1995.01.16 /  hatcher@msupa. /  Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
     
Originally-From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics,sci.ph
sics.accelerators
Subject: Re: Producing a neutrino beam in a particle accelerator
Date: 16 Jan 1995 20:43:39 GMT
Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy

In article <3fd8d1$qqh@borg.svpal.org>, lockyer@svpal.svpal.org (Thomas Lockyer) writes:

>How can the cross section increase with energy.

How can it not?  Seriously, it's been measured and has a theoretical basis
to support it.  The cross-section for deep-inelastic neutrino-nucleon
scattering is *linearly* dependent on the neutrino energy.  Okay, there is
the propagator term in there to moderate things at the most extreme values
so no "unitarity" bounds are broken, but to an excellent approximation
it hold quite nicely in the range of E_{\nu} = a few MeV to ~500 GeV.

Heck, for a reference try the plot on page III.82 of Phys Rev D
Vol 45 (1 june 1992) number 11 (Part II):  Review of Particle Properties.
This is the big version of the PDG particle data booklet for that year.
This linear dependence is so uncontroversial now that they've apparently
dropped it from the 1 August 1994 (vol 50, num 3) version to save space.

>                                                 I suspect what is 
>happening is that more stray gammas and neutrons get through the 
>shield, at higher and higher energy to give the delusion of increased cross 
>section.

Well "suspect" again.  "delusion of increased cross section"?  Sheesh!
What is it about a energy dependence to the cross section that upsets
you so much?  I "suspect" that you know jack-shit about the whole subject,
otherwise why would you be spewing just garbage about "stray gammas and
neutrons".  You don't think we (who do such experiments) might not notice
such uncorrelated background and that we wouldn't take measures to reduce
it or subtract it?

[more "I know more than the experts" bullshit ... deleted]

>The neutrinos exist, but the claims for their detection are all suspect, 
>because the *events* can be background. 

Which "events"?  All neutrino interactions, even accelerator based ones?
Me thinks you're a nutcase if thats what you're advocating...
For examples of a few accelerator produced neutrino interactions try
http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/composite_e733_p.ps
http://pads1.pa.msu.edu:81/home/hatcher/neut_descr.html
Given those pictures explain to me what is "suspect" about them, or how you
could explain them as background...while you're at it figure out how our
pattern recognition is sooooo screwed up that we wouldn't notice the
extraordinarily HUGE gamma/neutron induced depositions necessary to 
simulate a linear cross-section increase over the range of 10GeV to 400GeV?

>                                        No known particle can have a 
>cross section that *increases* with energy. Particles feel  surroundings 
>by their DeBroglie wavelengths, and wavelengths always get smaller with 
>energy so the crossections *decrease* with eneergy. Particle theory is 
>out of control, it seems to me, if we can believe that cross sections for 
>the neutrino *increase* with energy.  What is the mechanism?

A great little handwaving "explaination" that is sufficient for pre-med
students.  Alas, the world is more complicated than that...come back and
play again after reading up a little on the subject.  You might start by
learning something about "weak interactions", "deep inelastic scattering",
"scaling" to name a few.

>Regards: Tom. 

Why is it that every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks they're soooo much smarter
than "the experts" when it comes to *neutrinos* (in particular)?  What
exactly is it about them that so attracts the crackpots to -this- subject
even more than physics as a whole (which in turn gets more than its fair
share compared to, say, geology for instance)?  Or is it just a perception
thing, that I see these nutcases crawl out of the woodwork because I'm more
attuned to that subject matter...and others with different specialties have
their own weirdos to deal with?  That can't be the whole of it because one
hardly ever sees posts claiming that condensed matter types have got it all
wrong when it comes to, oh, catalytic processes on surfaces.

-robert

 Robert W. Hatcher      | 256D Physics-Astronomy    | hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu
 Associate Researcher   | Michigan State University | hatcher@msupa   (Bitnet)
 (517) 353-3008,-5180   | East Lansing, MI 48824    | msuhep::hatcher (HEPnet)

cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenhatcher cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszM cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.16 / MARSHALL DUDLEY /  Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu)
     
Originally-From: mdudley@brbbs.brbbs.com (MARSHALL DUDLEY)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: ideas & copyrights (Was ... A. Pu)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:13 -0500 (EST)

Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
 
->   I have both. Both a copyright and a patent on RADIOACTIVE SPONTANEOUS
-> NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION = VIOLATION OF ENERGY/MASS CONSERVATION = COLD
-> FUSION EXPERIMENTS. I am the first to patent that, and to publish it.
 
Really?  I would be very interested in seeing that patent.  What is the patent
number so I can look it up?
 
                                                                Marshall
 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenmdudley cudfnMARSHALL cudlnDUDLEY cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszS cudyr1995 
------------------------------
1995.01.16 / A Plutonium /  Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
     
Originally-From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.fusion,alt.sci.physics.plutonium
Subject: Re: Warning:Nature, New Scientist, CF = violation conservation
Date: 16 Jan 1995 23:31:01 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College

In article <D2I92o.AHt@pica.army.mil>
tcora@pica.army.mil (Tom Coradeschi) writes:

> cop-y-right (kop' ee riit') n. 1. the exclusive right, granted by law for a
> certain number of years, to make and dispose of copies of a literary,
> musical or artistic work. v.t. 2. to secure a copyright on.
> 
> Does this make things a bit more clear?

  Mr. Coradeschi, because your writing above is polite. And your
questions are addressed in a polite manner, the polite way you yourself
would expect to receive posts and email. Of course, I must reply
politely back.
  I am in no way 100% sure of this answer, but highly confident. And I
feel, upon review of this thread that we are both correct to some
degree. I say that because I feel that you and another poster - - -
In article <033304Z16011995@anon.penet.fi>
an176059@anon.penet.fi writes:

> Dear Sir:
> 
>    A copyright infringement occurs only when the actual words are
> copied;  *ideas* are absolutely *not* subject to any form of copyright
> protection; that is what patents are for.

Are thinking of me misapplying the copyright law. Which I have no
intention of doing. I simply want to enforce the copyright law. Please
let me describe this.

  I believe that you Tom and 176059, think that I intend to charge
persons money whenever they print any idea like this---- RADIOACTIVE
SPONTANEOUS
NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION = VIOLATION OF ENERGY/MASS CONSERVATION = COLD
FUSION EXPERIMENTS.

  No, I do not have in mind to charge money, such as a software
copyright every time another person wants to use it. No, money is far
from my mind.

  My purpose in stating that I hold a copyright, is that whenever a
newspaper or magazine such as Nature, New York Times, New Scientist
say, prints that the Cold Fusion experiments mechanism is violation of
energy/mass of spontaneous neutron materialization. Those publishers
must give me credit. They must do that because I have both patent and
copyright authority on that idea. It is not that I want to extract any
money like a copyright on a film or software.

  If you know the copyright law, I am able to quote any book, at a
specified length of that book. All people are allowed that, as long as
they indicate the source. If they quote a mere passage out of a book
such as Cold Fusion is spontaneous neutron materialization, without
giving me credit, in other words, trying to fake that the idea or
passage was their own, then they are subject to copyright law. They
would be plagarizing. It is alright if I read the Feynman Lectures and
then try to say the ideas in my own words as to what I thought. But
when someone writes the words of Feynman and pretends that those were
the writers, then that is running into plagarism.

  The idea that all of the anomalous heat from purported Cold Fusion, I
assert, is all due to the mechanism of violation of energy/mass
conservation. That spontaneous neutron materialization is the cause of
the anomalous heat. This mechanism is the cause of sonoluminescence and
other phenomenon. Some had to have thought that mechanism up the first.
I assert such with both a patent and public copyright over the
Internet.

  It is not that I am wanting to charge everyone who utters or prints
those ideas. No. I am using the copyright law as record of PRIORITY of
an idea. That is one of the main uses of a copyright. Many, many people
get copyrights for the purpose of claiming priority rights. Just as
someone had to invent the Schroedinger Equation first and receive due
credit for seeing it first. One usually goes to a copyright office to
establish that priority right claim.

   And a copyright protects a priority right in many ways. Most people,
not just a few, have no access to publishers. Many people feel that
they have created something new and original and quickly find out that
no publisher wants to publish them. Try as hard as they may, all
publishers turn them down. So their final recourse, feeling that their
work is original and new, they copyright their work with the USA
Library of Congress. They have no intention of running around charging
everyone who they suspect has used one of their ideas. But if they see
their idea, once spurned by a publisher, see that same idea written in
another work of a latter date. Well of course the first artist is going
to get upset to the point where she or he will sue if the second party
continues with the theft.

  My warning to New Scientist, Nature, and others is simply that if I
see them publish my ideas from works that I have patent or copyright,
and OMIT my name Archimedes Plutonium. Then, I am confident that the
patent laws are on my side. I have no intention whatsoever in charging
money, like a software copyright or a movie copyright, for my works
when published in magazines. Anyone can quote from books without paying
money for quoting. However, if they quote something or print some new
idea without giving the originator credit for the idea, then they are
in trouble.

  I have noticed in the last year that many magazines get ideas from
the Internet, especially New Scientist. Example, I posted questions
about Wimshurst and in the latest editions, there was an article on
Wimshurst. New Scientist did nothing wrong, and the article was very
informative. But, should say New Scientist or Nature run an article and
mention that Cold Fusion mechanism is violation of conservation of
energy/mass, and give no credit to the originator of this new original
idea, instead, pretend as if the editors or writer of the column just
came up with that idea, when I have blaired that idea for over a year
here on the Internet and I hold the copyright and patent on the idea.
If I were to open one of these magazines and see my ideas printed and
not see the name Archimedes Plutonium, then, I will write to the
transgressor and ask them to make correct. If they do not, then it is
the copyright law which protects my Priority Right.

  I think both Tom and 176059 were thinking of a misuse of copyright.
Of charging money to everyone who was thinking a similar idea. No. I am
not using copyright law to charge for an idea. I am using copyright law
to protect my first Priority rights of discovery. Anyone can print or
publish my idea that Cold Fusion is spontaneous neutron
materialization, and they can say it in many different ways, but they
must give Archimedes Plutonium the credit for first discovery. 
cudkeys:
cuddy16 cudenPlutonium cudfnArchimedes cudlnPlutonium cudmo1 cudqt1 cudszL cudyr1995 
------------------------------
processed by cud.pl ver. 0.5 Wed Jan 18 04:37:03 EST 1995
------------------------------
