Newsgroup sci.physics 217125

Directory

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:32:17 -0500, "A.J. Tolland" 
wrote:
:I
:don't recall any beautiful connections between e and pi, but I do recall
:that he found connections between some of the other, lesser known
:transcendental and irrational numbers.
Try e^(Pi i) = -1

Dear Michael Painter
You recently posted some weird remarks about the awesome "Revolution in
the Understanding of Weather" at http://www.weather.org     I request
again some information: What are your qualifications as a meteorologist
or for anything else?
Michael D. Painter wrote:
> 
> I've held for some time that our culture does not put much importance on
> education. Bake sales are for bands or soccer, never books or science.
> 
> Many of the people here add fuel to this belief.
> 
> A teacher gives a class an assignment designed to make them think, to learn
> to solve problems.
> Rather than do this the student asks someone for the answer and the people
> here do it for them.
> How to keep an ice cube frozen for 5 hours is the latest.
> With luck the kid will grow up and work at McDonald's.
>

[Moderator's note: I urge Galbraith and anyone intending to reply to 
this post to look at the current thread on sci.physics.research
entitled "Re: A paradox in thermodynamics", which is of some relevance. - jb]
I was just wondering the other day....(I am not an expert in physics, so
sorry if this seems silly)
Of course, as a substance reaches O Kelvin, the molecular motion
(rotation, translation, etc.) slows, theoretically stopping at 0 K.  My
question is would all atomic motion stop if it reached that temperature
(would electrons cease to orbit the nucleus)?  
Also, is it possible that since an object at absolute zero would have bo
kinetic energy, it would completely collapse and form a singularity of
sorts?
Thanks...
Please reply by e-mail:  apg@att.net.hk
-----------
Andrew Galbraith
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/5112

Mike Schneider wrote:
> 
> > The highest earners around are traders in the financial markets. The vast
> > majority of traders hve a degree in a numerate subject, many have advanced
> > degrees, such as MBAs.
> >
> While this is true for most cases it is not for all.  Also, it does not
> make it false for non-degreed people.
> 
> > Whilst you may like to believe that the people with these degrees will
> > never do as well as the people without, the truth is somewhat different.
> > Within about three years of leaving college, they can expect to earn
> > around 300 000 dollars per annum.
> >
> > From there, it only goes upwards, very very quickly.
> >
> Not always, as I stated above.
> This is what it is all about.  Performance, not education is what makes a
> person successful.
We're discussing the situation of employment in a chaotic (for lack of a
better description) economy.  We're moving into THE age of information
(what we are told), and also into to age where the supply of information
is likely to ultimately overwhelm the demand for it (what we are not
told).  (The world is collectively becoming more educated [but don't ask
me to qualify "educated"], information is becoming cheaper -- free in
the case of the internet, and new information for the most part adds to
the old, does not *replace* it, etc.)  We have also been in the
expansion phase of an unpredictable economic cycle for the last several
years further clouding the picture (there is more "slush" money
available for things like R&D;, consultants, impact studies, etc).  So,
any argument based on what's been happening now is vulnerable.  The only
thing we can be sure of, is that supply and demand will dictate how
valuable a PHD will be: The greater numbers of PHDs (and there are), the
less they can demand, all things equal (as in their respective
capabilities in the workplace).  To balance this "free market" reality,
PHDs will have to demonstrate that they are bringing greater
capabilities into the workplace, and that those capabilities can be
translated into a commodity that is given value by the free market.  
Are they?

"Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of Hiroshima."

>>>: > 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.
>>Shuuuuush ....! *They* don't know that!
>>The real reason why there's no derogatory term for Canadians is that there
>>is never any need for such a term.
>Either that or it is redundant. ;-)
Isn't "canuck" the sound you hear when you hit a baby seal
over the head with a club?

Paul Budnik wrote:
[snip]
> a local chaotic process and irreducibly random observations. Fortunately
> we know through the work of Bell and others how to construct
> practical experiments that can distinguish between these possibilities.
[snip]
Not necessarily so, recent work on the logic of Quantum mechanics is 
very clear that there is a fundamental problem with Bell's (and others)
work in that "Bells inequality" is founded on bivalent logic whereas
the evaluations made in the experiments are not.
The work is bay Rachel Garden; 
"Logic, States, and Quantum Probabilities" International
Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1996.
"According to the logical analysis of quantum theory, the failure of
Bell's inequality is not only _not_ paradoxical, _it_ _is_ _expected_.
Whenever maximal valuations are not bivalent, these inequatlities fail."
This means that EPR tests do not disprove a hidden variable scheme
unless you can show that hidden variables must always produce bivalent
maximal valuations.
[snip]
> I do not expect anyone to change their conceptual framework
> based on the above arguments but I do think they are a compelling reason
> to give greater thought and attention to experimental tests of Bell's
> inequality.
[snip]
I'm doing my best to do just that.
John
Schroedinger's cat leave you half dead?
  Try
    http://www.murphy.gen.nz/murphy

On Tue, 21 Jan 1997 yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU wrote:
> You write:
> >Since you are in a Faraday cage there is no potential gradient inside.  
> >Therefore no charge enters the cage beyond some skin depth on the outer 
> >surface of the cage, which we will assume is small compared to the wall 
> >thickness.
> >
> >Although there is no potential grad. inside the cage, the entire cage has 
> >a significant potential with respect to the ground because the lightning 
> >stroke just dumped 20 C of charge on it.
> >
> >You and the quarters you are carrying are at the same potential as the
> >cage, well above the potential of the ground.  When you throw a quarter
> >out the small hole you should get a spark as the quarter nears the 
> >ground.
> 
> Uh, no.  Just because something is at a high potential does not mean it
> has extra charge.  It can be at a high potential because there is a lot
> of extra charge somewhere nearby.  The corners of the Faraday cage (if
> it has corners) will be at the same potential as the sides of the cage,
> but will have more charge on them.  The interior of the cage will be at
> the same potential, but will have no excess charge at all.
> 
> Thus the quarter will not spark when it hits the ground, unless it
> picks up some charge on its way out.  (Which would involve another
> spark.)
I know that there is no extra charge inside the Faraday cage.  That's the 
whole point of the question.
Electric potential is not just a number - in physics nothing is.  When the
potential inside the cage increases along with the rest of the cage that
potential must manifest itself as an increase in the potential energy of
the objects inside the cage.  Obviously it's not an increase in the
charge, so what about the state of the objects inside the cage has changed
to increase their potential energy relative to the outside world? 
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

Oscar Singer wrote:
> > Alas.  Gloria gets sick on the subway every Monday.  Or something like
> > that.
That's "Sick of distemper, is Gloria on Monday"
-- 
D.
mentock@mindSpring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~mentock/index.htm

[newsgroups trimmed]
In article <32E3CCC8.1999@lancnews.infi.net>,
John   wrote:
>Richard F. Hall wrote:
>> 
>>>snip
>> What you say is for all intensive purposes true. ....
>> snip
>Is there a name for "intensive puposes"? It is probably apt.
>John
Malapropism.  My favorite malapropism is the fellow who
talked about his "bonified experiences", as if there were
a verb, "to bonify".
Jeffrey Shallit, Computer Science, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario  N2L 3G1 Canada shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
URL = http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/

Fred McGalliard wrote:
> 
> Tani Akio Hosokawa wrote:
> >  If this is the case, then
> > an all-powerful being cannot exist without being paradoxical.  Absurd in
> > fact.  
Why absurd?
http://alamut.alamut.org/c73/sri.htm

"John DeHaven"  wrote:
>Not helpful yet. I don't see that the smaller ball would gain any net speed
>from any such collision. Indeed if I bounce a tennis ball off the earth, it
>never rebounds at a higher speed. Nor would any perfectly elastic ball in
>some lossless bounce.
It would not gain net speed *in the frame of the earth.*  It would in
some other reference frame (for example, that of the sun.)
The usual example is: toss the tennis ball in front of an oncoming
truck.  After the bounce it is travelling faster (w.r.t. you) than it
was before the bounce.
For gravitational slingshots, substitute a planet for the truck and
a spacecraft for the tennis ball.
Another variety of gravitational slingshot is the increased efficiency
of rocket propulsion deep in gravity wells.  This is a consequence of
the fact that the thrust of a rocket in independent of the speed of
the spaceship, while the rate of work done on the spaceship in a
reference frame equals the vector product of thrust and velocity.
More total work is done on the spacecraft if it is moving fast at
periapsis of an orbit.  The energy comes from the gravitational
potential energy of the expelled reaction mass.
	Paul

Lance Olkovick wrote:
> 
> stooge1@aol.com (Larry) writes:
> > I've seen distorted window panes in older houses, and old stained
> > glass windows that are thicker at the bottom than at the top.
> > Obviously, given enough time, glass will flow.
I used to think so too, but I was told by someone at 
a local museum (either Plimouth Plantation or Sturbridge
Village) that this variation in thickness really was
caused by the way they made plate glass in the old days.  
Supposedly it's a result of spinning the molten glass
on a flat surface to stretch and flatten it out, but
the result was that the outside radius became thicker.
And, of course that was usually the edge that was 
set at the bottom by the glazier because it's more
stable.
---peter

The second installment concerning the structure of the
universe is now at my web site.
-- 
Lawrence J. Gier 
ljgier@kdsi.net
http://www.kdsi.net/~ljgier/

On 18 Jan 1997, John McCarthy wrote:
In article <32E04AB6.A4C@quadrant.net> "Bruce C. Fielder"  writes:
> 
> 80 grams of plutonium is much to small to make a bomb - one needs at
> least 3000 grams.
Forgive my ignorance on death and destruction issues, but I thought that 
Pu was used as an activator for a sub critical mass of U - the bullet 
method.  Is this not the way modern nukes are built?  If so, isn't the Pu 
the hardest stuff to get because (for the most part) it must be made in a 
reactor?
This is not to suggest that that was the reason that the Pu was there - 
just a general question.
---------------
Peter Berdeklis
Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Toronto

>
>Elitist?  You bet.  Any suggestions how to change things?
>
Start up a new moderated group called 'sci.physics.people.who.apparently.
know.what.they're.talking.about' with a selected group of non-fruitcakes
who are willing to globally killfile (can this be done?) proven wasters
of time. I'm not much into posting, but I'd sure appreciate less crap in
this group. Perhaps all the garbage could be siphoned into another group:
'sci.physics.crackpots', so the pros can get a laugh once in a while
and feel really good about inflation and QCD.
I'm only a would-be educated pion, but I really think everyone could 
benefit from a moderated version of this group. But, heh, I'm, uh, like,
really busy this, like weekend, so if, well, SOMEBODY ELSE could please
pop all those (whatever his name is) Plutonium articles, that'd be just 
great.
Actually, although the initial purge might be a bit Stalinesque, I think
the post relaxation day to day activity would not be too bad.
Gee, I wonder if anything'll happen on this?
Mike
--------------------------------------------
Michael Armstrong: player of clarinets, crasher of bicycles, lover of 
woman (one, currently)
mikearm@lphys.chem.utoronto.ca

RF Drost wrote:
> 
> In article <32E41634.2178@uclink4.berkeley.edu>, jejanes@uclink4.berkeley.edu wrote:
> 
> > Experts in math and stats could provide no meaningful incite unless they
> > were also expert in Biochemistry.  More expert, in fact, than anyone
> > currently is. Statistics does not provide one with a magical elixir to
> > make meaningful predictions from a point of ignorance.  As far as my
> > biological knowledge goes, this is the bare essentials for life:
> >
> > liquid water
> > 20 amino acids (and their biosynthetic pathways, unless the primordial
> > soup is extremely rich)
> >
> > 20 tRNA'a
> > 20 tRNA synthetases
> > functional ribosomes
> > An RNA-dependent RNA-polymerase (I skip DNA to make it easier)
> > RNA which codes for the last 4 requirements
> >
> 
> Add a pinch of salt, bake at 350 degrees for 2 hours and voila
>     ... Pauley Shore.
Damn! And there I was, thinking "sugar and spice and everything nice"
and "frogs and snails and puppy dog tails"!
Ramsa

Michael Cubstead (mcubabc@firstnethou.com) wrote:
: In article <5bpb1b$ofu@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Hibnar
:  wrote:
: > In article <32ddf066.1015272@news.hkstar.com> Alex Tsui,
: > alextsui@hkstar.com writes:
: > >I was just wondering, suppose two persons were 10 light years away
: > >from each other, and they were strong enough to hold a 10 light years
: > >long rod that could not be stretched nor be contracted.  if 1 of the
: > >person pulls or pushes the rod, will the person 10 light year years
: > >away immediately sense the change?  IF he was able to do that, then
: > >wouldn't that be regarded as FTL comm?
: > 
: > A ³rod² 10 LY long would most likly have more mass then any 2 planets.
: > safe bet they would move first
: An interesting thought, would the bar have enough strucual ridgity ( I cant
: spell tonight) to with stand it's on gravidy, or would it fold up from it's
: own gravity drawing the end toward the middle?
It is very likely that it would, given the enourmous ammounts of force 
that would occur at the center due to lever effects and gravity if the 
bar were to become even slightly bowed.
--
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Francis Litterio wrote:
> 
> Jim Akerlund  wrote:
> 
> > OX-11 wrote:
> >
> > > Okay, here is your assignment, due immediately: Tell in your own words,
> > > what you would do if you actually did invent a FTL communicator.
> 
> > You would set up your communicator so that you could talk to yourself
> > two hours in the past.  You would then use this little trick to win
> > lotteries across the US, and when you are winning lotteries who needs
> > friends.
> 
> That was my first thought too.  And it's exactly the reason that FTL
> communication is impossible.  Under both SR and GR, FTL communication
> is equivalent to reverse causality (i.e., event A is affected by
> events in its future light-cone).  Causality is a premise so
> fundamental to physics that it is rarely explicitly stated in any
> treatise.
here is the light cone model of the FTL communicator.
            (time axis)
(light cone)   |              
     \         |         /
      \ impressionable  /
       \     future    /
 .      \      |      /
   .     \     |     /      .(FTL cone)
     .    \    |    /     .
       .   \   |   /    .
         .  \  |  /   .                     Future
           . \ | /  .
             .\|/ .
 -------------you-------------------------(x axis)
              /|\ 
             / | \  
            /  |  \   
           /   |   \                       still your future
          /    |    \     
         /   already \
        /  percieved  \
       /      past     \
now remember, for your light cone, you are at the origin, everything
included under it has been seen already, anything included over it is
still impressionable.  Any event you percieve at any given moment is
coinciding with the shell of _your_ bottom  cone at that moment. 
Anything that might occur inside the upper cone marked by the dashed
lines can be affected by tradition methods of slower than light
communication.  Anything outside the cone is not in your past, it is
simply no longer within your cone-window of influence.
If you were to construct an FTL communicator, you would be able to use
the cone illustrated by the dotted lines to model your cone of
influence.  For the dotted lines, x/t>c.  The FTL comm could help you
procrastinate a little longer, but to win the lottery, you would need to
enlist the help of a _friend_  some x-distance away.  Lets say you send
your friend to the moon. Before you do, you secured yourself as his sole
benefactor.  Furthermore we will need to petition the state to establish
a kiosk on the moon that sells lottery tickets right up until the very
second the results are transmitted to it.  Your signal could outrun the
traditional signal, and providing we supplied our friend with enough air
to buy a lottery ticket, he just might pull it off.  
As these are very strange conditions, it is doubtful that FTL could be
used to win the lottery.  Even if you do establish an FTL comm, its cone
of influence would have a positive concavity.
Now, if I had an FTL communicator, I would use it to alert the outer
planets as soon as Sol goes super, just to give any colonists a few
minutes to ponder their worthlessness.  I would do that a coupla times a
week.
chuck