agreement with each other, (but 
not necessarily with us).  I therefore feel time  is not
effected by our perception of it.  I also don't really feel 
that the past, present or future have to have any sort of 
meaning other than just "being".
  - Pete

Claude de Contrecoeur  wrote:
> All this grotesque quantum discussion on consciousness by Penrose,etc,
> has been taken seriously because Penrose is a well-known and good
> mathematician,etc.(and I should add that if I had myself written such
absurdities WITHOUT having the name of "Penrose" people would just
have ignored such writings...)
> However,as far as consciousness is concerned Penrose is a complete
> IGNORANT and a primitive...
penrose's argument leaves a lot to be desired. the basis of a great
deal of
his argument is a priori: he cannot imagine that existing neural
computational mechanisms could explain the substantial variety of
behaviours (including consciousness) in humans, so he puts forward
that
these mechanisms *cannot* explain them, but that some finer level of
detail
can. this is flawed. perhaps he should spend more time building the
mechanisms rather than just theorising about them; then, perhaps, he
might
have a little more respect for what we have accomplished in the last
twenty
years.
dog
| dog@dog.net.uk
| http://dog.net.uk
| cheeky as buggery
Nothing to add to that! I have much respect for Penrose the physicist
but NONE for Penrose the "Consciousnessologist" !
On that topic I prefer to rely on my own studies which do not invoke
Deities or any mysteries from Quantum Mechanics!
Penrose the consciounessologist is a double zero!!!
Remember the "Planet of the Apes"?........and the lovely
orang-outans-scientists.
There are so many orang-outans-scientists in our little world!
Over and over again History has taught that we SHOULD NOT believe a
person because of his name only...
What a quantum physicist can write in the neurosciences should not be
believed and revered because that physicist is a good physcist!
He may be a good physicist but,yet,nothing in ALL other fields
unrelated to physics!
This is why I say that all these physicists talking about
"quantum"consciousness are a BUNCH of IGNORANTS...and talking
orang-outans!
Before even talking about consciousness you should,FIRST,do like
Descartes could had said:explore your own consciousness,step by step.
Then you may say some sensible things on that topic.
Cl.
at:http://dog.net.uk/claude  

On Sat, 07 Dec 1996 13:29:37 -0800, "Jack Sarfatti, Ph.D."
 wrote:
>Jan P.L. Verhey wrote:
>
>> >JS : Let me clarify this. The point is that in standard quantum mechanics
>> >done the Bohm way, the quantum potential already directs the system in a
>> >manner not predicted by classical physics. That is, in addition to the
>> >classical electro-weak-strong gauge forces and the curved spacetime,
>> >there is also a nonlocal context-dependent (i.e. Hilbert space ray
>> >dependent) quantum force. In contrast, the electro-weak-strong classical
>> >gauge forces are local and context-independent. So far, there is no
>> >back-action.
>> >
>> >Back-action is the system directing the quantum potential in a manner
>> >not predicted by standard quantum mechanics. This runs in the opposite
>> >direction to the nonlocal context-dependent Bohm quantum force addition
>> >to the classical gauge field forces on source particles (spinor
>> >lepto-quarks).
>> 
>> Matti Pitkanen made the remark in an earlier post that any serious physical
>> theory contains the idea of "back-action", or feedback. 
>
>Well he is wrong, because standard quantum mechanics is a serous
>physical theory and it does NOT have back-action. This was shown by Bohm
>in 1952. It is for this reason that I say quantum mechanics is
>incomplete. It is an approximation to post-quantum mechanics which does
>have back-action. Objective reduction "OR" is a special case of a
>back-action extension of standard quantum mechanics.
>
>> This sounds logical to
>> me. All seems to be a process action -> reaction making the whole universe one big
>> strange and interdependent creative loop (ie unrepeatable ?)  !
>
>That is qualitatively correct. There must be super-back-action from the
>classical 3-space metric "point" in Wheeler superspace, which is the
>hidden variable in Bohmian quantum gravity, to the quantum pilot-wave of
>the universe in the Super-Hilbert space. The quantum pilot wave, with
>super-back-action is the conscious Mind of GOD(D) in I.J. Good's sense.
>The problem is: How do we get from this grand level down to what is
>happening inside our minds since we are inside a single 3-geometry point
>of Wheeler-superspace. We are a point inside a point. What is the
>coupling?
>
>> 
>> One could see a soccer game as an example of back-action, where both teams
>> inform each other through back-action and Q-force (action+re-action) about
>> their relative paths in the play-field. 
>
>The golds use the quantum force on the blues, and the blues use
>back-action on the golds.
>
>> The golden team is called The
>> Mind-Scapers (orientals), and the blue team The Brain Beables (westerners).
>> (please set me straight where the analogy becomes irrelevant). The ball
>> moves around as the system point in the basins of attractions. 
>
>NO! The configuration of the positions of all the blue team members on
>the blue playing field is the system point. The golds do not play in the
>same field as the blues. The golds play in Hilbert space. The blues play
>in configuration space. THERE IS NO BALL! This is a game in virtual
>reality. Like two chess players in different cities. It's not only a new
>ball game. It's not a ball game at all!
>
>The basins of attraction are felt by the blues as inner golden voices
>guiding their patterns of decision-making. But the back-action from the
>blues to the golds modifies the content of what the golden messages.
>This is the feed-back loop that makes free-will possible. The Self is
>the combination of the golds (mind) and the blues (brain). It is really
>one system that we are analysing.
>
>
>> The Golden
>> Team has a strategy called Quantum Force (QF), the Blue Team uses
>> Back-Action (BA). The QF tactics  are to confuse the other team by random
>> and unpredictable actions using non-local potentials, the BA tacticts are to
>> form a rigid structure, like an army of structured particles that follow
>> determided rules set out by their coach. For the spactator, the game looks
>> indeed like a strange self-organizing creative (unrepeatable) loop.
>
>No not random. Random is what you get when you have no back-action.
>There is an ACTION Principle working here. Allowing back-action
>introduces order into quantum randomness. This is what violates the
>statistical predictions of standard quantum mechanics. There is now a
>non-equilibrium distribution of the hidden variables as described in
>Ballantine's book on Hidden-Variables and Valentine's thesis cited by
>Brian Josephson.
>> 
>> In the BA theory, the ball represents the sentient "subject", (kicked all
>> over the place btw) -  a B(all)Einstein condensate, in which the idea of the
>> game is "condensed" and focussed, ie expressed in conscious experiences.
>
>No, there is no ball. The Bose-Einstein condensate is the huge Tsunami
>pilot-wave which is the coherent robust dance of the Gods, I mean
>"Golds" but I will keep the Freudian slip, in Heavenly Olympian Hilbert
>space. Back-action restores "As Above So Below".
>
>> 
>> The rather radical and to me surprising interpretation that Jack cherishes
>> of his  "strange creative loop" is the idea of free-will,self-organisation
>> , and the like (even God comes in !) which looks to me to be kind of
>> projection :
Free-will? Psychopharmacology demonstrates that there is no such thing
as "free-will".
Our "will"is "jailed"!
>
>"Projection'? The point is that nonlinear feed-back control systems are
>autonomous. They do not follow any simple rigid pre-set deterministic
>algorithm because the back-action keeps changing the algorithm in
>creative ways. This is why Penrose is correct that human understanding
>is beyond algorithm. But strong AI people can build back-action into
>their computers by going to the quantum level. Therefore, we can make
>artifical conscious life in the new Q-chip, for example. "Igor, its
>alive!"
>
>> 
>> >JS : It is the mechanism of self-organization of complex
>> >adaptive systems. This is post-quantum mechanics because the statistical
>> >predictions of standard quantum mechanics are violated.
>> 
>> How ?  Vulcano's are also "self-organizing" and "complex adaptive systems".
>
>That's trivially easy to explain. Volcanos are classical. No classical
>system can have a real mind. They can only, at best, be Golems
>simulating mindful behavior with an inner life. The inner life is a
>post-quantum phenonmenon. Any quantum phenomenon with back-action
>becomes a post-quantum phenomenon with an inner mental life. Volcanos
>are not nonlocal and context-dependent. They do not have any robust 
>macro-coherent quantum pilot wave, i.e. BE condensate, guiding their
>behavior. They are, therefore, mindless! Any self-organizing quantum
>system is conscious. That's the basic hypothesis that this theory is
>about and which can be tested by construction of the Q-chip.
>> 
>> >The feedback-control loop between the quantum potential and the system
>> >imposes controllable order on the uncontrollable quantum randomness of
>> >standard quantum mechanics.
>> 
>> "Controllable order" sounds a bit like "being in charge". How, or why should
>> this feedback-control loop ( that represents our cs experiencing in the
>> BA-theory) impose "controllable order" on "uncontrollable quantum
>> randomness" ? What is "controllable order" supposed to be ? There is order
>> (relative), pattern / structure all over the place in this universe (and
>> of course the necessary chaos).
>
>Read Norbert Weiner's "Cybernetics".  There is no homunculus here, no
>"being in charge". The entire system is the being in charge. Stapp
>explains this in his book, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics. Although
>I do not use his Heisenberg-James ontology, what he says there applies
>also to the Bohm ontology that I use.
>
>> 
>> >The Born probability rule, i.e., the
>> >von-Neumann projection postulate is strongly violated. We can
>> >consciously choose a desired eigenstate of a brain observable to
>> >"collapse" to.
>> 
>> This sounds spooky. Of course I can decide to do things, or think about
>> things - but basically, I have no "final" control over my behaviour nor over
>> my thoughts or emotions. 
>
>Speak for yourself.:-) Yes, we all know that feeling. In some situations
>of great complexity, you may make a "New Years resolution" that you
>subsequently break. But in simple situations, like choosing how many
>times to bend your finger in a trial of 10 tries, and choosing the exact
>sequence etc - you can do that. If you were controlled by the Born rule
>of standard quantum mechanics you could not do that. 
>
>
>> To me your "strange creative loop" makes sense, but
>> the character of this creative loop (at least mine) is its unpredictability
>> and uncontrollability, ie  creation and  inspiration. 
>
>
>Again that is because of conflicting desires in complex decision making.
>It's like trying to calculate the details of large molecules from
>Schrodinger's equation. Right now I am simply doing Mickey Mouse simple
>toy problems like the hydrogen atom.
>
>Inspiration is simply being receptive to the messages from Higher
>Intelligence which are coming through everyone's mind all the time.
Ouh la,la...delirium,fever!
>Channels can get there by meditation. 
I have done that for years!
But they often do not have the
>scientific training to properly decode what they are receiving.
...and I assure you I have the scientific training but I cannot share
your fever(look at:http://dog.net.uk/claude   "Conscious Dreaming and
Controlled Hallucinations").
>Einstein, Feynman and all the great ones simply channel their
>information in their subconscious mind which then erupts into
>consciousness.
GROTESQUE. Please look at how I explain creativity with NO crazy
ideas! Thank you.
 Like Martial Artists they train their minds in
>mathematical gymnastics etc so that they can decode the messages from
>GOD(D) in ways that lead to new scientific understanding, new technology
>and new economic wealth. Genius is able to directly tap into the Mind of
>God
Mon Dieu quel délire!
Please look carefully at what I wrote at the above http..You may find
that you are completely deluding yourself.
 which is the Conscious Cosmic Quantum Back-Action Super-Computer
>beyond space-time. See Olaf Stapledon's "Star Maker". This is the
>Mythematical Drama for the New Millenium found in The Sacred Songs of
>SAR. :-)
>
>> It is not "my"
>> decision to have certain thoughts, feelings - basically they just happen.
Ah! La génération spontanée! Y a t'il un Pasteur dans la salle?
Is there a Pasteur(the scientist)in this "room"?
>
>Yes, they happen because of the autonomous opertaion of the
>strange-creative loop of the Bohm force on your mind on your brain
>coevolving with the back-action of your brain on your mind. How your
>mind "predicts" the future state of your mind-brain is not always
>perfect. Sometimes, if you are open-minded, you can remote view your
>future. 
Einstein said that the future and the past DO NOT exist.What about
that?
This is very much a function of your lifestyle and value system
>as well as genetic disposition. We can't all be Einsteins, Feynmans and
>Mozarts.
This I agree 100% with you but with a different argument.
 But more of us could be with the proper early childhood
>opportunities.
>
>> "Free will" me think, is just a useful and necessary illusion - basically
>> the function to act in response change, like all animals do. "Free" could
>> make some sense, and also "will", but together they suggest non-existing
>> imaginations imo.
>
>Depends on how you mean "free will". I have my technical definition in
>terms of the feed-back control loop between post-quantum mind and
>classical brain. The Self is the unified mind-brain system.
>
>> Milton Freidman said "Free to Choose", 
There is no free choice either.Everything we do is only a reflection
of the BIOCHEMISTRY OF OUR NERVOUS SYSTEM.
>
>If you mean the Nobel Prize economist from the Hoover, we both consulted
>for the same think tank, The Institute for Contemporary Studies.
>Gell-Mann cites a letter I wrote with the Director of this Institute in
>his book The Quark and The Jaguar in "The Story Distorted" Ch. 12. It is
>Gell-Mann who distorts the story by erroneously attempting to replace
>"nonlocality" with a defective version of the "many-worlds" model for
>quantum reality.
>
>
>> and  Jack says :
>> "Free to collapse".  
>
>No, I do not like to use "collapse". But if you do use it, I mean, we
>can choose which alternative to actualize in an objective collapse. You
>cannot choose to do that in standard quantum mechanics. Only
>post-quantum mechanics has free will in this sense. Rather than
>collapse, I prefer choosing which basin of attraction to move the system
>point into. Remember the basins are also changing with the motion of the
>system point. The Self that "chooses" is the combined total system of
>pilot-wave plus system point. This is why you are confused and feel like
>you have no free will because you have reduced your Higher Post-Quantum
>Self (i.e., pilot-wave + system point] to your lower purely
>materialistic self [i.e., system-point]. This is what many, even great
>scientist, do in this field today. A good example, is Francis Crick with
>his materialistic "Astonishing Hypothesis".
>
>
>>When I look at your BA model, it indeed seems to
>> collapse !  :-o
>
>Only because your understanding of it is very distorted of what the
>model actually is.
>
>> 
>> >Or, in Bohmian terms, the path of the system in
>> >configuration space can be intentionally guided to a particular basin of
>> >attraction in a stable situation where the basin portrait is not
>> >bifurcated by the actual path taken. The latter is more interesting as
>> >it corresponds to creative thought.
>> 
>> Creative thought, is imo not "intentionally guided", but an expression of
>> chaotic randomness as it enfolds in structure / pattern / meaning in the
>> awareness of the observer - a re-active phenomenon. While thought and memory
>> tend to "loop around" in the old beddings, creativity comes in when the
>> bedding itself changes, meaning new thoughts. Of course one might say that
>> the stream of thoughts and "intentions" influences the path of the riverbed,
>> but the contextual landscape in which the path is shaped rather randomly
>> (Q-force ) also guides / influences the actual flow of the river,
>> interactively. 
>
>What you do not understand is that the Q-force is only random when the
>back-action is zero. You have thrown the coherent Post-Quantum Baby out
>with the random quantum bathwater. You have not yet groked the essential
>new idea in what I am saying. You are trying to drink new wine in old
>contaminated skins. I bring new wine in new skins! 
>
>> Since, as you mentioned, both are tightly coupled into one
>> inseparable and indivisaile (or not ?) 
>
>Yes, inseparable in actual ontological operation (ie., the territory) ,
>but analysizable in our epistemological simulations (the map) inside our
>mind-brains.
>
>
>> process/creative loop, the idea of a
>> distinguishable intentional guiding force (the chicken or the egg ?) acting
>> like a "commander" (like God) sounds spooky to me. 
>
>
>It's a democratic process since the commands are modified by the
>behavior of the commanded. This is the real esoteric meaning of The
>Covenant that God made with Abraham in the Old Testament. Throw out the
>babblings of many of the Theologians. Throw the Mondey Lenders out of
>The Temple! :-)
>
>> I think this projection
>> is also caused by the word that was used by Bohm : "Pilot"-wave, suggestion
>> some kind of pilot-commander that is directing the game - which doesn't
>> exist I'm afraid.
>
>Again you keep making the same error in understanding what the role of
>back-action is. Einstein can tell God what to do because God in His Love
>for His Son, gave Man Free Will to argue back with Him. This is the deep
>Meaning of Judaism. It is no accident that I carry the Name of Rashi de
>Troyes. God wants the Jews to be pushy! 
So God is a racist!
That's why they are God's
>"Chosen People". All humans need to be Jews in this higher sense. We are
>all God's Chosen People.
Ah! That is nicer for the rest of us,the non-Jews!
 Wow! I am really channeling today! This is all
>bubbling 
"bubbling"? Look at what I wrote about "bubbling MHVs"!!
out of my subconscious mind and I am leaving it here for the
>World Mind to process. :-)
>> 
>> >
>> >
>> >> LC : As I have approached
>> >> the problem I see nonlinear quantized systems as having the capacity to
>> >> promote fluctuations into the future.
>> 
>> The future/past seems only relevant in the perspective of an observer. If
>> so, are there fluctuations into the future (non-locally I guess) between
>> observers, or also between rocks, stars - anything, and is there a "scale"
>> definable for such fluctuations ?
>
>There are many scales. It is the renormalization group. My Father's
>Fractal Universe has many scales. :-)
>> 
>> >
>> >There are also advanced effects from the future which are 50-50 with
>> >retarded effects from the past in the sense of Wheeler-Feynman theory
>> >but with the final total absorber boundary condition violated. This is a
>> >controlled form of Wheeler's delayed choice. The delayed choice in
>> >standard quantum theory cannot be used to send decodable messages
>> >backward in time, but it can happen in the back-action theory.
>> 
>> The idea that future and past are related seems common sense. Since all
>> measurement is observer dependant and all observers live in different and
>> relative space-time frames (non-linearity), the idea that information from
>> different frames can be transmitted back- and forwards in "time" sounds
>> logic, but also again a little spooky. 
>
>Post-quantum physics is "spooky" in Einstein's sense of "telepathic".
>Yes, of course, it is spooky. Einstein would hyave changed his mind on
>this if he wwere alive today.
>
>
>> Relative future and relative past -
>> how does that work ? You probably refer to psi-phenomena - tapping from
>> different slices of space-time by supra-luminal / instant non-local
>> information-transduction. How do I get all this in my 3D mind-set ? I can
>> "imagine" that "my" future already exists for another observer in another
>> slice of relative space-time, but at what scale can it be relative - a few
>> milliseconds, a day, a year, millions of years ?
>
>It comes to you like a Thief in the Night. It's like sex. It's best when
>you don't try. Don't puch the river. It will find you. That is what is
>mean't by "The Grace of God". 
>
>
>
>> >
>> >The next idea is that any quantum system which has a robust quantum
>> >state, like Worden's Bose-Einstein condensate, so that it is not quickly
>> >destroyed by environmental decoherence, will automatically be in the
>> >back-action regime because the objective-reduction process is
>> >funda-MENTAL.
>> 
>> This is an assumption, yet to be confirmed by experiment. MENTAL has to do
>> with neurons, with chemistry, with strong, middle and weak forces - with all
>> that is discovered and will be discovered, ie interpreted. 
>
>
>This is wrong. Dead wrong. That is exactly what "menta;" is not. The
>above is classical material "beable".
>
>> To assume 
>
>It's not assumed. It is there in Bohm's mathematics. Right now, I am
>working on exactly how Bohm's ontology fits in with Feynman's path form
>of QM. I need to make a Feynmanesque post-quantum mechanics for those
>cases where a simple wave function at a single time is no good. That is
>I need a multiple time version of the Bohm quantum potential that I will
>call the post-quantum potential. Aharonov may have done this already.
>
>>that
>> there could be a *final* trick to cs experiences, tends to neglect the other
>> tricks that are needed to what one imagines to be the  final-trick. 
>
>There is only one final trick. That trick is the back-action. More with
>less. Nature is simple. God is not malicious. This is the Final Secret
>of the Super-Illuminati. :-)
>
>> I
>> understood that in The Undivided Universe there are no *special* tricks -
>> all is interdependently connected.
>
>This is vague. Bohm did not understand the full meaning of his
>back-action discovery. I am Joshua to his Moses. The Walls of Light come
>tumbling down with the Sound of My Music.
>
>
>> >Solution of the Hard Problem
>> >When back-action is dominant over decoherence we have sentience. This is
>> >a postulate, but it is the same postulate that is used by neural-network
>> >theorists who associate a mental experience with capture of the neural
>> >net system point in a basin of attraction.
>> >
>> >The formalism of post-quantum mechanics fits neatly into the formalism
>> >of neural-nets though the scale is different. The change in weights of
>> >the neural nets is like the modification of the basins by the actual
>> >path of the system.
>> >
>> >The actual path of the system now is co-determined by both its past and
>> >future pieces in a globally self-consistent loop.
>> 
>> What is exactly "the system" ? The IGUS, conscious experiencing ? 
>
>The system, the IGUS, is robust protected pilot-wave + its attached
>system point (material hidden variable).
>
>
>> Or all
>> events that occur in (physical) reality, that we distinguish as events ? You
>> seem to refer to cs experiences, "when back-action is dominant over
>> decoherence". What exactly is the difference between the "brain-beable" and
>> the "mindscape" (that are coupled) ? 
>
>See any book on neural-nets, or Stu Kaufmann's book, The Origins of
>Order. The brain-beable is the system point that is moved by the quantum
>force that sets up the basins of attraction. The mindscape is simple the
>landscape or portrait of all the basins of attraction. In Stapp's
>theory, each "collapse" destroys all the basins but one. In Bohm's
>theory all the basins are still there. Without back-action the basins
>are rigid independent of the motion of the brain-beable. Back-action is
>self-creation of the observable in the mind whose eigenfunctions form
>the basins.
>
>
>> What constitutes "the mindscape" - what
>> is it *really* (apart from a statistical QM abstraction)? 
>
>The mind-scape is the funda-MENTAL Chalmers
Chalmers?
That guy knows nothing also about HIS OWN consciousness!!!
 information space of
>possible felt-experiences of the mind-brain IGUS.
>
>> What proof do you
>> have that there is "a (physical) mind-scape" ?
>
>Look inside yourself. I experience, therefore, I am.
Trees and plants do not experience.Does this mean they do not exist?
 My mythmatical
>physics is simply a map of that fundamental map which will be tested by
>the profitable manufacture of the coming Q-chip. By their fruits, ye
>shall know them. When your pot of superfluid helium files a brief for
>equal rights, then you will know!
>
>
>> 
>> You seem to say in BA theory that the brain can "change its mind" by
>> informing the mindscape thru back-action, and that the pilotwave is "the
>> mind". 
>
>Yes.
>
>> This doesn't sound to bad for me, yet it fails to answer some major
>> questions about where / how the conscious and distinct subjects like "you"
>> or "me" originate, because, in my view "I might still as well be You".  This
>> drives me to some probably idiotic idea - that our IGUS (soul =
>> pre-conscious form without content) has always existed.
>
>The World Soul is the Mind of God which is the pilot-wave of the actual
>expanding material universe of general relativity. The problem is how
>this all projects via reduced destiny matrices down the Great Chain of
>Being to our smaller mind-brains inside single points of Wheeler
>superspace. We are in the Homomorphic Image of God. I am still working
>on the math of this unsolved problem.
>> 
>> >
>> >Rather, than "objective reduction" I prefer "back-action" where the
>> >quantum potential has a direct functional dependence on the actual
>> >hidden-variable "system" path in configuration space where it feels the
>> >force from that same quantum potential. This is self-measurement. This
>> >is the "orch" of Penrose's "orch OR".
>> 
>> The question is, why this specific "back-action" differs qualitatively from
>> ordinary physical feed-back  processes and structure (Matti's point) of any
>> kind.
>
>Because ordinary feedback is classical within one level i.e.,
>configuration space with local non-context-dependent forces. Hilbert
>space plays no direct macorscopic role because it is washed out by
>environmental decoherence. Mulhauser described this in a paper on line.
>His error was that he did not realize that Bose-Einstein condensates are
>robust against decoherence as explained recently by Robert Worden, for
>example.
>
>> 
>> >
>> >> LC : Standard quantum mechanics states
>> >> that quantum fluctuations are delta function correlated and the noise
>> >> spectrum is white.  Yet for back action the fluctuations are tied to an
>> >> autocorrelation function that  gives a colored spectrum.
>> 
>> The "delta-function" refers to *measurements* where one finds apparent
>> random statistical averages, making them white "when measured". Why bring in
>> "autocorrelation" to explain conscious experiences ? 
>
>
>AdvancedaAutocorrelation FROM future to past with back-action is
>precognition.
THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL of PRECOGNITION.
>
>> Is conscious observing
>> the only event that can measures itself entirely ? 
>
>I would include sub-conscious processing. I would use word "sentient"
>rather than "conscious". Both "conscious" and "subconscious" are
>"sentient". The difference between "conscious" and "subconscious" is one
>of a higher level"attention" mechanisms which may well be a
>semi-classical mechanism that a guy like Francis Crick could adequately
>explain phenomenologically.
>
>Then we don't need science !
>
>You are waxing irrationally. That is not logical.
>
>> 
>> >
>> >Yes, this is the distortion away from the statistical predictions of
>> >standard quantum mechanics which is a necessary condition for sentience
>> >both conscious and sub-conscious.
>> >
>> >> Fluctuations can
>> >> be promoted into the future.
>> >
>> >Yes, but also they propagate into the past as in Wheeler-Feynman.
>> >>
>> >> Jack then takes Stapp's ideas about quantum consciouness and ties them to
>> >> back action.  Now the Bohm model has some nice features in how one can
>> >> model measurement.  The idea is that consciousness is a process of
>> >> self-measurement
          ---------------------------
Ah this starts to look meaningful.
 and rather than having a spontaneous collapse you have a
>> >> dynamical process that interrelates the information associated with
>> >> implicate order and the external world and information of explicate order.
>> 
>
>> 
>> >>
>> >> As I see the two theories likely have little to do with each other at this
>> >> stage.  
>
>I don't think there is any connection between my theory and Matti's/
>Matti has some interesting math ideas but I don't see how they are
>relevant to the hard problem.
>
>
>
>> 
>> It seems Matti Pitkanens' ideas are more in line with the reality / the
>> possibility of consciousness, because his p-adic math and the many sheeted
>> spacetime concept make it a more general theory, 
>
>
>How does "many-sheetedness" of spacetime have any thing do do with
>consciousness? Penrose 
Penrose the great Obscurantist!
has some model of this kind that he relates to
>single-graviton emission. At least I can follow Penrose's idea and say
>maybe so. I cannot at all follow Matti's train of thought.
>
>
>> where there is no special
>> or final "trick". It doesn't solve any final mystery or magic, but he
>> doesn't bombard "the pilot wave" to "the mind", or back-action as the final
>> link between mind and matter.
>
>My model that the pilot wave with back-action IS mind, is the simplest,
>most elegant. It is more with less. It is testable. Why make easy things
>hard?
>
>
>> Does the pilot wave exist ? Is it detected, or only presupposed ? 
>
>It exists as well as electric charge or any other object in modern
>physics exists. Aharonov has shown how to measure the pilot wave of a
>single system, not just its squared Born probability density.
>
> I might
>> as well presuppose that we have souls that (in)carnate (which I do) which
>> explains why there exist conscious subjects in the first place.
>
>The soul is the pilot-wave with back-action. IBM's quantum teleportation
>is the transmigration of souls from one beable to another. This is the
>mechanism for reincarnation. James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake has come to
>Corporate America in the 21st Century.
>
>
>
>> >My attitude is the same as Einstein's toward general relativity and also
>> >Dirac's toward quantum mechanics. The back-action theory is too simple,
>> >elegant, and beautiful not to be true. If God is not malicious, then it
>> >is true. Like Einstein, I did a thought experiment and said, if I were
>> >God, knwoing what I know, how would I make the universe? This is the
>> >Universe that Jack built. This the The World According To Jack.
>> 
>> Does it change the world apart from Jack ? ;-)
>
>Yes, that's the Q-chip Bhubba. We Physicist-Magicians-Sorceror-Shamans
>are simply jerking off. Our Magick without Magic really works. Remember,
>my Professors at Cornell in the 1950's brought you The Bomb, so now it's
>my job to do damage control. Fight Magick with Magick! If I appear like
>Mickey Mouse in The Sorceror's Apprentice - well I can understand why
>you might think that!

Magnus Redin wrote:
> 
> There is a disposal site for the low and medium level waste and it has
> been in use for about a decade.
> 
Well, good luck with it.  We have a place called Rocky Flats that was
suppose to be a safe low-level to med level waste disposal site.  
The H3(tritium) hot zone plume covered square miles at one time.
It was one of the reasons for the extablishment of the U.S. CERCLA
program (superfund).  Contamination is pretty much contained now, but
the containment was not cheap.  Of course, by the popular understanding
its not a "clean" or "safe" site, but it is contained. 
> 
> If there is no rural district that volunteers for the storage site the
> government will have to overrule them and decide on a site. Luckily
> there is plenty of ok bedrock in Sweden so there is not only a few
> spots, there is no single mountain selected as the very best and only
> acceptable storage site. An acceptable storage/disposal technology
> cant rely on absolutely perfect bedrock, that would not give adequate
> margins for errors.
Lots of luck, we've hit way too many roadblocks on a storage site.
I will agree with you that storage is a better word that disposal,
as that stuff will be valuable someday.
\
> 
> There is one way to cheat, the spent fuel could be reused in new types
> of reactors.
> 
> The proposed Swedish method is to use steel cannisters with a very
> thick copper cladding and embedding them in bentonite clay at 500m
> depth in bedrock. It is also designed to make it possible to retrieve
> the cannisters if future generations would like to reuse the spent
> fuel or move it.
Bentonite is damn good stuff.  Swell with water, has almost no
diffusion through it.  It would be a good backup for our storage site.
A two inch bentonite blanket now replaces 18 inches of compacted
clay in a landfill.
> 
> > And how do we know that you've not built any nukes. Arn't you
> > worried about those shiftless Norgewegioan (sp?), what about those
> > sneaky danes.
> 
I was just joking, I still have trouble believing that Pakistan is a
nuclear power.  What was their material source?  What was their
enrichment technology.  Gasous diffision ?, Laser absorbtion ?,
not really my field but I wonder now the less.
Oh, our you not concerned that with the construction of a safe high
level site, that the commonmarket will not force you to accept
material from the brits and french.  Who else has fission reactors
in Europe.  (Damn, I am a trouble maker, arn't I ).

Charles Cagle wrote:
> There are some really good people working for the
> >government who could make quite a bit more money working in the private
> >sector, but who choose public service.
> 
> Probably because its easier.
Actually, it's usually harder. You end up with tons of responsibility, 
but very little authority to carry it out.  Instead of giving up you 
spend lots of extra (un-paid) hours figuring out innovative ways to get 
things done, because you believe--and know--that that's what the country 
needs. And no matter how hard you work, or how dedicated you are, you 
have no chance of any monetary rewards that you can shoot for in the 
private sector, most of whom are working fewer hours; something your 
spouse constantly reminds you of.
> >People are people. Even government workers.
> 
> Gee and I thought gov't workers were parasites.
Now you know better.  The vast majority of governmnet workers I know are 
pretty damn dedicated, and could be making a lot more outside 
government, at fewer hours and frustrations.
>  You learn something every day.
Apparently only some people do, Charles.

Charles Cagle wrote:
> There are some really good people working for the
> >government who could make quite a bit more money working in the private
> >sector, but who choose public service.
> 
> Probably because its easier.
Actually, it's usually harder. You end up with tons of responsibility, 
but very little authority to carry it out.  Instead of giving up you 
spend lots of extra (un-paid) hours figuring out innovative ways to get 
things done, because you believe--and know--that that's what the country 
needs. And no matter how hard you work, or how dedicated you are, you 
have no chance of any monetary rewards that you can shoot for in the 
private sector, most of whom are working fewer hours; something your 
spouse constantly reminds you of.
> >People are people. Even government workers.
> 
> Gee and I thought gov't workers were parasites.
Now you know better.  The vast majority of governmnet workers I know are 
pretty damn dedicated, and could be making a lot more outside 
government, at fewer hours and frustrations.
>  You learn something every day.
Apparently only some people do, Charles.

Pharaoh Chromium 93 wrote:
> 
> http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/EVLUTN2.htm
Some one needs to get some prespective.  Nuc is safe, Humans are the
trouble.  This emotional rubish just goes on.

There is actually a biological explanation for deja vu in many cases.
Your cerebral cortex consists of two separate hemispheres. Normally,
these two halves of the brain coordinate everything they do and so
their actions together are seamless. However, sometimes one hemisphere
processes a piece of information more quickly than the other. By the
time the "slower" half of your brain figures out what it just saw, the
other half says, "Hey! I remember that!" and so you think you
experienced
something twice.
---
Venator

Devastatingly simple Dutch firworksbomb.
Wanna know how the Dutch got through cold winters? By making this
devastatingly simple, but effective fireworksbomb. And if they had any
fingers left after the explosion, they would simply make another one. 
Download the step-by-step shockwave manual from my homepage:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bmark
New Year's Eve will never be the same again!

In article <58ut4a$72u@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
> In <58uogu$l7k@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M.
> Urban) writes: 
> >In article <58umte$h2h@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
> >> The only way you can accelerate a charged particle is with magnetic
> >> flux.
> >Electric fields work too.  In fact, a magnetic field does no work on a
> >particle.
>     Yes, but particle accelerators use magnetic flux.
They don't use magnetic flux to increase the speed or energy of the
particle, though.
> Since it takes
> work to generate the magnetic flux, the magnetic flux is doing work on
> the charged particle.
The magnetic field does no work on a particle.  You cannot increase the
kinetic energy of a particle by applying a magnetic field.  Just look at the
force equation:
     F = F_E + F_B = qE + q(v x B)
Since the magnetic force F_B is always perpendicular to the particle's
velocity, that force can do no work on the particle.
In a particle accelerator, electric fields are used to accelerate the
particle (more precisely, to increase the particle's energy), by
passing it through small "acceleration gaps".  (Think of a particle
being accelerated by the electric field in a parallel-plate
capacitor.)  The magnetic fields are used to bend the path of the
particle in a circle, so it can pass throug the same electric
acceleration gaps over and over.  They are used to change the
particle's direction.  (Hence they _do_ accelerate the particle; they
just do no work on it.)
Also, of course, you have to note that the way an electromagnetic field
breaks up into electric and magnetic fields depends on the particle's
velocity.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

melanied@erols.com wrote:
: > There are some really good people working for the
: > >government who could make quite a bit more money working in the private
: > >sector, but who choose public service.
: > 
: > Probably because its easier.
: Actually, it's usually harder. You end up with tons of responsibility, 
: but very little authority to carry it out.  Instead of giving up you 
: spend lots of extra (un-paid) hours figuring out innovative ways to get 
: things done, because you believe--and know--that that's what the country 
: needs. And no matter how hard you work, or how dedicated you are, you 
: have no chance of any monetary rewards that you can shoot for in the 
: private sector, most of whom are working fewer hours; something your 
: spouse constantly reminds you of.
Well, it depends largely upon the type of government work, but I'd agree.
It probably applies more to those in R&D; fields than those who, say, work
in the Government Services Administration ("the bureaucracy for the
bureaucracy").  One of the people who helped establish the space
department at the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins (which built
Transit and lots of other satellites) once said that they shouldn't put
clocks on the wall, because no one would bother to look at them.
: > Gee and I thought gov't workers were parasites.
: Now you know better.  The vast majority of governmnet workers I know are 
: pretty damn dedicated, and could be making a lot more outside 
: government, at fewer hours and frustrations.
Take a look at the groups this is posted to.  That will explain the
quality of the posts (i.e. "alt.alien.visitors"?).
D-Day
--
Hope is independent of the apparatus of logic.--Norman Cousins

Apologies if this question doesn't belong here, or has been answered before.
Does anyone know of an analysis of the effects of the Alcubierre warp drive
geometry [M. Alcubierre, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, L73 (1994)],
ie. redshift/refraction/etc.
Barring that, any suggestions on how best to perform such an analysis?
thanks..
  --mdj
-- 
NO NAME            mdj@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu           NO SLOGAN

Charles Cagle  wrote:
>jwalters@clark.net (Jim Walters) wrote:
>>By the way, I don't work for NASA.  However I have lived within commuting
>>distance of Washington, DC for almost seven years now, and a lot of my
>>friends and acquaintances are US government employees.  Some of them even
>>work for NASA. 
>
>There you go; admitting freely that your choice of friends includes a
>number of 'Welfare Queens in White Coats'.
Y'know, applying that sort of insult to some of the most
intelligent and productive people ever to grace human
history makes you look like a complete idiot.
>>There are some really good people working for the
>>government who could make quite a bit more money working in the private
>>sector, but who choose public service.
>
>Probably because its easier.
Almost always because it's challenging and satisfying.  I
happen to work in a place where there are a surprising
number of former NASA engineers, whether employees or
subcontractors, and the reason they give most for leaving
NASA is that the private-sector money for their skills is
far too large to turn down.
>>  It really pisses me off when some
>>jerk mouths off about how evil (or lazy, inefficient, etc.) the government
>>and government workers are without having any real evidence to back it up.
>
>I wonder who programmed that into your head?  Couldn't be you, right?  
And perhaps you can tell us who programmed your irrational
anti-government-worker prejudice into your head?
>So, you get pissed off do you when someone 'pushes your button' by conforming
>to a set of parameters which you yourself have set up?
So you don't like it when someone recognizes that you're
being a jerk?
The attitude you displayed was tantamount to a troll for
people on this net who would disagree with you; especially
considering that the attitude is abhorrent and almost
anyone (except maybe Randy Weaver) could find it in
themselves to disagree with you.
Jim was in fact expressing what amounts to the community
standard, and I'm confident the community applauded it.
>Exactly whose problem to do suppose that is?
Apparently it's yours.  He's got a valid point and you're
a prejudiced jerk.
>And you refer to others as 'jerks'? :-)
Sounds like he knows one when he sees one, jerk.
>As far as evidence to back it up...wow!  What a laugh!  There's
>practically nothing but evidence.
"Practically nothing but evidence."  That's not evidence.
And anecdotes won't do, either.  You made a generalization
about everyone who works for NASA and you'll either have to
back that up or eat the crow you're roasting for yourself.
Silence or evasion will of course be inferred to agree that
you're a coward and a liar.
>>People are people. Even government workers.
>
>Gee and I thought gov't workers were parasites.  You learn something every day.
Today we learned that Charles Cagle is an abusive and irrational
loser who has nothing better to do than insult his betters.
				--Blair
				  "You jerk."

As a some comments I can recommend to pay some attention to experiments on
change of the rate of physical time. I wrote here "physical time" since time
we measure by means of clocks is not physical reality but any mass object
have a corresponding real physical time.
There are Kozyrev's experiments of 1960-1980. Modern experiments are made
by Chernobrov. He used electromagnets to change rate of time in local area.
Many practical researchers in Russia are working on the "chronofly" - that
is system to reach antogravitation flight by means of change of local time
rate.
Very interesting theory for it is developed by Dr. Nassikas from Greece
. I think that this way lead to well-known
1943 NAVY experiments on electromagnetic and gravitation unification.
There are opinions about A.Einstein connection with these experiments.
--- 
 Alexander V. Frolov, P.O.Box 37, St.-Petersburg, 193024 Russia
 Tel:7-812-2747877                          

In article <58rtf8$lds@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Tim Hollebeek  wrote:
>In article <58pqvn$5ek@news.nd.edu>, mblack2@yttrium.helios.nd.edu writes:
>> since the reluctance lies in the danger of working with Be compounds and the 
>> high reactivity of hydrides in general towards air and moisture.
>
>Yup.  The mention of Be set off a few bells in my head when I heard the
>report.  There would certainly be environmental concerns about using this
>stuff.
and there should be. However, *just* because there's Be in it, doesn't
mean it's dangerous. Many springs are made from BeCu. In fact, if you
have a ballpen at hand with a metal clip ...take a look again at that
clip ;-)
cheers, ralf
--
         *  *      ralf 
          *Q *
        *_/|- 	   maintainer of the soc.culture.german FAQ:
          / ! 	   

In article ,
Charles Cagle  wrote:
>In article <58sn4j$pju@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
>glhansen@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory Loren Hansen) wrote:
>>That's not to say they become aware of the wholeness of the entire thing.
>>Just a new, sensible view of the problem they're working on.  If it's
>>anything more than that, it must just be useless to the unprepared mind.
>
>I don't mean they actually have the entire details of the wholeness but
>that they have a sense of its existance and can benefit from that
>fundamental sense so that the particular area they are interested in falls
>into place.  Now as for myself I think my gift from God is that I have
Hmm... well, it's inspired, wherever it comes from.
>>     And what if you've experimentally narrowed the race to your favorite
>>theory?  You can never be certain someone won't devise a better theory (in
>>the matter of being simpler or more unifying), or that some experiment
>>will uncover disasterous data proving you're wrong.  You can never know if
>>you have the "right" theory.  
>
>I'd have to disagree here.  The Cosmic Blueprint is stamped into men's
>hearts and minds.  You know it is true when you hear it or when it first
>occurs to you.  Sort of like the fact that all men know the Gospel of
>Messiah is true when they hear it.  They don't need proof because they
>already know it is true.  What they need is repentance.
That sounds downright mystical to me.  In a sense, I side with the logical
positivists on this one.  The only really scientific knowledge is that
which can be experimentally tested.  Anything that cannot be subject to
empirical examination is not a part of scientific knowledge.
They then go on to claim that metaphysics is therefore useless, but I
disagree with that.  The metaphysics gives your theory an underlying
structure, guides your thinking.  But I'm something of a metaphysical
relativist in that sense; if it's internally consistent, consistent with
the data, and works for you, one is as good as another.  I'm sure that
must be an officially catagorized and labelled school of thought, but I'm
equally sure I have no idea what it would be called.
And now I begin to see there are some things we will probably just never
agree on.
>>>Well we're talking about the Cartesian idea of tearing down structures
>>>because of some fault in their foundations.  Even Descartes recognized the
>>
>>Tear down as much as you want, but the equations must remain intact
>>because within their realm of validity, they are correct.
>
>This isn't as coherent a concept to me as it must be to you.  You're sort
>of saying 'its close enough for gov't work' here aren't you?  It is likely
>the equations which (if  even they can be articulated in equations) can
>express the true physics have not yet been invented.  Nevertheless the
>physics may simply be expressed qualitatively at first and perhaps
>quantitatively as the details and means to express them become more
>apparent.
Notice I've always been careful to say "within their realm of validity".
For instance, relativity is the correct theory to describe motions at high
speeds and under certain other conditions.  But at slow speeds, when the
velocity is much less than the speed of light and the ratio v/c becomes
"negligibly" small, we can cancel that away and the relativistic equations
reduce to the Newtonian equations.  Likewise you need QM to describe the
motions of very small things.  But in the limits of large quantum numbers
or large masses, the equations of quantum mechanics reduce to those of
Newtonian physics.
Likewise if you bring to this world a theory that supercedes QM and
relativity, within the appropriate limits your theory must reproduce QM
and relativity, and within even tighter limits will become identical to
Newtonian physics.  I say this because, within those limits of validity,
QM and relativity are amazingly successful, and even if you disagree with
the metaphysics of the theories, the equations still stand.
>>We don't have direct evidence of electrons, either!  Have you ever *seen*
>>an electron?  Of course not!  You may have seen evidence of the flow of
>>electrical fluid, such as sparks, or simple electromagnets you may have
>>made as a kid.  There is some evidence of quantized electric charges, like
>>Millikan's experiment or the picture on your monitor.  But you can't pick
>>up an electron with a tweezers, look at it through a magnifying glass, and
>>say "Aha!  I see it is a discrete unit!"
>
>There is more than one kind of tweezers.  And some can pick up and hold
>single electrons.
Right.  But you're still not going to see the electrons.  You can only
infer their existence based on how the tweezers interact with them, which
is in turn based on the theory used to design the tweezers.  But we *can*
infer their existence by following the whole chain of reasoning and
testing assumptions by further experiments (which are usually done before
the tweezers were even designed).  We can get some knowledge about things
like electrons, but I wouldn't call it "certain" knowledge.
>>The basic process goes something like "If our theories are correct, and
>>black holes exist, then we should see this type of X-ray emission, which
>>can't be accounted for by anything else we know of.
>
>Whoa there.  This is the point.  "anything else we know of" is the torpedo
>that sinks this process.
But it's all we have.  It's easier to make that objection in cosmology
because there is more out there that we haven't seen than we've seen.  But
it's no different, in principle, than stating "This is my friend Bob,
because there is nothing else I know of that looks like him, talks like
him, acts like him, and has the same memories I believe Bob should have."
>>  We should see this
>>distribution of Doppler shifts in light from objects orbitting a black
>>hole and this pattern of light caused by a gravitational lensing, which
>>cannot be caused by a less dense object."  Then turn our augmented eyes
>>to the heavens and see what we can find.  To disprove, for example but
>>this process also applies in general, black holes, you must break the
>>chain of reasoning somewhere.
>
>Not so.  Things don't stand proven just because they are not disproven.
The old saying goes, "If you want proof, go to the mathematics
department."  Science in general, including physics, can't supply "proof"
in the same sense that a mathematician can prove the Pythagorean theorem.
It would at first seem a theory can be proven correct by running an
experiment and showing the results match the predictions.  But you've only
done one of an infinite number of possible tests, at one time out of all
possible times and one place out of all possible places.  So "proof" in
science really does reduce to failing to disprove.  
    The number one most important step is to formulate your hypothesis in
a falsifiable form.  You must be able to make some prediction that can, at
least in principle (even if engineering difficulties currently prohibit
it) show your hypothesis is false by not giving you the results you
expect.  This is the fundamental difference between science and
disciplines like theology.  Theology may be logically rigorous, but the
subject is one that cannot be disproven (i.e. revealed knowledge,
scripture, God).  Or art.  We cannot run a chemical analysis on a painting
to see if a particular interpretation is "correct".
    Then you must try in as many ways as you can to falsify your
hypothesis.  If you fail, you've succeeded.  You can use it with growing
confidence, but know that it will never be "certain" knowledge.  A failure
will, in principle, show your hypothesis is incorrect.  In practice you
must take care to track down other sources of error in your experiment.
And even if it makes an undeniably wrong prediction, there's always the
"It failed once, but it worked so well before" factor.  Like the
superfluid helium-3.  There was, in fact, a phase transition at the
predicted temperature.  But it wasn't the expected phase transition.  This
doesn't necessarily mean the entire theory of matter should be scrapped,
because you can easily count up far more successes than failures; in other
words, the theory remains darn useful despite a failure or two.  So the
scientists will typically try to refine the theory, figure out why it went
wrong, maybe find some hasty assumptions or some new behavior of matter
that the theory can't account for in its current form.  This starts to set
the stage for a revolution in physics, or a paradigm shift.  Thomas Kuhn
discusses much of this in his book.
>Theory should spring from philosophy.  That's where structure is given to
>the whole process.
I simply can't agree.  Quantum mechanics and relativity did not come from
philosophy, they came from experimental details that couldn't be
reconciled by Newton.  And these two revolutionary new theories did much
to influence philosophy.
>>Oh.  Who designed it?
>
>I might become aware of the design but not be the designer.  It would be
>presumptious to imply that I was.  Who was, who is?  Who do you suppose? 
>Wouldn't you suppose that God Himself framed the Cosmos?  If He did and
>you refuse to consider that then you will forever remain outside even
>though you spend your life searching.
Oh, I get it.  God designed it, you discover it.
But I hold that scientific theories are human inventions.  They organize
and make sense of natural phenomena.  The phenomena are discovered, the
theories are invented.
>>I thought it was because you can't measure Coulomb's law by holding two
>>elementary particles stationary and measuring the force between them.  How
>>can you do that?  Applying QM to the problem, this experiment can't be
>>done even in principle because if we were to hold two particles completely
>>still we would have no idea where they even were, and the act of measuring
>>their position would give them velocity.
>
>Aren't you assigning a priori validity to QM (which is only a statistical
>method and not really a deterministic theory of actual interactions) and
>assuming that two electrons (for example) cannot overlap in momentum space
>when in fact that is exactly what they are doing in superconduction as
>Cooper Pairs?
If you want to argue about the uncertainty principle, you have a lot of
experimental data to wade through, first.  Something like that would
*never* have been accepted by the scientific community if the facts didn't
say they must.  No matter how you want to interpret it, Dx*Dp is still
greater than h-bar.
Our differences seem to be entirely one of philosophy rather than the
data.  I guess all I can ask is that you understand my philosophical
position, not agree with it.  And that I have a very low opinion of
revealed knowledge about the natural world.
Later.
-- 
"Knock off all that evil!"

Peter F. Curran  wrote:
>Immesurable?  Not so!  We have lots of ways of accurately
>measuring time which all tend to agree with one another.
>The only real discrepency is our subjective "feeling" of
>time.  Time exists independently of us, and our minds
>were never intended to be accurate chronological measuring
>devices.
Not quite.
Our minds in certain circumstances are uncannily
accurate at temporal tasks.  We don't have an innate
sense of enumerated time, but those of us who are
well-coordinated are capable of impressive feats.
Juggling, quarterbacking, comedy, and music are obvious
examples of ways our minds can apply time with precision.
				--Blair
				  "You put the lime in the coconut
				   and call me in the morning."
				   -Harry Nilsson

I'm looking for source code (computer language: Basic, C, Pascal) for
Electric Field Mapping. It would help me a lot.

In article <58p196$j0k@service3.uky.edu>,
TL ADAMS   wrote:
[...]
>Why, does the truth hurt.  The commercial power/weapons production are
>so closely entwined that how can you remove your self from eco nightmares
>like Hanford.  Its not even in the realm of current engineering ability
>to clean Hanford, although we sure as hell are going to try to mitigate.
I'm not clear on your example of Hanford. The "eco nightmare" there is
a consequence of weapons work only, largely predating the existience of
the only two commercial power plants that have existed there. The
N-Reactor was the last of the plutonium production reactors. It played
a brief role as a commercial power provider when WPPSS produced power
from what was essentially waste heat (waste as far as plutonium
production was concerned. Washington No 2 is on line, as a
commercial power plant, but has contributed nothing to the problem of
the old storage containers.
>I am more than a little familar with remediatation and the cost of remediation,
>your bloody industry is subject to the same risk standards and clean-up
>standards as Sohio or Hooker Chemical.  When we start talking about a 
>multibillion cleanup for a small site like Fernald, when we have to contend with 
>with million litre plumes of TCE laced with Pu, U, et al.
It's not clear exactly what the connection of this to US commercial
nuclear power is.
-- 
    ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) **********
    *               Daly City California                  *
    *   Between San Francisco and South San Francisco     *
    *******************************************************

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
These articles appeared to be off-topic to the 'bot, who posts these notices as
a convenience to the Usenet readers, who may choose to mark these articles as
"already read". You can find the software to process these notices with some
newsreaders at CancelMoose's[tm] WWW site: http://www.cm.org.
Poster breakdown, culled from the From: headers, with byte counts:
  1 25708  Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
The 'bot does not e-mail these posters and is not affiliated with the several
people who choose to do so.
@@BEGIN NCM HEADERS
Version: 0.93
Issuer: sci.physics-NoCeMbot@bwalk.dm.com
Type: off-topic
Newsgroup: sci.physics
Action: hide
Count: 1
Notice-ID: spncm1996348211241
@@BEGIN NCM BODY
<58nrtl$go6@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>	sci.physics.electromag
	sci.physics
	sci.geo.geology
	sci.bio.misc
	sci.astro
	sci.math
@@END NCM BODY
Feel free to e-mail the 'bot for a copy of its PGP public key or to comment on
its criteria for finding off-topic articles. All e-mail will be read by humans.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBMrMYSoz0ceX+vLURAQGM0gQAoHYXjwENMwtb2ITc7xMjG6i6R5/WLU4V
VUHTwE7UNTj9UoYchJ/5ZpUvSbAURXfPjaObTRZdXSU8FrDiVBu9pqja0HW6bd3m
Ac1Hz1u9i/gYTcppk4Bc5y8LEPGXSmzs08XHqgqEF+Ctmvw7r29Oi8Qwx1FxFxEy
v9Xr7Vd8boY=
=Zt0y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In article <58usve$4cv@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>, odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>     It seems to me that the only reason we cannot accelerate particles
> to c is not because of relativistic mass increase, but because, at
> speeds close to c, the particle is outrunning the magnetic flux field
> lines. In other words, the particle passes through the section of coils
> that is generating the propagating magnetic flux lines, before the
> magnetic field lines have a chance to cut across the charged particle.
The field lines are always there.  No matter what speed it's travelling
at it will always be passing through them.  It can't "outrun" them.
-- 
Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia Tech

In <58v546$ktf@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M.
Urban) writes: 
>
>In article <58usve$4cv@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>>     It seems to me that the only reason we cannot accelerate
particles
>> to c is not because of relativistic mass increase, but because, at
>> speeds close to c, the particle is outrunning the magnetic flux
field
>> lines. In other words, the particle passes through the section of
coils
>> that is generating the propagating magnetic flux lines, before the
>> magnetic field lines have a chance to cut across the charged
particle.
>
>The field lines are always there.  No matter what speed it's
travelling
>at it will always be passing through them.  It can't "outrun" them.
>-- 
>Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia
Tech
    I think you are mistaken. By definition, the fields must be turned
on and off, or rapidly switched to generate magnetic flux. The flux is
therefore zero for a long enough time to make a difference to
relativistically moving particles. In addition, the static magnetic
field lines that the charged particle cuts through will produce a force
that is orthogonal to the direction of motion and therefore will not
accelerate it, but only change its direction. Moreover the current must
not only be switched but also overcome ohmic resistance. I've heard it
described that one section of coils pushes the particle while the next
section pulls the particle. In order to do this the fields must undergo
a time-varying change of state. This requires a much greater time in
comparison to a faster moving particle than in comparison to a slower
moving particle. 
Regards,
Edward Meisner

FreeMail, the e-mail and document delivery company which
created Kinko's Kinkonet service, and AlphaGraphic's AlphaLink Direct,
has a really nice *demo* at their web site  http://www.freemail.com    
where they let anyone use a free web page to automatically deliver 
documents along with a job ticket/descriptions to any e-mail location.
heir target market is print shops (like mine), but I'm realizing 
that this could be very useful for any organization that needs 
to deliver document files over the Internet without having 
to install expensive client-side e-mail systems. Their standard
products also include private e-mail systems for businesses.
I told them that I would recommend their software to the 
business and academic groups where I visit. There stuff is
a bright star in what mostly is just a bunch of  hype. Check them out.
http://www.freemail.com
  Joe Lutz
  Instant Prints and More
  (415) 288 13

In <58v60b$m57@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan M.
Urban) writes: 
>
>In article <58ut4a$72u@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>> In <58uogu$l7k@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> nurban@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Nathan
M.
>> Urban) writes: 
>
>> >In article <58umte$h2h@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
>> odessey2@ix.netcom.com(Allen Meisner) wrote:
>
>> >> The only way you can accelerate a charged particle is with
magnetic
>> >> flux.
>
>> >Electric fields work too.  In fact, a magnetic field does no work
on a
>> >particle.
>
>>     Yes, but particle accelerators use magnetic flux.
>
>They don't use magnetic flux to increase the speed or energy of the
>particle, though.
>
>> Since it takes
>> work to generate the magnetic flux, the magnetic flux is doing work
on
>> the charged particle.
>
>The magnetic field does no work on a particle.  You cannot increase
the
>kinetic energy of a particle by applying a magnetic field.  Just look
at the
>force equation:
>
>     F = F_E + F_B = qE + q(v x B)
>
>Since the magnetic force F_B is always perpendicular to the particle's
>velocity, that force can do no work on the particle.
>
>In a particle accelerator, electric fields are used to accelerate the
>particle (more precisely, to increase the particle's energy), by
>passing it through small "acceleration gaps".  (Think of a particle
>being accelerated by the electric field in a parallel-plate
>capacitor.)  The magnetic fields are used to bend the path of the
>particle in a circle, so it can pass throug the same electric
>acceleration gaps over and over.  They are used to change the
>particle's direction.  (Hence they _do_ accelerate the particle; they
>just do no work on it.)
>
>Also, of course, you have to note that the way an electromagnetic
field
>breaks up into electric and magnetic fields depends on the particle's
>velocity.
>-- 
>Nathan Urban | nurban@vt.edu | Undergrad {CS,Physics,Math} | Virginia
Tech
    I think that you are very much mistaken. You can not use
electrostatic forces to accelerate charged partricles. It is absolutely
impossible and you should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting
it. To build up a sufficient electrostatic charge requires even more
time than to create magnetic flux. How in the world could you use
charged plates to accelerate a particle? The electrostatic charge on
the plates must be time varied also to produce acceleration.
Electrostatic potentials also propagate at c. It also takes a much
greater time to build up sufficient charge than to generate magnetic
flux. And this doesn't even address the problem of how to orient the
plates so that they don't get in the way of the charged partricles. Not
onlt this, but you are also mistaken about the way real particle
accelerators work. I know of none that use electrostatics.
Regards,
Edward Meisner

DaveHatunen wrote:
> 
> In article <58p196$j0k@service3.uky.edu>,
> TL ADAMS   wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >Why, does the truth hurt.  The commercial power/weapons production are
> >so closely entwined that how can you remove your self from eco nightmares
> >like Hanford.  Its not even in the realm of current engineering ability
> >to clean Hanford, although we sure as hell are going to try to mitigate.
> 
> 
> It's not clear exactly what the connection of this to US commercial
> nuclear power is.
> 
It must be nice, to be able to draw your boundries around one little
section of the problem and therefore declare the whole industry is safe.
Must be nice.
And we further draw our little box to only include western technology
so that the problems of the Soviets and Chinesse are also removed.
Must be nice.
Yet you lose the battle of public opinion because most people don't
draw such nice little boundries.  When they see a nice multibillion
clean-up at a little site like Fernald, maybe they don't have your
distachment to say this is from the "bad" nuclear industry, but we
are the "good" nuclear industry.
I am not saying this is fair, hell it may not even be a valid
preception, but it is a wide-spread preception.  The sins of those
other nuclear guys may haunt you good guys for many generation.

Tom Potter (tdp@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>Ray Tomes wrote:
>> > 
>> > Peter Diehr  wrote:
>> > 
>> > >I've never seen any claim made that Planck's constant can be
>derived
>> > >from classical physics ... unless one adds at least one new 
>ingredient
>> > >to the pot:  you have to assume quantization in some fashion.
>.....(snip)
>>     There are many kinds of quantization though. There is amplitude
>>     quantization of signals, time quantization of the samples, 
>>     quantization from integration, from normalization to unity,
>>     and the quantization for a linear oscillator whose potential 
>>     energy is an homogeneous quadratic function, the frequency
>>     is independant of the amplitude leads to hf in QM.
>
>As I see it, Classical Physics is the
>interval between effect ( measurement ) and cause,
>
>and Quantum Mechanics is the
>interval between cause and effect
>( Radiation, photon, etc. ).
I don't see how Classical or Quantum Mechanics can be intervals.
>A measurement, defines a "real world"
>interval of known properties, such as
>charge, energy, velocity, etc.
I can see intervals of space, time or even space-time, but the use of
"interval" for other (particle?) properties is confusing to me.
>Now, if you accept this a correct
>definition, then Planck's Constant
>can be defined in terms of Classical
>properties:
>
>     h(electron) = Q^2 * C * mu(medium)
>                   --------------------
>                   2 * fine structure(electron)
>
>Now I assert that Planck's Constant as
>normally used refers to a property of
>electrons, as does the fine structure constant.
>In other words, protons have a separate 
>"Planck's Constant" and a separate
>"fine structure constant", as does the 
>totality of the universe.
>
I have the opposite view.  Spin (angular momentum ~ h_bar) is the
only constant.
>
>In other words, of one measured the
>reaction of a proton, or the universe,
>or some portion of the universe between
>a proton and the whole ball of wax to
>the elecvtrn, one would have to use
>different constants.
>
>Of course, "C" in the equation above is
>"the speed of light" which I assert is
>simply the more fundamental interaction
>time multiplied by a universal distance per time
>constant, and mu is the permeability of the
>medium in which the measurement is being made,
>which is usually space or air. The permeability
>takes the medium into account when making
>the measurement.
>
>Tom Potter         http://pobox.com/~tdp
>
We agree in the sense that there is a basic difference between
electrons and protons.  You say there is a universal distance per time
constant and that h_bar and mu and other things change.  I say
that h_bar is constant and that the internal velocity is different
or, said another way, the randomization time is different (by a 
factor of 137 between the electron and proton).  I go further.
There are distinct intermingled universes: the electron's is negative
or dominated by antispinors.  The proton's is positive or dominated
by spinors.
Phil Fraley
(via JTucker)
jart@epix.net