<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>sci.physics.research Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research</link>
  <description>Current physics research. (Moderated)</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <item>
  <title>Re: An explanation of the origin of inertia of a body</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/096cc0e0ee5161df?show_docid=096cc0e0ee5161df</link>
  <description>
  [snip remainder] &lt;br&gt; So stipulated. Consider the vacuum is isotropic in the massless &lt;br&gt; sector (photons) but has anisiotrpic structure in the massed sector (a &lt;br&gt; chiral pseudoscalar vacuum background comes to mind). All EM &lt;br&gt; observations will be blind to massed sector vacuum anisotropy. &lt;br&gt; Achiral and racemic massed sector observations will be blind to massed
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/096cc0e0ee5161df?show_docid=096cc0e0ee5161df</guid>
  <author>
  uncle...@hate.spam.net
  (Uncle Al)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:12:24 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Another look at Newtonian potential</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/10727cd96cec81fc/4b7d745bfd95eb06?show_docid=4b7d745bfd95eb06</link>
  <description>
  Colin Walker wrote on Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:05:09 +0000: &lt;br&gt; The Schwarzschild singularity in GR is already at r=0.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/10727cd96cec81fc/4b7d745bfd95eb06?show_docid=4b7d745bfd95eb06</guid>
  <author>
  juanrem...@canonicalscience.com
  (Juan R. González-Álvarez)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:01:57 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Deriving Maxwell&#39;s equations, the Lorentz force law, and the regularised perturbation expansion from the minimal interaction in qed</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/b3c8060f13403a2c/1782272b7d4b0e08?show_docid=1782272b7d4b0e08</link>
  <description>
  In http:/papers.rqgravity.net/RQG Foundations.pdf I showed how quantum &lt;br&gt; mechanics can be formulated as a theory of particles. I use this &lt;br&gt; formulation to construct qed in &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://papers.rqgravity.net/RQGQED.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; Imv it is important to rigorously derive cem from qed, not to find qed &lt;br&gt; by quantising cem, and to show from physical principles that the
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/b3c8060f13403a2c/1782272b7d4b0e08?show_docid=1782272b7d4b0e08</guid>
  <author>
  n...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk
  (Oh No)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:01:58 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: An explanation of the origin of inertia of a body</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/03c3c3c96bc7ecc0?show_docid=03c3c3c96bc7ecc0</link>
  <description>
  There&#39;s an equally obvious problem with this argument -- its &lt;br&gt; incompleteness. &lt;br&gt; The &amp;quot;charge&amp;quot; of a particle is NOT its electric charge; but its total &lt;br&gt; gauge charge; i.e. that which is involved in Wong&#39;s equation. You &lt;br&gt; forgot, there&#39;s more than one force involved; and for gauge fields, &lt;br&gt; the electric charge now becomes a vector-valued quantity with one
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/03c3c3c96bc7ecc0?show_docid=03c3c3c96bc7ecc0</guid>
  <author>
  markw...@yahoo.com
  (Rock Brentwood)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:01:55 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: ATOMIC SIMULATION</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f09ef1135935804f/4cfaa42bda765d59?show_docid=4cfaa42bda765d59</link>
  <description>
  There are some groups concerned with reactive scattering of three to five &lt;br&gt; atom systems. These systems can be investigated with full quantitative &lt;br&gt; quantum mechanical treatments of all relevant physical effects of both the &lt;br&gt; electronic structure and the reactive scattering itself. &lt;br&gt; Some pointers on recent work in this direction:
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f09ef1135935804f/4cfaa42bda765d59?show_docid=4cfaa42bda765d59</guid>
  <author>
  hid...@mysecret.net
  (Gerald Knizia)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:30:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Primordial Nucleon Synthesis and the next 17 ? minutes</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/854749fbb0b4a30f/f08b434659437cc6?show_docid=f08b434659437cc6</link>
  <description>
  In what form? &lt;br&gt; I find this terminology very confusing. &lt;br&gt; Traditionally, dark energy refers to the (unknown) cause of the force &lt;br&gt; opposing gravitational attraction between matter in the universe at &lt;br&gt; large, and modelled as a re-introduction of Einstein&#39;s cosmpogical &lt;br&gt; constant. &lt;br&gt; What do you mean? &lt;br&gt; And what is v?
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/854749fbb0b4a30f/f08b434659437cc6?show_docid=f08b434659437cc6</guid>
  <author>
  chalkys...@bleachboys.co.uk
  (Chalky)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:29:42 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: How to calculate this?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4b3536f43f7c42ac/0beb0a860511df00?show_docid=0beb0a860511df00</link>
  <description>
  Just keep in mind. This model has 3 phases. Bodies at phase1 is &lt;br&gt; different from bodies at phase3. The law of momentum conservation &lt;br&gt; works, but it gives different result for bodies with different mass. &lt;br&gt; This is the comment from other forum. &lt;br&gt; &amp;quot;If the platform is completely free to move (say floating in outer
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/4b3536f43f7c42ac/0beb0a860511df00?show_docid=0beb0a860511df00</guid>
  <author>
  abelov0...@gmail.com
  (Alex)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:29:16 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Experimental refutation of Horava gravity ?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f7c0cd3d1069e589/05558911bd72f154?show_docid=05558911bd72f154</link>
  <description>
  There is an interesting preprint on the arxiv by T.P. Sotiriou et al. &lt;br&gt; called &amp;quot;Quantum Gravity Without Lorentz Invariance&amp;quot; about a &lt;br&gt; modification of Horava&#39;s model: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2798&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; However, this brief experimental paper by Dolev and Elitzur which was &lt;br&gt; also published in an edited book establishes the non-sequential
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f7c0cd3d1069e589/05558911bd72f154?show_docid=05558911bd72f154</guid>
  <author>
  cfst...@hotmail.com
  (Charlie Stromeyer Jr)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:06:39 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: The Classical and/or Non-Relativistic Form of the Haag &amp;</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/26b2b33ceee6eb85/c4608a0ec0e4d40d?show_docid=c4608a0ec0e4d40d</link>
  <description>
  On Jun 16, 2:45 pm, Bob_for_short &amp;lt;vladimir.kalitvian...@wanadoo .fr&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote: &lt;br&gt; Feynman &amp;amp; Dirac both recognized the problem of using Hamiltonians in &lt;br&gt; QFT - that&#39;s why they always preferred Lagangians. Dyson was so &lt;br&gt; discouraged by the infinities that he too gave up on this bogus &lt;br&gt; approach to EM interactions. Hamiltonian densities are just a
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/26b2b33ceee6eb85/c4608a0ec0e4d40d?show_docid=c4608a0ec0e4d40d</guid>
  <author>
  s...@shaw.ca
  (maxwell)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:06:39 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Another look at Newtonian potential</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/10727cd96cec81fc/8d16d2d9559bf81d?show_docid=8d16d2d9559bf81d</link>
  <description>
  Hmmm. You might try using the Newtonian equivalent of the &lt;br&gt; Schwarzschild equations of motion. A paper which gives them, &lt;br&gt; along with the (somewhat simpler) equations of motion for &lt;br&gt; the Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates of the Schwarzschild &lt;br&gt; metric is at: &lt;br&gt; &lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.brannenworks.com/Gravity/BranGravArXiv.pdf&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt;
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/10727cd96cec81fc/8d16d2d9559bf81d?show_docid=8d16d2d9559bf81d</guid>
  <author>
  c...@brannenworks.com
  (CarlBrannen)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:06:38 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Quantum correlations in photosynthesis (review article)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/5133c5d160439059/6ce7c87b0c6d9b77?show_docid=6ce7c87b0c6d9b77</link>
  <description>
  Paper [1] shows a similar magnitude of quantum coherence in conducting &lt;br&gt; polymers. &lt;br&gt; The work mentioned in [2] shows that an individual photon can excite &lt;br&gt; up to three electrons at once within quantum dots, and there is also &lt;br&gt; both previous and ongoing research on combining quantum dots with &lt;br&gt; polymers, e.g., just google the phrase &amp;quot;quantum dots polymers&amp;quot;.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/5133c5d160439059/6ce7c87b0c6d9b77?show_docid=6ce7c87b0c6d9b77</guid>
  <author>
  cfst...@hotmail.com
  (Charlie Stromeyer Jr)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:02:17 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: ATOMIC SIMULATION</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f09ef1135935804f/417acea8c0461a1f?show_docid=417acea8c0461a1f</link>
  <description>
  i have heard the commercial package gaussian does some atomic &lt;br&gt; and molecular dynamics using semi-classical methods. not a full &lt;br&gt; quantum mechanical scattering treatment, although the molecular &lt;br&gt; structure calculation in gaussian are fully quantum mechanical.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f09ef1135935804f/417acea8c0461a1f?show_docid=417acea8c0461a1f</guid>
  <author>
  vivishek.sud...@gmail.com
  (Vivishek Sudhir)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:02:07 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: An explanation of the origin of inertia of a body</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/efd381d876f580ce?show_docid=efd381d876f580ce</link>
  <description>
  ==========Moderator&#39;s note ============================= &lt;br&gt; The statement quoted, I made before, has been a bit brief perhaps. &lt;br&gt; You are right, the valence quarks do not contribute much mass to &lt;br&gt; the proton. The point I wanted to make was that the hadrons consisting &lt;br&gt; of light valence quarks get their mass from the strong interaction, not
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/601726359422b4e5/efd381d876f580ce?show_docid=efd381d876f580ce</guid>
  <author>
  uncle...@hate.spam.net
  (Uncle Al)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:12:49 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Paper with &quot;Black hole electron&quot; calculation</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/7cd2d4197a688913/983af7fe2c55ed64?show_docid=983af7fe2c55ed64</link>
  <description>
  Here is a suggestion: &lt;br&gt; Search for: &amp;quot;How can the Planck length be claimed to be the smallest &lt;br&gt; length?&amp;quot;. See pages 2 &amp;amp; 3, (posts # 17 thru # 42). These &amp;quot;Physics &lt;br&gt; Forums&amp;quot; posts show black hole and electron relationships. The &lt;br&gt; gravitational constant and the Planck constant are shown to have a &lt;br&gt; precise relationship. Also see &amp;quot;References&amp;quot; under Wikipedia article:
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/7cd2d4197a688913/983af7fe2c55ed64?show_docid=983af7fe2c55ed64</guid>
  <author>
  donjstev...@aol.com
  (DJay)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:02:32 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: conductive sheet - resistance between 2 arbitrary points</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f535cd35c6ca6de8/0d0a54d32a8e7109?show_docid=0d0a54d32a8e7109</link>
  <description>
  My recollection is that it was used to maintain the temperature of an &lt;br&gt; Eppley standard cell.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/browse_thread/thread/f535cd35c6ca6de8/0d0a54d32a8e7109?show_docid=0d0a54d32a8e7109</guid>
  <author>
  n_cramers...@pacbell.net
  (Nick Cramer)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:10:24 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
