Newsgroup sci.physics 240467

Directory

Posted-By: auto-faq 3.3 beta (Perl 5.003)
Archive-name: physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
  Measurement in quantum mechanics FAQ
  Maintained by Paul Budnik, paul@mtnmath.com, http://www.mtnmath.com
  This FAQ describes the measurement problem in QM and approaches to its
  solution. Please help make it more complete. See ``What is needed''
  for details.	Web version: http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html
  1.  About this FAQ
  The general sci.physics FAQ does a good job of dealing with technical
  questions in most areas of physics. However it has no material on
  interpretations of QM which are among the most frequently discussed
  topics in sci.physics. Hence there is a need for this supplemental
  FAQ.
  This document is probably out of date if you are reading it more than
  30 days after the date which appears in the header.
  This FAQ is on the web at: http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm.html
  You can get it by e-mail or FTP from rtfm.mit.edu.
  By FTP, look for the file:
  /pub/usenet/news.answers/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
  By e-mail send a message to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with a blank
  subject line and the words:
  send usenet/news.answers/physics-faq/measurement-in-qm
  The main sci.physics FAQ is in this same directory with file names
  part1 through part4 and can be retrieved in the same way.  You can put
  multiple send lines in a single e-mail request.
  This document, as a collection, is Copyright 1995 by Paul P. Budnik
  (paul@mtnmath.com).  The individual articles are Copyright 1995 by the
  individual authors listed.  All rights are reserved.	Permission to
  use, copy and distribute this unmodified document by any means and for
  any purpose EXCEPT PROFIT PURPOSES is hereby granted, provided that
  both the above Copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
  all copies of the FAQ itself.	Reproducing this FAQ by any means,
  included, but not limited to, printing, copying existing prints,
  publishing by electronic or other means, implies full agreement to the
  above non-profit-use clause, unless upon explicit prior written
  permission of the authors.
  This FAQ is provided by the authors ``as is''. with all its faults.
  Any express or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, any
  implied warranties of merchantability, accuracy, or fitness for any
  particular purpose, are disclaimed.  If you use the information in
  this document, in any way, you do so at your own risk.
  2.  The measurement problem
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  The formulation of QM describes the deterministic unitary evolution of
  a wave function. This wave function is never observed experimentally.
  The wave function allows us to compute the probability that certain
  macroscopic events will be observed. There are no events and no
  mechanism for creating events in the mathematical model. It is this
  dichotomy between the wave function model and observed macroscopic
  events that is the source of the interpretation issue in QM. In
  classical physics the mathematical model talks about the things we
  observe.  In QM the mathematical model by itself never produces
  observations.	We must interpret the wave function in order to relate
  it to experimental observations.
  It is important to understand that this is not simply a philosophical
  question or a rhetorical debate. In QM one often must model systems as
  the superposition of two or more possible outcomes. Superpositions can
  produce interference effects and thus are experimentally
  distinguishable from mixed states. How does a superposition of
  different possibilities resolve itself into some particular
  observation? This question (also known as the measurement problem)
  affects how we analyze some experiments such as tests of Bell's
  inequality and may raise the question of interpretations from a
  philosophical debate to an experimentally testable question. So far
  there is no evidence that it makes any difference. The wave function
  evolves in such a way that there are no observable effects from
  macroscopic superpositions. It is only superposition of different
  possibilities at the microscopic level that leads to experimentally
  detectable interference effects.
  Thus it would seem that there is no criterion for objective events and
  perhaps no need for such a criterion. However there is at least one
  small fly in the ointment. In analyzing a test of Bell's inequality
  one must make some determination as to when an observation was
  complete, i. e. could not be reversed. These experiments depend on the
  timing of macroscopic events. The natural assumption is to use
  classical thermodynamics to compute the probability that a macroscopic
  event can be reversed. This however implies that there is some
  objective process that produces the particular observation. Since no
  such objective process exists in current models this suggests that QM
  is an incomplete theory.  This might be thought of as the Einstein
  interpretation of QM, i. e., that there are objective physical
  processes that create observations and we do not yet understand these
  processes.  This is the view of the compiler of this document.
  For more information:
  Ed. J. Wheeler, W. Zurek, Quantum theory and measurement, Princeton
  University Press, 1983.
  J. S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge
  University Press, 1987.
  R.I.G. Hughes, The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,
  Harvard University Press, 1989.
  3.  Schrodinger's cat
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  In 1935 Schrodinger published an essay describing the conceptual
  problems in QM1. A brief paragraph in this essay described the cat
  paradox.
     One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up
     in a steel chamber, along with the following diabolical device
     (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat):
     in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive
     substance, so small that perhaps in the course of one hour one
     of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps
     none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a
     relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of
     hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself
     for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile
     no atom has decayed.  The first atomic decay would have poisoned
     it. The Psi function for the entire system would express this by
     having in it the living and the dead cat (pardon the expression)
     mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
     It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally
     restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into
     macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct
     observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid
     a ``blurred model'' for representing reality. In itself it would
     not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a
     difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a
     snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
  We know that superposition of possible outcomes must exist
  simultaneously at a microscopic level because we can observe
  interference effects from these.  We know (at least most of us know)
  that the cat in the box is dead, alive or dying and not in a smeared
  out state between the alternatives. When and how does the model of
  many microscopic possibilities resolve itself into a particular
  macroscopic state? When and how does the fog bank of microscopic
  possibilities transform itself to the blurred picture we have of a
  definite macroscopic state.  That is the measurement problem and
  Schrodinger's cat is a simple and elegant explanations of that
  problem.
  References:
  1 E. Schrodinger, ``Die gegenwartige Situation in der
  Quantenmechanik,'' Naturwissenschaftern. 23 : pp. 807-812; 823-823,
  844-849. (1935).  English translation: John D. Trimmer, Proceedings of
  the American Philosophical Society, 124, 323-38 (1980), Reprinted in
  Quantum Theory and Measurement, p 152 (1983).
  4.  The Copenhagen interpretation
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  This is the oldest of the interpretations. It is based on Bohr's
  notion of `complementarity'. Bohr felt that the classical and quantum
  mechanical models were two complementary ways of dealing with physics
  both of which were necessary. Bohr felt that an experimental
  observation collapsed or ruptured (his term) the wave function to make
  its future evolution consistent with what we observe experimentally.
  Bohr understood that there was no precise way to define the exact
  point at which collapse occurred. Any attempt to do so would yield a
  different theory rather than an interpretation of the existing theory.
  Nonetheless he felt it was connected to conscious observation as this
  was the ultimate criterion by which we know a specific observation has
  occurred.
  References:
  N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and recent the recent development of
  atomic theory, Nature, 121, 580-89 (1928), Reprinted in Quantum Theory
  and Measurement, p 87, (1983).
  5.  Is QM a complete theory?
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  Einstein did not believe that God plays dice and thought a more
  complete theory would predict the actual outcome of experiments.  He
  argued1 that quantities that are conserved absolutely (such as
  momentum or energy) must correspond to some objective element of
  physical reality. Because QM does not model this he felt it must be
  incomplete.
  It is possible that events are the result of objective physical
  processes that we do not yet understand. These processes may determine
  the actual outcome of experiments and not just their probabilities.
  Certainly that is the natural assumption to make. Any one who does not
  understand QM and many who have only a superficial understanding
  naturally think that observations come about from some objective
  physical process even if they think we can only predict probabilities.
  There have been numerous attempts to develop such alternatives.  These
  are often referred to as `hidden variables' theories. Bell proved that
  such theories cannot deal with quantum entanglement without
  introducing explicitly nonlocal mechanisms2.	Quantum entanglement
  refers to the way observations of two particles are correlated after
  the particles interact. It comes about because the conservation laws
  are exact but most observations are probabilistic.  Nonlocal
  operations in hidden variables theories might not seem such a drawback
  since QM itself must use explicit nonlocal mechanism to deal with
  entanglement. However in QM the non-locality is in a wave function
  which most do not consider to be a physical entity. This makes the
  non-locality less offensive or at least easier to rationalize away.
  It might seem that the tables have been turned on Einstein. The very
  argument he used in EPR to show QM must be incomplete requires that
  hidden variables models have explicit nonlocal operations. However it
  is experiments and not theoretical arguments that now must decide the
  issue. Although all experiments to date have produced results
  consistent with the predictions of QM, there is general agreement that
  the existing experiments are inconclusive3. There is no conclusive
  experimental confirmation of the nonlocal predictions of QM. If these
  experiments eventually confirm locality and not QM Einstein will be
  largely vindicated for exactly the reasons he gave in EPR. Final
  vindication will depend on the development of a more complete theory.
  Most physicists (including Bell before his untimely death) believe QM
  is correct in predicting locality is violated. Why do they have so
  much more faith in the strange formalism of QM than in basic
  principles like locality or the notion that observations are produced
  by objective processes? I think the reason may be that they are
  viewing these problems in the wrong conceptual framework. The term
  `hidden variables' suggests a theory of classical-like particles with
  additional hidden variables. However quantum entanglement and the
  behavior of multi-particle systems strongly suggests that whatever
  underlies quantum effects it is nothing like classical particles.  If
  that is so then any attempt to develop a more complete theory in this
  framework can only lead to frustration and failure.  The fault may not
  be in classical principles like locality or determinism. They failure
  may only be in the imagination of those who are convinced that no more
  complete theory is possible.
  One alternative to classical particles is to think of observations as
  focal points in state space of nonlinear transformations of the wave
  function. Attractors in Chaos theory provide one model of processes
  like this. Perhaps there is an objective physical wave function and QM
  only models the average or statistical behavior of this wave function.
  Perhaps the structure of this physical wave function determines the
  probability that the wave function will transform nonlinearly at a
  particular location. If this is so then probability in QM combines two
  very different kinds of probabilities. The first is the probability
  associated with our state of ignorance about the detailed behavior of
  the physical wave function. The second is the probability that the
  physical wave function will transform with a particular focal point.
  A model of this type might be able to explain existing experimental
  results and still never violate locality. I have advocated a class of
  models of this type based on using a discretized finite difference
  equation rather then a continuous differential equation to model the
  wave function4. The nonlinearity that must be introduced to discretize
  the difference equation is a source of chaotic like behavior.	In this
  model the enforcement of the conservation laws comes about through a
  process of converging to a stable state. Information that enforces
  these laws is stored holographic-like over a wide region.
  Most would agree that the best solution to the measurement problem
  would be a more complete theory. Where people part company is in their
  belief in whether such a thing is possible. All attempts to prove it
  impossible (starting with von Neumann5) have been shown to be flawed6.
  It is in part Bell's analysis of these proofs that led to his proof
  about locality in QM. Bell has transformed a significant part of this
  issue to one experimenters can address. If nature violates locality in
  the way QM predicts then a local deterministic theory of the kind
  Einstein was searching for is not possible. If QM is incorrect in
  making these predictions then a more accurate and more complete theory
  is a necessity. Such a theory is quite likely to account for events by
  an objective physical process.
  References: 1 A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Can quantum-
  mechanical descriptions of physical reality be considered complete?,
  Physical Review, 47, 777 (1935).  Reprinted in Quantum Theory and
  Measurement, p. 139, (1987).
  2 J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolosky Rosen Paradox, Physics, 1,
  195-200 (1964).  Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 403,
  (1987).
  3 P. G. Kwiat, P. H. Eberhard, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Y. Chiao,
  Proposal for a loophole-free Bell inequality experiment, Physical
  Reviews A,  49, 3209 (1994).
  4 P. Budnik, Developing a local deterministic theory to account for
  quantum mechanical effects, hep-th/9410153, (1995).
  5 J. von Neumann, The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,
  Princeton University Press, N. J., (1955).
  6 J. S. Bell, On the the problem of hidden variables in quantum
  mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 447-452, (1966).  Reprinted
  in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 397, (1987).
  6.  The shut up and calculate interpretation
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  This is the most popular of interpretations. It recognizes that the
  important content of QM is the mathematical models and the ability to
  apply those models to real experiments. As long as we understand the
  models and their application we do not need an interpretation.
  Advocates of this position like to argue that the existing framework
  allows us to solve all real problems and that is all that is
  important.  Franson's analysis  of Aspect's experiment1 shows this is
  not entirely true.  Because there is no objective criterion in QM for
  determining when a measurement is complete (and hence irreversible)
  there is no objective criterion for measuring the delays in a test of
  Bell's inequality.  If the demise of Schrodinger's cat may not be
  determined until someone looks in the box (see item 2) how are we to
  know when a measurement in tests of Bells inequality is irreversible
  and thus measure the critical timing in these experiments?
  References:
  1 J. D. Franson, Bell's Theorem and delayed determinism, Physical
  Review D, 31,	2529-2532, (1985).
  7.  Bohm's theory
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  Bohm's interpretation is an explicitly nonlocal mechanistic model.
  Just as Bohr saw the philosophical principle of complementarity as
  having broader implications than quantum mechanics Bohm saw a deep
  relationship between locality violation and the wholeness or unity of
  all that exists. Bohm was perhaps the first to truly understand the
  nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics. Bell acknowledged the importance
  of Bohm's work in helping develop Bell's ideas about locality in QM.
  References: D. Bohm, A suggested interpretation of quantum theory in
  terms of "hidden" variables I and II, Physical Review,85, 155-93
  (1952).  Reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, p. 369, (1987).
  D. Bohm & B.J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe: an ontological
  interpretation of quantum theory (Routledge: London & New York, 1993).
  Recently there has been renewed interest in Bohmian mechanics.  D.
  D"urr, S. Goldstein, N Zanghi, Phys. Lett. A 172, 6 (1992) K. Berndl
  et al., Il Nuovo Cimento Vol. 110 B, N. 5-6 (1995).
  Peter Holland's book The Quantum Theory of Motion (Cambridge
  University Press 1993) contains many pictures of numerical simulations
  of Bohmian trajectories.
  8.  Lawrence R. Mead rmead@whale.st.usm.ed The Transactional Interpre-
  tation of Quantum Mechanics
  The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics (J.G. Cramer,
  Phys. Rev. D 22, 362 (1980) ) has received little attention over the
  one and one half decades since its conception. It is to be emphasized
  that, like the Many-Worlds and other interpretations, the
  transactional interpretation (TI) makes no new physical predictions;
  it merely reinterprets the physical content of the very same
  mathematical formalism as used in the ``standard'' textbooks, or by
  all other interpretations.
  The following summarizes the TI. Consider a two-body system (there are
  no additional complications arising in the many-body case); the
  quantum mechanical object located at space-time point (R_1,T_1) and
  another with which it will interact at (R_2,T_2). A quantum mechanical
  process governed by E=h0, conservation laws, etc., occurs between the
  two in the following way.
  1) The ``emitter'' (E) at (R_1,T_1) emits a retarded ``offer wave''
  (OW) \Psi.  This wave (or state vector) is an actual physical wave and
  not (as in the Copenhagen interpretation) just a ``probability'' wave.
  2) The ``absorber'' (A) at (R_2,T_2) receives the OW and is stimulated
  to emit an advanced ``echo'' or ``confirmation wave'' (CW)
  proportional to \Psi at R_2 backward in time; the proportionality
  factor is \Psi* (R_2,T_2).
  3) The advanced wave which arrives at 'E' is \Psi \Psi* and is
  presumed to be the probability, P, that the transaction is complete
  (ie., that an interaction has taken place).
  4) The exchange of OW's and CW's continues until a net exchange of
  energy and other conserved quantities occurs dictated by the quantum
  boundary conditions of the system, at which point the ``transaction''
  is complete. In effect, a standing wave in space-time is set up
  between 'E' and 'A', consistent with conservation of energy and
  momentum (and angular momentum). The formation of this superposition
  of advanced and retarded waves is the equivalent to the Copenhagen
  ``collapse of the state vector''. An observer perceives only the
  completed transaction, however, which he would interpret as a single,
  retarded wave (photon, for example) traveling from 'E' to 'A'.
  Q1. When does the ``collapse'' occur?
  A1. This is no longer a meaningful question. The quantum measurement
  process happens ``when'' the transaction (OW sent - CW received -
  standing wave formed with probability \Psi \Psi*) is finished - and
  this happens over a space-time interval; thus, one cannot point to a
  time of collapse, only to an interval of collapse (consistent with
  relativity).
  Q2. Wait a moment. What you are describing is time reversal invariant.
  But for a massive particle you have to use the Schrodinger equation
  and if \Psi is a solution (OW), then \Psi* is not a solution. What
  gives?
  A2. Remember that the CW must be time-reversed, and in general must be
  relativistically invariant; ie., a solution of the Dirac equation.
  Now (eg., see Bjorken and Drell, Relativistic QM), the nonrelativistic
  limit of that is not just the Schrodinger equation, but two
  Schrodinger equations: the time forward equation satisfied by \Psi,
  and the time reversed Schrodinger equation (which has i --> -i) for
  which \Psi* is the correct solution. Thus, \Psi* is the correct CW for
  \Psi as the OW.
  Q3. What about other objects in other places?
  A3. The whole process is three dimensional (space). The retarded OW is
  sent in all spatial directions. Other objects receiving the OW are
  sending back their own CW advanced waves to 'E' also. Suppose the
  receivers are labeled 1 and 2, with corresponding energy changes E_1
  and E_2. Then the state vector of the system could be written as a
  superposition of waves in the standard fashion. In particular, two
  possible transactions could form: exchange of energy E_1 with
  probability P_1=\Psi_1 \Psi_1*, or E_2 with probability P_2=\Psi_2
  \Psi_2*. Here, the conjugated waves are the advanced waves evaluated
  at the position of R_1 or R_2 respectively according to rule 3 above.
  Q4. Involving as it does an entire space-time interval, isn't this a
  nonlocal ``theory''?
  A4. Yes, indeed; it was explicitly designed that way. As you know from
  Bell's theorem, no ``theory'' can agree with quantum mechanics unless
  it is nonlocal in character. In effect, the TI is a hidden variables
  theory as it postulates a real waves traveling in space-time.
  Q5. What happens to OW's that are not ``absorbed'' ?
  A5. Inasmuch as they do not stimulate a responsive CW, they just
  continue to travel onward until they do. This does not present any
  problems since in that case no energy or momentum or any other
  physical observable is transferred.
  Q6. How about all of the standard measurement thought experiments like
  the EPR, Schrodinger's cat, Wigner's friend, and Renninger's negative-
  result experiment?
  A6. The interpretational difficulties with the latter three are due to
  the necessity of deciding when the Copenhagen state reduction occurs.
  As we saw above, in the TI there is no specific time when the
  transaction is complete. The EPR is a completeness argument requiring
  objective reality.  The TI supplies this as well; the OW and CW are
  real waves, not waves of probability.
  Q7. I am curious about more technical details. Can you give a further
  reference?
  A7. If you understand the theory of ``advanced'' and ``retarded''
  waves (out of electromagnetism and optics), many of the details of TI
  calculations can be found in: Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 58, July
  1986, pp. 647-687 available on the WWW as:
  http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
  9.  Complex probabilities
  References; Saul Youssef Quantum Mechanics as Complex Probability
  Theory, hep-th 9307019.  S. Youssef, Mod.Phys.Lett.A 28(1994)2571.
  10.  Quantum logic
  References: R.I.G. Hughes, The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum
  Mechanics, pp. 178-217, Harvard University Press, 1989.
  11.  Consistent histories
  References: R. B. Griffiths, Consistent Histories and the
  Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Journal of statistical Physics.,
  36(12):219-272(1984)
  M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics
  of Information, edited by W. Zurek, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the
  Sciences of Complexity Vol. VIII, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1990. Also
  in Proceedings of the $3$rd International Symposion on the Foundations
  of Quantum Mechanics in the Light of New Technology, edited by S.
  Kobayashi, H. Ezawa, Y. Murayama and S. Nomura, Physical Society of
  Japan, Tokyo, 1990
  R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2201 (1993)
  R. Omn`es, Rev. Mod. Phys. 64, 339 (1992)
  In this approach serious problems arise. This is best pointed out in:
  B. d'Espagnat, J. Stat. Phys. 56, 747 (1989)
  F. Dowker und A. Kent, On the Consistent Histories Approach to Quantum
  Mechanics, University of Cambridge Preprint DAMTP/94-48, Isaac Newton
  Institute for Mathematical Sciences Preprint NI 94006, August 1994.
  12.  Spontaneous reduction models
  Reference:
  G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
  13.  What is needed?
  All comments suggested and contributions are welcome. We currently
  have nothing but references on Complex Probabilities, Quantum Logic,
  Consistent Histories and Spontaneous Reduction Models. The entries on
  the following topics are minimal and should be replaced by complete
  articles.
  o  Copenhagen interpretation
  o  Relative State (Everett)
  o  Shut up and calculate
  o  Bohm's theory
  Alternative views on any of the topics and suggestions for additional
  topics are welcome.
  14.  Is this a real FAQ?
  Paul Budnik paul@mtnmath.com
  A FAQ is generally understood to be a reasonably objective set of
  answers to frequently asked questions in a news group. In cases where
  an issue is controversial the FAQ should include all credible opinions
  and/or the consensus view of the news group.
  Establishing factual accuracy is not easy. No consensus is possible on
  interpretations of QM because many aspects of interpretations involve
  metaphysical questions. My intention is that this be an objective
  accurate FAQ that allows for the expression of all credible relevant
  opinions.  I did not call it a FAQ until I had significant feedback
  from the `sci.physics' group. I have responded to all criticism and
  have made some corrections. Nonetheless there have been a couple of
  complaints about this not being a real FAQ and there is one issue that
  has not been resolved.
  If anyone thinks there are technical errors in the FAQ please say what
  you think the errors are. I will either fix the problem or try to
  reach on a consensus with the help of the `sci.physics' group about
  what is factually accurate.  I do not feel this FAQ should be limited
  to noncontroversial issues.  A FAQ on measurement in quantum mechanics
  should highlight and underscore the conceptual issues and problems in
  the theory.
  The one area that has been discussed and not resolved is the status of
  locality in Everett's interpretation. Here is what I believe the facts
  are.
  Eberhard proved that any theory that reproduces the predictions of QM
  is nonlocal1. This proof assumes contrafactual definiteness (CFD) or
  that one could have done a different experiment and have gotten a
  definite result. This assumption is widely used in statistical
  arguments.  Here is what Eberhard means by nonlocal:
     Let us consider two measuring apparata located in two different
     places A and B. There is a knob a on apparatus A and a knob b on
     apparatus B.  Since A and B are separated in space, it is
     natural to think what will happen at A is independent of the
     setting of knob b and vice versa.	The principles of relativity
     seem to impose this point of view if the time at which the knobs
     are set and the time of the measurements are so close that, in
     the time laps, no light signal can travel from A to B and vice
     versa. Then, no signal can inform a measurement apparatus of
     what the knob setting on the other is. However, there are cases
     in which the predictions of quantum theory make that
     independence assumption impossible. If quantum theory is true,
     there are cases in which the results of the measurements A will
     depend on the setting of the knob b and/or the results of the
     measurements in B will depend on the setting of the knob a.1
  It is logically possible to deny CFD and thus to avoid Eberhard's
  proof.  This assumption can be made in Everett's interpretation.
  Everett's interpretation does not imply CFD is false and CFD can be
  assumed false in other interpretations.  I do not think it is
  reasonable to deny CFD in some experiments and not others but that is
  a judgment call on which intelligent people can differ.
  It is mathematically impossible to have a unitary relativistic wave
  function from which one can compute probabilities that will violate
  Bell's inequality. A unitary wave function does satisfy CFD and thus
  is subject to Eberhard's proof. This is a problem for some advocates
  of Everett who insist that only the wave function exists.  There is no
  wave function consistent with both quantum mechanics and relativity
  and it is mathematically impossible to construct such a function.
  Quantum field theory requires a nonlocal and thus nonrelativistic
  state model. The predications of quantum field theory are the same in
  any frame of reference but the mechanisms that generate nonlocal
  effects must operate in an absolute frame of reference. Quantum
  uncertainty makes this seemingly paradoxical situation possible. There
  is a nonlocal effect but we cannot tell if the effect went from A to B
  or B to A because of quantum uncertainty. As a result the predictions
  are the same in any frame of reference but any mechanism that produces
  these predictions must be tied to an absolute frame of reference.
  There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to arguments on these
  issues. Many physicists claim that classical mathematics does not
  apply to some aspects of quantum mechanics, yet there is no other
  mathematics. The wave function model is a classical causal
  deterministic model. The computation of probabilities from that model
  is as well.  The aspect of quantum mechanics that one can claim lies
  outside of classical mathematics is the interpretation of those
  probabilities.  Most physicists believe these probabilities are
  irreducible, i. e., do not come from a more fundamental deterministic
  process the way probabilities do in classical physics. Because there
  is no mathematical theory of irreducible probabilities one can invent
  new metaphysics to interpret these probabilities and here is where the
  problems and confusion rest.	Some physicists claim there is new
  metaphysics and within this metaphysics quantum mechanics is local.
  References:
  P. H. Eberhard, Bell's Theorem without Hidden Variables, Il Nuovo
  Cimento, V38 B 1, p 75, Mar 1977.

In article <01bc75b8$3ec59660$ee26efa8@jblood.gecits.ge.com>
"Lord of the Flies"  writes:
>
>> Our universe is a black hole.  Here's why:
>>   [...]
>> Most people fear going into a black hole but little do they realize
>> they're already in one!
>
>Little do you realize we are not!!
Not so simple...
The question should be: is the Universe smaller than its Schwartzschild
radius? I.e. smaller than 2GM/c^2, where M is the mass of the universe.
If so, then light can not escape and the universe is a black hole.
A ballparc figure for the mass is 10^80 protons, which would give
a radius of 9x10^9 lightyears. With a Hubble constant somewhere between
50 and 100 km/s/Mpc or 5-10/per Gyr, the result is a toss-up.
But of course the question is equivalent to answering the question: is
the universe open or closed?
The judges are still out.
Greetings,
Ronald Kunne

In article 
Anthony Potts  writes:
>Just to point out for those who don't actually realise,
  [not so bad analogy deleted]
>I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and I expect to be hassled for
>it.
You will!
>People who have no experience or expertise in physics should perhaps avoid
>attempting to argue the subject, as flaws such as the original one about
>variable mass are bound to appear.
I'll stop quoting here, it's bad enough as it is...
The problem is, Mr. Potts, that we physicists are not alone here in this
group. It's not the Aleph or CDF counting room, but a rather public place.
That means that you will find here people of all levels.
They have, however, one amazing thing in common: they love physics and
astronomy (I realize that this thread is cross-posted :-)
And it is very important for us physicists, that these people stay here
and continue to like physics.
I am sure, Mr. Potts, you can figure out for yourself, just why that is
important. Therefore, Mr. Potts, don't chase them away with your usual
arrogance. If somebody makes an error or has an explanation all inside-out,
then explain him, why he is wrong. Nicely!
Don't say: E does not equal mc^2, but you're too stupid/don't have the
education to understand.
Say: Well, I know that this is the most famous equation of physics, but
actually it's a bit inaccurate. Etc.
Greetings,
Ronald Kunne
PS This is already my third Mr. Potts flame! I wonder how you do it.
One of these days we will meet face to face and you turn out to be a very
nice person. Another case of an Internet character distorsion.

In article 
Anthony Potts  writes:
>Just where do you get the idea that E=mc^2?
Certainly Mr. Potts has seen the cartoon where Einstein is pictured
standing in front of a blackboard with a puzzled look on his face.              board, where he has
On the blackboard he has already written (and scratched out)
E=ma^2 and E=mb^2.
For me this is a very convincing derivation!
:-)
Greetings,
Ronald Kunne

Archive-name: fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
Last-modified: 26-Feb-1995
Posting-frequency: More-or-less-biweekly
Disclaimer:  While this section is still evolving, it should 
     be useful to many people, and I encourage you to distribute 
     it to anyone who might be interested (and willing to help!!!).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Fusion Research
-----------------------------------------------------------------
# Written/Edited by:
     Robert F. Heeter
     
     Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory
# Last Revised February 26, 1995
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*** A.  Welcome to the Conventional Fusion FAQ!  
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Contents
  This file is intended to indicate 
     (A) that the Conventional Fusion FAQ exists, 
     (B) what it discusses, 
     (C) how to find it on the Internet, and
     (D) the status of the Fusion FAQ project
* 2) What is the Conventional Fusion FAQ?
  The Conventional Fusion FAQ is a comprehensive, relatively
  nontechnical set of answers to many of the frequently asked
  questions about fusion science, fusion energy, and fusion
  research.  Additionally, there is a Glossary of Frequently
  Used Terms In Plasma Physics and Fusion Energy Research, which 
  explains much of the jargon of the field.  The Conventional 
  Fusion FAQ originated as an attempt to provide 
  answers to many of the typical, basic, or introductory questions 
  about fusion research, and to provide a listing of references and 
  other resources for those interested in learning more.  The
  Glossary section containing Frequently Used Terms (FUT) also
  seeks to facilitate communication regarding fusion by providing
  brief explanations of the language of the field.
* 3) Scope of the Conventional Fusion FAQ:
  Note that this FAQ discusses only the conventional forms of fusion
  (primarily magnetic confinement, but also inertial and 
  muon-catalyzed), and not new/unconventional forms ("cold fusion",
  sonoluminescence-induced fusion, or ball-lightning fusion).  I 
  have tried to make this FAQ as uncontroversial and comprehensive
  as possible, while still covering everything I felt was 
  important / standard fare on the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup.
* 4) How to Use the FAQ:
  This is a rather large FAQ, and to make it easier to find what
  you want, I have outlined each section (including which questions
  are answered) in Section 0, Part 2 (posted separately).  Hopefully it 
  will not be too hard to use.  Part (C) below describes how to find
  the other parts of the FAQ via FTP or the World-Wide Web.
* 5) Claims and Disclaimers:  
  This is an evolving document, not a completed work.  As such, 
  it may not be correct or up-to-date in all respects.  
  This document should not be distributed for profit, especially 
  without my permission.  Individual sections may have additional 
  restrictions.  In no case should my name, the revision date, 
  or this paragraph be removed.  
                                             - Robert F. Heeter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*** B. Contents (Section Listing) of the Conventional Fusion FAQ
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
                What This FAQ Discusses
*****************************************************************
(Each of these sections is posted periodically on sci.physics.fusion.
 Section 0.1 is posted biweekly, the other parts are posted quarterly.
 Each listed part is posted as a separate file.)
Section 0 - Introduction
     Part 1/3 - Title Page
                Table of Contents
                How to Find the FAQ
                Current Status of the FAQ project
     Part 2/3 - Detailed Outline with List of Questions
     Part 3/3 - Revision History
Section 1 - Fusion as a Physical Phenomenon
Section 2 - Fusion as an Energy Source
     Part 1/5 - Technical Characteristics
     Part 2/5 - Environmental Characteristics
     Part 3/5 - Safety Characteristics
     Part 4/5 - Economic Characteristics
     Part 5/5 - Fusion for Space-Based Power
Section 3 - Fusion as a Scientific Research Program
     Part 1/3 - Chronology of Events and Ideas
     Part 2/3 - Major Institutes and Policy Actors
     Part 3/3 - History of Achievements and Funding
Section 4 - Methods of Containment / Approaches to Fusion
     Part 1/2 - Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Approaches
     Part 2/2 - Other Approaches (ICF, muon-catalyzed, etc.)
Section 5 - Status of and Plans for Present Devices
Section 6 - Recent Results
Section 7 - Educational Opportunities
Section 8 - Internet Resources
Section 9 - Future Plans
Section 10 - Annotated Bibliography / Reading List
Section 11 - Citations and Acknowledgements
Glossary of Frequently Used Terms (FUT) in Plasma Physics & Fusion:
  Part 0/26 - Intro
  Part 1/26 - A
  Part 2/26 - B
  [ ... ]
  Part 26/26 - Z
---------------------------------------------------------------
*** C.  How to find the Conventional Fusion FAQ on the 'Net:
---------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
###  The FAQ about the FAQ:
###          How can I obtain a copy of a part of the Fusion FAQ?
*****************************************************************
* 0) Quick Methods (for Experienced Net Users)
   (A) World-Wide Web:  http://lyman.pppl.gov/~rfheeter/fusion-faq.html
   (B) FTP:  rtfm.mit.edu in /pub/usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq
* 1) Obtaining the Fusion FAQ from Newsgroups
  Those of you reading this on news.answers, sci.answers, 
  sci.energy, sci.physics, or sci.environment will be able to 
  find the numerous sections of the full FAQ by reading 
  sci.physics.fusion periodically.  (Please note that not 
  all sections are completed yet.)  Because the FAQ is quite
  large, most sections are posted only every three months, to avoid
  unnecessary consumption of bandwidth.
  All sections of the FAQ which are ready for "official" 
  distribution are posted to sci.physics.fusion, sci.answers, 
  and news.answers, so you can get them from these groups by 
  waiting long enough. 
* 2) World-Wide-Web (Mosaic, Netscape, Lynx, etc.):
   Several Web versions now exist.
   The "official" one is currently at
     
   We hope to have a version on the actual PPPL Web server 
      () soon.
   There are other sites which have made "unofficial" Web versions 
   from the newsgroup postings.  I haven't hunted all of these down 
   yet, but I know a major one is at this address:
 
 Note that the "official" one will include a number of features
 which cannot be found on the "unofficial" ones created by
 automated software from the newsgroup postings.  In particular
 we hope to have links through the outline directly to questions,
 and between vocabulary words and their entries in the Glossary, 
 so that readers unfamiliar with the terminology can get help fast.
 (Special acknowledgements to John Wright at PPPL, who is handling
  much of the WWW development.)
* 3) FAQ Archives at FTP Sites (Anonymous FTP) - Intro
  All completed sections can also be obtained by anonymous FTP 
  from various FAQ archive sites, such as rtfm.mit.edu.  The
  address for this archive is:
    
  Please note that sections which are listed above as having
  multiple parts (such as the glossary, and section 2) are 
  stored in subdirectories, where each part has its own
  filename; e.g., /fusion-faq/glossary/part0-intro. 
  Please note also that there are other locations in the rtfm
  filespace where fusion FAQ files are stored, but the reference
  given above is the easiest to use.
  There are a large number of additional FAQ archive sites,
  many of which carry the fusion FAQ.  These are listed below.
* 4) Additional FAQ archives worldwide (partial list)
  There are other FAQ archive sites around the world
  which one can try if rtfm is busy; a list is appended
  at the bottom of this file.
* 5) Mail Server
   If you do not have direct access by WWW or FTP, the 
   rtfm.mit.edu site supports "ftp by mail": send a message 
   to mail-server@rtfm.mit.edu with the following 3 lines
   in it (cut-and-paste if you like): 
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview
send usenet-by-group/sci.answers/fusion-faq/section0-intro/part2-outline
quit
   The mail server will send these two introductory 
   files to you.  You can then use the outline (part2)
   to determine which files you want.  You can receive
   any or all of the remaining files by sending another
   message with the same general format, if you substitute
   the file archive names you wish to receive, in place of the 
   part "fusion-faq/section0-intro/part1-overview", etc. used above.
* 6) Additional Note / Disclaimer: 
  Not all sections of the FAQ have been written
  yet, nor have they all been "officially" posted.
  Thus, you may not find what you're looking for right away.
  Sections which are still being drafted are only
  posted to sci.physics.fusion.  If there's a section 
  you can't find, send me email and I'll let you know 
  what's up with it. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** D. Status of the Conventional Fusion FAQ Project
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1) Written FAQ Sections:
  Most sections have been at least drafted, but many sections are still
  being written.  Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 9
  remain to be completed.
  Those sections which have been written could use revising and improving.
  I am trying to obtain more information, especially on devices and 
  confinement approaches; I'm also looking for more information on 
  international fusion research, especially in Japan & Russia.
   *** I'd love any help you might be able to provide!! ***
* 2) Building a Web Version
  A "primitive" version (which has all the posted data, but isn't
  especially aesthetic) exists now.  Would like to add graphics and 
  cross-references to the Glossary, between FAQ sections, and 
  to other internet resources (like laboratory Web pages).  
* 3) Nuts & Bolts - 
  I'm looking for ways to enhance the distribution of the FAQ, and
  to get additional volunteer help for maintenance and updates.
  We are in the process of switching to automated posting via the 
  rtfm.mit.edu faq posting daemon.
* 4) Status of the Glossary:
 # Contains roughly 1000 entries, including acronyms, math terms, jargon, etc.
 # Just finished incorporating terms from the "Glossary of Fusion Energy"
   published in 1985 by the Dept. of Energy's Office of Scientific and
   Technical Information.
 # Also working to improve technical quality of entries (more formal.)
 # World Wide Web version exists, hope to cross-reference to FAQ.
 # Hope to have the Glossary "officially" added to PPPL Web pages.
 # Hope to distribute to students, policymakers, journalists, 
   scientists, i.e., to anyone who needs a quick reference to figure out 
   what we're really trying to say, or to decipher all the "alphabet 
   soup."  Scientists need to remember that not everyone knows those 
   "trivial" words we use every day.  The glossary and FAQ should be 
   useful in preparing for talks to lay audiences.  Students will 
   also find it useful to be able to look up unfamiliar technical jargon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*** E. Appendix: List of Additional FAQ Archive Sites Worldwide 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(The following information was excerpted from the "Introduction to 
the *.answers newsgroups" posting on news.answers, from Sept. 9, 1994.)
Other news.answers/FAQ archives (which carry some or all of the FAQs
in the rtfm.mit.edu archive), sorted by country, are:
[ Note that the connection type is on the left.  I can't vouch
for the fusion FAQ being on all of these, but it should be
on some. - Bob Heeter ]
Belgium
-------
  gopher                cc1.kuleuven.ac.be port 70
  anonymous FTP         cc1.kuleuven.ac.be:/anonymous.202
  mail-server           listserv@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be  get avail faqs
Canada
------
  gopher                jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca port 70
Finland
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/rtfm
France
------
  anonymous FTP         grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq
                        grasp1.insa-lyon.fr:/pub/faq-by-newsgroup
  gopher                gopher.insa-lyon.fr, port 70
  mail server           listserver@grasp1.univ-lyon1.fr
Germany
-------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.Germany.EU.net:/pub/newsarchive/news.answers
                        ftp.informatik.uni-muenchen.de:/pub/comp/usenet/news.answers
                        ftp.uni-paderborn.de:/doc/FAQ
                        ftp.saar.de:/pub/usenet/news.answers (local access only)
  gopher                gopher.Germany.EU.net, port 70.
                        gopher.uni-paderborn.de
  mail server           archive-server@Germany.EU.net
                        ftp-mailer@informatik.tu-muenchen.de
                        ftp-mail@uni-paderborn.de
  World Wide Web        http://www.Germany.EU.net:80/
  FSP                   ftp.Germany.EU.net, port 2001
  gopher index          gopher://gopher.Germany.EU.net:70/1.archive
                        gopher://gopher.uni-paderborn.de:70/0/Service/FTP
Korea
-----
  anonymous ftp         hwarang.postech.ac.kr:/pub/usenet/news.answers
Mexico
------
  anonymous ftp         mtecv2.mty.itesm.mx:/pub/usenet/news.answers
The Netherlands
---------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.cs.ruu.nl:/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS
  gopher                gopher.win.tue.nl, port 70
  mail server           mail-server@cs.ruu.nl
Sweden
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.sunet.se:/pub/usenet
Switzerland
-----------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.switch.ch:/info_service/usenet/periodic-postings
  anonymous UUCP        chx400:ftp/info_service/Usenet/periodic-postings
  mail server           archiver-server@nic.switch.ch
  telnet                nic.switch.ch, log in as "info"
Taiwan
------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.edu.tw:/USENET/FAQ
  mail server           ftpmail@ftp.edu.tw
United Kingdon
--------------
  anonymous ftp         src.doc.ic.ac.uk:/usenet/news-faqs/
  FSP                   src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 21
  gopher                src.doc.ic.ac.uk port 70.
  mail server           ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk
  telnet                src.doc.ic.ac.uk login as sources
  World Wide Web        http://src.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-faqs/
United States
-------------
  anonymous ftp         ftp.uu.net:/usenet
  World Wide Web        http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu:80/hypertext/faq/usenet/top.html

steven michael rummel wrote:
> 
> We can, the catch is, no one wants the stuff getting trucked through
> their state/town/ whatever or stored near them because of that great
> "what if..." something goes wrong.  In America alone, the costs of
> insuring such transport and storage would be colossal.
> 
  Moreover the cost of engaging policemen to protect radioactive
materials from little green men attacks ;-) can also be very high.
It came to a point where utilities planned (don't know if they did
it or not) to transport nuclear fuel assemblies by plane rather
than by road...
  Thierry
========================================================================
Thierry SENGSTAG
Paul Scherrer Institut      Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
OBUA/10                     Institut de Genie Atomique - Dept. Physique
CH-5232 Villigen            CH-1015 Lausanne
+41-56-310.45.12            +41-21-693.33.77  (Fax: +41-21-693.44.70)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  La Vie n'est qu'un cas particulier de tous les problemes possibles.
                                                            A. Hirt
========================================================================

Ahrvid Engholm wrote:
> 
> Thomas Palm  skrev i inlägg
> <33A7A598.45C0@ele.kth.se>...
> > That increased CO2 will cause an increased greenhouse effect _is_
> > certain.
> It is not at all certain. I recently happened to see an article on
> the subject in Sunday Times ("Global Warming Goes Cold", 8 June; it
> is not a newspaper I usually read, but I saved the article). Some
> quotes:
Note that "an increased greenhouse effect" is not the same as
warmer climate although it is very likely. The increased greenhouse
effect comes from the fact the CO2 absorbs infrared radiation,
something that is not likely to change. I also stated that the exact
consequences for climate from this is not yet clear.
That sulphur dioxide causes cooling is not new either. In fact there
were some speculations a number of years ago that this might even
cause a new ice age, something that has been used by some critics
of climate science to "prove" that scientists don't know whether or
not it will get colder or warmer.
The last couple of years we have started to get more information
about the magnitude of this cooling, and it appears to currently
be almost as big as the expected heating from CO2. Now there are
several reasons why this won't help us:
SO2 is shortlived in the atmosphere while CO2 stays for a long
time. If we want to balance the climate we will continously have
to add proportionally more SO2 to the atmosphere since we must
compensate not only for new CO2 but also for most of the older.
As a consequence of the short lifetime SO2 does not spread globally
That means that we will see cooling in industrialised areas and
warming in areas far from industries. Then it doesn't help if
the global average is constant.
Finally, SO2 is poisonous, killing lots of people and destroying
nature. We need to stop emitting it and therefore cannot use
it to balance climate.
>   It seems that you cannot be certain that we will see a greenhouse
> effect. Another widespread theory, not mentioned in this article, is
> that if temperature goes up just a little bit, more water will
> evaporate into the atmosphere, forming more clouds, and white coulds
> reflect sunshine.
You do know that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas
in the atmosphere? It is not usually mentioned because it is so
shortlived, but still gives a significant boost to the heating
given by CO2 alone. 
The effect of clouds is the most uncertain fact in climate 
calculations today. This is because clouds may cause
both heating and cooling. It is true that they reflect sunlight,
but they also reflect infrared light from the surface trapping
even more heat. (Noticed how cloudy nights are much warmer?)
The net effect depends on the type of cloud.
> Why should no effects or at least very small effects be a miracle?
> Earth together with its biological inhabitants have evolved for
> billions of years. It would seem logical that this complex system has
> attained mechanisms for to a certain degree counteracting changes in
> climate.
Earth's climate has chanded a lot during its past. In fact the last
10.000 years seem to be remarkable in their stability of climate.
This has been suggested as an explanation for how human civilisation
could develop. Otherwise no longtime agriculture would have been
possible.
Climate changes affects animals much less since they are more modile
than us. We tend to accumulate cities and other stuff that is
cumbersome to carry around when it is time to move. We are therefore
much more sensitive to climate change than nature. In fact nature
is today also much more sensitive than it used to be since we have
fragmented natural areas making it hard for animals and plants to
move.
There may well be mechanisms that stabilise the climate just as there
are mechanisms that amplifies changes. These could work to keep global
averages reasonably constant. But how likely is there that there
exist a mechanism that can keep all climate paramters constant in
all areas of the Earth, i.e. rainfall, temperature, seasonal change
in these etc? There are so many things that may change that I
consider it very unlikely that any feedback mechanism can stabilise
them all.
> > Going towards an ice age at what speed?
> I guess we are talking of thousands of years.
Since this discussion is about the effects on the next century I 
think it can be safely ignored then.
> > There are arguments that it
> > might be a good thing to use _some_ fossile fuels to stop an
> > eventual ice age, but that would mean using much less than today.
> If we can´t be sure of the extent of possible greenhouse effects, how
> could we be sure that ice age stopping usage is "much less than
> today"?
Because ice ages are formed when the CO2 is less than the preindustrial
280 ppm, and we today have 350 ppm CO2.
> But maybe it will stop at 350 ppm? Can you say for sure it doesn´t?
> There are signs that vegetation is increasing. 350 ppm could very
> well be within acceptable, natural variations.
Of course I can't say for sure it won't stop. Are you suggesting
it will or do you propose that we base our policy on wild hopes?
Since emission of CO2 if rising it would be very surprising if
none of it stayed.
As for the current level being withing "natural variations". 
According to the Vostok ice core we have not had above 300 ppm
for the last 200.000 years measured there. I don't remember how
many million years you have to go back to find similar rates to
what is seen today.
> There are other scientists. I earlier quoted the team from the
> University of Washington, but there are more.
There are lots of scientists. If you want to know what the majority
of them thinks you should read the IPCC report. Of course, you will
always find dissenters. Scientists are supposed to disagree, that
is the only way of finding something new.

-§- wrote:
> 
> -§- wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > In article <33A58A8B.3C34@public.uni-hamburg.de>,
> > >   -§-  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Alas, this is the only tidbit I found upon my return, but then again, it
> > > > doesn't appear to have belonged to a feast....
> > > >
> > > > Did anyone deal with the *questions*??
> >
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > Feeding you is outside my purview, James, but I'd be happy to deal with
> > > your questions:
> > >
> > > 1) Why does such a thing as 'PC' exist (i.e. what purpose is it
> > > serving)?
> > >
> > > See, to answer this, I'd have to accept your terminology (which I don't)
> > > and your definitions (which you haven't adequately articulated).
> >
> > Hummmm. How can you accept my 'terminology' and 'definitions' if I
> > "haven't adequately articulated" them?  Bob, I do believe your reading
> > more into my position, than is actually there. Because so-called
> > "meanies" have dominated the attack on PC, doesn't mean that, 1) I'm one
> > of them, 2) that the so-called "meanies" are wrong, or 3) that it
> > matters one way or the other. We are discussing an ISSUE, with the hope
> > of coming nearer to the TRUTH (i.e. leave egos and personal scheiße out
> > of the conversation- you can call me #321 if it helps you).    Make the
> > plunge!! Be daring, be bold, think for yourself!!
> >
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps
> > > you're wondering why social disapproval is heaped on louts?  Quite
> > > simply, we live in a society that doesn't value loutish behaviour.  It
> > > permits it--  I believe we're discussing social power, not legal
> > > power--it simply doesn't value it.
> >
> > Louts huh? Interesting choice of words. I wonder was Dan Quayle a lout,
> > a meanie, or just pain dumb, when he talked about the need for stronger
> > family values? *[REMINDER]* Keep to the position not the person (i.e.
> > family values- not Qualye)
> >
> > >
> > > 2) Who is it serving?
> > >
> > > You tell me, James.  I get the feeling you're aching to do so.
> >
> > Firstly, (and as much as it pains me to say it) I'm irrelevent to this
> > inquiry (i.e., try again).
> >
> >
> > > 3) Where are we headed with this thing?
> > >
> > > See answer to #2.
> >
> > > I have a creepy feeling about where you're taking this, James.  What
> > > exactly are you trying to say here?  And since I've attempted the
> > > courtesy of answering your questions, do me the courtesy of answering
> > > mine:  What views are you being prevented from expressing because of the
> > > pressures of "political correctness?" If you have a fixed cultural agenda
> > > here that you'd like to drag into our otherwise pristene newsgroup, state
> > > it now.
> >
> > It is easy to get off topic, but here is my stated agenda up until this
> > point:
> >
> > I am of the opinion that PC is the activist arm of subjectivism, or the
> > imposition of it. I believe subjectivism makes reform impossible,
> > because it destroys the standard for reform (i.e., the Truth). Outside
> > of that I'm basically non-commital. But, then again, I'm irrelevent to
> > the conversation.
> >
> > Viele Grüsse,
> >
> > #321 
ä

Hitech@cris.com (Hitech) writes:
:Maybe behind [Weemba's] odd and cranky ways
:there lurks a brain that can describe a calculus of infinities (not an
:infinitesimal calculus) that is sufficient but not necessary to answer
the
:question at hand.
Perhaps he [Hitech] was referring to an infinite space which has a finite 
representation in certain coordinates (or vice versa).

In article <5427.7103T320T1414@adepy77.demon.co.uk>, Barry Adams   Just when you throught the all threads on interpretions of QM
>were dying, some lurker (me) jumps in with a new argument. I am
>bit of Everettist, and although i can't show that parallel universes
>exist, i think i can demonistrate (by no means orginally, but 
>some of you don't seem to have got it yet.) that the universe
>has the full power computational power of a quantum parallelism, and
>that this is substantially greater than classical physics allows.
Note that the Deutsch argument connecting quantum computation with many
worlds is not what he says it is.  He claims it more or less "proves"
many worlds.  All he does is the rather standard plausibility shifting
game, wherein "my" interpretation is shown in its best light and "your"
interpretation looks rather strange, for a carefully chosen narrow range
of phenomena.  (On top of that, he comes up with a rather bizarre version
of Copenhagen as a foil.)
>  I am gone to do this by solving a troublesome ploblem in biochemistry,
>the Folding Problem. [...]
>  There we have it a quantum computer problem that instantly solves
>the folding problem, [...]
>  Now heres the killer part of demostration, i don't a need computer
>quantum to have been built, to prove quantum parallism.  Its going on
>in my body right now. When a protein comes out of one my ribosomes it
>folds instantly, it doesn't take billion years or even a second to do
>so, [...]
Actually, what this apparently demonstrates is that genetic algorithms
can sometimes solve the Inverse Protein Folding Problem.  Ie, given a
biochemical problem, can one find a protein to solve it?  By "protein"
one means an amino acid peptide chain *that folds quickly* into the
proper shape.
Evolution, in other words, selects for a rather narrow class of amino
acid chains.  As evidence for this, some proteins need post-ribosomal
processing of some sort: cleavage to its final configuration, or a
chaperone to help fold are both known.
Massive parallelism has been run on these problems, and the losers are
mostly extinct.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Are relativists suggesting that length contraction per velocity is a
genuine physical change within a distorted dimension? 
The calculations for length contraction also demonstrate that there is
length extension in the trailing direction. The two values cancel each
other, and show that length contraction is a doppler illusion only, with
a mathematical shroud that conceals sensible logic. 
In this analogy; a series of moving, sound generating devices, set up in
a linear alignment along the direction of the movement, traveling at the
speed of sound, will, all at the same instant, deposit their sonic
signal into the air mass that is pushed along to some degree with the
devices. Each signal will propagate forward at the speed of sound within
the relatively moving air mass. These signals will become compacted
together as the further forward air mass slows to stationary, relative
to the earth. If measurements for the distance between the devices are
taken from the signal in the forward air mass the separation of the
devices will have suffered, a doppler effect, length contraction. From a
stationary point, relative to the earth, the time taken for the sonic
signals from the device setup to pass the stationary point is much
shortened, but the time for the actual setup to pass will take, the time
relative to its' real length, per velocity. 
- - -S- - -S- - -S- - ->>> Distance between 
S signals deposited into a non compressed air 
mass. 
---S---S---S--->>>  This is not the distance 
between S signals deposited into a compressed 
air mass.
-----S-----S-----S----->>> True distance between 
S signals deposited into a compressed air mass. 
Within the same logic; consider that every fundamental unit within an
object, moving at "relative" light speed, sets a position of stationary
for dimension, and stationary dimension is carried along with each
fundamental unit for a very short distance. Outward from the boundaries
of each fundamental unit in the object, dimension will become
increasingly distorted towards a different, and far more intense
position of stationary that is set by the matter of the earth. As in the
previous analogy, a proportional forward compression of dimension will
occur between the two relative positions of stationary. Again, the time
taken for the image of the object length to pass a stationary point will
be shortened, but the time taken for the real object to pass will be
that relative to the real object length per velocity. Logically, length
contraction is an illusion, and should always be treated as such. The
length change cannot be real. 
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/the1-1a.html elaborates. 
-- 
Max Keon

David Kastrup (dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:
: "Michael V. Ziniti"  writes:
: 
: > David Kastrup wrote:
: 
: > > Nonsense.  You can define 0^0 quite well, and the definition 0^0=1 is
: > > nicest.  I mean, look what you have done:  you have said 0^0 cannot be
: > > defined by checking the definitions of an infinite number of other
: > > points.  Why should you be allowed to define all other points, but not
: > > 0^0?
: > 
: > If 0^0 was defined as 1, then 0^1/0^1 must also be 1.
: 
: Yeah, and if 0^1 was defined as 0, then 0^2/0^1 must also be 0.
    Except that 0^2 = 0^1, so by your own argument we would have
        1 = 0^1/0^1 = 0^2/0^1 = 0
    Thus, given any complex number r, it would be the case that
        r = r * 1 = r * 0 = 0
    In particular, we see that the minimum length of a path along a
    manifold connecting two points, belonging to R (and thus to C),
    must be zero, and thus every manifold consists of precisely one point.
    But 1 = 0, so it contains 0 points, and must be the null set!  Thus,
    any object, such as the space time continuum, which is describable in
    terms of a manifold is nonexistent. 
    Thus, oh wise and mighty sage, you have solved the e'er perplexing
    riddle of existence ! How did the world come into existence ? Well,
    since we now know that everything is nothing, there is nothing more to
    be confused about. Which I suppose means that we are now even more
    bewildered than before, because nothing is everything. And thus, in
    dispelling our doubt, you have deepened it.
    These matters are too deep for the limited scientific intellect,
    master. Please note that I have directed this discussion into an
    intellectual forum more worthy of revelations of such depth that you
    blessed and cursed us with.
: Care for more sensible counterexamples?
    When sensible theorems are provided to us to provide counterexamples
    to, we will. Bye, now.
: David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
: Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
: Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

  wrote:
>Why not five states of matter?
>
>So far in literature, related to Aristoteles four elements, four states of
>matter are officially recognized.
>
>1.) Plasma
>2.) Gas
>3.) Liquid
>4.) Solid
I think a quick answer is;  the number of 'states of matter' is
somewhat arbitrary,  and we might as well say 'why not six' or 'why
not ten'?  It's not a fundamental property.
It happens that most if not all molecular substances exhibit three
readily identifiable states at atmospheric pressure.  But what about
above atmospheric pressure?  If we go past the critical point in many
phase diagrams,  we can make a smooth transition from liquid to gas,
with no phase transformation of any order.
Or what about plasma.  You say...
>Plasma for example is described as a very hot gas, where  the
>nucleous and electrons are seperated.
Ok... Suppose we heated a gas of Lithium atoms.   At first I expect we
would separate the valence electron,  to have a gas of Li+ and e-.
This I suppose is plasma.  Now we continue to heat,  and eventually
separate the core electrons,  to produce a gas of lithium nuclei and
electrons.  Is this a new state,  or is it still just plasma?   If we
continue to heat,  I suppose we would in some sense boil the nucleus,
and make a nuclear plasma.  New state again?  You might start thinking
of an 'ordinary' gas as a mixed state of matter...  the molecules are
in the gas state,  but the electrons are condensed onto the nuclei,
and the nuclei themselves are condensed nucleons or sub-nuclear
particles.  As we heat such a gas we boil off more and more deeply
bound constituents into the gas phase.  Probably we can extend this
trend in the opposite direction under conditions of higher and higher
pressure (we know nothing very exciting happens when we merely lower
the temperature at standard pressure,  except maybe the odd Bose
condensate.)  First we might condense the electrons into the nucleus
(makes us wonder how we might conclude from elementary QM this is
impossible,  when it is merely thermodynamically unfavorable),  and
then... ?   Then I suppose we would have a black hole if the high
field extrapolation of GR remains in fair agreement with reality.
So I think your comparison to Aristotle was apt:  The 'number of states
of matter' has about as much fundamental significance as the four
elements.  Smarmy comments concluded.  :-)

Well, guys, I am not pretty sure if I remember my Relativity lectrures,
but if you travel at v=0.99c, and want to go to a place that is 2
million years away, you will last 2 million years !!!!!! And not less. 
The time dilation stuff aplies if you want to get back, and what you
will find (if you managed to do it, of course) here on Earth is that the
elapsed time is: GAMMA * 4 million years = 28 million years. 
		I~nigo.
-- 
                            \\|//       
                            (o o)
+-----------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo-------------------------+
| I~nigo Garcia Ruiz                                          |
| Kapteyn Instituut                Phone:  +31-(0)50-3634083  |
| Landleven 12                     Fax:    +31-(0)50-363      |
| 9747 AD GRONINGEN (Netherlands)  e-mail: iruiz@astro.rug.nl |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Dillingham wrote:
> 
> > You can travel to Andromeda and back in a few hours,
> > assuming a spaceship with massive amounts of fuel, BUT it'll be 4
> > million years later when you arrive back on Earth. So it's just not
> > practical, unless you try and leave your past behind ;-)
> >
> 
> Nonsence.  A few hours as opposed to 4 million years?  This implies a time
> contraction of more than a billion to one.
> 
> Consider this:  Let v/c equal 0.995;  then time would be contracted by a
> factor of a mere 10.  Assume that we have a rocket powered by a "photon
> motor" -- its driving force is derived from the total conversion of mass
> to energy (which we do not know how to do, and may never -- but let's
> assume it can be done anyway).  To make a round trip at a terminal
> velocity of 0.995*c would require a mass of fuel 160,000 times as great as
> the payload.  The required fuel mass rises exponentially as v/c -> 1, so
> go figure what it would have to be to achieve v/c = 1 - 10E-9.
> 
> Interstellar travel -- not to mention intergallactic travel -- is almost
> certainly impossible.

In article <5o6ag7$rrg$1@unlisys.unlisys.net>,
  wolfi@berlin.snafu.de (Wolfgang Schwanke) wrote:
>
> mahipalvirdy@orbital.fsd.com writes:
[...]
> >Then I'll see if I cooperate
> >in this futile math bashing exercise of yours.
>
> Where do you get the idea I want to bash maths?? I'm trying to put it
> in perspective.
Sorry. Sorry for mischaracterizing you.
> >What does "our way of thinking" have to do with the exercise of "everyone
> >else" discovering mathematical relationships?
>
> BECAUSE THEY ARE BASED ON THE AXIOMS WE CHOOSE TO POSTULATE.
> I said that more than once.
I heard you more than once. ;-)
If we choose to postulate 1,2,3,... then 1,2,3,... is a Cultural thing?
OK. Please let me in on which Culture to send my Application form for
entry into club. What are the annual dues? What *Culture*? Is it a
MathCulture?
How or _why_ did you learn to count? How does or doesn't counting things
help you get through life? Maybe I am being an arrogant schmuck for
insisting that the act of counting things trancends human activity.
frenchman notes: livre, portefeuille, and piece,
englishman sees: book, wallet and coin.
See how effecient the English are, it takes them less letters to see the
same things the French note.
                     /\  "If the line between science fiction and
                      /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
 /\                   \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
 \       /\/\  /  \  \/                            Mahipal
 /   ==  \  /  \/\/                                The |meforce> Paradox
 \/                       http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/mew3.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

stats@interaccess.com ("Joseph B. Dunphy") writes:
> David Kastrup (dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:
> : "Michael V. Ziniti"  writes:
> : 
> : > David Kastrup wrote:
> : 
> : > > Nonsense.  You can define 0^0 quite well, and the definition 0^0=1 is
> : > > nicest.  I mean, look what you have done:  you have said 0^0 cannot be
> : > > defined by checking the definitions of an infinite number of other
> : > > points.  Why should you be allowed to define all other points, but not
> : > > 0^0?
> : > 
> : > If 0^0 was defined as 1, then 0^1/0^1 must also be 1.
> : 
> : Yeah, and if 0^1 was defined as 0, then 0^2/0^1 must also be 0.
> 
>     Except that 0^2 = 0^1, so by your own argument we would have
> 
>         1 = 0^1/0^1 = 0^2/0^1 = 0
[Rabble deleted]
>     Thus, oh wise and mighty sage, you have solved the e'er perplexing
>     riddle of existence !
Congratulations.  I guess you have now found out why I consider
> : > If 0^0 was defined as 1, then 0^1/0^1 must also be 1.
insufficient, namely because from the contradiction I pointed out all
the nonsense you have outlined in your enlightened treatment follows.
I still maintain open the task:
> : Care for more sensible counterexamples?
Perhaps I should spell it out more explicitly:
Care to come up with a more sensible counterexample speaking against
the definition 0^0=1?
And, no, I won't take the 0^0 = 0^1/0^1 rubbish as one, exactly
because it is the same reasoning as behind 0^1 = 0^2/0^1 leading to
exactly the ridiculous consequences you thought yourself so bright to
spell out.
-- 
David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Oslo,19. June, 1997. Crystal Structure Design AS has today released a minor
free update of CrystalDesigner for Macintosh. The update is available for
downloading from .  This release fixes a
few bugs related to drawing of polyhedra. 
CrystalDesigner is a tool for building, studying and visualising all kinds
of crystal structure on the Macintosh platform. CrystalDesigner is an ideal
tool for both teaching and scientific studies. The software is intended to
be used by students and teachers at colleges and universities, as well as
in industrial research.
More information about CrystalDesigner is available at
.
Arve Holt 
Crystal Structure Design AS

In article <33a75ef1.2493100@news.halcyon.com>, timilen@halcyon.com wrote:
> The following is a good example of folks who clip out the original
> message thread so that the rest of us don't have a clue as to what
> they are discussing!
> 
> 
> On Wed, 28 May 1997 19:03:48 -0700, Michael Hannon
>  wrote:
> 
> >Steve Spence wrote:
> >> 
> >> i thought so, but not being a physics expert, I thank you for enlightening
> >> me.
> >> 
> >> --
> >> Steve Spence
> >> NorthEast Region Systems Engineer - Sequel Technology
> >> sspence@sequeltech.com
> >> http://www.sequeltech.com
> >>  Jeff Olson wrote in article <338C9828.5081@SPAMFREElmco.com>...
> >> >Rolf Tore Randeberg wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>  Steve Spence wrote in article <5megro$eui@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>...
> >> 
> >> >> >after reading
http://hoffman.rstnu.bcm.tmc.edu/~wje/free_energy/marinov.
> >> txt
> >> >>
> >> >> >I am hoping some real physics people can comment on this. Is marinov
> >> >> >correct (?), all wet, or somewhere in between.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> That is the weirdest nonsense I have read for some time!
> >> >>
> >> >> -Rolf Tore Randeberg
> >> >>  M.Sc physics
> >> >
> >> >Well, this was praise enough for me to take a look, and I have to
> >> >agree.  The weirdest nonsense I've read for some time!
> >> >
> >> >Jeff Olson
> >> >
> >
> >Beware of physics "experts" attempting to "enlighten" others.
> >
> >OHannon
> >
Yep, I've not seen anything quite as goofy.  
It is interesting to note that the "conventional" experts, who humbly work
with to "conventional" science and engineering, build airplanes, nuclear
reactors, computers, spacecraft, and MRI machines.  
Then there's the unconventional, who think that "conventional" science is
*totally* wrong. They build tabletop devices, and put on "demonstrations,"
that never seem to work quite right.

 Aephraim M. Steinberg wrote in article ...
>In article <5o7d6o$agv$1@eclipse.txdirect.net>,
>David Knaack  wrote:
>>Here is a puzzle.
>>A 1000 pound mass is in a cargo plane.  The mass is moved forward 50
feet.
>>The center of gravity of the plane shifts forward 1 inch.
>>How much does the plane weigh?
>>
>>It has been a long time since physics class, can someone refresh my
memory
>>on how to work this type of problem?
>
>Actually, it's a trick question.  Without the application of any
>external forces (I take the liberty of assuming that the mass was
>moved by someone inside the plane, not by Yuri Geller), the center
>of mass of the plane+mass system keeps moving at constant velocity.
>There is no extra shift due to the motion of the 1000-lb mass; as
>you push on it, your feet push the rest of the plane back just enough
>to keep the c.o.m. stationary.  This is the same effect that lets
>the jet fly in the first place, just on a smaller scale.
>
>Of course, that's not what you meant.  To solve your problem, recall
>that x(com) = [ m(plane)*x(plane) + m(weight)*x(weight) ]
>       -------------------------------------------
>       m(plane)    +    m(weight)
>The equation remains true if all the positions x are replaced by
>shifts \Delta x.  So plug in the incorrect assumption that x(plane)
>does not change, the given values for the other two shifts, and
>the known mass, and it's simple arithmetic.
>
>You'll see quickly that if you account for 1% of the total mass,
>the com position shifts by 1% of the amount you do, and so forth.
So then:
(read 'X`c' as 'X sub c')
X`c = Distance common center of gravity moves = 1 inch
X`p = Distance center of gravity of plain moves = 0 inchs
X`w = Distance center of gravity of weight moves = 600 inchs
M`p = unknow
M`w = 1000 pounds
General form of the equation is:
      ( M`p * X`p ) + ( M`w * X`w )
X`c = ------------------------------
                M`p + M`w
Substitue and solve:
      ( M`p * 0 ) + ( 1000 * 600 )
 1 = ------------------------------
              M`p + 1000

 M`p = 599,000 pounds
(Hey Kevin, you were right the first time!)
I understand how to use the equation, but how is it derived?
Thanks for the help!
>--
>Aephraim M. Steinberg        | "...scanning the sky for [signals] from
>aephraim@physics.utoronto.ca | intelligent life.  One group has improved
its
>//www.physics.toronto.edu/   | ability to distinguish human signals from
the
>                 ~aephraim/  | real things." Science 271, 1055.
> 
BTW, I liked your quote ;)
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|David Knaack                  |                                    |
|Email replies are appreciated,| "...scanning the sky for [signals] |
|but not necessary.            | from intelligent life.  One group  |
+------------------------------+ has improved its ability to        |
|Return address mangled, use:  | distinguish human signals from the |
|User      : dknaack           | real things." Science 271, 1055.   |
|Domain    : rdtech.com        |                                    |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+

> dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl wrote:.
>> Mountain Man wrote:
>>> dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl wrote:.
>>>> Mountain Man wrote:
>>>>> dvoosten@fys.ruu.nl wrote:.
> 
>>>>> Reveal to us the test you propose and we will see.
>
>>>>   All good things in time Dries.
>>>>   It is only a matter of time ...
> 
>>>Why are you posting about a new theory, when you don't dare to make
>>>predictions now?
>
>> The time for conceptualising a theory, and the time for the
>> conceptualisation of experimental predictions need not be the
>> one and the same time.  Do you have a problem with this?
>> 
>
>I don't have a problem with that. 
  This is an exceedingly short agreement.
>I do have a problem with the fact that
>you seem far enough in the developedment of your theory that you can give
>it's pro's and compare it with other theories. 
 Perhaps you have confused the originator of the post here.
 Eric posted a collation of issues related to the above.
 I commented upon these matters as I saw fit.
>If you can do this, there
>should be some experimental evidence to support your claims, otherwise
>they are empty statements that serve no use. 
So you say.
However I say your assessment of *use* follows the narrow channels
of traditional definition, and is inappropriate to deal with
something which is in the process of evolution.
>I  could go out and say that
>the new theory I am working on will perform better then any other theory
>before did, but no one gives a shit because everyone would like to see
>some evidence or at least something that can give an intuitive idea about
>why and how this theory has a good chance of performing better. I do not
>see that in your posts. I see bold statements about your theory being
>better, but all you do is say at which points it is better not why and
>how. You sound as though you could survive a test, but you are not (yet)
>in a position to make it.
I say you have confused authorship of this thread.
>Eat any good books lately?
"On Purpose" - Charles Birch (Aussie biologist)
Seems supportive of the work of Whitehead (AN).
I lean towards his philosophy myself.
All the best for now,
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 BoomerangOutPost:       Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
 Thematic Threading:     Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
 Webulous Coordinates:   http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
 QuoteForTheDay:        "You shall hear how Hiawatha
                         prayed and fasted in the forest,
                         Not for greater skill in hunting,
                         Not for greater craft in fishing,
                         Not for triumphs in the battle,
                         And renown among the warriors,
                         But for profit of the people,
                         For advantage of the nations."
                                                 - Longfellow  (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

    If anyone had any doubt, this man is a complete and utter lunatic.
    In apparent fear of the possibility that I would miss this scholarly
    missive, who's argument can be summed up with the words "oh, yeah", 
    Herr Kastrup sent me a copy of this by e-mail. 
    David, if you haven't gotten it yet, the point to the arguments that
    you offered is that the adoption of such a definition, setting 0^0
    equal to one, would be incompatible with the standard laws of
    exponents, from high school math. As you haven't shown any benefit
    to adopting this construction, aside from the fact that it appeals
    to the anal retentive side of your character, the rest of us see no
    reason to adopt this definition.
    Don't think that you haven't gotten anything out of your efforts,
    though. You have a new nickname. I dub thee "Annie", after the little
    girl in a long running Kraft macaroni and cheese commercial here in
    America, who went around town trying to convince everyone to start
    calling it Kraft chese and macaroni.
    Sci.math, physics, and chem people who read this man's ravings :
    please ignore them in the future. He has demonstrated that he has
    no interest in reason.
    Welcome to my killfile, Dave. And my mailfilter, if necessary.
    I am putting you on public notice that I welcome no further mail from
    you, and any further trash you throw in my box is subject to reposting
    on the group of my choice. The courts have not backed up the laughable
    usenet belief that to do so constitutes actionable copyright 
    infringement, even if you put that little C on your letter.
    I will stonewall further discussion on that last topic, and if you
    want to bellow in public about my lawless attitude as some have, do
    so to your heart's content. Doing so will have no effect on my
    actions. Deal with it.
    Bye, now. Get lost.
David Kastrup (dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:
: stats@interaccess.com ("Joseph B. Dunphy") writes:
: 
: > David Kastrup (dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de) wrote:
: > : "Michael V. Ziniti"  writes:
: > : 
: > : > David Kastrup wrote:
: > : 
: > : > > Nonsense.  You can define 0^0 quite well, and the definition 0^0=1 is
: > : > > nicest.  I mean, look what you have done:  you have said 0^0 cannot be
: > : > > defined by checking the definitions of an infinite number of other
: > : > > points.  Why should you be allowed to define all other points, but not
: > : > > 0^0?
: > : > 
: > : > If 0^0 was defined as 1, then 0^1/0^1 must also be 1.
: > : 
: > : Yeah, and if 0^1 was defined as 0, then 0^2/0^1 must also be 0.
: > 
: >     Except that 0^2 = 0^1, so by your own argument we would have
: > 
: >         1 = 0^1/0^1 = 0^2/0^1 = 0
: 
: [Rabble deleted]
: 
: >     Thus, oh wise and mighty sage, you have solved the e'er perplexing
: >     riddle of existence !
: 
: Congratulations.  I guess you have now found out why I consider
: 
: > : > If 0^0 was defined as 1, then 0^1/0^1 must also be 1.
: 
: insufficient, namely because from the contradiction I pointed out all
: the nonsense you have outlined in your enlightened treatment follows.
: 
: I still maintain open the task:
: 
: > : Care for more sensible counterexamples?
: 
: Perhaps I should spell it out more explicitly:
: 
: Care to come up with a more sensible counterexample speaking against
: the definition 0^0=1?
: 
: And, no, I won't take the 0^0 = 0^1/0^1 rubbish as one, exactly
: because it is the same reasoning as behind 0^1 = 0^2/0^1 leading to
: exactly the ridiculous consequences you thought yourself so bright to
: spell out.
: 
: -- 
: David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
: Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
: Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany