Gravity at the Molecular Level
Mea505
Is is safe to assume that gravity plays any part at all in the
molecular level of quantum mechanics, and, if so, what has not anyone
assumed that, albeit small, that gravity may play a part in the
molecule, rather than merely the electrical charges imposed upon the
electrons and the nucleus of an atom?
Rich L.
If you calculate the electrostatic force between an electron and
proton at a distance of 1 nm (more or less typical of atomic
dimensions), and then calculate the force due to the gravitational
attraction between the electron and proton, and then calculate the
ratio of the electric force to the gravitationbal force, you get a
ratio of 2.27E+39 (that is 227 followed by 37 zeros). The
gravitational corrections to the orbits of electrons in atoms is
unmeasurable by current technology. Even the often quoted extreme
precision of QED predictions, out 8 or more decimal places, is still
far too crude to see any effect due to gravitation.
Rich L.
Igor Khavkine
Here's a paper that takes general relativistic corrections into
account while considering the hydrogen atom. This means that they
include both Newtonian gravity corrections and higher order terms,
suppressed by powers of 1/c, for instance. As expected, the
corrections to the transition frequencies between low lying energy
levels are small, 1 part in about 10^39. That's about 20 digits
further than the most precise measurements ever achieved.
If only Newtonian gravity is taken into account, these corrections are
computable exactly (all that changes is the fine structure constant).
Zhen-Hua Zhao, Yu-Xiao Liu, Xi-Guo Li
Gravitational Corrections to the Energy-Levels of a Hydrogen Atom
Commun. Theor. Phys. Vol. 47 (2007), pp.658-662
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1743
Hope this helps.
Igor
Doug Sweetser
Gravity does play a part, one so trivial that it cannot be measured.
I think the current measure of the value of electric charge is to ten
significant digits (physicists are not free to add as many digits as
they want, too bad). The mass of an electron in the same units of
electric charge is 16 orders of magnitude smaller, so a million times
smaller than we know electric charge.
Because the mass measured in the same units is sixteen orders of
magnitude smaller than the charge, gravity does not play a measureable
role in molecules. Should we refine our measurements, the
contribution could be detected. That would require absurdly delicate
work. To say gravity's contribution is "minor" is not an accurate way
to describe the trivial effects of gravity on molecules.
Doug
rlolders...@amherst.edu
> proton at a distance of 1 nm (more or less typical of atomic
> dimensions), and then calculate the force due to the gravitational
> attraction between the electron and proton, and then calculate the
> ratio of 2.27E+39 (that is 227 followed by 37 zeros). =A0The
> gravitational corrections to the orbits of electrons in atoms is
> precision of QED predictions, out 8 or more decimal places, is still
> far too crude to see any effect due to gravitation.
>
> Rich L.
Note that this argument assumes that the Newtonian gravitational
constant, which clearly applies on macroscopic scales, also appies
*within* atoms. To my knowledge, this *specific assumption* has never
been tested empirically.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
<17fb126c-dc21-48ea...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
"Rich L." <ralivi...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> If you calculate the electrostatic force between an electron and
> proton at a distance of 1 nm (more or less typical of atomic
> dimensions), and then calculate the force due to the gravitational
> attraction between the electron and proton, and then calculate the
> ratio of the electric force to the gravitationbal force, you get a
> ratio of 2.27E+39 (that is 227 followed by 37 zeros).
Of course, this is the correct answer. However, except for even much
smaller distances, where other effects come into play, the distance
between the objects doesn't matter, since both gravity and electrostatic
forces fall off like r^{-2}, so the ratio is always the same.
Richard Saam
Yes, the electric force to the gravitational force
Fe/FG = e^2 /(G m^2) ratio 2.27E+39 is true but:
an interesting relationship at the atomic and universe level holds:
h H ~ G m^2 / R ~ 1E10-44 erg
where:
e = charge
h = Plancks constant
H = Hubble constant
G = gravity constant
m = a mass inbetween an electron and proton
R = radius of a proton
Eddington used to think about these things.
Anybody care to provide some physical insight?
Richard D. Saam
J. J. Lodder
Of course it is safe: the laws of nature apply universally.
In molecules electrostatic effects overwhelm gravity however,
making it unobservable.
For free neutrons the matter is different:
the gravitational slowing down of cold neutrons
moving upwards in the gravitational field of the earth
can be detected (and measured accurately)
using a neutron interferometer.
(and yes, single neutrons do fall down)
No general relativity corrections of course,
just Newtonian cannonballing.
Best,
Jan
Juan R. González-Álvarez
{cad22605-991f-40f8...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com} on
Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:04:47 +0000:
> Question:
>
> Is is safe to assume that gravity plays any part at all in the molecular
> level of quantum mechanics,
A good point! As remarked by V. Grigoriev and G. Miakishev G. on [1] the
usual division of interactions into mutually disconected ranges cannot be
trusted. They remark like gravitational forces may be fundamental for a
understanding of the particles.
The usual argument against this is based in ratios between forces.
Classical electromagnetic forces are many times more strong than
gravitational ones. But, those ratios can be misleading.
First they are based in the unproven hypotesis that gravitational
interaction remain basically unchanged to small distances. Second, the
physics and chemistry of complex systems cannot be done in so a naive way
(i.e. computing ratios for simple magnitudes).
The history of physics is rich on examples where a conclusion based in
ratios is after proven to be incorrect. I will simply cite two famous
examples regarding molecules:
i) Dirac computed ratio for relativistic corrections for Hidrogen atom
and next concluded that [2]:
{BLOCKQUOTE
relativistic effects are of no importance in the consideration of
atomic and molecular structure and ordinary chemical reactions.
As proven in last 70s Dirac was completely wrong. Now we recognize
several structural and chemical aspects of matter at atomic/molecular
level are purely (quantum) relativistic effects. For instance Gold color,
gliter, and its immunity from corrosion are consequences of merging
special relativity and quantum mechanics.
Now there exists an entire brach of science called relativistic quantum
chemistry.
ii) The above lesson was not taking seriously and in last part of 20th
century several important physicists claimed in public that QED was all
one would need to understand molecules, atoms, and chemical reactions.
It was believed that weak interactions are too weak for atomic and
molecular structure, and ordinary chemical reactions. Again the claim was
based in ratios. The weak correction to usual electromagnetic
interactions would be several orders of magnitude smaller and of no
practical importance. The same mistake again.
The naive ratio computation ignores two crucial points: collective
phenomena and amplification via chaos.
The former mean that weak contribution for a single particle may be small
but amplificated in a system of N nucleus. There exists a group of
molecular structures with anormally large weak effects accesible to high
precision spectroscopy.
The second points means that a very tiny energy difference between two
molecular structures is exponentially amplified over time in a chaotic
system. It is believed this is the source for biochirality [3].
Again now there exists an entire brach of science studying all this:
electroweak quantum chemistry.
The question is, why would gravity be left out from molecular structure?
Because an argument based in ratios again?
> and, if so, what has not anyone assumed
> that, albeit small, that gravity may play a part in the molecule, rather
> than merely the electrical charges imposed upon the electrons and the
> nucleus of an atom?
This is being already assumed. First, one would notice that a molecule is
not a pure quantum object. As showed by decoherence theory most molecules
are in the bordeline between classical and quantum objects.
Electrons in a molecular structure (by molecule here I include
macromolecules, i.e. solids) are usually considered quantum. But nuclear
*framework* is basically classical in nature.
Conventional wave quantum mechanics cannot explain this. But a
preliminary explanation is advanced by decoherence theory. The electron
basically follow Schrödinger equation whereas nuclei follow another
equations e.g. Caldeira-Leggett.
Now the problem of decoherence theory is one of consistency. The Caldeira-
Leggett equations are *not* compatible with conventional quantum theory.
As explained by Penrose [4] there exist three popular views about this:
i) Weinberg, Everett, Hawking... follow the many-world view. The only
real equation is that Schrödinger. Problems? Phylosophical in nature, no
testable. Inconsistent in practice.
ii) Gell-Mann, Hartle... follow the approximation view. The basic
equation is that Schrödinger but in certain regimes and for certain class
of systems the non-unitary evolution may be considered real but like
approximated description. Problem? No *consistent* derivation of non-
unitary evolution from a supposed Schrödinger.
iii) Pearle, Penrose, Prigogine, and myself... follow the new-physics
view. The Schrödinger is not fundamental but valid only in certain
regimes and for certain class of systems. Problem? What is then the
fundamental mechanism for decoherence? Poincaré resonances (Prigogine
view)? quantum gravity (Penrose view)? Nobody knows still.
There exists no known quantum gravity theory. But using semi-
phenomenological models of quantum gravity, Penrose has shown that the
scale of decoherence start at the molecular level.
Due to amplified quantum gravity effects, a molecule is already large
enough to depart from pure (wave) quantum theory and adquire semi-
classical properties. A much larger object like a Moon would be entirely
classical [5].
In that view, the consideration of gravity effects is needed for a
fundamental understanding of molecular structure.
[1] Fuerzas en la Naturaleza. 1986, Editorial MIR, Moscú. Grigoriev V;
Miakishev G. 549-556.
[3] Electroweak Quantum Chemistry for Possible Precursor Molecules in the
Evolution of Biomolecular Homochirality. 2000. Helvetica Chimica Acta, 83
(8), 1919-1950. Berger, Robert; Quack, Martin; Tschumper, Gregory S.
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Large-Small-Human-Mind/dp/0521785723
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR
--
I follow http://canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.txt
J. J. Lodder
The universal validity of physical laws
is a standard assumption of physics.
So gravity should be assumed to hold also in atoms,
as long as there is no evidence to the contrary,
Jan
Gerry Quinn
ster.demon.nl says...
> For free neutrons the matter is different:
> the gravitational slowing down of cold neutrons
> moving upwards in the gravitational field of the earth
> can be detected (and measured accurately)
> using a neutron interferometer.
> (and yes, single neutrons do fall down)
>
> No general relativity corrections of course,
> just Newtonian cannonballing.
One could argue that this experiment is unnecessary on the basis of
Galileo's argument that the acceleration due to gravity must be the same
for bodies of any mass, because if it isn't, sticking two light bodies
together will create a paradox - the linked bodies will accelerate
faster than either would individually.
Macroscopic masses are essentially just a bunch of nuclei stuck together
with electron glue, so Galileo's argument indicates that individual
nuclei must be subject to gravity. Experiments comparing heavier and
lighter elements or isotopes can then demonstrate that protons and
neutrons in nuclei weigh about the same.
- Gerry Quinn
Uncle Al
Why is any of this still being argued? It is piffle denying empirical
observation and with no counterargument offered.
Phys. Rev. D14 907 (1976)
"Verification of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass
for the neutron"
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2002/573.html
Neutrons bounce as expected. Being fermions, they stack two to an
energy level in a gravitational potential well.
If gravitation is Newtonian it can have no importance in molecules to
some 27 orders of magnitude relative, as demonstrated. Compare that
to kT. If gravitation is stringy with N total dimensions, then it
decays as 1/r^(N-1) at small separations - and it is even less
significant.
All this has been absolutely beaten to death over 420+ years, now
sensitive to 10^(-13) difference/average sensitivity,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b5
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b1
including
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 021603 (2006)
"New CP-Violation and Preferred-Frame Tests with Polarized Electrons"
NOTHING other than Newtonian expectations. The only allowed
divergence between metric and stringy gravitations versus affine and
teleparallel gravitations is a chiral anisotropic vacuum background.
The tests for that are traditionally onerous (parity Eotvos experiment
in quartz) or cheap, fast, and easy (parity calorimetry experiment in
benzil),
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
420+ years of Equivalence Principle screwing around without
theoretical basis has recovered no signal other than net zero within
experimental error. Uncle Al remains astounded at physics that the
only allowable
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a9
Equivalence Principle violation has been *actively* suppressed by the
physics community because "there is too much risk of failure." Has
Uncle Al missed something, or is failure the gold standard of
performance of 420+ years of observation to date? Are you guys afraid
of success?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1ibxsff.pty...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl says...
>
> > For free neutrons the matter is different:
> > the gravitational slowing down of cold neutrons
> > moving upwards in the gravitational field of the earth
> > can be detected (and measured accurately)
> > using a neutron interferometer.
> > (and yes, single neutrons do fall down)
> >
> > No general relativity corrections of course,
> > just Newtonian cannonballing.
>
> One could argue that this experiment is unnecessary on the basis of
> Galileo's argument that the acceleration due to gravity must be the same
> for bodies of any mass, because if it isn't, sticking two light bodies
> together will create a paradox - the linked bodies will accelerate
> faster than either would individually.
Did you tell Eotvos there was no need for his experiment?
Your argument doesn't hold water: Galileo's argument
showed the logical inconsistency of a very peculiar
(and purely verbal) assumption about the way things fall.
>
> Macroscopic masses are essentially just a bunch of nuclei stuck together
> with electron glue, so Galileo's argument indicates that individual
> nuclei must be subject to gravity.
Even granting all your assumptions,
the argument still doesn't say anything about free neutrons.
> Experiments comparing heavier and
> lighter elements or isotopes can then demonstrate that protons and
> neutrons in nuclei weigh about the same.
Eotvos did much better than that,
Jan
rlolders...@amherst.edu
> rlolders...@amherst.edu <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>
> > Note that this argument assumes that the Newtonian gravitational
> > constant, which clearly applies on macroscopic scales, also appies
> > *within* atoms. To my knowledge, this *specific assumption* has never
> > been tested empirically.
>
> The universal validity of physical laws
> is a standard assumption of physics.
> So gravity should be assumed to hold also in atoms,
> as long as there is no evidence to the contrary,
>
> Jan
Not that long ago most physicists would have claimed that "the
universal validity of absolute space and time is a standard assumption
of physics. So this paradigm should be assumed to hold good throughout
nature".
In science, it is beneficial to consider alternative sets of
assumptions. The other side of the same coin is that in science one
does not want any particular set of inadequately tested assumptions to
become dogma, as a result of complacency. Repeating an assumption a
huge number of times does not make it more valid. Neither does the
number or status of those who ascribe to it.
Robert L. Oldershaw
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Rock Brentwood
remove CLOTHES to reply) wrote:
> Of course, this is the correct answer. However, except for even much
> smaller distances, where other effects come into play, the distance
> between the objects doesn't matter, since both gravity and electrostatic
> forces fall off like r^{-2}, so the ratio is always the same.
There is anoher issue pertinent to the question here, for which the
matter of strength is completely irrelevant.
A General Relativistic soliton with the same mass, gauge charge and
angular momentum as any of the fundamental particles (possibly except
the right neutrino and left anti-neutrino) is a naked singularity
with an effective scale ~ 10^{-15} m.
Though one may expect that quantum theory will have something to say
on this matter, the fact remains that the experimental physics of
gravitational dynamics has already broached the atomic scale (at least
with neutrons).
That doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room left. The vice has
already closed, on the upper end, down to the atomic level.
Therefore...
anything that is specifically quantum about the elementary particles
that would distinguish them from the classical soliton solutions must
lie somewhere above this 10^{-15} m scale, just under the scales that
have already been probed for neutrons.
That is, the only way for quantum theory can intervene to prevent us
from drawing the link between naked singularities and elementary
particles, is for it to do so by way of some heretofore undiscovered
feature pertaining to gravity that is uniquely quantum that lies just
within atomic scale at the threshold of present-day technology.
Barring (A) the possibility of such discoveries, one is then led to
(B) the conclusion that particles are, in fact, associated with naked
singularities.
In either case, the conclusion is the same: there is something
significant lying just under the threshold of present-day technology
that pertains specifically to this question.
More significantly: though it is the case that away from the worldline
a naked singularity, spacetime may be approximated by a 3+1 foliation,
in the vicinity of the worldline there will be a severe breakdown of
global hyperbolicity. Therefore, if it turns out to be the case that
case (B) holds, rather than (A), then this means that space-time
cannot be globally hyperbolic. Even the Boolean logic associated with
the observable of classical theory breaks down. In particular, it may
even be possible to reproduce the structure of a quantum logic
CLASSICALLY, in the presence of such singularities -- the ultimate
Einstein's Revenge scenario. This, of course, puts the Chronology
Protection conjecture in ironic perspective.
Rich L.
<rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:01 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
> > rlolders...@amherst.edu <rlolders...@amherst.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Note that this argument assumes that the Newtonian gravitational
> > > constant, which clearly applies on macroscopic scales, also appies
> > > *within* atoms. To my knowledge, this *specific assumption* has never
> > > been tested empirically.
>
> > The universal validity of physical laws
> > is a standard assumption of physics.
> > So gravity should be assumed to hold also in atoms,
> > as long as there is no evidence to the contrary,
>
> > Jan
>
> Not that long ago most physicists would have claimed that "the
> universal validity of absolute space and time is a standard assumption
> of physics. So this paradigm should be assumed to hold good throughout
> nature".
>
> In science, it is beneficial to consider alternative sets of
> assumptions. The other side of the same coin is that in science one
> does not want any particular set of inadequately tested assumptions to
> huge number of times does not make it more valid. Neither does the
> number or status of those who ascribe to it.
>
> Robert L. Oldershawwww.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
There may be some point in considering alternatives to the consensus
opinion on current theory. The final test, however, is experimental
evidence. If an alternative theory is only as good as the consensus,
if it does not explain something that the current theory cannot, there
will be little enthusiasm for it. This is both human nature and also
the way Science works (at least for the last 150+ years). Do you have
any evidence for any phenomena that are NOT explained by current
assumptions about the triviality of gravitaitonal forces on the
moleculare level?
Rich L.
Gerry Quinn
ster.demon.nl says...
> Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > In article <1ibxsff.pty...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, nospam@de-
> > ster.demon.nl says...
> >
> > > For free neutrons the matter is different:
> > > the gravitational slowing down of cold neutrons
> > > moving upwards in the gravitational field of the earth
> > > can be detected (and measured accurately)
> > > using a neutron interferometer.
> > > (and yes, single neutrons do fall down)
> > >
> > > No general relativity corrections of course,
> > > just Newtonian cannonballing.
> >
> > One could argue that this experiment is unnecessary on the basis of
> > Galileo's argument that the acceleration due to gravity must be the same
> > for bodies of any mass, because if it isn't, sticking two light bodies
> > together will create a paradox - the linked bodies will accelerate
> > faster than either would individually.
>
> Did you tell Eotvos there was no need for his experiment?
On the contrary, my argument requires the Eotvos and similar
experiments, which demonstrate that the ratio of inertial to
gravitational mass does not vary with chemical or nuclear composition.
> Your argument doesn't hold water: Galileo's argument
> showed the logical inconsistency of a very peculiar
> (and purely verbal) assumption about the way things fall.
Did you tell Galileo that?
Galileo's argument may have showed one thing in a particular context, or
in regard to a particular hypothesis that light objects fall more slowly
- but its significance is not restricted to that context only.
> > Macroscopic masses are essentially just a bunch of nuclei stuck together
> > with electron glue, so Galileo's argument indicates that individual
> > nuclei must be subject to gravity.
>
> Even granting all your assumptions,
> the argument still doesn't say anything about free neutrons.
Let's suppose that free neutrons have mass, but do not fall. Now take
such a neutron and combine it with a proton, which, we know, has about
the same mass and falls. [If you want to take this argument to
extremes, demanding proof that protons fall, precede it with the same
argument for protons and electrons. Hydrogen, as we can easily
demonstrate, falls.]
Deuterium falls, and has approximately twice the inertial and
gravitational mass of hydrogen or (we deduce) free neutrons. It really
is Galileo's argument.
If you disagree, you can prove me wrong by generating a sensible
scenario in which neutrons do not fall, and ordinary experiments with
more easily manipulated materials provide expected results.
> > Experiments comparing heavier and
> > lighter elements or isotopes can then demonstrate that protons and
> > neutrons in nuclei weigh about the same.
>
> Eotvos did much better than that,
Indeed; as I stated, my argument depends on what Eotvos demonstrated,
along with the argument of Galileo.
- Gerry Quinn
Sue...
[...]
> =A0Do you have
> any evidence for any phenomena that are NOT explained by current
> assumptions about the triviality of gravitaitonal forces on the
> moleculare level?
I understand several laboratories are presently working to
repeat this experiment and a colder and quieter version
has been funded.
--Tajmar --de Matos
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Sue...
>
> Rich L
Uncle Al
>
> In article <1ibzvfe.sr...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, nospam@de-
> ster.demon.nl says...
> > Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> > > In article <1ibxsff.pty...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, nospam@de-
> > > ster.demon.nl says...
>
> On the contrary, my argument requires the Eotvos and similar
> experiments, which demonstrate that the ratio of inertial to
> gravitational mass does not vary with chemical or nuclear composition.
[snip]
400+ years of Eotvos experiments have no theoretical basis for
Equivalence Principle violation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b1
Chemical composition appears in no theory of gravitation. The nearest
any of that could come to interesting would be boson vs. fermion
nuclei (e.g., (Li-6)D spin 1+ spin 1+ against (Li-7)H spin -3/2 spin
1/2) that nobody has done, and Adelberger's magnet experiment that
beautifully zeroed within experimental error,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 021603 (2006)
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl97-021603.pdf>
That's still crap investigation by simple arithmetic of allowed
divergence amplitudes. The singular measurable EP violation based in
theory that can wholly contain General Relativity is a chiral
pseudoscalar vacuum background interactive with chemically identical,
opposite opposite chirality mass configurations. The mere mention of
such ignites a firestorm of indignation within the physics community!
How could single crystal quartz vs. single crystal quartz originate
any non-zero net signal at all?
That is why they fail.
Space group P3(1)21 quartz has all it atoms swirled into right-handed
helices. Space group P3(2)21 quartz has all it atoms swirled into
left-handed helices. If the vacuum is a left foot, right and left
shoes will insert with different energies and pursue non-identical
minimum action vacuum free fall trajectories. Affine and teleparallel
theories of gravitation are explicit - the two paired cases (chiral
vacuum background plus opposite chirality test masses) are
distinguishable, and prior measurements allow a 10^(-12) relative
divergence without contradiction. Modern Eotvos balances are good to
10^(-13) difference/average. Somebody should look. 400+ years of
failure is not an argument against a new chance for success.
Benzil mp = 95 C crystallizes in the same space groups as quartz.
Molten benzil is achiral (a sock, not racemic). It allows a much more
sensitive calorimetric assay of both
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/shoes.png
static chiral vacuum insertion energy divergence
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/orbit.png
dynamic EP violation
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
for almost no cost at all in common commercial equipment. Uncle Al is
very good at growing cm-diameter single crystal benzil of known space
group (verifiable with an x-ray crystallgrapher and the Flack
parameter).
> Indeed; as I stated, my argument depends on what Eotvos demonstrated,
> along with the argument of Galileo.
Dropping different colored balls does not test colorblind theory. If
theory tells you that left- and right-handed single crystals of quartz
or benzil can have measurably outrageous results and you deny those
experiments in favor of more colored balls... you are as much of an
ass as the One True Church that would not look through Galileo's
telescope at Jupiter at four bodies obviously not orbiting the Earth
as center of the entire universe and all that was within in it.
Divine decree has no defense against empirical observation, nor does
any theory's predictions.
Religion is cute until you need something that reliably works. If you
need performance not tests of faith, you get an engineer not a priest.
Tom Roberts
> Chemical composition appears in no theory of gravitation.
OK. So why do you think that left-handed and right-handed crystal
isomers will have different outcomes in Eotvos-like experiments? After
all, they clearly differ only by chemical composition (i.e. structure at
the atomic-electron level).
Even if spacetime has a chiral structure at ~ the Planck level, why
would one think this could influence experiments performed at scales
~10^25 larger? Indeed, your website has the statement "Chirality
vanishes at lengths smaller than a screw's pitch." -- the "screws" you
are using have a pitch of order 10^-10 m, so why do you think they might
detect chirality ~10^25 times smaller than their pitch?
While I agree that the experiment should be performed, I think you have
not given any compelling reason....
Tom Roberts
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Chemical composition appears in no theory of gravitation.
>
> OK. So why do you think that left-handed and right-handed crystal
> isomers will have different outcomes in Eotvos-like experiments? After
> all, they clearly differ only by chemical composition (i.e. structure at
> the atomic-electron level).
Yours is a statement of profound ignorance in all of its parts.
Chirality arises from nonsuperposability of coordinate-inverted mass
distribution. Geometric chirality has no units. Geometric chirality
cannot be quantified by measurement. Electromagnetic gyrotropy is
irrelevant. It must sum to zero across the EM spectum: oscillator
strength or f-sum rule, Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule, Kramers-Kronig
relationship. Solid state gyrotropy arises from pseudoscalar, vector,
and pseudodeviator sources. EM gyrotropy measures nothing pertinent
to geometric chirality - silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with non-polar
achiral tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has immense optical
rotatory power: 522 degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm
Single crystal solid spheres of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quatrz
are *chemically identical* mass distributions that are *utterly
indistinguishable* by any interaction that is itself not chiral.
Affine and teleparallel gravitation *wholly contain General
Relativity* as special case. They further prescibe exact
circumstances for which vacumm background chirality and Equivalence
Principle violation are detectable: chemically identical, opposite
chirality mass distributions. One need only identify such, fabricate
macroscopic test masses, and look.
Petitjean's ab initio CHI for normalized geometric parity divergence
(or Avnir's semi-empirical quantative geometric parity divergence),
quantitative chirality in all directions, can be calculated. All
single crystals in enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 (right-handed
screw axes) and P3(2)21 (left-handed screw axes) explicitly calculate
as extreme parity divergent cases,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
quartz (light elements)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/hgsdense.png
cinnabar (heavy elements)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
benzil (for parity calorimetery)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tedense.png
tellurium
Slope is exactly -2 in theory. Smaller intercept is more rapid growth
of geometric parity divergence with radius. Benzil including
hydrogens, 78 atoms in its crystallographic unit cell, will be out by
Friday 22 February after 1250 CPU-hrs in an AMD FX-55 booted Linux.
CHI is pretty good stuff. Twistane is a mostly spherical blob of
polycyclic alkane with no chromophores, no dipole moment, no
non-bonded electrons, and no optical absorbance below 250 nm. It has
[alpha]D = 440 degrees at 100% ee. CHI = 0.72.
> Even if spacetime has a chiral structure at ~ the Planck level,
As a pseudoscalar vacuum background. Don't parade straw men.
> why
> would one think this could influence experiments performed at scales
> ~10^25 larger? Indeed, your website has the statement "Chirality
> vanishes at lengths smaller than a screw's pitch." -- the "screws" you
> are using have a pitch of order 10^-10 m, so why do you think they might
> detect chirality ~10^25 times smaller than their pitch?
First, there is no physical basis for your objection, none at all.
Second, [alpha]D is measured at 589 nm. Single molecules are wholly
adequate rotators with typical diameters around 5 nm. Third, look at
the change of CHI with /_\R/R. The smallest radial increment that
results in a change of CHI for the crystal lattice incredibly
contracts with increasing overall radius. When you (OK, maybe not
you) work the maths, for r = 0.5 cm the minimum radial increment that
changes CHI is 4x10^(-25) meters. That is about 10^(-10) of a
proton's radius. Is that a small enough basis scale for CHI for you?
> While I agree that the experiment should be performed, I think you have
> not given any compelling reason....
I have deluged this newsgroup and others with deep and inescapable
reasons. This is a reason derived within affine gravitation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a9
"Term 5 obtains a parity-violating term that drops out for pure
gravitation. Free field equations with the preceding Lagrangian will
be identical to those for ordinary General Relativity. One of the
Lagrangian-derived equations will be (torsion = 0). Einstein-Cartan
and General Relativity are identical in the absence of matter - even
with addition of a parity-violating term to the Lagrangian."
Now, the boojum....
"Term 5 acts when gravitation is combined with matter - a mass sector
parity divergence empirically falsifying General Relativity. The
parity calorimetry experiment and the parity Etovs experiment test for
coupling with Term 5."
End of argument. This is the only place where General Relativity can
macroscopiclaly fail and not contradict prior observation. There
exist no naturally occuring resolved chiral astronomical bodies.
Nobody has ever reported a parity Eotvos experiment despite its easy
access in commercial single crystal quartz.
Somebody should look.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> TomRobertswrote:
>
> > OK. So why do you think that left-handed and right-handed crystal
> > isomers will have different outcomes in Eotvos-like experiments? After
> > all, they clearly differ only by chemical composition (i.e. structure at
> > the atomic-electron level).
<SNIPPED an insult that should not have passed the moderator>
> Chirality arises from nonsuperposability of coordinate-inverted mass
> distribution. Geometric chirality has no units. Geometric chirality
> cannot be quantified by measurement. Electromagnetic gyrotropy is
> irrelevant. It must sum to zero across the EM spectum: oscillator
> strength or f-sum rule, Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule, Kramers-Kronig
> relationship. Solid state gyrotropy arises from pseudoscalar, vector,
> and pseudodeviator sources. EM gyrotropy measures nothing pertinent
> to geometric chirality - silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with non-polar
> achiral tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has immense optical
> rotatory power: 522 degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm
>
> Single crystal solid spheres of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quatrz
> are *chemically identical* mass distributions that are *utterly
> indistinguishable* by any interaction that is itself not chiral.
> Affine and teleparallel gravitation *wholly contain General
> Relativity* as special case. They further prescibe exact
> circumstances for which vacumm background chirality and Equivalence
> Principle violation are detectable: chemically identical, opposite
> chirality mass distributions. One need only identify such, fabricate
> macroscopic test masses, and look.
>
Your claims are totally unsupported.
You have NEVER supplied a reference to any peer-reviewed
publication that supports your claimed coupling between Einstein-
Cartan gravitation and geometric parity mass distribution.
References to your web publications and/or to your poster session
don't count.
My point is, I can -easily- find multiple peer-reviewed references
on Einstein-Cartan, affine, teleparallel and other alternative
theories of gravitation which mathematically predict a coupling
between gravitation and angular momentum, whether it be in the
form of physical rotation, or of spin. These same publications
provide plausible estimates of the magnitude of said coupling,
such that the feasibility of experimental detection may be
evaluated.
On the other hand, there are -zero- peer-reviewed references
that predict differential coupling between these alternative
theories of gravitation and opposite geometric parity masses.
Opposite geometric parity masses do not exhibit opposite angular
momenta. There is no basis for your claim that differential
coupling should exist.
Contrast with the considerable theoretical justification existing
for compositional equivalence tests. Extra-dimensional models,
starting with Kaluza-Klein as the simplest case and including such
models as superstring theory, in general predict non-metric
couplings with matter. These couplings would be the result of
scalar partners to the graviton (dilatons, moduli), which couple
differentially with different matter fields. For example,
dilatonic fields couple with gauge bosons but not other forms
of mass-energy. Since different atoms exhibit different amounts
of binding energy, dilatonic coupling would predict that differing
compositions of matter should fall differently.
Your proposed test using opposite geometric parity test masses
is not merely without theoretical justification. For your
experiment to work, several basic conservation laws must be
violated, including (debatable) conservation of momentum,
conservation of angular momentum, and local conservation of
energy.
> Petitjean's ab initio CHI for normalized geometric parity divergence
> (or Avnir's semi-empirical quantative geometric parity divergence),
> quantitative chirality in all directions, can be calculated. All
> single crystals in enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 (right-handed
> screw axes) and P3(2)21 (left-handed screw axes) explicitly calculate
> as extreme parity divergent cases,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
> quartz (light elements)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/hgsdense.png
> cinnabar (heavy elements)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
> benzil (for parity calorimetery)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tedense.png
> tellurium
>
> Slope is exactly -2 in theory. Smaller intercept is more rapid growth
> of geometric parity divergence with radius. Benzil including
> hydrogens, 78 atoms in its crystallographic unit cell, will be out by
> Friday 22 February after 1250 CPU-hrs in an AMD FX-55 booted Linux.
>
> CHI is pretty good stuff. Twistane is a mostly spherical blob of
> polycyclic alkane with no chromophores, no dipole moment, no
> non-bonded electrons, and no optical absorbance below 250 nm. It has
> [alpha]D = 440 degrees at 100% ee. CHI = 0.72.
It is trivially demonstrable that CHI cannot be a proper metric for
quantifying the degree of chirality of a test mass for the purpose
of your experiment.
1) At suitably large aggregate scales, CHI is an intensive property,
not an extensive property. The CHI of a 1 gram tellurium test mass
is equal to the CHI computed for a 10 gram tellurium test mass
equals 1 to many decimal places. Are you claiming that the
anomalous force acting upon a 10 gram tellurium test mass must be
identical to the force acting upon a 1 gram mass?
2) A CHI computation does not recognize chiral density. CHI for
a 1 gram tellurium test mass equals the CHI computed for a 1 gram
quartz test mass equals the CHI computed for 1 gram crystal of
hemoglobin equals 1 to many decimal places. Are you saying that
the anomalous force acting on a 1 gram tellurium test mass must
be equal to the anomalous force acting upon a 1 gram quartz test
mass equals the anomalous force acting upon a 1 gram hemoglobin
crystal, despite the obviously large difference in chiral density
exhibited by these masses?
3) As a scalar variable, CHI has no room for the introduction of
spatial anisotropy. Benzil crystals are highly elongated. Are you
absolutely sure that a benzil needle dropped vertically through a
chiral gravitational field will fall identically with a needle
dropped horizontally? Why or why not?
4) CHI doesn't recognize right-handed vs. left-handed chiral
crystals. CHI=1 in both cases.
5) In sum, Pettijohn's CHI is a hopelessly inadequate for
quantifying the chirality of test masses in your experiment. You
have spent years and many thousands of CPU hours in wasted effort.
Other measures of chiral density exist which would be far more
suitable for your purposes than CHI.
<SNIP>
Jerry
Uncle Al
[snip]
> > Single crystal solid spheres of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quatrz
> > are *chemically identical* mass distributions that are *utterly
> > indistinguishable* by any interaction that is itself not chiral.
> > Affine and teleparallel gravitation *wholly contain General
> > Relativity* as special case. They further prescibe exact
> > circumstances for which vacumm background chirality and Equivalence
> > Principle violation are detectable: chemically identical, opposite
> > chirality mass distributions. One need only identify such, fabricate
> > macroscopic test masses, and look.
> >
>
> Your claims are totally unsupported.
>
> You have NEVER supplied a reference to any peer-reviewed
> publication that supports your claimed coupling between Einstein-
> Cartan gravitation and geometric parity mass distribution.
> References to your web publications and/or to your poster session
> don't count.
If you find a mistake in any of the math below, post it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan_theory
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a9
A Poincaré group gauge theory can be equivalent to the Einstein-Cartan
theory of gravitation. Einstein-Cartan theory operates in
Riemann-Cartan spacetime U^4 - a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected,
C^infinity, and oriented four-dimensional manifold on which are
defined a local Lorentz metric "g" and a linear affine connection
"capital gamma". Curvature and torsion tensors can be obtained from
"capital gamma" on U^4:
Rep. Prog. Phys. 65(5) 599 (2002)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0302040
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208036
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212078
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212080
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0206007
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012041
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103017
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week176.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0301050
http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html
<http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/03/64/PITT-PHIL-SCI00000364-00/gaugegravity.mass.2.01.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103093
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104102
Phys. Rev. D 56(8) 4689 (1977)
Phys. Rev. D 59(12) 3524 (1979)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011087
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0111036
Phys. Rep. 258 1 (1995)
Lett. Math. Phys. 4 49 (1980)
Rev. Mod. Phys. 48 393 (1976)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208052
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105094
If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (General Relativity's description of
gravitation). If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes
Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4 (in which the teleparallel gravitational
energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
transformation). If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski
spacetime, M^4. This is all baby step stuff.
The parity calorimetry and parity Eotvos experiments contrasting
chemically identical, opposite parity mass distributions operate
within A^4, explicitly. Where V^4 and A^4 agree is trivial and
boring. Where V^4 and A^4 are disjoint we have bleeding edge
scientific discovery.
Your objection does not rise above snit. My parity divergence
question is a good one, it has firm basis in orthodox theory, and it
is testable in existing equipment for unremarkable cost. After 420+
years of utter failure, it is the only experiment that can succeed.
The worst it can do is null - the gold standard of performance for
four centuries.
The One True Church refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Four
of Jupiters moons continued to orbit not the Earth.
> My point is, I can -easily- find multiple peer-reviewed references
> on Einstein-Cartan, affine, teleparallel and other alternative
> theories of gravitation which mathematically predict a coupling
> between gravitation and angular momentum, whether it be in the
> form of physical rotation, or of spin. These same publications
> provide plausible estimates of the magnitude of said coupling,
> such that the feasibility of experimental detection may be
> evaluated.
All such estimates are well below any conceivable realized detection
sensitivity, and the authors admit it. Chirality arises from moments
of inertia (angular momentum). Its most severe divergence constraint
is PVED calorimetry studies (parity-viollating energy difference) that
have been vigorously pursued,
Google
pved violating 370 hits
Those studies put a weak upper limit around 10 parts-per-trillion
divergence on a parity Eotvos or parity calorimetriy experiment. That
is no constraint at all - its implications are impossibly large for
the parity calorimetry experiment. ONE TENTH part-per-trillion is
entirely reasonable. That is a one-sigma output in an Eotvos balance
(more studies are then needed) or an 8% difference in a quality
differential scanning calorimeter (OEM 0.1% precision).
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl97-021603.pdf
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 201101 (2003)
Lecture Notes in Physics 562 439 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 70(6) 701 (1993)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102020
Phys. Rev. D 42(4) 977 (1990)
Mod. Phy. Lett. A 16(12) 763 (2001)
Phys. Uspekhi 39(6) 623 (1996)
The preceeding were guaranteed null outputs within experimental error
on paper and were enthusiastically funded. The parity calorimetry
experiment with benzil can have an 8% difference net output without
breaking a sweat. Alas, it requires one to know a modicum of organic
chemistry and x-ray crystallography. Physicists don't do that. that
doesn't mean it doesn't exit.
> On the other hand, there are -zero- peer-reviewed references
> that predict differential coupling between these alternative
> theories of gravitation and opposite geometric parity masses.
It is inescapably resident within the maths, as demonstrated above.
It hasn't been explicitly considered - physicists don't know
chemistry. They cannot phrase the question as a reduction to
practice. This same pathological avoidance of chirality peaked on New
Year's Day 1957. Orthodox physics
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
was empirically wrong. If the math allows it, somebody should look.
The incremental effort and cost are trifling, no worse than anything
done prior. The equipment and its protocols already exist.
> Opposite geometric parity masses do not exhibit opposite angular
> momenta. There is no basis for your claim that differential
> coupling should exist.
You compare apples and oranges then yell "mashed potatoes!" If the
vacuum is isotropic then opposite parity mass distributions are
indistinguishable. If the vacuum has a chiral pseudoscalar background
achiral and racemic mass distributions will operate by the book.
Centimeter single crystal solid balls of space group P3(1)21 and
P3(2)21 alpha-quartz will exhibit ~10^(-13) relative deviations (left
and right shoes inserted into a left-footed vacuum, and
diastereotopically vacuum free falling). Common observation will
detect no divergence, for even Dr. Faller's interferometric
gravimeters are only good to 10^(-9) relative. The parity Eotvos
experiment in quartz and especially the parity calorimetry experiment
in benzil (same space groups) will detect signal above noise.
Somebody must look. Agreement between metric and non-metric
gravitations is not interesting - there is only one reality to be
observed and theory must accurately predict it. Only the testable
disjoint divergences are interesting. One class of theory will be
falsified. Only the parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry experiments
have sufficent sensitivity to decide. The least interesting outcome
is a null output, the gold standard for the past 420+ years of this
sort of investigation.
Perturbative string theory demands BRST invariance to unify the
effects of a massive body and an accelerating coordinate frame. A
non-null parity exeriment output kills string theory really most
sincerely dead. You folks whould be leaping for joy and queuing up to
find out.
> Contrast with the considerable theoretical justification existing
> for compositional equivalence tests. Extra-dimensional models,
> starting with Kaluza-Klein as the simplest case and including such
> models as superstring theory, in general predict non-metric
> couplings with matter. These couplings would be the result of
> scalar partners to the graviton (dilatons, moduli), which couple
> differentially with different matter fields. For example,
> dilatonic fields couple with gauge bosons but not other forms
> of mass-energy. Since different atoms exhibit different amounts
> of binding energy, dilatonic coupling would predict that differing
> compositions of matter should fall differently.
Do they? No, not to at least 10^(-13) difference/average. Such
theory is wrong by empirical observation. Observe an orthogonal
alternative. It can do no worse; it *may* succeed in showing
reproducible divergence. I am personally offended by experts
demanding no experiment be conducted because it might fail while
simultaneously championing repeat of experiments that have failed.
Such is virulent anti-science. Insanity is repeating the same
exercise and expecting a different outcome.
Compare (Li-6)D with (Li-7)H in an Eotvos balance. That is boson vs.
fermion nuclei. Nobody has done that, either, despite explicit
theoretical basis. Metric gravitation has potential big problems with
fermions. The parity experiments are better for their much larger
allowed net divergence amplitude outputs. The US and Russia have
hundreds of tonnes of extreme isotopic purity (Li-6)D stockpiled
(H-bomb secondaries).
> Your proposed test using opposite geometric parity test masses
> is not merely without theoretical justification. For your
> experiment to work, several basic conservation laws must be
> violated, including (debatable) conservation of momentum,
> conservation of angular momentum, and local conservation of
> energy.
Only conservation of angular momentum through isotropic vacuum then
Noether's theorem is threatened. Noether's theorem with its
dependence upon smooth Lie groups absolutely requires either a
continuous symmetry or one as the limit of a Taylor series expansion.
External summetry parity is an absolutely DISCONTINUOUS symmetry that
cannot be approximated by a Taylor series. There is nothing requiring
the conservation of angular momentum for chemically identical,
opposite parity mass distributions in a chiral pseudoscalar vacuum
background.
Grab a right shoe. Put it on your right foot. Put it on your left
foot. The energies are different. So? Nothing is violated.
Chemically identical, opposite parity mass distributions in a chiral
pseudoscalar vacuum background will free fall along non-identical,
non-parallel trajectories. Both trajectories will be minimum action
paths for the chiral mass disttribution interacting with the chiral
vacuum background. Left-left and left-right interactions will be
diastereotopic. Chemists make hundreds of $millions/year knowing that
(e.g., Sepracor). Physicists are more than a little slow here.
Einstein's elevator Gedankenexperiment (a literature citation
follows),
Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität u. Electronik 4 411 (1907)
"The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein," Vol. 2 English translation,
A. Beck, trans. (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1989) p.
252
*postulates* a non-interactive vacuum. If the vacuum is chiral,
opposite chirality mass distributions will exhibit divergnece.
Achiral and racemic mass distributions will be inert to the
divergence.
[snip]
This has grown stale. You have no sustainable objection for not doing
the parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry experiments. Nothing else
has not nulled. These are the first new experiments that may work and
they can do so with substantial net outputs unconstrained by prior
observations.
God Himself demanded Jupiter's moons orbit the Earth, the center of
the entire universe. The Church of Rome is still pissy about it in
the 21st century, especially past Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who lead
the Holy Office of the Inquisition from 1981 until his elevaton to
Pope Benedict XVI. In your world every telescope would be smashed
lest God be exposed for what He is. Yang and Lee overturned the
profound symmetry of physics through 1956. Physics was empirically
wrong.
You perseveratively argue that the parity experiment cannot possibly
have net output because then the Equivalence Principle would be
violated - and the EP is postulated to be true! No exception has ever
been detected. Remember Yang and Lee? Physics had to be symmetric...
except it wasn't. Nobody knows the origin of chiral assymmetry.
Uncle Al has a suggestion in that regard.
The vacuum might have a chiral pseudoscalar background. Somebody
Boo
> End of argument. This is the only place where General Relativity can
> macroscopiclaly fail and not contradict prior observation. There
> exist no naturally occuring resolved chiral astronomical bodies.
> Nobody has ever reported a parity Eotvos experiment despite its easy
> access in commercial single crystal quartz.
Hi Uncle Al,
Physics spat me out a long time ago and I cannot say that I've understood your
agruments except at the broadest level. However, it does sound exciting and I
am at a loss to understand why the experiments have not been carried out ?
I'm interested to now what the fullest implications of any difference would be ?
From what you say the only scope for experimental evidence of Einstein-Cartan
vs GR theory is tiny differences in apparent mass between left and right handed
crystals ? If this is true then I suppose there are no particular implications
for eg cosmology ? Or is that completely incorrect ?
> Somebody should look.
Is there a reason why that person can't be you ? Is it going to be very
expensive to do these experiments ?
--
Boo
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > End of argument. This is the only place where General Relativity can
> > macroscopiclaly fail and not contradict prior observation. There
> > exist no naturally occuring resolved chiral astronomical bodies.
> > Nobody has ever reported a parity Eotvos experiment despite its easy
> > access in commercial single crystal quartz.
>
> Hi Uncle Al,
>
> Physics spat me out a long time ago and I cannot say that I've understood your
> agruments except at the broadest level. However, it does sound exciting and I
> am at a loss to understand why the experiments have not been carried out ?
Not Invented Here. It says things people don't want to hear. Would
you risk all of string theory funding on a week of scut work in an
undergrad chem lab? Nevertheless, Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4, in
which the spacetime curvature tensor vanishes and the spacetime
torsion tensor does the work has a chiral vacuum background. It is
observationally indistinguishable from Riemann-Cartan spacetime
(General Relativity by postulate and string theory by BRST invariance)
except by resolved opposite chirality mass distribution challenge.
Challenge spacetime geometry with test mass geometry. Seems obvuious.
That's the math, folks, and it is inescapable. There is no prior
observational constraint in any venue at any scale prohibiting a
detectable net non-zero output in a parity Eotvos experiment in quartz
or a parity calorimetry experiment in benzil. The extreme geometric
parity divergence of both materials as contrasted enantiomorphic
single crystals is explicitly calculated,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
quartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzhdense.png
benzil
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
benzil non-hydrogen atoms only.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/hgsdense.png
if you like heavy atoms
> I'm interested to now what the fullest implications of any difference would be ?
At 0.1 part-per-trillion relative divergence best case there are no
empirical consequences. Metric gravitation, string theory, and all
quantized gravitation theories would be falsified; affine and
teleparallel gravitation theories would take over. If it does occur
and somebody can widen the loophole, space travel substantially
changes as inertial and gravitational masses are decoupled.
Angular momentum would not be conserved for opposite parity mass
distributions. That's probably good for a December trip to Sweden.
> From what you say the only scope for experimental evidence of Einstein-Cartan
> vs GR theory is tiny differences in apparent mass between left and right handed
> crystals ? If this is true then I suppose there are no particular implications
> for eg cosmology ? Or is that completely incorrect ?
Different insertion energies into the chiral vacuum background.
Periodic decoupling of inertial and gravitational mass given
geographic orientation, time of day, and latitude. A reasonable
divergence magnitude for a chiral vacuum background and an extreme
pair of opposite parity test masses would be 0.1 parts-per-trillion
relative mass/mass (Eotvos balance, parity retaining, dynamic EP
violation only) or 8% energy/mass (parity calorimetry, parity
destroying, static insertion difference plus dynamic EP violation).
> > Somebody should look.
>
> Is there a reason why that person can't be you ? Is it going to be very
> expensive to do these experiments ?
I don't have a $2 million Eotvos balance. We had a pair of
volunteered DSCs in a commercial analytical facility. OEM precision
was 0.1%; that is 0.111 J/g uncertainty vs. a maximum signal of 8.99
J/g. I grew large benzil single crystals in space groups P3(1)21 and
P3(2)21 and shaped them to spec. Calibrated precision was 3.5%, with
one box off 40% in accuracy. I appreciate the volunteered resources,
but the hardware was unusable for the parity calorimetry experiment.
1) Calculale full benzil to larger radius.
2) Regrow benzil single crystals space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21
3) Find an OEM between 40-50 degrees latitude who wants to calibrate
a pair of differential scanning calorimeters fresh from manufacture -
72 times.
The happy latitude passes through a good part of Europe and part of
Russia. We'll find an adventuresome OEM or an academic with decent
equipment. Harvard, Yale, and MIT are in the band.
"There is no try. Do or do not," Yoda.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Your claims are totally unsupported.
>
> > You have NEVER supplied a reference to any peer-reviewed
> > publication that supports your claimed coupling between Einstein-
> > Cartan gravitation and geometric parity mass distribution.
> > References to your web publications and/or to your poster session
> > don't count.
>
> If you find a mistake in any of the math below, post it.
>
>
> A Poincaré group gauge theory can be equivalent to the Einstein-Cartan
> theory of gravitation. Einstein-Cartan theory operates in
> Riemann-Cartan spacetime U^4 - a paracompact, Hausdorff, connected,
> C^infinity, and oriented four-dimensional manifold on which are
> defined a local Lorentz metric "g" and a linear affine connection
> "capital gamma". Curvature and torsion tensors can be obtained from
> "capital gamma" on U^4:
>
> Rep. Prog. Phys. 65(5) 599 (2002)http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0302040http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208036http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212078http://arXiv
.org/abs/gr-qc/0212080http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0206007http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0012041http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103017http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week176.htmlhttp://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0301050http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~aunzicker/einst.html
> Phys. Rev. D 56(8) 4689 (1977)
> Phys. Rep. 258 1 (1995)
> Lett. Math. Phys. 4 49 (1980)
> Rev. Mod. Phys. 48 393 (1976)http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208052http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0105094
I asked for a peer-reviewed paper that supports your assertion
that coupling exists between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and
geometric parity mass distribution.
You've replied with a plethora of unrelated references.
> If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
> pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (General Relativity's description of
> gravitation). If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes
> Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4 (in which the teleparallel gravitational
> energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
> transformation). If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski
> spacetime, M^4. This is all baby step stuff.
Verbal chaff.
None of what you have posted lends support to your claim that
coupling exists between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and geometric
parity mass distribution.
> The parity calorimetry and parity Eotvos experiments contrasting
> chemically identical, opposite parity mass distributions operate
> within A^4, explicitly. Where V^4 and A^4 agree is trivial and
> boring. Where V^4 and A^4 are disjoint we have bleeding edge
> scientific discovery.
>
> Your objection does not rise above snit. My parity divergence
> question is a good one,
Granted.
> it has firm basis in orthodox theory,
No, absolutely none.
> and it
> is testable in existing equipment for unremarkable cost.
True.
> After 420+
> years of utter failure, it is the only experiment that can succeed.
False.
> The worst it can do is null - the gold standard of performance for
> four centuries.
I take it that your parity calorimetry experiment nulled?
> The One True Church refused to look through Galileo's telescope. Four
> of Jupiters moons continued to orbit not the Earth.
I have no objection to your performing the experiment. I have
massive objection to your false claims that the experiment
has theoretical justification.
The unexpected can always happen.
> > My point is, I can -easily- find multiple peer-reviewed references
> > on Einstein-Cartan, affine, teleparallel and other alternative
> > theories of gravitation which mathematically predict a coupling
> > between gravitation and angular momentum, whether it be in the
> > form of physical rotation, or of spin. These same publications
> > provide plausible estimates of the magnitude of said coupling,
> > such that the feasibility of experimental detection may be
> > evaluated.
>
> All such estimates are well below any conceivable realized detection
> sensitivity, and the authors admit it. Chirality arises from moments
> of inertia (angular momentum).
Moment of inertia is not the same as angular momentum.
> Its most severe divergence constraint
> is PVED calorimetry studies (parity-viollating energy difference) that
> have been vigorously pursued,
Your PVED (parity calorimetry) experiment did not cover any
new ground, except in terms of theoretical motivation.
A strong theoretical motivation for attempting to find parity-
violating energy differences between right and left-handed
crystalline forms which might manifest themselves in differential
calorimetry experiments, is that such violations are predicted
as a result of the weak interaction. Estimates of the magnitude
of such energy differences generally indicate that differential
calorimetry in its current state of development is not sensitive
enough by multiple orders of magnitude for detecting parity
violation due to the weak interaction. Nevertheless, an experiment
such as yours is still worthwhile to perform, since the
theoretical estimates may be wrong. Overlooked factors may make
it actually possible to detect parity violation by means such
as you were attempting.
On the other hand, there is absolutely NO theoretical motivation
for believing that the chirality inherent in Einstein-Cartan
and other alternative gravitational theories should manifest
itself in PVED.
Several decades of work attempting to detect parity violating
energy differences in left-right crystalline forms have yielded
clear negatives. Despite your assertions of being unique, you
were following well-traveled ground.
You performed your experiment at a time of year and at
a geographic latitude corresponding to conditions which would
maximize a differential signal from an Eotvos balance. You
gave no convincing justification whatsoever that such conditions
should do anything to increase your odds of detecting a parity
violating signal in a differential calorimetry experiment.
In summary, a negative result of your PVED experiment would
have said nothing about gravitation, and a positive result would
have contradicted decades of work by other experimentalists,
besides saying nothing about gravitation.
What was your result?
> Google
> pved violating 370 hits
>
> Those studies put a weak upper limit around 10 parts-per-trillion
> divergence on a parity Eotvos or parity calorimetriy experiment. That
> is no constraint at all - its implications are impossibly large for
> the parity calorimetry experiment. ONE TENTH part-per-trillion is
> entirely reasonable. That is a one-sigma output in an Eotvos balance
> (more studies are then needed) or an 8% difference in a quality
> differential scanning calorimeter (OEM 0.1% precision).
>
> http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl97-021603.pdf
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 201101 (2003)
> Lecture Notes in Physics 562 439 (2001)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 70(6) 701 (1993)http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102020
> Phys. Rev. D 42(4) 977 (1990)
> Mod. Phy. Lett. A 16(12) 763 (2001)
> Phys. Uspekhi 39(6) 623 (1996)
>
> The preceeding were guaranteed null outputs within experimental error
> on paper and were enthusiastically funded. The parity calorimetry
> experiment with benzil can have an 8% difference net output without
> breaking a sweat.
Well? You performed the experiment. Did you succeed in
contradicting decades of work by your predecessors?
> Alas, it requires one to know a modicum of organic
> chemistry and x-ray crystallography. Physicists don't do that. that
> doesn't mean it doesn't exit.
> > On the other hand, there are -zero- peer-reviewed references
> > that predict differential coupling between these alternative
> > theories of gravitation and opposite geometric parity masses.
>
> It is inescapably resident within the maths, as demonstrated above.
> It hasn't been explicitly considered - physicists don't know
> chemistry. They cannot phrase the question as a reduction to
> practice. This same pathological avoidance of chirality peaked on New
> Year's Day 1957. Orthodox physics
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
>
> was empirically wrong.
False. Wu's experiment was motivated by the theoretical studies
of Lee and Yang, who pointed out a seeming contradiction between
the parity principle and other principles that had emerged
in studies of the weak interaction.
> If the math allows it, somebody should look.
> The incremental effort and cost are trifling, no worse than anything
> done prior. The equipment and its protocols already exist.
>
> > Opposite geometric parity masses do not exhibit opposite angular
> > momenta. There is no basis for your claim that differential
> > coupling should exist.
>
> You compare apples and oranges then yell "mashed potatoes!" If the
> vacuum is isotropic then opposite parity mass distributions are
> indistinguishable. If the vacuum has a chiral pseudoscalar background
> achiral and racemic mass distributions will operate by the book.
> Centimeter single crystal solid balls of space group P3(1)21 and
> P3(2)21 alpha-quartz will exhibit ~10^(-13) relative deviations (left
> and right shoes inserted into a left-footed vacuum, and
> diastereotopically vacuum free falling). Common observation will
> detect no divergence, for even Dr. Faller's interferometric
> gravimeters are only good to 10^(-9) relative. The parity Eotvos
> experiment in quartz and especially the parity calorimetry experiment
> in benzil (same space groups) will detect signal above noise.
>
> Somebody must look.
Well, you looked. What was your result?
Who are these experts that you claim take this attitude?
To the best of my knowledge, everybody agrees that the experiment
is worth doing. The only problem is that it has no clearcut
theoretical motivation.
> Such is virulent anti-science. Insanity is repeating the same
> exercise and expecting a different outcome.
Experimenters are NOT simply repeating the same exercise.
Existing null results have been sufficiently sensitive to
considerably restrict the range of viable string theories.
> Compare (Li-6)D with (Li-7)H in an Eotvos balance. That is boson vs.
> fermion nuclei. Nobody has done that, either, despite explicit
> theoretical basis.
What makes you so sure that it (or an equivalent experiment)
has never been done?
>Metric gravitation has potential big problems with
> fermions. The parity experiments are better for their much larger
> allowed net divergence amplitude outputs. The US and Russia have
> hundreds of tonnes of extreme isotopic purity (Li-6)D stockpiled
> (H-bomb secondaries).
Obtaining weapons-grade Li-6 may be a problem. Other elements
may be better choices. But again, are you sure that an equivalent
experiment has never been done using non-restricted materials?
<SNIP>
Jerry
Richard Saam
Your multi posted scenario
will probably be executed by someone.
In a parallel effort
would you consider an alternative
with mostly chemistry
and a little observational physics
to test the same
left vs right foot Eotvos hypothesis.
Ammonia is well known to vibrate/resonate between its two forms
with the three hydrogen at 105 degree from the center nitrogen
overcoming a rather small potential barrier at room temperature
at a very significant frequency ~1E10 /sec
Now, is there a tri amine which differs in chirality
between these two structures?
If so replace one or more of the 3 hydrogens
to obtain this chirality.
2.2'-Dipyridyl
Number 11.751.14 in Janssen Chimica
$50/100gram
may be a starting material of choice.
There are thousands of other triamines.
1. purify as well as possible
2. place in a (~50 to >100000 g's) centrifuge
in a completely racemic liquid or gaseous phase.
3. solidify the amine in the high g condition (by cooling).
This would freeze the racemic/chiral character of the amine.
4. Analysis the amine solid for racemic/chiral character as a function
of g condition. (I would assume some type of optical rotation method)
5. Relate results to the Eotvos criteria.
A kind of reverse Eotvos.
What do you think?
Richard D. Saam
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Boo wrote:
> >
> >>Uncle Al wrote:
> Your multi posted scenario
> will probably be executed by someone.
Me and my folk, eventually. An academic who wishes to play is invited
to the party. Nobody knows if local left and right hands vacuum free
fall identically, for nobody has looked. Affine and teleparallel
gravitation theories allow divergence. Remember Yang and Lee!
Physics has been impressively wrong about chirality before.
> In a parallel effort
> would you consider an alternative
> with mostly chemistry
> and a little observational physics
> to test the same
> left vs right foot Eotvos hypothesis.
A well thought question deserves a commensurate answer.
> Ammonia is well known to vibrate/resonate between its two forms
> with the three hydrogen at 105 degree from the center nitrogen
> overcoming a rather small potential barrier at room temperature
> at a very significant frequency ~1E10 /sec
Ammonia maser. Umbrella inversion is a classic observation.
> Now, is there a tri amine which differs in chirality
> between these two structures?
> If so replace one or more of the 3 hydrogens
> to obtain this chirality.
Not so good. Either there is no way to resolve into a non-racemic
mixture (low inversion barrier), or it is resolvable and won't invert
(high inversion barrier).
> 2.2'-Dipyridyl
> Number 11.751.14 in Janssen Chimica
> $50/100gram
> may be a starting material of choice.
> There are thousands of other triamines.
o-bipy is planar on the average, and it's a diamine. Chiral aliphatic
amines are easy - alkaloids, but they mostly don't invert. Methyl
cyclopentyl aniline is trivial to synthesize from aniline; sequential
cyclopentanone and formaldehyde with cyanoborohydride in acid
solution. One can diddle o-bipy and such into chirality by torsion,
but to what end?
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/xheli.png
stereograms
> 1. purify as well as possible
Chromatography. OK so far.
> 2. place in a (~50 to >100000 g's) centrifuge
> in a completely racemic liquid or gaseous phase.
Beckman Ultima million-gee ultracentrifuge. OK so far.
> 3. solidify the amine in the high g condition (by cooling).
Grow crystals.
> This would freeze the racemic/chiral character of the amine.
Nope. Crystal lattice forces would vastly exceed any vacuum
background bias. A racemizing center dynamically crystallized will
result in a racemate crystal. It's the lowest energy combo. If there
is a single nucleation and a low barrier to racemization you one can
randomly obtain optical resolution - sodium chlorate from solution,
benzil from solution, and binapthyl from the melt. There is no chiral
bias overall. Folks have studiously looked.
There's no systematic chiral bias. Quartz sand from around the world
has been examined for overall chiral bias. Initial claims were ~1%
imbalance, ~100 grains optical excess in ~10,000 sand grains
examined. Sqrt(10,000) = 100. Not a good claim of excess for a
binary choice.
> 4. Analysis the amine solid for racemic/chiral character as a function
> of g condition. (I would assume some type of optical rotation method)
> 5. Relate results to the Eotvos criteria.
That won't work in Pyrex. Chiral induction by crossed fields has been
rigorously modeled and examined. This is different. A chiral vacuum
background of a magnitude consistent with PVED and crystallization
studies would be deeply lost in noise.
It won't work for other reasons. Centrifugation is not a
gravitational field, it is transverse Doppler effect. A clock at the
rim of a centrifuge does not run slower than one at the hub
(stationary in the lab frame). It was done with Mossbauer
spectroscopy.
We know that the formula unit does not make a CHI->1 crystal. Only
the space group matters (Petitjean's work). The tellurium formula
unit is a single atom - achiral. The tellurium unit cell is three
atoms - that would be an achiral plane. Tellurium crystallizes in
enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21. The unit cell is six
half-atoms as a chirally deformed octahedron. There are subtleties.
> A kind of reverse Eotvos.
> What do you think?
Cute but inappropriate to the task. Vacuum chirality in the mass
sector is not politically correct. The first experiment must be
exceptionally good for nobody will go back for a second hit if it
reports a net null result. The parity Eotvos experiment in quartz is
exceptionally good, but it requires custom-grown quartz, a $2 million
apparatus, and 90 days' labor.
Adelbeger at U/Wash won't do it. His funding is stable for
re-examining past failures to another decimal place. Newman at
UC/Irvine repeats the same measurements at deep cryogenic temps. Luo
in China ran P3(2)21 quartz vs. fused silica and got a dirty null. He
quit the full parity experiment just when it was expected to show
detectable output. One could be optimistic and suspect the work was
classified and restricted, but that isn't science. We still don't
know.
The parity calorimetry experiment is more facile. Benzil is cheap.
It is easy to grow from solution as determined resolved seed crystals,
overnight. Going from sub-mm thick needles to cm-diameter prisms is
three days. Differential scanning calorimeters are common, OEM spec
of 0.1% precision. Commercial and academic equipment has been beaten
into a dull edge by heavy use and misuse.
What do we do in the real world?
1) We modestly calculated CHI vs. radius for benzil without
hydrogens. We're grinding out the full benzil lattice as far as we
can. Anybody with volunteered CPU-cluster time can run our
parallelized code.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzhdense.png
full benzil, interim results, slope = 0.610824
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
benzil without hydrogen, slope= 0.825641
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
quartz for Eotvos, slope = 0.534246
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/hgsdense.png
Cinnabar for heavy atoms in Eotvos, slope = 0.634239
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tedense.png
Te for heavy atoms in etovos; slope = 0.783851
Slope is exactly -2 in theory; smaller intercept is faster CHI->1 with
radius. Results are consistent with a one-parameter model of helix
angle.
2) Regrow resolved benzil single crystals. Right now California
day and night temps are up to 30 degrees apart. That will ease off
later in the year.
3) Given (1) and (2), Find an OEM at the right latitude who would
like to play with hardware right off the assembly line meeting OEM
specs. They've got to calibrate them anyway.
We are going to look.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> A clock at the
> rim of a centrifuge does not run slower than one at the hub
> (stationary in the lab frame). =A0It was done with Mossbauer
> spectroscopy.
You've made this claim multiple times. Please provide a citation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kundig (1962) wrote:
"Using an ultracentrifuge rotor, the shift of the 14.4-keV
Mossbauer absorption line of Fe57 in a rotating system was
measured as a function of the angular velocity omega. An Fe57
absorber was placed at a radius of 9.3 cm from the axis of the
rotor. A Co57 source was mounted on a piezoelectric transducer at
the center of the rotor. By applying a triangularly varying
voltage to the transducer, the source could be moved relative to
the absorber. This arrangement makes possible the observation of
the entire resonance line at various values of omega. The
measured transverse Doppler shift agrees within an experimental
error of 1.1% with the predictions of the theory of relativity.
Possible sources of systematic errors are discussed.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v129/i6/p2371_1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As an incidental result of their attempt to measure anisotropies
in the one-way speed of light, Turner and Hill (1964) wrote:
"The apparatus can also be used to study the second order Doppler
shift although it was not designed specifically for that. A few
measurements were made of this to check the apparatus. The observed
change in the number of transmitted 14.40keV gamma rays in going
from 0 to 15 000 rpm was (1.1+/-0.4)% while the expected change
was (0.9+/-0.1)%..."
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v134/i1B/pB252_1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it, the calculation of the shift may be made
-either- in terms of the transverse Doppler effect -or- in terms
of gravitational time dilation, with equivalent results.
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> On Feb 20, 3:37am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
> I asked for a peer-reviewed paper that supports your assertion
> that coupling exists between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and
> geometric parity mass distribution.
You got three column inches of pertinent references. Cite a
peer-reviewed paper that supported Yang and Lee prior to their parity
experiment at NIST,
http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
Physics has never been comfortable with chirality. Whenever symmetry
has been assumed and the math allowed chiral violation, chiral
violation has been observed. Pseudo-Riemannian spacetime V^4 (General
Relativity) explicitly denies chiral mass distribution divergence. In
Weitzenböck spacetime A^4 the teleparallel gravitational
energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
transformation. There is no slack in the gears either way. There is
only one class of observation of the disjoint non-overlap that can
exhibit measurable net non-zero output.
All composition Eotvos experiments are doomed at the start. The
fraction of active mass in total test mass is negligible,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b3
and the difference in net active mass driving a divergence is smaller
still,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a4
All properties coupled to internal symmetries must null to first
order,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b5
Negligible active mass, negligible active mass divergence, neglible
maximum output signal from the divergence, (epsilon)^3 net output.
STUPID.
Parity Eotvos experiments cannot do worse than fail. DO YOU HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THAT? Failure is the gold standard for all composition
Eotvos experiment outputs that you so fanatically embrace. In parity
Eotvos experiments the fraction of active mass in total test mass is
essentially 100% - certainly the relative positions of atomic nuclei
in space,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b3
add average position of non-valence electrons, too
and the difference in net active mass driving a divergence is all of
active mass: CHI->1, COR=1, DSI=0. Parity is an external symmetry and
therefore not a default first-order null,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#b5
Parity is not a Noetherian symmetry for being absolutely
discontinuous. There is no conservation law demanded by it. (9.997
active mass fraction)(1.0 active mass difference)(unconstrained
divergence) = large signal. NOT STUPID.
If it is metric gravitation, string theory, and achiral vacuum then
the parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry experiments will null. If it
is spacetime torsion and chiral vacuum then the parity Eotvos and
parity calorimetry experiments can reproducibly display a net non-null
output. THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IS TO LOOK. Theory is a whore. You are
critic troll whining like a creationist, "Don't look! Don't look!"
"Eppur si muove" to you.
> You've replied with a plethora of unrelated references.
Read them, examine the respective symmetries of their maths, and draw
the obvious conclusion about sourcing a parity test net non-zero
output. We call that "scholarship." When you know what you know you
may then advance to what we call "discovery." Columbus knew a good
value of the circumference of the Earth. His Muslim, Jewish, and
pagan deep sea navigator friends had access to Greek scrolls declared
heresy by the Church of Rome, through Freemasons. Columbus' ships'
manifests carried fully double the ladings for the circumference he
presented to the Spanish court - because they "knew" the only place
India could be. The parity calorimetry experiment conservatively has
3x10^5 larger net output amplitude than a composition Eotvos
experiment. Pookie pookie.
> > If the torsion tensor vanishes, Riemann-Cartan spacetime becomes
> > pseudo-Riemannian spacetime, V^4 (General Relativity's description of
> > gravitation). If the curvature tensor vanishes, it becomes
> > Weitzenböck spacetime, A^4 (in which the teleparallel gravitational
> > energy-momentum pseudotensor is anti-symmetric to parity
> > transformation). If both tensors vanish, it becomes Minkowski
> > spacetime, M^4. This is all baby step stuff.
>
> Verbal chaff.
Mathematics, physics, inescapable as A(X)B = -B(X)A in a vector cross
product. Probe chirality makes a difference in a chiral background.
Here is how a critic troll operates:
1) That which supports a critic troll supports a critic troll.
2) That which ignores a critic troll supports a critic troll.
3) That which contradicts a critic troll supports a critic troll -
references denied! The Grand Canyon's walls are banded 1524 meters
deep because the Great Flood perfectly stacked the layers (worldwide)
and then the Devil implanted isotope decay ratios.
4)Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unqualified to comment.
Science doesn't play your critic troll game. Science is modeling,
prediction, attempted falsification. Science is discovery not dogma.
[snip interminable critic troll maunder]
> Jerry
No EP violation and no Lorentz violation experiment has but nulled
within experimental error. Therefore,
1) there is no EP or Lorentz violation, or
2) everybody has been looking in the wrong places.
Since there is only one unexamined place remaining to be examined -
the object of your sullen derision - there is only one remaining place
wherein an EP and/or Lorentz violation may still be observed. DO LEFT
AND RIGHT HANDS VACUUM FREE FALL IDENTICALLY? Somebody should look.
The answer will be "yes" or "no." That is vastly more interesting
than any prior experimental result for retaining the possiblity of
"no."
Columbus never did reach India. It seems to have worked out.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Uncle Al wrote:
>>> Chemical composition appears in no theory of gravitation.
>> OK. So why do you think that left-handed and right-handed crystal
>> isomers will have different outcomes in Eotvos-like experiments? After
>> all, they clearly differ only by chemical composition (i.e. structure at
>> the atomic-electron level).
>
Rather than responding with an insult and a dense spew of jargon
indistinguishable from nonsense, why don't you answer the question? Your
response is much closer to that of a crackpot than to that of someone
who actually understands the subject.
If you truly understand this you will be able to explain it to a
graduate student or postdoc not expert in the field. Please do so. (I
give better versions of my original 2 questions below.)
> Single crystal solid spheres of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quatrz
> are *chemically identical* mass distributions that are *utterly
> indistinguishable* by any interaction that is itself not chiral.
Not true: they are NOT "chemically identical", they are different
isomers, and they ARE distinguishable by standard means that are not
"chiral". Yes, such isomers are not distinguishable by normal chemical
reactions with reagents, etc. (biological systems do distinguish certain
such isomers, but their enzymes are "chiral"). Such isomers are
distinguishable via X-ray crystallography and other methods of physical
chemistry; transparent crystal isomers like this are easily
distinguishable via their effects on plane-polarized light -- how do you
think the existence of such isomers was discovered if this were not so?
But like chemistry, those are electromagnetic interactions, not
gravitational.
QUESTION 1:
The fundamental issue is that such isomers differ only in the structural
arrangement of the various atoms of their crystal cell. So the only way
the partity Eotvos experiment could have a non-null result is if gravity
somehow differs for different elements (or perhaps their chemical
bonds). So how do you reconcile these two statements of yours?
A) Chemical composition appears in no theory of gravitation.
[This appears to include affine and teleparallel gravitation.]
B) Your expectation that the parity Eotvos experiment will have
a non-null result.
(If your answer is that it is just the chirality of the mass
distribution that matters, then see my second question below.)
> Affine and teleparallel gravitation *wholly contain General
> Relativity* as special case. They further prescibe exact
> circumstances for which vacumm background chirality and Equivalence
> Principle violation are detectable: chemically identical, opposite
> chirality mass distributions. One need only identify such, fabricate
> macroscopic test masses, and look.
QUESTION 2:
If this is scale independent and only related to the chirality of the
mass distribution, then macroscopic helical coils should have an
enormously larger signal than crystal isomers -- why not propose that
experiment instead? If it is not scale independent, what mechanism "just
happened" to pick atomic scales?
[This is a better pair of questions than my original, which
inappropriately mentioned the Planck scale.]
> [... more jargon indistinguishable from nonsense...]
> I have deluged this newsgroup and others with deep and inescapable
> reasons.
No, you have deluged us with jargon indistinguishable from nonsense.
I am asking for a simple and direct answer to my two questions, not
impenetrable spews of jargon. I am not being unreasonable -- these are
precisely the sort of things you would need to present in a proposal for
funding to the NSF or other funding agency.
If you truly understood this you would be able to explain it to a
physics graduate student or postdoc not expert in the field. Please do
so.
Tom Roberts
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Your multi posted scenario
> will probably be executed by someone.
>
> In a parallel effort
> would you consider an alternative
> with mostly chemistry
> and =A0a little observational physics
> to =A0test the same
> left vs right foot Eotvos hypothesis.
>
> Ammonia is well known to vibrate/resonate between its two forms
> with the three hydrogen at 105 degree from the center nitrogen
> overcoming a rather small potential barrier at room temperature
> at a very significant frequency ~1E10 /sec
>
> Now, is there a tri amine which differs in chirality
> between these two structures?
> If so replace one or more of the 3 hydrogens
> to obtain this chirality.
>
> 2.2'-Dipyridyl
> Number 11.751.14 in Janssen Chimica
> $50/100gram
> may be a starting material of choice.
> There are thousands of other triamines.
>
> 1. purify as well as possible
> 2. place in a (~50 to >100000 g's) centrifuge
> in a completely racemic liquid or gaseous phase.
> 3. solidify the amine in the high g condition (by cooling).
> This would freeze the racemic/chiral character of the amine.
> 4. Analysis the amine solid for racemic/chiral character as a function
> of g condition. (I would assume some type of optical rotation method)
> 5. Relate results to the Eotvos criteria.
>
> A kind of reverse Eotvos.
> What do you think?
Interesting idea.
1) Omit the freezing, which would introduce artifacts.
2) Introduce a polarimeter into the optical system of an
analytical ultracentrifuge to perform measurements in real time.
3) Artifacts from stress on the quartz windows could be a problem,
requiring careful controls.
4) Figure out some way of publishing the negative results in the
absence of any solid theoretical motivation for performing the
experiment.
Jerry
Uncle Al
1) Consider a photon emitted normal to the surface of a neutron
star into vacuum. At the moment of surface emission it enjoys minimmm
10^11 gees pointed 180 degrees the other way. A millimeter later it
is still subject to 10^11 gees pointed the other way.
2) Consider a photon emitted by Co-57 antiparallel to the
centripetal field of a spinning Beckman Ultima 10^6 gee
ultracentrifuge, into vacuum. One millimeter later it is in vacuum
free fall in the Earth's one gee field.
Uncle Al doesn't see the two cases as being equivalent.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > -either- in terms of the transverse Doppler effect -or- in terms
> > of gravitational time dilation, with equivalent results.
>
> 1) Consider a photon emitted normal to the surface of a neutron
> star into vacuum. At the moment of surface emission it enjoys minimmm
> 10^11 gees pointed 180 degrees the other way. A millimeter later it
> is still subject to 10^11 gees pointed the other way.
>
> 2) Consider a photon emitted by Co-57 antiparallel to the
> centripetal field of a spinning Beckman Ultima 10^6 gee
> ultracentrifuge, into vacuum. One millimeter later it is in vacuum
> free fall in the Earth's one gee field.
>
> Uncle Al doesn't see the two cases as being equivalent.
By "equivalent", I meant that the same expression for time
dilation may be obtained either in terms of the time dilatation
of special relativity or in terms of the pseudo-gravitational
potential difference between source and absorber.
The demonstration is trivial for weak fields.
In an accelerated box, the gravitational time dilation equation
with respect to an arbitrary base observer is T_d = 1 + gh/c^2,
where
T_d is the total time dilation at a distant position,
g is acceleration of the box as measured by the base observer
h is the "vertical" distance between the observers.
Express g in terms of omega and r, integrate over the radius of
the centrifuge rotor, and note that the first two terms of the
Taylor series expansion for sqrt(1+x) are 1+x/2
Jerry
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > I asked for a peer-reviewed paper that supports your assertion
> > that coupling exists between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and
> > geometric parity mass distribution.
>
> You got three column inches of pertinent references.
Which of your cited references support your assertion?
Of all the ones I was able to check, NOT ONE suggested that
coupling exists between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and geometric
parity mass distribution.
> Cite a
> peer-reviewed paper that supported Yang and Lee prior to their parity
> experiment at NIST,
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html
You have been corrected on this before. Lee and Yang were
THEORETICIANS who pointed out apparent inconsistencies between
the parity principle and what was experimentally known about the
weak interaction:
T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang
Question of Parity Conservation in Weak Interactions
Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956)
The question of parity conservation in β decays and in hyperon and
meson decays is examined. Possible experiments are suggested which
might test parity conservation in these interactions.
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v104/i1/p254_1
Wu carried out the experiment testing out Yang and Lee's
theoretical ideas:
C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson
Experimental Test of Parity Conservation in Beta Decay
Phys. Rev. 105, 1413 - 1415 (1957)
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v105/i4/p1413_1
Note the dates. Lee and Yang provided theoretical motivation for
Wu to conduct her experiment, not vice-versa.
Jerry
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> As an incidental result of their attempt to measure anisotropies
> in the one-way speed of light, Turner and Hill (1964) wrote:
> "The apparatus can also be used to study the second order Doppler
> shift although it was not designed specifically for that. A few
> measurements were made of this to check the apparatus. The observed
> change in the number of transmitted 14.40keV gamma rays in going
> from 0 to 15 000 rpm was (1.1+/-0.4)% while the expected change
> was (0.9+/-0.1)%...
> "http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v134/i1B/pB252_1
I need to correct myself here.
Turner and Hill were not attempting to detect directional
variations in light speed. In other words, they were not
attempting to conduct an "aether drift" experiment. If one
thinks about it for a few seconds, one quickly realizes that
motion through a classical aether would have no effect on the
received frequency.
Instead, they "...consider the effect of motion of the the
laboratory relative to distant matter. If there is a gravitational-
tensor interaction in addition to that provided by the metric
tensor, or possibly a vector interaction between matter in the
laboratory and distant matter, the interaction will, in general,
depend on the relative velocity of the two."
In other words, the Turner and Hill experiment was a test of
Lorentz invariance, not of one-way lightspeed.
Jerry
Uncle Al
Perhaps I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. Yours is a
meaningless expeiment. It has no basis in theory. If it did it would
have no hope of rising above noise for what it purports to
differentially measure - by at least 9 orders of magnitude beyond
current technology. Here's a hint, Jerry: measurements looking below
kT require a damned good reason for claiming net sensitivity.
The primary limit to sensitivity of Adelberger's ambient temp Eotvos
balance is the random jingle jangle of its substituent atoms. The
next largest source of noise is light pressure from the inteferometer
that is its detector - and he uses photon counting. Newman wants to
run an Eotvos balance just above the lambda point of helium. That
would reduce kT background noise by about two orders of magnitude.
The last reported run detected a few atoms of iron on a half brass
washer used as a counterweight. Stray fields are a bitch at 10^(-15)
differential sensitivity. The Earth is rich with them.
You're gonna use a vibrating ultracentrifuge? Do you plan to balance
the rotor all the way round to less than a picogram static an dynamic;
before and during crystallization? Did you ever weigh out a picogram,
Jerry? Moments of inertia change with sample density and mass
distribution during recrystallization.
Tilt.
Uncle Al
>
> On Feb 27, 6:33 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > > -either- in terms of the transverse Doppler effect -or- in terms
> > > of gravitational time dilation, with equivalent results.
> >
> > 1) Consider a photon emitted normal to the surface of a neutron
> > 10^11 gees pointed 180 degrees the other way. A millimeter later it
> > is still subject to 10^11 gees pointed the other way.
> >
> > 2) Consider a photon emitted by Co-57 antiparallel to the
> > centripetal field of a spinning Beckman Ultima 10^6 gee
> > ultracentrifuge, into vacuum. One millimeter later it is in vacuum
> > free fall in the Earth's one gee field.
> >
> > Uncle Al doesn't see the two cases as being equivalent.
>
> By "equivalent", I meant that the same expression for time
> dilation may be obtained either in terms of the time dilatation
> of special relativity or in terms of the pseudo-gravitational
> potential difference between source and absorber.
>
> The demonstration is trivial for weak fields.
>
> In an accelerated box, the gravitational time dilation equation
> with respect to an arbitrary base observer is T_d = 1 + gh/c^2,
> where
> T_d is the total time dilation at a distant position,
> g is acceleration of the box as measured by the base observer
> h is the "vertical" distance between the observers.
>
> Express g in terms of omega and r, integrate over the radius of
> the centrifuge rotor, and note that the first two terms of the
> Taylor series expansion for sqrt(1+x) are 1+x/2
>
> Jerry
Spacetime geometry associated with massed bodies or linearly
accelerated reference frames is wholly distinguishable from a
transverse Doppler effect. A centrifuge rim is acceleration but not a
gravitational field. As soon as a photon or a massed particle is
emitted from the rim toward the hub, or anywhere else in vacuum, it is
in free fall. A photon or a particle emitted within a gravitational
field stays within that field as it translates. A test body in an
accelerated reference frame, massed or unmassed, only obeys Einstein's
elevator Gedankenexperiment if the vacuum is isotropic or the body is
non-interactive with a vacuum anisiotropy. The idea is to
differentially probe allowed vacum anisiotropy. Is that so difficult
to understand?
If you have a Lense-Thirring centrifuge you will have a problem
discounting the associated gravitational field arising from its rest
mass.
Parity cannot be approximated with a Taylor series - that is why it is
an external non-Noetherian symmetry. If it is non-Noetherian then
there is no conserved observable linked with it. How many times must
this be repeated?
By your own hand you known nothing about chirality, the differential
detection of chirality, and the quantitation of geometric chirality.
By your own hand you know nothing about the divergent vacuum
background implications of pseudo-Riemannian V^4 spacetime curvature
and Weitzenböck A^4 spacetime torsion. Your incessant voluminous
criticism of the parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry experiments -
that they should NOT be performed - is obscene. Nobody knows if
chemically identical left and right hands vacuum free fall
identically. Orthodox classic theory more than 80 years old supports
both possiblities. Only one of metric and non-metric gravitation can
be correct. Only their disjoint divergence is diagnostic. Somebody
should look.
Chemically identical opposite parity mass distributions -
alpha-quartz, alpha-cinnabar, berlinite and isomorphous analogues,
benzil - all in enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 (right-handed
screw axes) and P3(2)21 (left-handed screw axes) vacuum fall
identically or they don't. The apparatus exists, the protocols are
debugged. NOTHING else in 420+ years has not exquisitely nulled.
Somebody should look.
Yang and Lee underscored physical theory's inablilty to incorporate
chiral asymmetries before the fact. Quantized gravitation is a
disaster - and it assumes both the EP and isotropic vacuum. String
theory has 10^1000 acceptable vacua (the landscape) and not a single
testable prediction. When the math works but the theory does not...
you have a sour founding postulate. The parity calorimetry experiment
requires an undergrad lab with two differential scanning calorimeters
oeprating to manufacturer's specifications. It is fast, cheap, and
sensitive and its EP violation component plays by the same rules as a
composition Eotvos experiment. Uncle Al will grow the benzil crystals
in both space groups. An instructed high school kid could grow benzil
crystals in both space groups.
Now you are throwing up dust clouds about experiments that have been
performed with obtained results to your displeasure. If you are
unwilling to do your library work and understand what you need to know
beforehand you are a waste of words in an investment of snit.
I tire of typing what you do not read then madly attack with screed
discredited in multiple newsgroups on multiple occasions. You've been
doing so for almost 5 years, with the same scripts. Learn what
chirality is or go away.
Richard Saam
but the odds are for this negative result.
Same negative result is anticipated
for extensive chiral/Eotvos character
of 1 cubic meter of biologically active D-glucose
compared to biologically inactive L-glucose
and their racemic mixture.
Bottom line: momentum is required.
Possibly a correlation
between 'apparent' gravity at the molecular level
could be made to mass (m) density currents in a material
such that de Broglie velocities (v)
v=h/(mx)=sqrt(gR) ~ 790,000 cm/sec ~ 17,500 mph
where g = earth gravitational acceleration at its radius R
and x is a length dimension at the molecular level.
This velocity (v) is orders of magnitude higher
than typical drift velocities.
Calculation indicates such mass (m) has to very small
(between and electron and proton mass)
and it conceivable that it would be associated with charge current
which associated forces may mask this gravitational effect.
Could such a mass density and associated velocity (v)
in niobium superconductor ball
be the source of anomalous experimental observations
noted in Gravity Probe B data?
Richard D. Saam
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > 1) Omit the freezing, which would introduce artifacts.
> > 2) Introduce a polarimeter into the optical system of an
> > analytical ultracentrifuge to perform measurements in real time.
> > 3) Artifacts from stress on the quartz windows could be a problem,
> > requiring careful controls.
> > 4) Figure out some way of publishing the negative results in the
> > absence of any solid theoretical motivation for performing the
> > experiment.
>
> meaningless expeiment. It has no basis in theory.
Thank you, I agree, since it is based on your ideas.
> If it did it would
> have no hope of rising above noise for what it purports to
> differentially measure - by at least 9 orders of magnitude beyond
> current technology. Here's a hint, Jerry: measurements looking below
> kT require a damned good reason for claiming net sensitivity.
Thank you, I agree that a parity calorimetry experiment would
be too insensitive by roughly 10^36 orders of magnitude, even
if your concepts were correct, corresponding to the difference in
strength between the gravitational and electromagnetic
interactions.
> The primary limit to sensitivity of Adelberger's ambient temp Eotvos
> balance is the random jingle jangle of its substituent atoms. The
> next largest source of noise is light pressure from the inteferometer
> that is its detector - and he uses photon counting. Newman wants to
> run an Eotvos balance just above the lambda point of helium. That
> would reduce kT background noise by about two orders of magnitude.
> The last reported run detected a few atoms of iron on a half brass
> washer used as a counterweight. Stray fields are a bitch at 10^(-15)
> differential sensitivity. The Earth is rich with them.
>
> You're gonna use a vibrating ultracentrifuge? Do you plan to balance
> the rotor all the way round to less than a picogram static an dynamic;
Unnecessary. Have you ever heard of sedimentation equilibrium?
http://www.ap-lab.com/sedimentation_equilibrium.htm
The density gradient formed by the high g forces in the rotor
will stabilize the solution against convective turbulence, etc.
Have you ever used a cesium chloride gradient in a preparative
ultracentrifuge to purify plasmid molecules? I have.
> before and during crystallization?
I take it that you are unable to read. Note my first comment:
"Omit the freezing, which would introduce artifacts."
> Did you ever weigh out a picogram,
> Jerry? Moments of inertia change with sample density and mass
> distribution during recrystallization.
Repeat. I wrote
"Omit the freezing, which would introduce artifacts."
> Tilt.
Thank you for your critiques, every one of which apply a fortiori
to your proposed parity calorimetry experiment.
You suffer from "not invented here" jealousy. Richard's idea was
actually quite clever and potentially far more sensitive than
your differential calorimetry proposal. It just needed a bit of
refinement to eliminate artifact-generating steps.
Look in a mirror and tell me what you see.
I do not mean that in a chiral sense.
Jerry