Subject: Einstein 8
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 19:35:45 -0800
Quotes are from Einstein
Planck discovers the quantum of action in 1900.
Einstein wrote that the first fundamental revolution in modern physics
was Maxwell’s replacement of Newton’s classical rocklike nonlocal action
at a distance by the local action of the classical field. This really
has nothing to do with the thoughtlike quantum action at a distance of
Bohm’s quantum potential. “Rocklike” means “intensity-dependent” and
“form-independent”. “Rocklike” is the same as “material”. “Thoughtlike”
means just the opposite of “rocklike” i.e., intensity-independent and
form-dependent. “Thoughtlike” means “nonmaterial”. But both “rocklike”
and “thoughtlike” are “physical”. We now continue with Planck’s second
fundamental revolution which was the introduction of thoughtlike things
into physics that was independent of the introduction of the rocklike
classical local field intensities.
“... a second fundamental crisis set in ... owing to Max Planck’s
investigations into heat radiation (1900) ... all the more remarkable
because ... in its first phase, it was not in any way influenced by any
surprising discoveries of an experimental nature.”
At this point let me stop and say something about the premature rush to
have me justify the post-modern physics of consciousness with an
immediate appeal to experimental test. Einstein’s own words testify to
the historical fact that at least two of the major revolutions of modern
physics, the quantum and relativity, were not, in their first early
phases “influenced by any surprising discoveries of an experimental
nature”. The Michelson-Morley experiment that could not measure the
absolute speed of the earth through the Newtonian mechanical ether did
not motivate Einstein’s creation of the theory of special relativity
which, of course, was later on, confirmed by many experiments. Note
today, however, we can measure the the absolute speed of the earth
through the general relativistic ether called the “Hubble flow” of our
expanding universe in terms of departure from isotropy of the cosmic
black body radiation that Planck explained in 1900. Einstein died before
this cosmic blackbody radiation, left over from the big bang, was
discovered by microwave engineers at Bell Labs near Princeton.
“On thermodynamic grounds Kirchoff had concluded that the energy density
nd the spectral composition of radiation in a cavity enclosed by
impervious walls of the temperature T, must be independent of the nature
of the walls. ... the monochromatic density of radiation rho is a
universal function of the frequency f and of the absolute temperature T.
Thus arose the interesting problem of determining this function
rho(f,T)... According to Maxwell’s theory the radiation had to exert a
pressure on the walls, determined by the total energy density. From this
Boltzmann concluded, by means of pure thermodynamics, that the entire
energy density of the radiation (integral of rho df) is proportional to
[the fourth power] of T. In this way he found a theoretical
justification of a law that had previously been discovered empirically
by Stefan.... Wein found that the universal function rho of the two
variables f and T would have to be of the form
rho = f^3 F(f/T)
[i.e., rho proportional to the cube of the radiation frequency f
multiplying a function F of a single variable f/T that is the ratio of
the frequency f and the absolute temperature T, putting in the
fundamental universal Planck constant h of action and Boltzmann’s
constant k of entropy give the dimensionless variable hf/kT]
... the theoretical determination of this universal function F was of
fundamental importance -- this was precisely the task that confronted
Planck. Careful measurements had led to a rather precise empirical
determination of the functin F. Relying on those empirical measurements,
he succeeded ... in finding ....
rho = (8pi hf^3/c^3 ) (e^hf/kt - 1)^-1
... Planck actually did find a derivation, the imperfections of which
remained at first hidden, which latter fact was most fortunate for the
development of physics ... it permitted, with the aid of Maxwell’s
theory, the calculation of the average energy E of a quasi-monochromatic
oscillatro within the field of radiation:
E = hf/(e^hf/kt - 1)
..... For high temperatures (with f fixed) it yielded ...
E = kT
This is the same expression obtained in the [classical] kinetic theory
of gases for the average [random] energy of a mass point capable of
oscillating elastically in one dimension. For in kinetic theory one gets
E = (R/N)T
where R denotes the gas constant, and N the number of molecules per
mole, from which constant one can compute the absolute size of the atom.
Equating these two expressions one gets
N = R/k
The one constant of Planck’s formula consequently furnishes exactly the
correct size of the atom. The numerical value agreed satisfactorily with
the determinations of N by means of kinetic gas theory, though the
latter were not very accurate.
This was a great success, which Planck clearly recognized. But the
matter has a serious drawback, which Planck fortunately overlooked at
first. For the same considerations demand in fact that the [classical
equipartition of energy] relation E = kT [per dynamical degree of
freedom] would also have to be valid for low temperatures. In that
case... it would be all over for Planck’s formula .. with the constant
h. From the existing [classical Newtonian-Maxwell] theory ... the
correct conclusion would have been: the average [random] kinetic energy
of the oscillator is either given incorrectly by the theory of gases,
which would imply a refutation of statistical [particle]mechanics; or
else the average energy of the oscillator follows inconrrectly from
Maxwell [field] theory, which would imply a refutation of the latter...
If Planck had drawn this conclusion, he probably would not have made his
great discovery, because pure deductive reasoning would hav been left
without a foundation.
Planck derives black body radiation from energy quanta via entropy.
Now back to Planck’s reasoning. On the basis of the kinetic [particle]
theory of gases Boltzmann had discovered that ... entropy was
[proportional] to the logarithm of the “probability” of the state under
consideration. Through this insight he recognized the nature of
processes that, within the meaning of the thermodynamics, are
‘irreversible’ [i.e., the arrow of time is caused by the spontaneous
tendency of closed systems to evolve to more probable states] Seen from
the molecular-mechanical point of view, however, all processes are
reversible. ... an immensely large number (Z) of [micro] states belong
to a macroscopic condition. Z is then a measure of the probability of a
chosen macro-state. ... Planck ... applied Boltzmann’s principle to a
system consisting of very many resonators of the same frequency f. The
macroscopic state is given by the total energy of the oscillation of all
resonators, a micro-state by the fixation of the (instantaneous) energy
of each individual resonator. In order to express the number of
micro-states belonging to a macro-state by means of a finite number,
Planck divided the total energy into a large but finite number of
identical energy elements epsilon [i.e., “quanta”] and asked: in how
many ways can these energy elements be divided among the resonators. The
logarithm of this number, then, furnishes the entropy and thus (via
thermodynamics) the temperature ... Planck got his radiation formula if
he chose his energy elements epsilon to have the magnitude epsilon = hf.
The decisive element in this procedure is that the result depends upon
taking for epsilon a definite value, i.e., on not going to the limit
epsilon = 0. This ... contradicts the [classical] mechanical and
electrodynamic basis upon which the derivation otherwise depends ... the
derivation presupposes implicitly that energy can be absorbed and
emitted by the individual resonator only in ‘quanta’ of magnitude hf,
i.e., that the energy of a mechanical structure capable of oscilltions
as well as the energy of radiation can be transferred only in such
quanta -- in contradiction to the [classical] laws of mechanics and
electrodynamics. The contradiction with dynamics was here fundamental;
whereas the contradiction with electrodynamics might be less
fundamental. For the expression for the density of radiation energy,
though compatible with Maxwell’s equations, is not a necessary
consequence of these equations. ... the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wein’s
law, which are based on it, are in agreement with experience.
How Einstein explained the photoelectric effect without a proper
theory.
All of this was quite clear to me shortly after the publication of
Planck’s fundamental work; so that, without having a subsitute for
classical mechanics, I could nevertheless see to what kind of
consequence this law of temperature radiation leads to for the
photoelectric effect and for other related phenomena of the
transformation of radiation energy, as well as for the specific heat of
(especially) solid bodies. All my atttempts, however, to adapt the
theoretical foundation of physics to this [new type of] knowledge failed
completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one,
with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere upon which one could have
built. That this insecure and contradictory foundation was sufficient to
enable a man of Bohr’s unique instinct and sensitivity to discover the
principal laws of the spectral lines and of the electron shells of
atoms, together with their significance for chemistry, appeared to me as
a miricle -- and appears to me a miracle even today. This is the highest
form of musicality in the sphere of thought.”
Subject: Re: Hubble Constant & Cosmic Background Temp. (III)
From: "hanson"
Date: 15 Jan 1997 06:58:00 GMT
Ray, now let's see:
We both agree with everyone: H has the dimension of 1/s.
Now as per this equation H = [3/2 * k*Tb * a^2/4] / (N*h), and let me
explain for your benefit:
H = (dimension wise) Energy / Action ---> kT/h --> grcm2/s2 divided by
grcm2/s = 1/s = 1/time.
Where is the problem, Ray? The equation DOES yield 1/time, as you say it
should.
What is wrong with it? Tell me, please! Is it me who'se got egg on the
face?
But please do not tell me it's wrong, with a wrong suggestion by you.
Worse, your suggestion of replacing N, a dimensionless number with the
proton mass in this formula, I shall leave up to you to work out. I wish
you luck, but I will not touch your idea with a 10 ft. pole.
So the Baby still stands.
I thank you Ray and Greg for showing interest, even if both you guys were
more "wrong" then me, IF I am "wrong" indeed.
I invite professionals to investigate these 2 equations, for the payoff is
immense:
These 2 equations will yield testable yardsticks for astrophysics,
astronomy and cosmology.
I agree, let us attempt to abort these 2 babies with good and just cause.
But first let us find the right reasons to do so. I will give them up if
they are proven to become miscarriages. Til then, hammer away.
Thank you, hanson.
Ray Tomes wrote in article
<3303fae8.240786528@aklobs.org.nz>...
> >> >From: "hanson"
> >> >Subject: Hubble Constant & Cosmic Background Temp.
> >> >Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:15:51 GMT
> >>
> >> >Hubble's constant (H) & the Cosmic Background temp. (Tb)
> >> >appear to be the simple products of few physical constants.
> >> >The equations obtained and their numerical solutions are
> >>
> >> >Tb = 2/(3k) * a^2/4 * e^2/r = 2.8 K
> >>
> >> >H = [3/2 * k*Tb * a^2/4] / (N*h) = 1.93E-18 /s or 59.6 km/s per mps
> >>
> >> >a = 7.29...E-3 Finestructure constant
> >> >r = 5.29...E-9 cm, Hydrogen-Bohr radius
> >> >e^2=2.30...E-19 grcm3/s2, (e-charge)^2
> >> >k = 1.38...E-16 grcm2/(s2 K), Boltzman
> >> >h = 6.62...E-27 grcm2/s, Plank's constant
> >> >N = 6.02...E+23 Atoms/Mole, Avogardo's Number
> >> >Hubble conversion
> >> >= 3.08572...E+19 from 1/s to km/s/mps
>
> someone noted
> >> N (Avogadro's Number) ist not an physical constant as e.g. the value
of e
>
> You can solve the problem of Avogadro's number by using Mp (mass of
> proton) instead of 1/N. That will tidy up that problem.
>
> However your equation is totally wrong because the units do not give the
> correct units for H which should be (1/time).
>
> -- Ray Tomes -- rtomes@kcbbs.gen.nz -- Harmonics Theory --
> http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
> http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/rtomes/rt-home.htm
>
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:51:31 GMT
czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Allen R. Sampson (ars@mcs.com) wrote:
: : Only a philosopher could wax so poetically on this. In reality, I think
: : 99.9% of philosophy in the USA is done in bars, where no thinking occurs.
: I'd personally go out on a limb and say that that was the case for the
: majority of philosophy throughout history. Who was it that said
: (something like) "In wine, there is truth."?
Classical Athenian philosophers didn't do their philosophy in bars. They
did it on the street corners. Later on, a few of the better-moneyed ones
set up nicer places to hang out and talk (like the Academy).
: : This is not meant as a comment on philosophy, rather on the state of the
: : American culture.
: Good oxymoron! ;)
No, good oxymorons are "Canadian Identity" and "Canadian Culture."
Government policy for decades has been to prevent the formation of both
of them.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:54:04 GMT
Paul Z. Myers (myers@netaxs.com) wrote:
: In article <32D81D76.6DF8@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins
: wrote:
: > czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: > > Allen R. Sampson (ars@mcs.com) wrote:
: > >
: > > : Only a philosopher could wax so poetically on this. In reality, I think
: > > : 99.9% of philosophy in the USA is done in bars, where no thinking occurs.
: > >
: > > I'd personally go out on a limb and say that that was the case for the
: > > majority of philosophy throughout history. Who was it that said
: > > (something like) "In wine, there is truth."?
: >
: > At such philosophical conferences as I have attended in Australia, the
: > usual procedure is for the papers to get read and then everybody goes
: > off and gets plastered, and either sits together and boozily discusses
: > modal logic or stands around the nearest piano and sings very loudly
: > off-key. *This* is the One True Philosophical Method [tm], bugger
: > Descartes.
: Wow, you mean that old Monty Python skit wasn't a spoof, it was really
: true? And are all Australian philosophers named Bruce? (well, I guess
: you aren't...but maybe after enough beers everyone calls you Bruce
: anyway?)
There is far more truth in Monty Python than most people imagine.
Comedy is generally like that.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 20:59:47 GMT
ale2 (ale2@psu.edu) wrote:
: In article
: varange@crl.com (Troy Varange) writes:
: > > A PhD isn't useless. True, the knowledge you are digging up
: > > is very specialised, but the skills you learn while digging
: > > are very important: determination, skepticism, thought,
: > > rigour, etc.
: >
: > Ha, a PHD bearer is more likely to be a clueless mediocrity
: > than the common man without the degree, at least in the USA.
: But who gets hired at Microsoft Corp.?
Whoever is better at putting together buggy code.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 21:01:23 GMT
Don McKenzie (mcaldon@wavenet.com) wrote:
: In article <32D83882.6B70@wehi.edu.au>, John Wilkins
: wrote:
: [snip]
: > So far as alcohol goes, yes, it was right. However, please note that
: > about 50% of the aforementioned thinking sots were either Yanks or Brits
: > or Canadians (wot's the derogatory terms for them?). And I only know
: Canucks?
Cann't be. We call ourselves that.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: devens@uoguelph.ca (David L Evens)
Date: 14 Jan 1997 21:07:51 GMT
erikc (fireweaver@insync.net) wrote:
: On 12 Jan 1997 16:36:55 GMT
: czar@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
: as message <5bb3v7$am4$1@news.sas.ab.ca>
: -- posted from: alt.atheism:
: >|(Singing)
: >|
: >|Immanuel Kant was a real pissant,
: >|Who was very rarely stable,
: >|Heidegger, Heidegger, was a boozy beggar
: >|Who could think you under the table,
: >|David Hume could out-consume
: >|Schopenhaur and Hegel,
: >|And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
: >|Who was just as shloshed as Schegel!
: >|
: >|There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
: >|'Bout the raising of the wrist!
: >|Socrates, himself, was permanantly pissed!
: >|
: >|John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
: >|On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
: >|Plato, they say, could pack it away,
: >|Half a pint of whiskey every day,
: >|Aristotle, Aristotle, was a bugger for the bottle,
: >|Hobbes was fond of his dram,
: >|And Renee Decartes was a drinken fart,
: >|"I drink, therefore I am!"
: >|
: >|Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed,
: >|A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed!
: >|
: Where does this song come from?
This is from a sketch by Monty Python concearning Australian
philosophers. Specifically, it is the conclusion of a sketch about (at
least as it was done in _Live at the Hollywood Bowl_, which includes some
unique material and some unique extensions to more familiar sketches) the
arrival of a new member of the philosophy faculty o the University of
Watermaloo, Australia.
If you've never seen Monty Python, go rent some of their videos. They
were a very famous British ensemble comedy troop back mostly in the
70's. They had a fairly long-running TV show and a string of movies.
The curently most prominent surviving member if John Cleese (who has just
gotten out another film with Jamie Lee Curtis).
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Ring around the neutron, | "OK, so he's not terribly fearsome.
A pocket full of positrons,| But he certainly took us by surprise!"
A fission, a fusion, +--------------------------------------------------
We all fall down! | "Was anybody in the Maquis working for me?"
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
"I'd cut down ever Law in England to get at the Devil!"
"And what man could stand up in the wind that would blow once you'd cut
down all the laws?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message may not be carried on any server which places restrictions
on content.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail will be posted as I see fit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 05:18:40 GMT
In <5bfneu$3v1@nntp1.u.washington.edu> hillman@math.washington.edu
(Christopher Hillman) writes:
>
>In article <32DB0B90.3A6F@quadrant.net>,
>"Bruce C. Fielder" writes:
>
>|> If the gravitation of a black hole is such that anything falling
into a
>|> black hole will have its "time" slowed the closer it comes to the
event
>|> horizon, how does the thing form in the first place? Surely as the
>|> original mass contracts, it should slow (from our point of view)
until
>|> the original mass remains "waiting" (sorry about all the quotation
>|> marks) at the event horizon?
>|>
>|> As far as I can see, the same should hold true with the mass inside
the
>|> (soon to be) event horizon; the acceleration and gravity increases
and
>|> slows the time to infinity. So how does the thing ever form in our
>|> universe?
>
>The "picture" of a black hole you probably have in mind (really a sort
of
>map of a particular closed space-time, in the same sense that a
Mercator
>projection is a particular map of a certain curved surface) are the
>Scharwzchild coordinates, in which the "event" horizon appears as
>a cylindrical coordinate singularity. Geometrically, this cylinder
>(in the map) is really a circle (i.e. a two-sphere). There are other
>coordinate systems in which this coordinate singularity is removed.
>The best is a conformal map (preserving small shapes, like the
Mercator
>projection does for the surface of the earth) called the
Kruskal-Szekeres
>coordinates.
>
>It is true that an exterior observer (usually assumed to be stationary
>wrt to the black hole) observes nothing of the history of a particle
>after it passes through the event horizon. Moreover, as a particle
>approaches the horizon, signals from it back to more distant observers
>are extremely redshifted and also fade in intensity (exponentially in
the
>time of a distant observer, in fact, contrary to the impression left
>by the Schwarzchild coordinates that a distant observer will observe
>particles "hanging" suspended near the event horizon.
>
>Nonetheless, a particle falling into the BH (or the matter of the star
>itself as the hole is being formed) experiences nothing strange as it
passes
>through the event horizon. The event horizon is an artificial mental
construction
>(like the international date line) which has a GLOBAL significance
(this is
>the point of no return) but no LOCAL (physical) meaning. Indeed, by
>a remarkable coincidence, it turns out that you can obtain the correct
>experience according to gtr by a simple Newtonian analysis.
Specifically:
>
>Consider two particles falling straight into a gravitational source of
mass M.
>Suppose one is at radius R and the other at radius R+L (L small wrt
R).
>Then they accelerate apart relative to one another as
>
> -GM/R^2 + GM/(R+L)^2 ~ 2GML/R^3
>
>(where we expand in a power series in L, neglecting all but the first
order term).
>If we have two particles both at radius R and seperated tangentially
by L,
>they accelerate toward one another as
>
> -GM/R^2 (L/R) = -GML/R^3
>
>(by similar triangles). That is, the curvature coefficients are
2GM/R^3 radially
>and -GM/R^2 tangentially. Someone falling into a black hole is
therefore
>compressed tangentially and expanded radially by the force of gravity,
this effect
>increasing smoothly as R^(-3) right through the event horizon and down
to
>the true singularity at R=0.
>
>It is not obvious but true that these Newtonian values are in fact
correct
>according to standard gtr for a non-rotating non-charged black hole.
>I have modeled this discussion on the first few pages of the beautiful
>book Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Freeman 1970, which
>also contains a thorough discussion of many coordinate systems for
>black holes including the Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, and various
>techniques for calculating the curvatures and verifying that the
values
>given here are correct.
>
>Another way to visualize the situation is to consider a sphere of
particles
>"at infinity". They begin to fall slowly into the hole, carving a
three
>dimensional surface out in the four dimensional space-time as they do
so.
>You can readily determine the intrinsic geometry of this section using
>methods dicussed in MTW and then it turns out you can embedd this
"world-surface"
>as a sort of half-football in R^4. Again, the event horizon is simply
one of many
>spherical "latitude surfaces" on this football, and is not
distinguished in any
>way from its brethern. Incidently, such "world surfaces" form an
entire family
>of surfaces carving up the space time. There is a family of
"orthogonal" surfaces
>defined in the same way that potential curves determine streamlines in
the
>conformal mapping method of solving hydrodynamical flow problems.
These
>orthogonal surfaces are flat R^3 planes, flat right down to the
singularity!
>That is, the Scharzchild universe is a sort of four dimensonal "ruled
surface".
>A more familiar example of a (two dimensional) ruled surface is
obtained by
>taking a twisting curve in R^3 and considering the surface carved out
by its
>tangents. Typically this surface has a sharp cusp along the curve
itself;
>the true singularity as the center of a black hole arises
geometrically
>in an analogous fashion.
>
>Hope this helps!
>
>Chris Hillman
Mr. Hillman, you explained in another post that mass and kinetic
energy both contribute to the mass-energy of a particle. A body is
therefore its total mass-energy. You stated in another post that the
velocity space of a body is a Lobachevsky geometry. Mr. Archimedes
Plutonium has stated that the Lobachevsky geometry does not have a zero
reference point. Since a body with constant velocity has a non-zero
slope in the Loba geometry, it therefore has a potential energy? The
start metric of the potential energy can then be calculated because the
Loba geometry does not have a zero reference point? Could the relation
between the potential energy and inertial energy be the same as the
relation between the electric and magnetic fields? The potential field
induces an inertial field and the inertial field induces a potential
field: potential flux thereby inducing inertial flux? Since a body is
nothing but the mass-energy given by the sum of mass and kinetic
energy, then the motion of a macroscopic body is therefore the
potential-inertial propagation of the mass?
Regards,
Edward Meisner
Subject: Re: Vietmath War: If US had been parliamentary, no Vietnam war?
From: coriolan@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 05:45:28 GMT
In <5bc184$q32$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
>
> If the US had been a parliamentary form of government where all
>politicians are elected and not these cabinets that linger from one
>administration to another and really run the government. Then,
>hypothetically, is it highly likely that the Vietnam War would have
>never occurred? Or if it had, would not a parliamentary form of
>government gotten the US out quicker? One can argue that the US
Vietnam
>War was chiefly the result of foolish advisors to the president.
>
> Perhaps this is a great research inquiry as to see which form of
>democracy is superior-- the US or the UK parliamentary.
>
> In a parliamentary system, the likelihood of foolish advisors doing
>so much damage is minimized, I suspect.
>
> Same thing in mathematics, where math is run by the old geezers who
>control the math journals. They print and publish the pipsqueak little
>progress. And they do their utmost best to keep out anything that is
>big, new and exciting and important. In fact, they mostly publish
that
>which furthers their own self interests or
>you-rub-my-hand-I-rub-your-hand.
>
> The clowns that got the US into Vietnam are the same sort of
>intellectual clowns that control the mathematics publishing journals
>and who hate an idea such as Naturals = P-adics = Infinite
Integers.
Although the Democrats bear the ultimate responsibility for bogging the
US down in Vietnam, they did so in no small part to avoid looking
"soft" in the face of Republican criticism; Republicans were inclined
to hold a harder line.
I;m not sure this dynamic would have been any different under a
parliamentary system.
- CMC
Subject: Re: Where to go...........
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 05:58:18 GMT
In article
gilfrey@azstarnet.com (Gilfrey) writes:
> I am a Junior in Highschool and am taking a Physics course. I find the class
> very interesting and thus far have a B+ in there, which I am hoping to bring
> up to a solid "A". Since I find the topics in my class fascinating I thought
> perhaps I would like to get a career in this field. However, I am wonder if I
> my math skills will slow me down etc. I am currently in Algebra 2 with Trig.
> Could someone please inform me of any books that with help me improve and have
> a better understanding of both math and Physics??? I would like to take AP
> Physics next year, but I was told I would crash in burn if I did not take AP
> Calc as well. Please help your input would be very much appreciated.
>
There is a series of paperback books called "Schaum's Outline Series".
The beauty of the books is the low cost (about 13$) and the worked out
problems. By studying these books you can work backwards and figure out
what is going on. There are about 34 titles just in Mathematics alone.
A University book store should have them. You might start with:
Advanced Mathematics-- this will give you a taste of some of the more
interesting topics in math you will need if you head into physics.
or Calculus, 2nd Ed., Basic Mathematics, Vector Analysis, First Year
College Mathematics,...
Go ahead, spend the 13$
Subject: time series analysis, delay coordinate embedding, phase (state) space reconstruction
From: Eugene Kononov
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 23:31:32 -0500
I am trying to analyse a time series (one-dimensional) using
the delay coordinate embedding. The problem I have is that I
don't know the analytical methods that could help me find the
structure in the resulting N-dimensional series (after I've
done phase space reconstruction). If N <= 4, I could do it
visually by plotting the series in the N-dimensional phase space,
but what if N = 8 ? I tried to employ the following, but without
success:
Method 1:
---------
Given a series of 8-dimensional data points, such as
p1 = (a1, b1, c1, d1, e1, f1, g1, h1)
p2 = (a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2)
p3 = (a3, b3, c3, d3, e3, f3, g3, h3)
.....................................
Derive a time series of one-dimensional points that represent
the distance from each 8-dimensional point to the "center" :
p1 = sqrt( a1*a1 + b1*b1 + c1*c1 + d1*d1 + e1*e1 + f1*f1 + g1*g1 +
h1*h1)
p2 = sqrt( a2*a2 + b2*b2 + c2*c2 + d2*d2 + e2*e2 + f2*f2 + g2*g2 +
h2*h2)
p3 = sqrt( a3*a3 + b3*b3 + c3*c3 + d3*d3 + e3*e3 + f3*f3 + g3*g3 +
h3*h3)
And analyse the resulting one-dimensional series.
Method 2
--------
Given a series of 8-dimensional data points, such as
p1 = (a1, b1, c1, d1, e1, f1, g1, h1)
p2 = (a2, b2, c2, d2, e2, f2, g2, h2)
p3 = (a3, b3, c3, d3, e3, f3, g3, h3)
.....................................
Derive a time series of one-dimensional points that represent the
distance
from each 8-dimensional point to the next one:
p1 = sqrt( (a2-a1)^2 + (b2-b1)^2 + (c2-c1)^2 + ... + (h2-h1)^2)
p2 = sqrt( (a3-a2)^2 + (b3-b2)^2 + (c3-c2)^2 + ... + (h3-h2)^2)
And analyse the resulting one-dimensional series.
In both cases, I expected to see some periodic or at least a good
behaving
function, but that didn't work.
Do the above two methods have any value? What are the other techniques?
Also, can someone point me to the books/papers/websites that discuss
this problem, -- I've been doing this work using my intuition mostly.
Thank you very much,
Eugene Kononov.
Subject: Re: The Physics of Dilbert
From: memullen@aol.com (Michael E. Mullen)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 04:13:05 GMT
Joe Quellen (quellen@azstarnet.com) wrote:
: There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert's manager complains that his laptop
: is too heavy, so Dilbert suggests that he delete some files from the hard
: drive to make it lighter.
:Do '1's have a very tiny weight difference from '0's, and is it more or
: less?
Two answers:
1) Files are "erased" by changing the first byte of the directory
entry to (IIRC) E5 hex. No data is changed, just the directory entry.
(FAT is also changed to indicate free sectors.) I would have to do
some statistics to see if this has more energy than a random ascii
character.
In any case, on the disk, 'ones' are not polarity up vs 'zeros'
polarity down. This used to be the case -- I used to use a 77k 8"
floppy with my mumble years old CP/M system, and it used this scheme.
(query to non US readers -- What do you call 5 1/4 and 3 1/2 inch
floppies in the metric world?) Hasn't been used in over a decade.
This was "single density".
MFM systems (stands for 'modified frequency modulation) replaced it,
and (IIRC) has a flux change per bit -- that is, numbers of ones and
zeros the same. I think variants of this are used on current hard and
floppy disks.
2) Generally, magnets don't want to align. If you have a string of
either ones or zeros, you have more energy stored than in an
alternating string. E=mc^2, so the extra energy shows up as a mass
increase -- probably of the order of an extra atom or two, and NO I
will not do the calculations.
Mike Mullen
--
Michael E. Mullen
MEMullen@aol.com and others...
Subject: Re: The "force" of gravity? Please explain.
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:32:29 GMT
mj17624@janus.swipnet.se wrote:
: Until you have some new explanation, I think it is meaningless to
: discuss with you. I think I have made my point (although you don't
: understand it), and you keep repeating the same statements over and
: over again.
I'm sorry, I became interested in this time dilation
thing, and it is really bothering me. Wayne Thorpe made
several statements about clocks slowing due to velocity,
and also in gravity wells that are deeper, such as Saturn,
which has much more mass than the Earth, but not too different
a surface gravity.
As I have been saying, in Divergent Matter, the surface
of a planet has a hidden upward radial velocity, and it seems
this might allow an explanation why clocks slow due to velocity,
and larger planets have a higher hidden velocity of the surface
in Divergent Matter, and this seems to be consistent.
I can't come up with a new explanation for how
Divergent Matter works, it is a model built on a minimum
of postulates, and it has to support itself.
Do you accept that the surface has a hidden outward
velocity resulting from all past outward acceleration,
and that this velocity is a constant in current meters?
Do you accept that a rocket fired from the surface
increases it's velocity over that of the surface, and
continues on without stopping until the surface catches up?
And this means that any object that appears to stop
it's upward flight and appears to start falling back, is
actually still moving away from the center of the Earth.
This motion enters into the equation of freefall
in Divergent Matter, and accounts for part of the illusion
we observe.
: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer) wrote:
: > I'm still working on ways to present the model
: >to allow 3D people to understand 4D physics, I won't
: >give up, but it is a difficult problem, the restrictions
: >of Usenet text modes makes it more difficult.
:
: You can send a binary file. I'm curious to see if you really can
: explain dependance of mass and distance.
It isn't the file type, it's partly the resolution, and
I can't prepare a bitmap graphics presentation either, I am
not able.
The acceleration is almost totally proportional to mass,
I don't see how you have a problem with this.
If you have two spheres of the same material, one having
twice the radius of the other, and the first has a 1 g surface
gravity, the second will have a 2 g surface gravity, and this
is true in Newtonian gravitation, and it is true in Divergent
Matter. For the same density material, surface gravity is
directly proportional to radius.
If you can buy this, I'll work on the distance part,
: >: SR does not describe accelerated motion.
: Sorry, guess I was wrong.
That is a common misconception about SR, I think
maybe even some schools teach that SR can't handle acceleration,
but it can very well, it just can't handle gravity.
: >: Take another look at QED. In it, photons do just that (of course they
: >: only affect charged particles, but the principle is the same)
: >: Mathias Ljungberg
: > Photons don't "pull" at large distances. If they
: >did, you could apply pulsating DC to an antenna, and it
: >would either push things or pull them depending on the
: >polarity.
: > If that works, great, it will make fantastic
: >things possible.
:
: Have you heard about electromagnets ? :-)
Yes, and I have seen big ones, and they have very
little range, and only work on certain materials.
A couple of people feel that electrostatic charge
can explain gravity, but I think we would notice the static
electricity.
: > But I don't think gravity works
: >that way.
: I see no reason why not.
It would be nice if it did, we might be able
to control it then, but wishing will not make it so.
That is one thing about Divergent Matter, it
clearly shows that gravity cannot be controlled, it
works perfect all the time.
: BTW, when I referred to the strong nuclear force, I meant the weak.
I'm sure you know more about that than I do,
I do expect more unification than the electro-weak though.
I'm not sure where the forces that hold the quarks
in place comes from.
Ken Fischer
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: martins@cadvision.com (S Martin)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 06:00:41 GMT
In article <5bd3k1$5d4@emeldir.dd.chalmers.se>, smidt@dd.chalmers.se (Peter Smidt) says:
>
>In article <5b105c$qvo@elmo.cadvision.com>,
>S Martin wrote:
>>
>> As for the evidence of the Martian origin, the isotopic ratios of oxygen
>>in the rock match those of other meteors from Mars, ones having inert gasses
>>trapped in the pores that match the distinctive Martian atmosphere (eg,
>>less light elements like neon and more heavy ones like xenon) - totally
>>distinctive and unique to the planet, and thoroughly measured by Viking.
>
>Strange... Shouldn't the Mars atmosphere change at least a little bit during
>all that millions of years, now you say that the inert gasses is exactly the
>same as those on Mn Mars?!?
>
>/Mvh Peter Smidt
>
The rocks containing the gasses are fairly young - 200,000,000 years or
so, if I remember correctly. Or, to put it another way, 1/20th the age of
Mars' atmosphere. There's no reason why the atmosphere should be much
different - there's signs that it's lost a lot of lighter elements, and
has more argon-38 than Earth (Earth's missing argon-38 is part of the
evidence in favour of the idea that Earth once lost its atmosphere - in the
collision that resulted in the moon...).
The famous "life rock" is by far the oldest Martian meteorite known, at
4,000,000,000 years old. If IT contained gasses, I WOULD expect them to be
different.
-Steve Martin.
Subject: Re: More Mars Rock Crock!
From: martins@cadvision.com (S Martin)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 06:14:06 GMT
In article <32d94358.0@news.cranfield.ac.uk>, Simon Read says:
>
>fcrary@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) wrote:
>>No. S/L-9 was a very unusual exception. It was captured by Jupiter,
>
>"Captured" means it stopped being in sun-orbit and started being in
>Jupiter-orbit. This simply didn't happen. Compare Shoemaker-Levy's
>approach speed with the speed of Jupiter's satellites relative to the
>collision. S-L 9 was travelling MUCH faster, hence couldn't have
>been in orbit round Jupiter.
>
>>and made at least
>>one orbit around Jupiter before impacting.
>
>Shoemaker-Levy certainly did NOT make an orbit around Jupiter, or even
>a partial orbit around Jupiter. S-L 9 was in orbit around the sun, period.
>
>If S-L 9 was in orbit around Jupiter, then its crash into the atmosphere
>would have been different: it would have come in at a very shallow angle,
>skimming along for a while and gradually dropping in. This would have
>left a long, long trail through the atmosphere, probably many times
>round Jupiter. It definitely didn't do this: it just bored straight in.
>All we saw at first was a single, confined impact site, which means it
>was coming in very steeply. Definitely not in orbit round Jupiter.
>
I heard otherwise (shrug). But your argument against it having been in
Jovian orbit doesn't make sense. The orbit was so eccentric that the
perijove was way under Jupiter's surface, and extremely elliptical. One suitable
for orbiting neutron stars, not planets! Orbits have nothing to do with the
nature (except for mass) of the object they circle, unless, of course,
they intersect it. So S-L 9 was in an orbit utterly unlike that of the
moons, one that had it going down at full speed and passing Jupiter at the
distance of about Saturn's radius. Or at least making the attempt...
Makes sense to me. Wish someone would post the orbital specs, including
hypothetical perijove speed, of S-L 9!
-Steve Martin.
Subject: Can a Black Hole have a Charge?
From: John Jordano
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:17:27 -0800
Given the condition that an excess of positively charged particles were
to fall into a black hole, would the black whole exhibit a positive
charge?
My intuition says "Yes," but if so, how does the "information" about the
charge inside of the event horizon get communicated outside of the
horizon? It's my understanding that the effect of a charge is carried
by the electromagnetic force, and that the force carrying particle for
the EM force are photons. If photons can't escape from a black hole,
then how can the black hole exhibit the positive charge?
If you accept the reverse, though, and assume that a black hole would
*not* exhibit any excess positive or negative charge it had swallowed,
then you can "destroy" charge by letting it fall into the black hole,
which violates the principle of conservation of charge.
Similarly, how does a black hole exhibit gravity? If you take for
granted that a black hole exhibits gravity (one of it's defining
features), then how does the force of gravity get transmitted? We don't
have any evidence to support it, but let's assume for a moment there are
force carrying particles for gravity, as there are for other three
forces, and let's call them gravitons. For gravity to be exhibited by
the black hole, gravitons must be emitted by the black hole. The
definition of the event horizon of a black hole, however, is that
nothing can ever leave. Am I missing something, or is this a
contradiction in our current understanding of black holes?
Subject: Re: twin paradox
From: carnold@kiva.net (Christopher Arnold)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:31:40 GMT
Any discussion of time dilation requires looking at two frames of
reference moving with respect to each other at some significant
fraction of the speed of light. The twin paradox is an interesting
case because the two frames of reference are initially, and at the
end, the same. Because of this though, Special Relativity (SR) alone
cannot account for the effects since it deals only with uniform
motion. (If the twins only experienced this, they would die together
on Earth). It is therefore necessary to move on to General
Relativity.
I got some flak for saying that "acceleration slows the clock", but I
stand by it. SR states time dilation as a function of velocity which
is fine for frames drift happily drift around (albeit at significant
percentages of the speed of light). GR however, describes how time
changes with respect to non-uniform or accelerated frames of reference
such as an accelerating space craft or a person in a gravity well. It
must be invoked in this instance. (A glib way to say this is: as
acceleration changes the speed at which space goes by, it also changes
the speed at which time goes by). SR is just the specialized case.
>"Another frustration I have, is that everybody
>on the surface of the Earth are accelerated at 1 g
>constantly, but they don't know it. :-)" Ken Fischer
This is true. And time is slowed down correspondingly. (This is more
apparent in the case of a Black Hole, but it is never the less true on
Earth.) The only difference between this and acceleration in a space
craft is that the ground prevents us from gaining significant
velocity.
>throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
>: [] but which is it, velocity or acceleration that causes time dilation,
>: I mean true slowing of clocks so they never read the same time when
>: brought back together, even the ticks may coincide.
>
>In SR, velocity. In GR, depth in a potential.
>In neither of them does "acceleration cause time dilation".
>See the twin paradox section of the relaivity FAQ.
>
By "Potential" I assume you mean in an accelerated frame of reference.
CA
>
>http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/relativity.html
>
>The point is, the twin that accelerates will have an "average velocity"
>higher than the one that doesn't, no matter which inertial coordinate
>system it is measured in. If you measure it in a coordinate system
>where one leg of the accelerating twin's trip is at a lower velocity
>than the non-accelerating twin, the rest of the trip has to make up the
>difference to "catch up with" the twin.
>
Higher average velocity compared to what?. There are only two frames
of reference. They define velocity and neither has priority over the
other.
CA
>The net result is, that while either twin can be going "faster" on any
>single trip segment, but overall, not accelerating gives the
>"straighter" path to the meeting point, and thus the path of least
>average velocity. So acceleration doesn't cause the dilation, it just
>means you are not on the direct path through spacetime, and will be
>forced to end with a net higher velocity.
>
>This is like driving in a car (except with hyperbolic geometry instead
>of euclidean). If you turn off the straight route, you'll be forced to
>go a longer distance, and your odometer will register more miles. But
>it isn't quite right to say that the turn itself *causes* your odometer
>to tick over more: it's the route you take that causes that. So,
>substitute "acceleration" for "turn" and "inertial" for "straight",
>"velocity" for "angle between path", and you've got it.
>
>See also http://sheol.org/throopw/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
>
>It is velocity alone that sets time dilation in motion.
Sorry, your wrong.
ca
>--
>Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
> throopw@cisco.com
Chris Arnold
Subject: Re: Astrology: statistically proven now!
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 14 Jan 1997 19:39:58 GMT
Which is meaningless tripe since the same argument applies to the coffee
cup I just set down and the car which just drove by.
What's your sign: I'm a Ford with a cusp in expresso and dust bunnies
ascending.
Paddy Spencer wrote in article
<5bge8l$oif@red.parallax.co.uk>...
> David Schaafsma wrote:
>
> >lbsys@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >evidence is not enough to prove that astrology has a real scientific
> >basis. I have always understood astrology to include things like the
> >influence of the planets on people's psychological makeup.
>
> This has probably been said many times before, but are you aware that
> quantum mechanics and cosmology _demand_ that astrology, meaning the
> effects of the planets on the lives of humans, is a genuine effect?
>
> Viz: the Copenhagen interpretation states that once two quantum
> mechanical particles have interacted, they form a single quantum
> system for ever after, with (apparent) FTL signalling and so on (cf.
> woolly EPR explanations by bewildered QM exponents) which includes
> instantaneous effects on parts of the system by other parts which may
> be physically separated by large distances.
>
> (Hands up if you can see where this is leading yet...)
>
> Furthermore, as matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed (barring
> uncertainty relations, pair production and the like), only changed in
> its state, all matter currently in existence must have been present in
> the Big Bang and subsequent expansion. As all matter in the universe
> was once crammed into a space smaller than the Planck length, all
> matter in the universe has interacted quantum mechanically with all
> other matter in the universe and so the whole shebang is one large
> interacting quantum system.
>
> Which means that the collections of atoms that form the planets have a
> very definite quantum mechanical effect on the collections of atoms
> that form people.
>
> Food for thought... hope you don't choke on it!
>
> --
> Paddy Spencer Parallax Solutions Ltd (http://www.parallax.co.uk/)
> "A (pseudo)random number generator is much like sex: when it's good it's
> wonderful, and when it's bad it's still pretty good." -- G. Marsaglia
>
>
Subject: Re: sunrise sunset
From: "Michael D. Painter"
Date: 15 Jan 1997 01:05:09 GMT
It does, but requires unusual atmospheric conditions.
Langenburg High School wrote in article
<32DC20B6.2FCF@sasknet.sk.ca>...
> Hello out there!
> Light is split into colours by diffraction methods such as using
> a prism, by reflection and refraction as in a rainbow, and it seems to be
> split by scattering (blue sky in the day, red, orange, at sunset). Why is
> there green in the other light splitting occurrences, but there is no
> green in the sunrise or sunset? If you could reply by email, I would
> appreciate it (I'll likely not find my way back to wherever I am now.)
>
> Tim
>
Subject: GR Problem:Restated
From: gpenney@thezone.net (George Penney)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 06:58:51 GMT
When Einstein put forth his Equivalence Principal using the elevator thought experiment,He reasoned that a beam of Light entering the elevator through a window(lets say located 1/4 from the 'top'),would curve 'downward'and hit the opposite side at a lo
wer point then where it entered,he concluded that a lightbeam would also bend in the presence of a Gravatational Field produced by a Mass.Simple enought so far.Now lets carry this to the limit!!.If we increse the acceleration the radius of curvature will
get smaller thus the beam will hit the opposite wall further down.If we keep on increasing the acceleration the beam will eventualy hit the floor then move from right to left across the floor and up the opposite wall toward the point where it entered.With
just the right amount of acceleration the beam will again bend away from where it entered but this time it will continue to loop in a circle forever not striking either wall! No:1.What will be the acceleration of the elevator(in m/sec^2),to produce this
effect? No:2.What will be the diameter of the circle of light?What would be the limit to how small it could be!!!(if you wish and if need be assign your own dimensions to the elevator).When I first posted this on sci.physics as"GR Problem",some of the re
sponses ranged from "This is totally incorrect" to "The light would not circle but bend enough to strike the floor on the right side of the elevator.I'll do some explaining here as I don't think you seen what I was getting at.First no one did answer what
acceleration would cause this bend.Also just a the beam was bending downward suppose the elevator accelerated to the RIGHT,to the observer inside he would see the beam of light go to the LEFT.Now we accelerate the elevator downward thus he would see it b
end upwards and so on untill by accelerating the elevator in a circular fasion the observer should see the light beam in a somewhat circular orbit.Secondly the important thing to note here is the equivalence of acceleration and MASS,for if the acceleratio
n is changed it affects the light beam and if we were talking about light passing close to a large mass the amount of mass would determine how much the light would bend.If we change the amount of mass we alter the curvature of the light.With this in mind
what would be the right amount of mass to cause a light beam to orbit it?(I'll take a few punches on this).If you say light has no mass so therefore it would not go into orbit the way a body of mass would(say a planet around a star),keep in mind that it
must follow the curvature of space that the mass produces,not a newtonian force.Would it make any difference if the rotation of the mass were increased to maximum thereby causing spacetime to drag around it.Thirdly what would be the elevator equivalent of
light going into a black hole?(in terms of the elevators acceleration).Don't reply with it would enter the elevator and not come back out because in the original problem it would not go back out through the window it entered.And I forbid you to put a win
dow on the other side or other such trickry since this is my thought experiment and my set conditions. G
eorge Penney
George Penney
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: hillman@math.washington.edu (Christopher Hillman)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 08:49:13 GMT
In article <5bh4ud$oe9@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, mlerma@math.utexas.edu (Miguel Lerma) writes:
|> Christopher Hillman (hillman@math.washington.edu) wrote:
|> [...]
|> > Nonetheless, a particle falling into the BH (or the matter of the star
|> > itself as the hole is being formed) experiences nothing strange as it passes
|> > through the event horizon. The event horizon is an artificial mental construction
|>
|> Let me ask a follow up question. In Schwarchild's coordinates the
|> particle passes through the event horizon at time t = infinity.
|> However, Hawking has shown that a black hole cannot last until
|> t = infinity, it will evaporate first. If by the time the particle
|> enters the black hole it does not exist any more, how can it do it?
|> Someone told me that the "paradox" comes from an improper mixture of
|> classical and quantum physics,
I would agree with that, as far as it goes. Another way of putting this would be
to guess that Schwarchild coordinates are inappropriate for analyzing events near
the horizon, because of the coordinate singularity there.
|> but I would appreciate any more detailed
|> explanation about how matter can fall inside an evaporating (non rotating
|> and non charged) black hole.
Sorry, can't help you there. I have a good geometric understanding of the purely
classical theory (attained through self study of Misner-Thorne-Wheeler), but I
cannot claim to know much about quantum mechanics in general or Hawking's work
in particular. Hopefully someone who is familar with Hawking's computations will
be tempted to attempt an answer to your question.
Chris Hillman
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Why negative ground?
From: jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 04:43:02 GMT
From article <5bh1kc$86e@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu>, by kinsler@bobcat.ent.ohiou.edu (Mark Kinsler):
>
> Hasn't bothered much of anyone really, and it has nothing whatever to do
> with negative vs. positive grounds. Electrons don't do the "work" any
> more than positive ions in most conductive devices ...
In copper, electrons are mobile. In semiconductors, electrons and positive
holes are mobile. In ice, protons and negative holes are mobile. The
designation of one kind of charge carrier as positive and the other as
negative is entirely arbitrary, as is the choice of thich leg of a DC
power supply should be grounded.
I have a computer, for example, with supply voltages of -15, 0 and +3
volts, and with logic signals of -3 for true and 0 for false. It was
made in 1965 by DEC, and in fact, all of DEC's pre TTL computers used those
logic levels.
Doug Jones
jones@cs.uiowa.edu
Subject: Einstein 9
From: Jack Sarfatti
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 21:43:22 -0800
Einstein and Planck prove the reality of atoms.
Departures from Brownian motion are important in the modern fractal
strange attractor theory of the classical chaos of natural
macro-processes like the stock market and nerve excitations in the
cortex and the heart. Indeed, Bohm’s hidden-variable theory has the
strange fractal attractors for the motion of the rocklike
hidden-variables constructed from the thoughtlike quantum pilot-wave
attached to them. If we throw in a direct self-organizing “back-action”
from the rocklike classical hidden-variable to its attached thoughtlike
quantum pilot-wave, we have the new, relatively simple and visualizable,
universal post-quantum mechanics of individual conscious complex
adaptive systems such as our own mind-brains and any other alien
extra-terrestrial intelligences that the universe may suddenly surprise
us with.
“... Brownian motion, and related ... fluctuation phenomena ... in
essence rest upon classical molecular mechanics. Not acquainted wirh the
investigations of Boltzmann and Gibbs, which had appeared earlier and
actually exhausted the subject. I developed the statistical mechanics
and the molecular-kinetic theory of thermodynamics based upon it. My
principal aim in this was to find facts that would guarantee as much as
possible the existence of atoms of definite finite size. ... I
discovered that ... there would have to be a movement of suspended
microscopic particles capable of being observed, without knowing that
observations concerning the Brownian motion were already long familiar.
The simplest derivation rested upon the following consideration. If the
molecular kinetic theory is essentially correct, a suspension of visible
particles must possess the same kind of osmotic pressure satisfying the
gas laws as a solution of molecules. This osmotic pressure depends upon
the actual magnitude of the molecules, i.e., upon the number of
molecules in a gram-equivalent. If the density of the suspension is
inhomogeneous, the osmotic pressure is inhomogeneous too and gives rise
to a compensating diffusion, which can be calculated from the known
mobility of the particles. This diffusion can, on the other hand, also
be considered the result of the random displacement -- originally of
unknown magnitude -- of the suspended particles owing to thermal
agitation. By comparing the amounts obtained for the diffusion current
from both types of reasoning, one obtains quantitatively the statistical
law for these displacements, i.e., the law of the Brownian motion. The
agreement if these considerations with experience together with Planck’s
determination of the true molecular size from the law of radiation (for
high temperatures) convinced the skeptic, who were quite numerous at
that time ... of the reality of atoms.”
Einstein’s gentle warning to naive positivist fundamentalist skeptics.
Einstein also remarks that the hostility of positivists, the secular
fundamentalists of science, hindered progress in physics.
“... even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be hindered
in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices. The
prejudice -- which has by no means disappeared -- consists in the belief
that facts by themselves can and should yield scientific knowledge
without free conceptual construction. Such a misconception is possible
only because one does not easily become aware of the free choice of such
concepts, which, through success and long usage, appear to be
immediately connected with the empirical material.”
Subject: Re: Numbers
From: davis_d@spcunb.spc.edu (David K. Davis)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 05:19:44 GMT
Leonard Timmons (ltimmons@mindspring.com) wrote:
: Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz wrote:
: >
: > Leonard Timmons wrote:
: > >Is the duality between mind and matter equivalent
: > >to the duality between numbers and numerals?
: >
: > The duality between mind and matter is isomorphous to the duality between
: > fish and bicycles.
:
: Hey, I think you are making fun of me. Someday, when I start taking myself
: seriously, I'm going to be upset. ;-)
:
: In the mean time, though ...
:
: Does anyone out there believe that numbers (not numerals) actually
: exist (what ever that means) and on what basis are you making that
: claim?
:
: My second question: Does anyone out there believe that numerals
: actually exist and on what basis are you making that claim?
:
: Go ahead, make fun of me. I can take it.
I would say he's spoking fun at you. But you have to expect this if you
ask metafishical questions. At least you didn't fall for it hook line and
sinker.
If you mean to be serious, I would say first that numerals are just
notation for numbers and are therefore social constructs. Numbers,
however, have a significance beyond social convention. Pi, I believe
will be discovered by intelligent life where ever and whenever it arises.
Matter and reality inhabit the space of abstract logical possibility. The
most elementary and accessible parts of this space are known to us as
mathematics.
-Dave D.
Subject: Re: Why do Black Holes Form at all?
From: hillman@math.washington.edu (Christopher Hillman)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 09:32:09 GMT
In article <5bhpbg$hfq@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen Meisner) writes:
|> Mr. Hillman, you explained in another post that mass and kinetic
|> energy both contribute to the mass-energy of a particle.
Yes, the total energy (expanded in a power series in v) is
m/Sqrt{1-v^2} ~ m + (1/2) m v^2 + (3/8) m v^4 + ...
where the first term is the mass, the second term is the Newtonian
value for the kinetic energy, and the remaining terms may be considered
relativistic corrections to the kinetic energy (which are important only
for values of v close to 1).
|> You stated in another post that the
|> velocity space of a body is a Lobachevsky geometry.
Yes, The velocity space is space of forward pointing unit vectors, which
can act as tangent vectors to world lines; the spacelike components of such
vectors are interpreted as the components of the velocity and the timelike
component gives the time dilation rate at that event (for a clock carried
with the particle, relative to the rest frame).
|> Mr. Archimedes
|> Plutonium has stated that the Lobachevsky geometry does not have a zero
|> reference point.
In the same sense that ordinary euclidean space does not have any distinguished
points, he is correct. The euclidean plane, the ordinary sphere, the Lobachevsky
"hyperbolic" space (topologically a plane and thus often called "the hyperbolic
plane") and the velocity space of tachyons (topologically a cylinder) are all
surfaces of constant curvature and thus have no geometrically distinguished points.
Thus, the choice of an origin for any coordinate system is arbitrary. The
euclidean plane has constant curvature zero, and can be given the familiar
Cartesian coordinates. The remaining surfaces have constant nonzero curvature
and cannot be given a Cartesian coordinate system; in fact, the sphere cannot
be given ANY global coordinate system (i.e. one which avoids coordinate
singularities at all points) whereas the others can be given global, nicely
behaved conformal coordinate systems. One popular conformal system for
the Lobachevsky space was introduced by Poincare and maps this space onto
a disk of unit radius (with the geodesics represented as circular arcs
whose ends are orthogonal to the bounding circle). A good conformal
system for the tachyon velocity space is the exact analog of the Mercator
projection for the sphere (it represents lightlike geodesics as straight
line segments).
|> Since a body with constant velocity has a non-zero slope in the Loba geometry,
Unfortunately present technology does not support the drawing of a freehand
picture or two which would have greatly clarified my posting discussing
velocity spaces. In fact, a body with constant velocity (i.e. whose world
line has a constant unit tangent vector all along the world line) is
represented in the velocity space by a POINT. On the other hand, a body
with a curved world line experiences accelerations and such a world line
corresponds in the velocity space to a curve; in the case of constant
acceleration this curve is a geodesic (topologically a line) on the
Lobachevsky space. "Velocity space" is called that because its POINTS
correspond to possible values for the velocity associated with a
particular event on a given body's world line.
What you wrote after the quoted remark seemed pretty far off the mark to
me--- possibly because of the misunderstanding just noted.
Chris Hillman
Subject: Re: 1 / 2^.5 or 2^.5 / 2?
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 18:57:48 GMT
jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
| davk@netcom.com (David Kaufman) writes:
| >
| >The square root of 2 can be written in Basic computer language
| >as follows: 2^.5 or 2^(1/2) or SQR(2).
| =======
|
| If this is valid Basic, no wonder it is commonly said that those
| who learn Basic first are often crippled for life as programmers.
| That expression is equal to 1 in other high-level languages.
Pursuant to Eric's clever observation about the literal use of this
pseudo-Tex expression in C, it was always my intent that one first
express it in the usual way of doing exponentiation. And, of course,
the main reason BASIC does not even make the top 8 of "first languages"
used for CS teaching is more due to its discouragement of structured
programming methods than any differences in how it interprets
arithmetic statements. Actually, I don't know what it does, but I
can spot BASIC written in C (only global variables!) in my student's
code from 10 paces away.
Simon Read writes:
>
>rubbish nonsense rubbish nonsense drivel nonsense garbage
>spew bilge tosh tripe rhubarb moonshine nonsense hogwash
>
>2^(1/2) is the square root of two unless you deliberately do
>something strange, like using integer variables.
But that is exactly what the original author did, using a real
constant (0.5) in the first formula and an integer expression
(1/2) in the second. I will add that it is not unusual for semi-
experienced programmers (CS majors, after the C++ course) to make
the mistake of directly transcribing the printed equation that
results from that TeX expression into code that uses 1/2 = 0 as
the exponent in the pow function. More than half, usually.
>There are some finer points of FORTRAN where you can ask for integers,
>or possibly get things evaluated as integers
>_by not using any decimal points_
Of course, decimal points were not used in the above statements, but
my reason for this response is the reference to Fortran, an urban
legend that might explain why students who write in C might think
they are immune to it. They are not. Ditto for Ada, altough the
strong-typing might make you notice what you were doing.
>No way does BASIC cause people to be crippled for life as programmers.
>BASIC bears a strong resemblance to FORTRAN and Pascal, as a matter
>of fact,
There are modern versions of it that have logical structures, independent
subprogram modules with private data, etc, but the original language is
an abomination.
>It was invented as a teaching tool.
Pascal was invented as a teaching tool. BASIC was invented so you
could write very crude programs on exceedingly primitive computers,
AFAIK. If it was invented as a teaching tool, who is guilty?
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: *** CRESCENT MOON VISIBILITY Thu 9 Jan 1997, evening ***
From: jac@ibms46.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Date: 9 Jan 1997 19:15:33 GMT
mnd@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (Mohib N Durrani) wrote:
} Bismillah hir-Rahman nir-Rahim
} ( In the name of ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful )
}
} THE MUSLIM STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION (MSA) of COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
} 102 Earl Hall, Columbia University, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10027
Alan \"Uncle Al\" Schwartz writes:
>
>Get a good dictionary. Look up "fetish."
>
>Sterculius is giggling; so is Zool, the worm who forever eats his tail,
>and the big stack of tortoises - each and every one of them!
Uncle Al, remember that you represent a culture that sets one of its
major events by the full moon and the equinox, and that blew up a
hotel at 0500 GMT to celebrate one of its calendar-based holidays.
The Islamic calendar is based on the actual physical sighting of
the crescent moon, as you will note in your dictionary.
Anyway, I am really posting to call your attention to an article
in Tuesday's (7 jan 97) Wall Street Journal concerning the use of
computers to predict when the month will start. Useful in places
where even the sun is rarely sighted in winter. ;-) The article
quotes a member of the World Muslim League as saying "How can you
say six months before that it will happen on that day? You're not
the One that controls the universe."
--
James A. Carr | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Subject: Re: PH.D.s are useless
From: rfedrick@msn.com (Richard Fedrick)
Date: 15 Jan 97 09:21:54 -0800
candy@mildred.ph.utexas.edu (Jeff Candy) wrote
>The best traders at present are not typically Ph.D.'s. The best
>quantitative analysts are. A "good" trader for BZW (Barclay's) on
>Wall Street will make about 1,500,000 US per year, although it is
>a very tough job to be a "good" trader. A good quant. will make
>about 500,000 US per year. Enough to see you through the stress,
>chain-smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse and heart disease to come?
>After a relatively low threshold (say, well below 100,000 US per
>year) more money has only a weak influence on happiness. I'm
>sure lots of traders would pay a fortune to have a nice physique,
>or to be as happy as the surfer they see on rare occasion at the
>beach.
------------------------------------------------------------------
as one of the many who have made the move (theoretical physics ->
finance), i would endorse a lot of the above. the figures are in the
right ballpark too - anthony potts' numbers were a little
inflated.... unfortunately . however i think he overdoes the
"stress, chain-smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse etc" thing. while
there are undoubtedly some stress-victims in finance, i don't think
it is exactly endemic. i would doubt that my industry has more
stress-related problem cases than e.g. doctors or flight controllers.
it would be nice to earn a good living as a surfer but i just haven't
seen any ads recently in the jobs pages. maybe i read the wrong
newspaper.
Subject: Re: Why do stars collapse?
From: hillman@math.washington.edu (Christopher Hillman)
Date: 15 Jan 1997 09:58:30 GMT
In article <32DBBDEB.42415D54@alcyone.com>,
Erik Max Francis writes:
|> Peter Diehr wrote:
|>
|> > > Black Holes in the GR sense remain hypothetical.
|> >
|> > You haven't been following the news very closely, have you?
|>
|> There is still no positive, undeniable evidence that a black hole exists.
|> I think it's safe to say that most physicists are pretty sure there exist,
|> an we have some convincing candidates, but there isn't quite the degree of
|> certainty yet that would warrant your objection.
By coincidence Ramesh Narayan (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
has just announced the apparent direct observation of hot gas disappearing
into the event horizon of a black hole (one member of the double star
V404Cyg in the constellation Cygnus, only 10,000 light years from Earth.)
Apparently their observations confirm a recent theoretical prediction
that gas being sucked into a hole can become superheated. Narayan
said that object "seems to be swallowing nearly a hundred times as
much energy as it radiates". In comparison, in the case of several
other double stars his team studied, hot gas was observed flashing as
it impacted the surface of a dense object interpreted as a neutron star.
Furthermore, Douglas Richstone (University of Michigan) just announced
the discovery of three new supercompact dark objects (presumably
black holes) with masses in the range 50-500 x 10^6 solar masses.
These objects were detected by their violent gravitational effects
on nearby stars, and they are all within 50 million light years of
the Earth.
So evidence continues to accumulate that black holes not only exist but
are quite common.
Chris Hillman
