Re: Toodling near lightspeed - NOT!
Mark Fergerson
> ASK DR. SCHUND
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
> time, Special Relativity says
>
> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>
> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
> M = m(70.71)
>
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
> pinprick.
This is why most SF authors who write about STL travel (and have
more than a passing acquaintance with Relativity) have pretty much
reached a consensus that a huge whacking lump of ice is the de
rigeur hood ornament for STL ships.
> The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
<snip>
I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who don't know
that the good Dr. Schund prefers to teach using the excellent tool
of reductio ad absurdum.
Mark L. Fergerson
bz
@fed1read02:
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> ASK DR. SCHUND
>> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>>
>> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>>
>> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
>> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
>> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
>> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
>> time, Special Relativity says
>>
>> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
>> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>>
>> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
>> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
>> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>>
>> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
>> M = m(70.71)
>>
>> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
>> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
>> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
>> pinprick.
>
> This is why most SF authors who write about STL travel (and have
> more than a passing acquaintance with Relativity) have pretty much
> reached a consensus that a huge whacking lump of ice is the de
> rigeur hood ornament for STL ships.
Or a magnetic scoop so that those particles can be collected, compressed,
and used as fuel.
(yeah, I know, that could get to be a real drag, couldn't it?)
...
>
> I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who don't know
> that the good Dr. Schund prefers to teach using the excellent tool
> of reductio ad absurdum.
He forgot his [raa] tags or his hip boots on this one.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Uncle Al
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2005, Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
> > chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
> > with left and right hands. Proteins, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides to
> > cellulose... only display one chirality each. Protein amino acids are
> > left-handed, sugars are right-handed.
> >
> > Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as seen
> > by an outside observer. If "l" is the rest length and "L" is the
> > relativistic length,
> >
> > L = l(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> > L = l/(70.71)
> >
> > N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion. A
> > five-membered ring includes the nitrogen, with two additional methyl
> > groups N-bonded to quaternize. Methyl groups in the ring's 2- and
> > 5-positions, on either side of the nitrogen, one up and one down,
> > create two chiral centers in the same sense and overall C2-symmetry.
> > Up-up and down-down are alike and achiral.
> > ___ ___ ___
> > H\ / \/CH3 CH3\ / \/H H\ / \/H
> > CH3/ \ /\H H/ \ /\CH3 H3C/ \ /\CH3
> > N+ N+ N+
> > Me/ \Me H3C/ \CH3 H3C/ \CH3
> >
> > right-right left-left achiral
> >
> > The two chiral carbons are almost tetrahedral. Their angles vary from
> > 105.3 to 116.9 degrees compared with 109.5 degrees for a perfect
> > tetrahedron. Four different groups bonded in tetrahedral
> > configuration create a local chiral center. That both groups have the
> > same chiral sense prevents an internal mirror plane from existing, for
> > left reflects as right. The molecule is explicitly stably chiral both
> > locally and globally.
> >
> > Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
> > tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
> > 1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
> > at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
> > symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
> > way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
> > All three possible molecules will result.
> >
> > Our lightspeed astronauts will not retain or reverse chirality as a
> > whole. Every chiral center in every biological molecule in their
> > bodies will do an independent coin flip. They will decelerate to be
> > not uniformly original or reversed but instead randomly racemized at
> > the atomic level and dead meat overall. Or are relativistic effects
> > only a trick of observer perspective?
>
> Your analysis of the impact energy of interstellar dust
> looked fine, but this bit about the chirality of molecules
> doesn't make sense. In the frame of the astronauts, why
> would anything happen to their molecules? Sure everything
> becomes a pancake from an observer that sees them going at
> .99...c, but your molecules wouldn't flip chirality just
> because someone is moving away from you at near the speed of
> light, right?
From the astronauts' point of view their clocks are also OK. The fun
starts when the two frames of reference are locally compared. Hence
my question: If we take a simple chiral ion, boost it deeply
relativistic, gently recover it, and look... will it have really
flattened and racemized?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
tuppence
> ASK DR. SCHUND
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
> time, Special Relativity says
>
> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>
> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
> M = m(70.71)
>
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
> pinprick. The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
> Clocks certainly arrive slowed. Relativistic particles do not decay
> as fast as their stationary counterparts. The ratio of half-lives is
> just as Special Relativity predicts. Let us do the experiment!
>
> We start with the resolved chiral ammonium salt. Being clever we
> launch it into the gas phase and accelerate only the positive ions
> into a deeply relativistic beam. Similarly decelerate, then
> neutralize and collect. Measure the optical rotation or look at the
> NMR spectrum as the Mosher's acid salt to resolve signals from either
> enantiomer or the achiral third possibility.
>
> Did the molecules really flatten vs. the lab frame of reference? Is
> the recovered product racemized rather than homochiral as it began?
> How much energy must we put in and take out? We have a molecular
> weight of 128.24 atomic mass units. We will need 70.71 times that
> mass or
>
> (70.71)(128.24 amu)(1.66x10^(-27) kg/amu)(3x10^8
> m/sec)^2/(1.60x10^(-19) J/ev) = 8467 GeV or 119 GeV/amu
>
> This looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
> Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold nuclei at
> 196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other than
> bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment priority.
>
> If NASA gets lucky and builds a starship, Uncle Al is not signing on
> until he knows the answer.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Me:
"Well, Dr. Schund, that sure sounds scary enough, but aren't there other
dangers
or nasty surprises? What about the Doppler effect? If I have it right, light
radiation
from Centauri and other stars in front of me will appear as gamma radiation.
Won't
that also be a problem?"
Dr. Schund:
"Ya, but zie vill haft to take along zum lead shielding, und dat vill
protect you."
Me:
"Uh, but according to your prior reasoning, the shielding will flatten
out in the direction
of travel, so at 99.999% light speed I will only be protected by 1.4% of the
thickness it
started at."
Dr. Schund:
"Vell, you see, das ist right, but vot you are ignoring ist dat zie mass
increases vile zie volume
decreases, so zie density goes up, und zis ist more zan enough to cancel out
zie thinning effect."
Me:
"Good! And maybe just to be on the safe side I could substitute something
heavier than lead.
I could use uranium, perhaps?"
Dr. Schund:
"Nein!! Dot vould be dangerous! As zie mass and density increases it vould
reach a critical mass
und explode----POW!----Dat is analogous to vot happens to zie chrial
molecules. Keep in mind,
physical tings are changed by zis shrinking of dimensions, etc."
Me:
"Well, that sounds logical. How silly of me to have thought otherwise. Thank
you, Dr. Schund for your
valuable time. I'll pass this information along to NASA."
Dr. Schund:
"Oh vell, zomevone hast to explain how zese tings are. Othervise, people
vould get confuzed."
Uncle Al
>
> On a sunny day (Wed, 04 May 2005 17:53:12 -0700) it happened Uncle Al
> <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in <42796E78...@hate.spam.net>:
>
> > ASK DR. SCHUND
> > (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> >tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
> >1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
> >at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
>
> NASA, take him!
Interesting point. That portion of the argument explicitly fails.
Uncle Al
Dr. Abfallig Matsch Schund. Translate for the German! It's a shame
the experiment needs such large energies/amu to be performed.
Uncle Al
Yes, but a shielding with medium weight elements (minimize pair
production) takes care of it. Don't put the crew chamber in the
front.
[snip]
G=EMC^2 Glazier
goes more and more into creating greater weight.(yes) The Cern
accelerator moving an electron(mass particle) at 99.999999999 of 'c'
increases its rest mass weight 70,000 times. That's a lot. That is an
experiment that proves what I said. No need to go to Google,No need to
read a book. Use your cellular phone and call the Cern Lab. Get it from
the horse's mouth. Einstien would have loved accelerator(not one in
1905) Yes the short talk I had with Einstien in 1953 was on inertia.
Bert
Sam Wormley
> Hi Sam At close to the speed of light the energy to create acceleration
> goes more and more into creating greater weight.(yes) The Cern
> accelerator moving an electron(mass particle) at 99.999999999 of 'c'
> increases its rest mass weight 70,000 times.
That's from the perspective of the accelerator (lab), not the particles,
Herb.
That's a lot. That is an
> experiment that proves what I said.
What you said was wrong... go back and think about what you said.
Bilge
[...]
>Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
>irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
>rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
>M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
>M = m(70.71)
>
>A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
>millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
>detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
>pinprick. The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
The astronauts in the spacestation are travelling at 0.9999c relative to
_some_ object, somewhere, as are several deep space probes. It would
appear that encountering any dust sized particles travelling at that
velocity relative to the hypothetical spaceship doesn't happen very often.
Voyager, for example has been in space for 30 years without encountering
such a dust particle. Your argument presumes that earth is somehow special
and that the only velocities that matter are velocities relative to earth.
>Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
>chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
>with left and right hands. Proteins, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides to
>cellulose... only display one chirality each. Protein amino acids are
>left-handed, sugars are right-handed.
That in itself doesn't imply the structures can't all be reversed
to give the same result, except inverted in total. It might be true,
but there is no evidence or proof of that. However, this isn't relevent
to the rest.
>Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as seen
>by an outside observer. If "l" is the rest length and "L" is the
>relativistic length,
>
>L = l(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
>L = l/(70.71)
>
>N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion. A
>five-membered ring includes the nitrogen, with two additional methyl
[...]
>Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
>tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
>1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
>at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
>symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
>way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
>All three possible molecules will result.
Fortunately, p_u x^u (i.e., Et - p.x) is a relativistic invariant,
so the phase space available for transitions between different states
varies in accordance with well understood physics.
[...]
>Clocks certainly arrive slowed. Relativistic particles do not decay
>as fast as their stationary counterparts. The ratio of half-lives is
>just as Special Relativity predicts. Let us do the experiment!
[...]
>Did the molecules really flatten vs. the lab frame of reference? Is
>the recovered product racemized rather than homochiral as it began?
>How much energy must we put in and take out? We have a molecular
>weight of 128.24 atomic mass units. We will need 70.71 times that
>mass or
There are two different pieces of physics relevant to your example.
One is a simple lorentz transform, which is easy to dismiss as being
irrelevant. The transition rate between an initial and final state
can be written in terms of a lorentz invariant phase space. The
relevant quantity is called the invariant amplitude. If the transition
rate is zero in one frame, it's zero in every frame. If the transition
rate is non-zero then in some frame, then changing frames changes
the transition rate just through the usual lorentz transforms.
The second part is the acceleration. First, one would have to wonder
why how that could _not_ be relevant, since you are applying a force,
which by definition, changes the system. How relevant is it? If you
deform the material enough to break molecular bonds, then it's obviously
relevant. How applicable is that to human space travel? Essentially,
nil. I already know the effect on humans when subjected to a force
large enough to break molecular bonds. It's called blunt trauma.
The issue of recombination of the molecule into a different chirality
is irrelevant, since the damage is done in breaking the bonds in the
first place. What about substances that are merely floating around,
like dextrose, but aren't living tissue? Again, it's irrelevant. The
human body simply cannot utilize the inverted structures, although
in some cases, like levulose, the human body can invert the undesirable
enantiomer to obtain the desirable one, in this case, dextrose.
In any case, the accelerations of the electrons in an atom or
molecule are many orders of magnitude larger than humans could
tolerate and relativity is known to hold under those accelerations
(since obviously the dirac theory works for hydrogen). The characteristic
acceleration of an electron in the hydrogen ground state is on
the order of 9 x 10^22 m/sec^2 or about 10^22 g.
[...]
>If NASA gets lucky and builds a starship, Uncle Al is not signing on
>until he knows the answer.
OK. That would be one less person competing for my spot.
Bilge
>From the astronauts' point of view their clocks are also OK. The fun
>starts when the two frames of reference are locally compared. Hence
>my question: If we take a simple chiral ion, boost it deeply
>relativistic, gently recover it, and look... will it have really
>flattened and racemized?
Sure, unless you do it adiabatically. You supplied energy to
the system. How you supply it doesn't make a lot of difference
apart from the rate at which the energy is supplied vs the rate
it's dissipated. If you supply it faster than it's dissipated, the
material will heat up.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
through spacetime. Shortening at close to "C" in th direction object is
going. Sharing of motion between different dimensions. What makes time
another dimension of the universe. Why there is a limit to the velocity
an object can go through space. Why when that speed limit is reached
"All of the object's motion through time is diverted to motion through
space. Now Sam I admit this is tricky stuff,and you have to give it
much thought. It is not just like you usually do "Throw out thoughts of
others to say I'm wrong". Study and think hard on this stuff,and
you might find I'm right. Right or wrong I hope it gets you thinking on
your own. I love to think Bert
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
>> Hi Uncle Al The human body can not go any faster than 73% of light
>> speed. Reason is the human body can't function when it weighs to
>much.
>
>[1]- In the last few decades it's been recognised that mass doesn't
>change with speed in special relativity. That was an early
>misinterpretation.
>
>[2]- Even when this was thought to be the case, it was never the case
>that a mass changed relative to its own inertial reference system.
>
> A human body can travel inertially at
>99.99999999999999999999999...9% of c, with no ill effects due to mass
>transformations, since there are none. The acceleration getting up to
>speed, however, can be another issue.
>
Not only it can travel inertially at such speeds, it actually *does*
travel at such speeeds, in some reference frames.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Mark Martin
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> > A human body can travel inertially at
> >99.99999999999999999999999...9% of c, with no ill effects due to
mass
> >transformations, since there are none. The acceleration getting up
to
> >speed, however, can be another issue.
> >
> Not only it can travel inertially at such speeds, it actually *does*
> travel at such speeeds, in some reference frames.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
-Mark Martin
The Ghost In The Machine
<nu...@biz.ness>
wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 08:38:14 -0700
<F5ree.3379$Fa1.1567@fed1read02>:
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> ASK DR. SCHUND
>> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>>
>> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>>
>> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
>> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
>> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
>> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
>> time, Special Relativity says
>>
>> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
>> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>>
>> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
>> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
>> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>>
>> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
>> M = m(70.71)
>>
>> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
>> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
>> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
>> pinprick.
>
> This is why most SF authors who write about STL travel (and have
> more than a passing acquaintance with Relativity) have pretty much
> reached a consensus that a huge whacking lump of ice is the de
> rigeur hood ornament for STL ships.
Until it melts. Assuming 1 proton per cubic centimeter
in stillspace:
"inhullation" from ship travelling @ .9999c / m^2:
1 million protons per second
times 70.712 gamma factor (time compression)
times (1.67262171*10^-27 * (3e8)^2 * 70.712 gamma factor)
= .752 W
Since the heat of fusion of water is 6.02 kJ/mol,
a mole of water (18g) will be lost every 7997.8 seconds
(2h 13m 17.8s)/m^2 during flight -- and this is assuming
we don't run into anything bigger than an atomic nucleus.
Running into a loose 1gm pebble -- well, it's been nice
knowing the good ship Lorentz... :-)
I would be curious as to how much water Dr. Schund is
considering employing for the "ship shield". For a
non-replenishable shield that must last for 46 days
(3794400 s) subjective the amount of water required would
be 496.9 moles, or 8.945 kg, as a minimum, per square meter
of ship cross-section. It is not clear whether any of the
meltwater would be recoverable, because of radioactivity
(that proton might hit the oxygen nucleus). There are
also ionization problems; how will the ship deal with
the positive charge as the electrons are preferentially
knocked away? :-)
>
>> The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
>
> <snip>
>
> I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who don't know
> that the good Dr. Schund prefers to teach using the excellent tool
> of reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Mark L. Fergerson
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
wrote in message
news:optqk2-...@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
Neglecting the occasional deer or squirrel, running into hydrogen
will not vaporize the ice. Consider what temperature the
"leading edge" CMBR will provide as a radiative heat sink. For
more cooling, rotate the ice lump, since the CMBR behind is much
closer to 0K.
> I would be curious as to how much
> water Dr. Schund is considering
> employing for the "ship shield".
A cubic mile would be good. Wouldn't have to be all ice either.
> For a non-replenishable shield that
> must last for 46 days (3794400 s)
> subjective the amount of water required
> would be 496.9 moles, or 8.945 kg, as a
> minimum, per square meter of ship
> cross-section. It is not clear whether any
> of the meltwater would be recoverable,
> because of radioactivity (that proton might
> hit the oxygen nucleus).
Make helium and flourine. Not too bad. Should cool
radioactively pretty quickly.
> There are also ionization problems; how
> will the ship deal with the positive charge
> as the electrons are preferentially
> knocked away? :-)
Ball lightning... Might help repel some stuff away... maybe 15
nuceii along the trip. ;>)
Of course if it maintained a potential, it would be radiating
energy to the Universe at large.
David A. Smith
FrediFizzx
| In sci.physics, FrediFizzx
| <fredi...@hotmail.com>
| wrote
| on Thu, 5 May 2005 00:14:08 -0700
| <3dtvc9...@individual.net>:
| > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
| > news:42796E78...@hate.spam.net...
| > | ASK DR. SCHUND
| > | (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
| > |
| > | Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
|
|
| > | This looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
| > | Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold
nuclei at
| > | 196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other
than
| > | bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment
priority.
| > |
on
| > | until he knows the answer.
| >
way.
| > LoL Ya won't even feel any acceleration. Ah, the miracles of
modern
| > science.
|
| But will the warp core threaten to explode? :-)
Don't know, but if the warp field collapses all of a sudden, that could
be a big problem. Better have multiple redundancy. Better leave NASA
out of that one. LOL.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Mark Martin
Dan wrote:
> > Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
> > chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
> > with left and right hands. Proteins, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides
to
> > cellulose... only display one chirality each. Protein amino acids
are
> > left-handed, sugars are right-handed.
> >
> > Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as
seen> This
> looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
> > Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold nuclei
at
> > 196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other
than
> > bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment
priority.
>
> Didn't you learn the most basic rule of relativity?
> In the space-ship time passes like normal, and also nothing changes
its
> length. It only appears to someone on earth that your clock is
running
> slower and that you are stretched out.
Yes, but in Al's original post there was also the following passage:
"Our lightspeed astronauts will not retain or reverse chirality as a
whole. Every chiral center in every biological molecule in their
bodies will do an independent coin flip. They will decelerate to be
not uniformly original or reversed but instead randomly racemized at
the atomic level and dead meat overall. Or are relativistic effects
only a trick of observer perspective?
Clocks certainly arrive slowed. Relativistic particles do not decay
as fast as their stationary counterparts. The ratio of half-lives is
just as Special Relativity predicts. Let us do the experiment!"
To me he clearly knows what the existing theory of relativity leads
us to expect, that the length transformation is wholly an exercise in
observer relative projections. But he sees the demands of chirality as
a (potentially) new way to challenge relativity on an experimental
basis. He's made no faux pa as far as I can see.
-Mark Martin
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115381263.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
...
> basis. He's made no faux pa as far as I can see.
faux pas.
I love it when you speak French!
David A. Smith
Mark Martin
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dar Mark Martin:
>
> "Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1115381263.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > basis. He's made no faux pa as far as I can see.
>
> faux pas.
It would appear that I am the one pulling the faux pas today.
> I love it when you speak French!
Gomez, is that you?
-Mark Martin
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>> I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who don't know
>>that the good Dr. Schund prefers to teach using the excellent tool
>>of reductio ad absurdum.
> Dr. Abfallig Matsch Schund. Translate for the German! It's a shame
> the experiment needs such large energies/amu to be performed.
I went to:
and did the words individually. I never learned German; the
subject-verb-object ordering and peculiar suffixes always gave me
trouble, but I think I get it. If one invents an alter ego
specifically to deal with intractable idiots, said alter ego ought
to be appropriately named.
Mark L. Fergerson
Jan Panteltje
<nu...@biz.ness> wrote in <rUKee.3562$Fa1.1201@fed1read02>:
>Uncle Al wrote:
>> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>> I never fail to be amazed at the number of people who don't know
>>>that the good Dr. Schund prefers to teach using the excellent tool
>>>of reductio ad absurdum.
>
>> Dr. Abfallig Matsch Schund. Translate for the German! It's a shame
>> the experiment needs such large energies/amu to be performed.
>
> I went to:
>
>http://www2.dict.cc/
>
> and did the words individually. I never learned German;
So what, Al never learned physics, and his German is horrible.
Uncle Al
The relativistic projection of time ratchets by empirical
demonstration. Relativistic clocks run slow compared to local
clocks. A relativistic beam of a radioisotope or an unstable particle
launched, propagated, and recovered is seen to have decayed
proportionately less than a stationary sample. There is no paradox in
the Twin Paradox, and acceleration fore and aft has nothing to do with
the observed results (added small perturbation in the same sense vs.
overall flight given linear acceleration, the Equivalence Principle,
and GR).
The projection of space is held to be a figment of observation.
Nobody has done an experiment where the "flattening" of space parallel
to the direction of relativistic propagation has ratcheted
consequences. A tetrahedral carbon chiral center "flattened" by a
factor of 70 at 0.9999c doesn't have much pucker at all. One might
expect a degree of racemization (reopening in either direction) upon
unflattening. Acceleration and deceleration of a suitable chiral ion
(as low a mass as possible) does not imply heating or additional
chemistry. Supersonic molecular beams from expansion into vacuum are
deeply cryogenic in their own frame.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.htm
This image contains three stereograms of
N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium with two chiral centers. Carbon is
pale blue, hydrogen is white, nitrogen is dark blue and has a positive
charge. The chiral left-left or (S,S) isomer is first. The chiral
right-right or (R,R) isomer is in the middle. The achiral left-right
(R,S) isomer is third. Since the mirror image of left is right, that
last molecule has a mirror plane of symmetry normal to and bisecting
the plane of the ring through the nitrogen. The slight ring pucker is
reversible top to bottom and races around the ring by thermal
vibration, averaging to a flat ring. The methyls are spinning and
average their hydrogen's orentations.
We take a beam of the resolved left-left ion and boost it to 0.9999c
in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Accelerator, then reverse the timing to
decelerate it and collect as a salt. Give that the flying ions are
randomly tumbling as viewed in our reference frame, billions and
billions of potential flattenings and racemizations will (or will not)
transpire to an equilibrium mixture of all three species. We then
measure the optical rotation, [alpha]D, for the product vs. the
starting material.
The Gedankenexperiment is mildly interesting. Reduction to practice
is highly unlikely. Particle physics doesn't know organic chemistry
exists.
solar plexus
>material will heat up.
>
not necessary fool
the material could do some work
solar plexus
>is highly unlikely. Particle physics doesn't know organic chemistry
>exists.
this is bullshit al
Bilge
bz
@hate.spam.net:
> A tetrahedral carbon chiral center "flattened" by a
> factor of 70 at 0.9999c doesn't have much pucker at all. One might
> expect a degree of racemization (reopening in either direction) upon
> unflattening.
The chiral molecule continues to freely rotate.
It is not 'really flattened' in its own frame of reference.
There will be no inversion.
The 'flattening' is really an 'op-tickle allusion' alluding to what the
external observer sees. The people riding on the ship see the molecules
have not really changed along any axis, so they can't invert.
Uncle Al
The idea of getting time on Brookhaven's RHIC to accelerate and
recover organic cations is beyond even my considerable capacity for
research optimism. It would be a multi-$million project in search of
a heterodox conclusion. The Bush administration is enthusiastically
shutting down all basic science in trade for "faith-based initiatives"
and glitzy parlor tricks.
One can obviously argue that local everything is absolutely
undistorted. I have no problem with that. However, there are two
kinds of empirical observations. Clocks are not reversible.
Differences in rate of time flow moving vs. stationary coordinate
frame are permanent upon comparision,
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Special Relativity unambiguously says foreshortening in the direction
of relativistic travel is a matter of perspective only - yet nobody
has done an experiment in which the effects of forshortening can be
permanently captured. Severe "flattening" leading to racemization of
a chiral organic molecule would be such an experiment. The
considerable problem of obtaining large enough beta factors to make it
happen in principle is not impossible given existing apparatus.
We know from Feynman and "partons" that relativistic atomic nuclei
colliding must be modeled as pancakes not spheres as observed in the
lab frame. I want to recover the frozen results. Cheap concept
testing starts with Et4N(+) (MW=130.25 amu) instead of
(2R,5R)-(-)-trans-2,5-dimethylpyrrolidine
0.25 g/$(US)414.10
and quaternizing. (Why Aldrich adds the dime is beyond my
comprehension).
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
for stereograms of the ions. The lowest molecular weight stable ion
possible is desired; the nitrogen must have four groups covalently
bonded to be a stable cation. 2-Butyltrimethylammonium with one
chiral center comes in at 116.22 amu.
N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium with *two identical* chiral centers
comes in at 128.24 amu. The latter is an optimal solution.
Sue...
carried by increasingly brutal labor conditions, especially in China,
but also in the U.S. Because Wal-Mart is now the largest corporation in
the world, its practice of disregarding human rights for the sake of a
good sale on the other side of the world is setting an ominous trend in
an industry that is now trying to keep up with Wal-Mart by wringing
more labor for less and less compensation.
Consider, also, that foreign cheap labor comes in part because of their
socialist government that covers daily living expenses of the workers,
so the true cost of labor is actually through subsidies by a Communist
system. By supporting Wal-Mart, we endanger American Free Enterprise
and prop up totalitarianism.
Now Wal-Mart is leading the way in implementing RFID product tracking,
leading the way to more of an Orwellian big brother world of tyranny
here in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Bilge
>>
>> >The Gedankenexperiment is mildly interesting. Reduction to practice
>> >is highly unlikely. Particle physics doesn't know organic chemistry
>> >exists.
>>
>> this is bullshit al
>
>The idea of getting time on Brookhaven's RHIC to accelerate and
>recover organic cations is beyond even my considerable capacity for
>research optimism. It would be a multi-$million project in search of
>a heterodox conclusion.
very likely that you could even accelerate a compound at RHIC,
so you would need to build your own accelerator. Ion sources
for accelerators are not typically designed to leave compounds
intact. For an ion that isn't metallic and isn't generated from
monatomic gas, the ion source is designed to generate ions by ripping
molecules apart. For example, the way one obtains a boron beam is by
starting with something like BF3.
>The Bush administration is enthusiastically shutting down all basic
>science in trade for "faith-based initiatives" and glitzy parlor tricks.
Write a proposal expressing faith in your experiment and start
with a quote from genesis.
>One can obviously argue that local everything is absolutely
>undistorted. I have no problem with that. However, there are two
>kinds of empirical observations. Clocks are not reversible.
Thats a consequence of the symetry being SO(1,3) rather than
SO(4).
>Differences in rate of time flow moving vs. stationary coordinate
>frame are permanent upon comparision,
That's not what relativity tells you. The elapsed time on a clock
is the length of the world line between the two events that define
the interval. The only comparison for which it makes sense to distinguish
between ``moving'' and ``stationary'' is one where there are accelerations.
[...]
>Special Relativity unambiguously says foreshortening in the direction
>of relativistic travel is a matter of perspective only - yet nobody
It doesn't say that. The time dilation and length contraction are real
effects.
>has done an experiment in which the effects of forshortening can be
>permanently captured.
Sure they have. Every scattering measurement requires the inclusion
of length contraction to transform the differential scattering cross
section properly. The transformation from center-of-momentum to
lab coordinates is different for the relativistic case than the
classical case.
Uncle Al
>
> Wal-Mart provides an up-front savings for shoppers, but the cost is
> carried by increasingly brutal labor conditions, especially in China,
> but also in the U.S.
So? Brutal working conditions made the US powerful and wealthy at the
turn of the 20th century. Social conscience only exists when it can
be afforded. Less evolved societies will pay the entry fee for
modernity and move on.
Both Ford and GM financial instruments are now rated "junk" by Wall
Street. Almost $2000 of the cost of every Detoit car is social
compassion. When Uncle Al buys a car he purchases Japanese or German
steel not Detroit healthcare benefits.
If you have a problem with Wal-Mart, don't shop there. Let the market
decide.
Uncle Al says, "A Liberal feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he pays off with your money."
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al:
> >solar plexus wrote:
> >>
> >> >The Gedankenexperiment is mildly interesting. Reduction to practice
> >> >is highly unlikely. Particle physics doesn't know organic chemistry
> >> >exists.
> >>
> >> this is bullshit al
> >
> >The idea of getting time on Brookhaven's RHIC to accelerate and
> >recover organic cations is beyond even my considerable capacity for
> >research optimism. It would be a multi-$million project in search of
> >a heterodox conclusion.
>
> It's more like a multi-billion dollar proposal, since it's not
> very likely that you could even accelerate a compound at RHIC,
> so you would need to build your own accelerator. Ion sources
> for accelerators are not typically designed to leave compounds
> intact. For an ion that isn't metallic and isn't generated from
> monatomic gas, the ion source is designed to generate ions by ripping
> molecules apart. For example, the way one obtains a boron beam is by
> starting with something like BF3.
The ion source is $piddles; the rest of the appartus is used
unchanged. The charged species is already there. I don't need to
strip of all the electrons and leave a bare nucleus. Large current
organic ion injection is SOP in mass spectrometers. They can loft MWs
in the millions (MALDI or cusped liquid metal sources). The test case
ion is MW=128.
> >The Bush administration is enthusiastically shutting down all basic
> >science in trade for "faith-based initiatives" and glitzy parlor tricks.
>
> Write a proposal expressing faith in your experiment and start
> with a quote from genesis.
It's a Gedankenexperiment.
> >One can obviously argue that local everything is absolutely
> >undistorted. I have no problem with that. However, there are two
> >kinds of empirical observations. Clocks are not reversible.
>
> Thats a consequence of the symetry being SO(1,3) rather than
> SO(4).
Again, no argument. However, you cannot test theory by first assuming
it.
Suppose the relativistic ion did legitimately racemize. What are the
consequences? None real world. The cicumstances do not obtain in the
real world. No prior observation is confounded. Theory, however has
to change to accomodate the observation.
It works the other way, too, and better! Suppose you begin with the
achiral compound,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
bottom stereopair
and the recovered stuff is net chiral. Whoa! That's a pisser to
explain under any circumstances!
[snip]
> >Special Relativity unambiguously says foreshortening in the direction
> >of relativistic travel is a matter of perspective only - yet nobody
>
> It doesn't say that. The time dilation and length contraction are real
> effects.
If you are invalidating my concept you aren't doing a very good job of
it!
> >has done an experiment in which the effects of forshortening can be
> >permanently captured.
>
> Sure they have. Every scattering measurement requires the inclusion
> of length contraction to transform the differential scattering cross
> section properly. The transformation from center-of-momentum to
> lab coordinates is different for the relativistic case than the
> classical case.
But the process of rest state, relativistic contraction, rest state
does not have ratcheted consequences for length contraction. One can
argue perspective or contraction and the hyperbolic geometry works
both ways. If the tetrahedral carbons are indeed severely flattened,
irreversible consequences accrue.
The probem is the beta factor needed. Doing 5 miles/second in low
Earth orbit is not near 186,500 miles/second. A beta of 70, 0.9999c,
is difficult and expensive to accomplish even for a stream of small
single molecules.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:427B90F0...@hate.spam.net...
> Mark Martin wrote:
<snip>
>> -Mark Martin
>
> The relativistic projection of time ratchets by empirical
> demonstration. Relativistic clocks run slow compared to local
> clocks. A relativistic beam of a radioisotope or an unstable particle
> launched, propagated, and recovered is seen to have decayed
> proportionately less than a stationary sample. There is no paradox in
> the Twin Paradox, and acceleration fore and aft has nothing to do with
> the observed results (added small perturbation in the same sense vs.
> overall flight given linear acceleration, the Equivalence Principle,
> and GR).
>
> The projection of space is held to be a figment of observation.
> Nobody has done an experiment where the "flattening" of space parallel
> to the direction of relativistic propagation has ratcheted
> consequences. A tetrahedral carbon chiral center "flattened" by a
> factor of 70 at 0.9999c doesn't have much pucker at all. One might
> expect a degree of racemization (reopening in either direction) upon
> unflattening.
Is this a joke or what? Uncle Al seems to be seriously defending
this, and not in the guise of an alter ego.
Does he really believe this or is he putting us on?
<snip>
--
rb
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115384716.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Morticia, it is I. ;>)
David A. Smith
Ben Rudiak-Gould
Uncle Al wrote:
> A tetrahedral carbon chiral center "flattened" by a
> factor of 70 at 0.9999c doesn't have much pucker at all. One might
> expect a degree of racemization (reopening in either direction) upon
> unflattening.
> [...]
> The relativistic projection of time ratchets by empirical
> demonstration. Relativistic clocks run slow compared to local
> clocks. A relativistic beam of a radioisotope or an unstable particle
> launched, propagated, and recovered is seen to have decayed
> proportionately less than a stationary sample. There is no paradox in
> the Twin Paradox, and acceleration fore and aft has nothing to do with
> the observed results (added small perturbation in the same sense vs.
> overall flight given linear acceleration, the Equivalence Principle,
> and GR).
>
> The projection of space is held to be a figment of observation.
> Nobody has done an experiment where the "flattening" of space parallel
> to the direction of relativistic propagation has ratcheted
> consequences.
I'm still having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. You
seem to be saying, here, that time dilation has been tested but length
contraction never has, and your experiment would serve as a test of
length contraction. This would imply that you believe that observed
racemization would *confirm* Lorentz symmetry, the way the twin effect
does. I hope that's not what you're saying, because it's completely
potty.
On the other hand, if we interpret the racemization as a violation of
Lorentz invariance, this sounds like a potentially worthwhile
experiment. Before I approve the funds, though, I'd like to be convinced
that there's a viable theory which makes a different prediction than SR
for this experiment. I find that highly implausible, for the following
reason. Suppose we look at the most obvious workable Lorentz-violating
theory, which is QFT on a discrete lattice. The lattice separation is an
adjustible parameter. An object moving with respect to the lattice frame
will have fewer degrees of freedom, roughly as though the lattice
separation were increased by a factor of gamma in the direction of
motion. There are two distance scales of interest here:
* The largest lattice separation at which the theory is
consistent with all existing experimental data
* The largest lattice separation at which your isomers are
distinct (i.e. won't spontaneously turn into each other)
I would expect your experiment to produce non-null results when gamma is
on the order of the ratio of these two lengths. I have no idea what this
ratio is, but I suspect it's a LOT larger than 70. It seems totally
unrealistic to expect any detectable Lorentz violation at such a small
gamma, "flattened" angles or not.
-- Ben
Mark Fergerson
fairly important question, though he sidles up to it in his
typically elliptical fashion.
Uncle Al wrote:
> ASK DR. SCHUND
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed.
<snippage to clarify the setup>
> Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
> chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
> with left and right hands.
> Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as seen
> by an outside observer. If "l" is the rest length and "L" is the
> relativistic length,
>
> L = l(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> L = l/(70.71)
>
> N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion.
> The two chiral carbons are almost tetrahedral. Their angles vary from
> 105.3 to 116.9 degrees compared with 109.5 degrees for a perfect
> tetrahedron. Four different groups bonded in tetrahedral
> configuration create a local chiral center. That both groups have the
> same chiral sense prevents an internal mirror plane from existing, for
> left reflects as right. The molecule is explicitly stably chiral both
> locally and globally.
<emphasis on the last sentence so the punchline makes sense; what
does "globally" mean in this context?>
> Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
> tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
> 1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
> at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
> symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
> way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
The "thermal vibration amplitude" red herring is deodorized by
supercooling the ion to damn near absolute zero before launch
(getting rid of rotational "heat" around axes other than parallel to
the beam direction will be, um, interesting- seems irrelevant if the
ions spin around their velocity vector to me) and boosting velocity
a few more nines so the ion's "depth" is on the order of the
constituent atoms' de Broglie wavelength at speed; if we're
squishing molecules, let's use a proper vise. (if "a few more nines"
sounds like a handwave... hey, it's a gedankenexperiment)
> All three possible molecules will result.
This is the punchline; all three _cannot_ result unless chirality
isn't a conserved quantity.
> Our lightspeed astronauts will not retain or reverse chirality as a
> whole. Every chiral center in every biological molecule in their
> bodies will do an independent coin flip. They will decelerate to be
> not uniformly original or reversed but instead randomly racemized at
> the atomic level and dead meat overall. Or are relativistic effects
> only a trick of observer perspective?
The Dr. is asking if chirality is conserved over Relativistic
velocity transforms? Strikes me that whatever conserves angular
momentum must be subpoenaed.
> Clocks certainly arrive slowed. Relativistic particles do not decay
> as fast as their stationary counterparts. The ratio of half-lives is
> just as Special Relativity predicts. Let us do the experiment!
> Did the molecules really flatten vs. the lab frame of reference? Is
> the recovered product racemized rather than homochiral as it began?
If it doesn't preserve its chirality, something is very wrong
regardless of whose interpretation of Relativity we use, and which
way the Eotvos stuff proves out.
> How much energy must we put in and take out?
If chirality isn't conserved, running two otherwise identical
opposite-handed beams in parallel would produce a temperature
difference between the slowed, now racemized ions. Where would the
energy come from?
Yow. And I was considering nicknaming the good Dr. "Gigo".
Mark L. Fergerson
Uncle Al
>
> After some thought, it occurs to me that Dr. Schund is asking a
> fairly important question, though he sidles up to it in his
> typically elliptical fashion.
Three perturbations:
1) A better (and cheaper) experiment uses the achiral isomer, third
in the image.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
One can then look for isomer random scrambling as well as induced net
optical activity (via anisotropy of space).
2) A number was off. The correct figures are
[(70.71)(128.24 amu)(1.66x10^-27 kg/amu)(3x10^8 m/sec)^2]/(1.60x10^-19
J/ev) = 8467 GeV or 66.03 GeV/amu
BNL's RHIC would give 100 Gev/amu, a beta of 107.1, and 0.999956c.
That is consistent with their gold nuclei accelerations.
3) Learned folks have put forth some pretty good arguments that
time and space won't cooperate in the same manner regarding
recoverable effects. I sent a brief e-mail to a theoretician at BNL
for another opinion.
http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/heavy_ion.htm
Middle. Does that look flat to you?
[snip]
> > N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion.
>
> > The two chiral carbons are almost tetrahedral. Their angles vary from
> > 105.3 to 116.9 degrees compared with 109.5 degrees for a perfect
> > tetrahedron. Four different groups bonded in tetrahedral
> > configuration create a local chiral center. That both groups have the
> > same chiral sense prevents an internal mirror plane from existing, for
> > left reflects as right. The molecule is explicitly stably chiral both
> > locally and globally.
>
> <emphasis on the last sentence so the punchline makes sense; what
> does "globally" mean in this context?>
The two tetrasubsituted carbon atoms flanking the quaternized nitrogen
are locally chiral regardless. The molecule is globally chiral only
if the two chiral centers are homochiral. If they are mirror images
the molecule is globally achiral with a mirror plane of symmetry
normal to the plane of the ring and passing through the nitrogen.
Cf: d-, l-, and meso-tartaric acids.
> > Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
> > tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
> > 1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
> > at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
> > symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
> > way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
>
> The "thermal vibration amplitude" red herring is deodorized by
> supercooling the ion to damn near absolute zero before launch
> (getting rid of rotational "heat" around axes other than parallel to
> the beam direction will be, um, interesting- seems irrelevant if the
> ions spin around their velocity vector to me) and boosting velocity
> a few more nines so the ion's "depth" is on the order of the
> constituent atoms' de Broglie wavelength at speed; if we're
> squishing molecules, let's use a proper vise. (if "a few more nines"
> sounds like a handwave... hey, it's a gedankenexperiment)
I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts, plus
kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering the
wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a billion times
while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100% racemized and
scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
>
> > All three possible molecules will result.
>
> This is the punchline; all three _cannot_ result unless chirality
> isn't a conserved quantity.
Chirality has no conservation laws. Each of the two chiral centers is
a coin flip. This is high school stuff: RR, RS, SR, RR.
RS and SR are the same molecule by mirror symmetry. A randomly
equilibrated mix is then 25% RR, 25% SS, and 50% RS.
> The Dr. is asking if chirality is conserved over Relativistic
> velocity transforms? Strikes me that whatever conserves angular
> momentum must be subpoenaed.
No. Chirality is not angular momentum. Nothing is moving to create
chirality.
> If chirality isn't conserved, running two otherwise identical
> opposite-handed beams in parallel would produce a temperature
> difference between the slowed, now racemized ions. Where would the
> energy come from?
Crap and double crap. Acceleration is 100,000,000,000 eV/amu and room
temp is about 0.025 eV overall. Whatcha gonna look for?
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
<snip>
>> the beam direction will be, um, interesting- seems irrelevant if the
>> ions spin around their velocity vector to me) and boosting velocity
>> a few more nines so the ion's "depth" is on the order of the
>> constituent atoms' de Broglie wavelength at speed; if we're
>> squishing molecules, let's use a proper vise. (if "a few more nines"
>> sounds like a handwave... hey, it's a gedankenexperiment)
>
> I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts, plus
> kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering the
> wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a billion times
> while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100% racemized and
> scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
I'm running this experiment on my cat right this moment.
Releative to some distant galaxy that cat is going .99999 c
so its molecules are now flattened. No adverse affects seen
yet.
--
rb
Uncle Al
And your clocks, how are they doing?
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" wrote:
>>
>> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
>> news:427D1EBF...@hate.spam.net...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> the beam direction will be, um, interesting- seems irrelevant if the
>> >> ions spin around their velocity vector to me) and boosting velocity
>> >> a few more nines so the ion's "depth" is on the order of the
>> >> constituent atoms' de Broglie wavelength at speed; if we're
>> >> squishing molecules, let's use a proper vise. (if "a few more nines"
>> >> sounds like a handwave... hey, it's a gedankenexperiment)
>> >
>> > I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts, plus
>> > kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering the
>> > wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a billion times
>> > while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100% racemized and
>> > scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
>>
>> I'm running this experiment on my cat right this moment.
>> so its molecules are now flattened. No adverse affects seen
>> yet.
>
> And your clocks, how are they doing?
Well the clocks *look* normal but I can't tell
if they haven't slowed down or maybe they just
look normal to me because maybe I have slowed down too.
Hmm. I wish I had a relavistic mirror so I could look at myself
and see if I've slowed down.
--
rb
Mark Fergerson
> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>> After some thought, it occurs to me that Dr. Schund is asking a
>>fairly important question, though he sidles up to it in his
>>typically elliptical fashion.
> Three perturbations:
>
> 1) A better (and cheaper) experiment uses the achiral isomer, third
> in the image.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
>
> One can then look for isomer random scrambling as well as induced net
> optical activity (via anisotropy of space).
So why didn't Gigo suggest this in the... oh, never mind.
Say, does the handedness of the pump atoms matter in atom lasers?
As long as we're using the Gedankenlabor's facilities, what say we
feed the ion equivalent of an atom laser the obvious permutations of
all three isomers?
> 2) A number was off. The correct figures are
>
> [(70.71)(128.24 amu)(1.66x10^-27 kg/amu)(3x10^8 m/sec)^2]/(1.60x10^-19
> J/ev) = 8467 GeV or 66.03 GeV/amu
>
> BNL's RHIC would give 100 Gev/amu, a beta of 107.1, and 0.999956c.
> That is consistent with their gold nuclei accelerations.
Phallic ice hood ornament, even from a considerable distance.
> 3) Learned folks have put forth some pretty good arguments that
> time and space won't cooperate in the same manner regarding
> recoverable effects. I sent a brief e-mail to a theoretician at BNL
> for another opinion.
>
> http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/heavy_ion.htm
> Middle. Does that look flat to you?
Oooh, moom pitchers.
How accurate are they, anyway? No, they don't look quite flat to me.
(BTW, you wanted to slooooww them down sans collisions; how did
you plan to do that anyway, just shout "Phase... re-verse!" and
switch a Penning trap for the injector? Wait, never mind, it's a
thought experiment.)
> [snip]
>>>N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion.
>>
>>>The two chiral carbons are almost tetrahedral. Their angles vary from
>>>105.3 to 116.9 degrees compared with 109.5 degrees for a perfect
>>>tetrahedron. Four different groups bonded in tetrahedral
>>>configuration create a local chiral center. That both groups have the
>>>same chiral sense prevents an internal mirror plane from existing, for
>>>left reflects as right. The molecule is explicitly stably chiral both
>>>locally and globally.
>>
>><emphasis on the last sentence so the punchline makes sense; what
>>does "globally" mean in this context?>
> The two tetrasubsituted carbon atoms flanking the quaternized nitrogen
> are locally chiral regardless. The molecule is globally chiral only
> if the two chiral centers are homochiral.
"Can be observed to be homochiral". That's the whole point, where
and when's the observer, no? In the lab frame they look "fairly
flat" (leaving s/n ratio wiggle room) to me, but to two colliding
ions each other'll be FLAT.
>>>Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
>>>tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
>>>1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
>>>at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
>>>symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
>>>way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
>>
>> The "thermal vibration amplitude" red herring is deodorized by
>>supercooling the ion to damn near absolute zero before launch
>>(getting rid of rotational "heat" around axes other than parallel to
>>the beam direction will be, um, interesting- seems irrelevant if the
>>ions spin around their velocity vector to me) and boosting velocity
>>a few more nines so the ion's "depth" is on the order of the
>>constituent atoms' de Broglie wavelength at speed; if we're
>>squishing molecules, let's use a proper vise. (if "a few more nines"
>>sounds like a handwave... hey, it's a gedankenexperiment)
> I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts, plus
> kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering the
> wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a billion times
> while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100% racemized and
> scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
Well, it would make for cleaner collisions. Besides, the quantum
dice roll at your putative gigahertz kT or no kT, so the longer it
spends in the indeterminate state the better. Add kT and the dwell
time can only go down.
>>>All three possible molecules will result.
>>
>> This is the punchline; all three _cannot_ result unless chirality
>>isn't a conserved quantity.
> Chirality has no conservation laws. Each of the two chiral centers is
> a coin flip. This is high school stuff: RR, RS, SR, RR.
Uh huh.
> RS and SR are the same molecule by mirror symmetry. A randomly
> equilibrated mix is then 25% RR, 25% SS, and 50% RS.
Yep.
>> The Dr. is asking if chirality is conserved over Relativistic
>>velocity transforms? Strikes me that whatever conserves angular
>>momentum must be subpoenaed.
> No. Chirality is not angular momentum. Nothing is moving to create
> chirality.
But the Dr. seems to think that it can be destroyed (or rather
made indeterminate) at high velocities, and I'm starting to think he
might be right. Is that a crack in my pot?
>> If chirality isn't conserved, running two otherwise identical
>>opposite-handed beams in parallel would produce a temperature
>>difference between the slowed, now racemized ions. Where would the
>>energy come from?
> Crap and double crap. Acceleration is 100,000,000,000 eV/amu and room
> temp is about 0.025 eV overall. Whatcha gonna look for?
In thought experiments, the noise floor can be FLAT. The
racemization energy difference exists between the isomers in the
first place and can't just sneak away without leaving footprints.
Build the damn thing big enough and there'll be a heat flux between
the two Penning traps. What sustains it, the work done separating
the isomers to begin with?
Mark L. Fergerson
Jack Martinelli
> Special Relativity unambiguously says foreshortening in the direction
> of relativistic travel is a matter of perspective only - yet nobody
> has done an experiment in which the effects of forshortening can be
> permanently captured.
Because gravity is an example of foreshortening in both space & time,
massive particles created in pair-production reactions, might be considered
to be "permanently" captured examples of foreshortening.
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
Bilge
>>
>> Uncle Al:
>> >solar plexus wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The Gedankenexperiment is mildly interesting. Reduction to practice
>> >> >is highly unlikely. Particle physics doesn't know organic chemistry
>> >> >exists.
>> >>
>> >> this is bullshit al
>> >
>> >The idea of getting time on Brookhaven's RHIC to accelerate and
>> >recover organic cations is beyond even my considerable capacity for
>> >research optimism. It would be a multi-$million project in search of
>> >a heterodox conclusion.
>>
>> It's more like a multi-billion dollar proposal, since it's not
>> very likely that you could even accelerate a compound at RHIC,
>> so you would need to build your own accelerator. Ion sources
>> for accelerators are not typically designed to leave compounds
>> intact. For an ion that isn't metallic and isn't generated from
>> monatomic gas, the ion source is designed to generate ions by ripping
>> molecules apart. For example, the way one obtains a boron beam is by
>> starting with something like BF3.
>
>The ion source is $piddles; the rest of the appartus is used
>unchanged.
Au ions must be in a 79+ charge state, i.e., fully stripped at
the ion source or subsequently by the injector stages. The
accelerator itself is designed to accelerate ions with m/q
values ranging from 1 to about 2.5. Assuming that your compound
isn't destroyed by the ion source, your compound would need
to be stripped up to a charge state of about 40+ (assuming the
atomic weight is around 104, if I recall the weight you gave,
correctly). Stripping 40 electrons from your compound will eliminate
the electrons responsible for binding your molecule.
> The charged species is already there. I don't need to
>strip of all the electrons and leave a bare nucleus. Large current
>organic ion injection is SOP in mass spectrometers. They can loft MWs
>in the millions (MALDI or cusped liquid metal sources). The test case
>ion is MW=128.
But you do need to strip enough electrons to leave an ion that
falls within the operating parameters of the accelerator. Accelerators
will be designed to accelerate high charge states, since higher charge
states give higher energies for the same electric fields and are more
easily bent by magnetic fields.
>> >The Bush administration is enthusiastically shutting down all basic
>> >science in trade for "faith-based initiatives" and glitzy parlor tricks.
>>
>> Write a proposal expressing faith in your experiment and start
>> with a quote from genesis.
>
>It's a Gedankenexperiment.
Its a gedankenpropsal.
>> Thats a consequence of the symetry being SO(1,3) rather than
>> SO(4).
>
>Again, no argument. However, you cannot test theory by first assuming
>it.
You can only test a theory by assuming it. If you don't assume the
theory, you can't know what the results mean.
>Suppose the relativistic ion did legitimately racemize. What are the
>consequences? None real world. The cicumstances do not obtain in the
>real world. No prior observation is confounded. Theory, however has
>to change to accomodate the observation.
I still don't understand the premise here. The earth has a velocity
relative to _some_ object, somewhere that is arbitrarily close to
`c', so the term ``relativistic velocity'' doesn't mean anything
without a relative reference. Are you suggesting a test for the
existence of an absolute frame in which the earth is nominally at
rest?
>It works the other way, too, and better! Suppose you begin with the
>achiral compound,
>
>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
> bottom stereopair
>
>and the recovered stuff is net chiral. Whoa! That's a pisser to
>explain under any circumstances!
It's difficult to say what is or isn't hard to explain without
defining an observable that defines what is being measured. I have
found an article that you might be interested in:
arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0411034
>> >Special Relativity unambiguously says foreshortening in the direction
>> >of relativistic travel is a matter of perspective only - yet nobody
>>
>> It doesn't say that. The time dilation and length contraction are real
>> effects.
>
>If you are invalidating my concept you aren't doing a very good job of
>it!
Actually, I'm not sure what your ``concept'' is. Unless you are
proposing a test for an absolute reference frame, I don't see that
the experiment makes any sense.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts,
> plus kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering
> the wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a
> billion times while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100%
> racemized and scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
I'm quite amazed. You have descended from heterodoxy to crackpottery.
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >>
> >> Uncle Al:
> >> >solar plexus wrote:
> >The ion source is $piddles; the rest of the appartus is used
> >unchanged.
>
> That really isn't true. To obtain 100 GeV/u Au for exmple, the
> Au ions must be in a 79+ charge state, i.e., fully stripped at
> the ion source or subsequently by the injector stages. The
> accelerator itself is designed to accelerate ions with m/q
> values ranging from 1 to about 2.5. Assuming that your compound
> isn't destroyed by the ion source, your compound would need
> to be stripped up to a charge state of about 40+ (assuming the
> atomic weight is around 104, if I recall the weight you gave,
> correctly). Stripping 40 electrons from your compound will eliminate
> the electrons responsible for binding your molecule.
Oops. The quaternary ammonium ion would be launched into vacuum
unchanged. No electron-stripping. The molecular ion must not be
allowed to do chemistry. If the RHIC is designed for m/q no larger
than 2.5, all bets are off. We've got an m/q of 128. Poo.
> > The charged species is already there. I don't need to
> >strip of all the electrons and leave a bare nucleus. Large current
> >organic ion injection is SOP in mass spectrometers. They can loft MWs
> >in the millions (MALDI or cusped liquid metal sources). The test case
> >ion is MW=128.
>
> But you do need to strip enough electrons to leave an ion that
> falls within the operating parameters of the accelerator. Accelerators
> will be designed to accelerate high charge states, since higher charge
> states give higher energies for the same electric fields and are more
> easily bent by magnetic fields.
No electron stripping is allowed. There would be a native ion m/q of
128. That is within ~10% of the least massive stable chiral cation
that can be constructed consistent with the rest of the experiment.
One could go exotic and drop the MW but you couldn't get to even half
and you wouldn't have anything that would stick around during the
manipulations.
> >> >The Bush administration is enthusiastically shutting down all basic
> >> >science in trade for "faith-based initiatives" and glitzy parlor tricks.
> >>
> >> Write a proposal expressing faith in your experiment and start
> >> with a quote from genesis.
> >
> >It's a Gedankenexperiment.
>
> Its a gedankenpropsal.
It's a gedankenmangel. You don't suppose they would build another
RHIC just for my experiment, do you? Probably not.
[snip]
> I still don't understand the premise here. The earth has a velocity
> relative to _some_ object, somewhere that is arbitrarily close to
> `c', so the term ``relativistic velocity'' doesn't mean anything
> without a relative reference. Are you suggesting a test for the
> existence of an absolute frame in which the earth is nominally at
> rest?
Obviously not an aboslute frame of any kind. Time dilation is
reversible, yet its effect can be permanent - the Twin paradox. My
proposal would test whether "flattening" parallel to velocity could
have permanent effects.
A fly in the ointment is the form of the metric,
mass = sqrt[(p_x)^2 + (p_y)^2 + (p_z)^2 - (p_t)^2]
metric signature (+1,+1,+1,-1), Relativity
Time is clearly a different case.
> It's difficult to say what is or isn't hard to explain without
> defining an observable that defines what is being measured. I have
> found an article that you might be interested in:
>
> arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0411034
"It is shown that the operators of such an algebra preserve the parity
of the whole system."
That is interesting reading all by itself! Thanks for the reference.
Let me run that though my greasy grey blob.
Uncle Al
You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
flattens in the direction of velocity, a gamma of 107 at RHIC
energies, then when it randomly tumbles in the beam it will be
flattening and repuckering like a maniac. A one in 10^9 chance that a
repucker goes in the wrong direction totally randomizes the chiral
centers during circulation time in the lab frame.
Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment is
weak for other, legitimate reasons.
bz
> You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
> flattens in the direction of velocity, a gamma of 107 at RHIC
> energies, then when it randomly tumbles in the beam it will be
> flattening and repuckering like a maniac. A one in 10^9 chance that a
> repucker goes in the wrong direction totally randomizes the chiral
> centers during circulation time in the lab frame.
>
It only LOOKS flattened to an outside observer. In its own frame of
reference, there is NO flattening.
Take a glass rod (a cylindrical lens with a very short focal length.
Draw a small triangle on a piece of paper and look at it through the glass
rod.
At the right distance, your triangle will be flattened across the axis of
the rod.
If you rotate the paper or the rod does the triangle actually get flattened
in its own frame of reference? Do the angels of the triangle change in any
way? NO. You are seeing an optical illusion.
The same is true of chiral molecules traveling at high velocities. We see
them as flattened but that is an 'optical illusion'.
Of course, if you stop the molecule suddenly, you may change the sense of
chirality but that is NOT because it was flattened but because you have
just hit it with a lot of energy when you stopped it.
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> Cephalobu...@comcast.net wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> >
> > > I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts,
> > > plus kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center
> > > repuckering the wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule
> > > tumbles a billion times while it is fully relativistic, it comes
> > > out 100% racemized and scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave
> > > region, GHz.
> >
> > I'm quite amazed. You have descended from heterodoxy to
> > crackpottery.
>
> You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
> flattens in the direction of velocity, a gamma of 107 at RHIC
> energies, then when it randomly tumbles in the beam it will be
> flattening and repuckering like a maniac. A one in 10^9 chance
> that a repucker goes in the wrong direction totally randomizes the
> chiral centers during circulation time in the lab frame.
>
> Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
> universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment
> is weak for other, legitimate reasons.
Ride along with your gamma = 10^7 beam of chiral molecules.
Would the molecules look flattened to you, as a co-moving observer?
Would you see any reason that they should reverse chirality?
Sure, after the ride, assuming that you're alive, you can compare
your wristwatch with mine and we will see a difference. But there
is no reason for the chirality to change. Otherwise you'd be dead,
with your bodily amino acids, sugars, nucleic acids etc. having
racemized.
The only way your experiment can work is if the basic tenets of
SR are false. This is -basic- stuff that we are dealing with here!
Jerry
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
> news:427F9B5E...@hate.spam.net:
>
> > You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
> > flattens in the direction of velocity, a gamma of 107 at RHIC
> > energies, then when it randomly tumbles in the beam it will be
> > flattening and repuckering like a maniac. A one in 10^9 chance that a
> > repucker goes in the wrong direction totally randomizes the chiral
> > centers during circulation time in the lab frame.
> >
>
> It only LOOKS flattened to an outside observer. In its own frame of
> reference, there is NO flattening.
>
> Take a glass rod (a cylindrical lens with a very short focal length.
> Draw a small triangle on a piece of paper and look at it through the glass
> rod.
>
> At the right distance, your triangle will be flattened across the axis of
> the rod.
>
> If you rotate the paper or the rod does the triangle actually get flattened
> in its own frame of reference? Do the angels of the triangle change in any
> way? NO. You are seeing an optical illusion.
>
> The same is true of chiral molecules traveling at high velocities. We see
> them as flattened but that is an 'optical illusion'.
>
> Of course, if you stop the molecule suddenly, you may change the sense of
> chirality but that is NOT because it was flattened but because you have
> just hit it with a lot of energy when you stopped it.
That is the point! It LOOKS flattened. Clocks LOOK slower. When the
two clocks are locally compared afterward the effect is permanent. I
proposed an experiment wherein the flattening could have permanent
effects. It is a weak proposal not because of that, but because
1) the metric is (1,1,1,-1). Time is a different case.
2) the RHIC will not accelerate a q/m of 1/128.
No big whoop. I'm curious about the response from the RHIC
theoretician I e-mailed, if any. If he adds another nail to the
coffin it was still an interesting exercise. If he thinks it is worth
discussing, issues have been narrowed. Nobody is in the lab dirtying
glassware or sitting behind a desk writing a grant proposal.
Listen up, git - we know for a FACT that the region outside total
internal reflection would have classically ridiculous properties.
That doesn't stop frustrated total internal reflectance spectroscopy
from working. It's always worth investing a little lunch money in
thinking heterodox thoughts. That doesm't mean you bet the mortgage
on them. SuperGlue was discovered when the first drop had its
refractive index measured between the prisms of an Abbe
refractometer. A proper manager would have fired the chemists' ass
for ruining the refractometer. That's you.
hanson
on this issue, to examine chirality issues at relativistic velos,
is this your next venture and mission you have embarked on?
I suggest you change your strategy and get funding from the
feds first, (like the rest of us do), otherwise you'll spend your
own $ again watching your cockroach repellent not doing battle
against the varmint, your pound size gem class diamonds never
to get into nor leave the oven, & your Eotvoes bringing you only
grief and ridicule. So, at least aim to get paid for the emotional
suffering. No matter what. --- And spread the money around!
However, don't leave cyber space, Al. You are essential in these
NG's, especially in the tabloid environs of s.p.r. -- Al, really, you
fulfill the precious function of dear Abby but with a Hitler mustache
in sci.physics, or like Emily Post but with the 5 o'clock barbs of an
insurgent in sci.chem. You are rancid, but exquisitely entertaining,
like your own mother-in-law...ahahaha... Thanks for all the laughs.
ahahaha... ahahahahanson
PS: I can't remember whether you said that your mother-in-law
was entertaining or exquisit..... ahahaha.... AHAHAHA.....
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:427F9A35...@hate.spam.net...
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Cephalobu...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> Uncle Al wrote:
>>
>> > I want it to flutter! It is the extreme flattening that counts,
>> > plus kT. If the chance of a "flattened" chiral center repuckering
>> > the wrong way is one in a bllion and the molecule tumbles a
>> > billion times while it is fully relativistic, it comes out 100%
>> > racemized and scrambled. Tumbling is in the microwave region, GHz.
>>
>> I'm quite amazed. You have descended from heterodoxy to crackpottery.
>
>You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
>flattens in the direction of velocity,
Sigh.
Right now you (yes, you, personally) are flying head first, at
0.999999c relative to some inertial reference frame. And, you're also
flying leftward at 0.99735c relative to some other reference frame.
But wait, you're also flying ass first at 0.999357c relative to yet
another reference frame. In fact, at this very moment you're flying
at any possible velocity. So, which way you're flattened?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
bz
> bz wrote:
>>
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
>> news:427F9B5E...@hate.spam.net:
>>
....
>> Of course, if you stop the molecule suddenly, you may change the sense
>> of chirality but that is NOT because it was flattened but because you
>> have just hit it with a lot of energy when you stopped it.
>
> That is the point! It LOOKS flattened. Clocks LOOK slower. When the
> two clocks are locally compared afterward the effect is permanent. I
> proposed an experiment wherein the flattening could have permanent
> effects. It is a weak proposal not because of that, but because
>
> 1) the metric is (1,1,1,-1). Time is a different case.
> 2) the RHIC will not accelerate a q/m of 1/128.
>
> No big whoop. I'm curious about the response from the RHIC
> theoretician I e-mailed, if any. If he adds another nail to the
> coffin it was still an interesting exercise. If he thinks it is worth
> discussing, issues have been narrowed. Nobody is in the lab dirtying
> glassware or sitting behind a desk writing a grant proposal.
>
> Listen up, git -
My name isn't 'git', sir.
> we know for a FACT that the region outside total
> internal reflection would have classically ridiculous properties.
> That doesn't stop frustrated total internal reflectance spectroscopy
> from working. It's always worth investing a little lunch money in
> thinking heterodox thoughts.
I agree, but it doesn't look good for the home team in this case.
> That doesm't mean you bet the mortgage
> on them. SuperGlue was discovered when the first drop had its
> refractive index measured between the prisms of an Abbe
> refractometer. A proper manager would have fired the chemists' ass
> for ruining the refractometer. That's you.
And teflon was discovered when the tank of tetrafluoroethylene, CF2=CF2 was
empty when it should have been full and Plunkett cut the tank open to find
out why.
I believe in investigating unusual occurences and data.
Mark Martin
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> Right now you (yes, you, personally) are flying head first, at
> 0.999999c relative to some inertial reference frame. And, you're
also
> flying leftward at 0.99735c relative to some other reference frame.
> But wait, you're also flying ass first at 0.999357c relative to yet
> another reference frame. In fact, at this very moment you're flying
> at any possible velocity. So, which way you're flattened?
Well, yes, but you're tacitly assuming that length contraction works
according to the predictions of SR. Unc's whole issue is that length
contraction has never been tested in a controlled manner. You, and I,
and even Al have great confidence that SR is a reliable theory, but for
all we know presently it could conceivably be a naive theory. Without a
definitive experiment, citing that we are traveling at all possible
speeds, relative to all possible frames of reference, with no obvious
ill effects, is somewhat like the following conversation:
#1: "You see this charm I'm wearing around my neck?"
#2: "Yes. What about it?"
#1: "It keeps polar bears away."
#2: "But there are no polar bears in this part of the world."
#1: "See how good it works?"
-Mark Martin
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>> Right now you (yes, you, personally) are flying head first, at
>> 0.999999c relative to some inertial reference frame. And, you're
>also
>> flying leftward at 0.99735c relative to some other reference frame.
>> But wait, you're also flying ass first at 0.999357c relative to yet
>> another reference frame. In fact, at this very moment you're flying
>> at any possible velocity. So, which way you're flattened?
>
> Well, yes, but you're tacitly assuming that length contraction works
>according to the predictions of SR.
No, not even that much. I'm just assuming the principle of relativity
(going back to Galileo, not Einstein). However ...
> Unc's whole issue is that length
>contraction has never been tested in a controlled manner.
Which I disagree with. Later..
> You, and I,
>and even Al have great confidence that SR is a reliable theory, but for
>all we know presently it could conceivably be a naive theory. Without a
>definitive experiment, citing that we are traveling at all possible
>speeds, relative to all possible frames of reference, with no obvious
>ill effects, is somewhat like the following conversation:
>
>#1: "You see this charm I'm wearing around my neck?"
>#2: "Yes. What about it?"
>#1: "It keeps polar bears away."
>#2: "But there are no polar bears in this part of the world."
>#1: "See how good it works?"
>
Well, it does, doesn't it:-)
Frankly now, two points:
1) As far as I'm reading Unc's claim, it expresses a belief that the
SR length contraction *itself* is an actual "squeeze", one which may
(for example) change the way a given molecule functions. This cannot
be true unless there is, in fact, a preferred reference frame such
that "velocity" has some absolute (not just relative) meaning. It is
fine to test this but one can by no means claim that he follows the
predictions of SR here.
2) What do you mean "not tested in controlled manner". Tests of any
theoretical prediction that uses the whole machinery of Lorentz
transforamtions, (not just the time dilation part) is testing length
contraction in controlled manner. Check out the derivations for
synchrotron radiation, length contraction plays part over there as
much as time dilation does. And the measured results conform
beautifully to the predictions. This is *testing in controlled
manner*. That's all the testing you'll ever get in physics, in fact.
Mark Martin
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 2) What do you mean "not tested in controlled manner". Tests of any
> theoretical prediction that uses the whole machinery of Lorentz
> transforamtions, (not just the time dilation part) is testing length
> contraction in controlled manner. Check out the derivations for
> synchrotron radiation, length contraction plays part over there as
> much as time dilation does. And the measured results conform
> beautifully to the predictions. This is *testing in controlled
> manner*.
Ah, yes, I can agree with this. I stand corrected.
-Mark Martin
Uncle Al
Sure - but first you need to make them happen. The steel TFE bottle
was found to have no gauge pressure but full weight. A trace of
oxygen had triggered free radical polymerization to PTFE. However,
unless the PTFE is end-stabilized it readily thermally depolymerizes
back into remarkably toxic TFE gas.
If you need stuff you call a chemist. If you need things you call an
engineer. An engineer making stuff is a disaster. A chemist making
things is an expensive disaster. (The shortcut is to put Management
in charge, thereby guaranteeing failure at maximum price no matter
what.)
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:427F9A35...@hate.spam.net...
> Bilge wrote:
...
>> It's difficult to say what is or isn't hard to explain
>> without defining an observable that defines what is
>> being measured. I have found an article that you
>> might be interested in:
>>
>> arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0411034
>
> "It is shown that the operators of such an algebra
> preserve the parity of the whole system."
>
> That is interesting reading all by itself! Thanks
> for the reference. Let me run that though my
> greasy grey blob.
Latex balls had a magnetic moment induced by the use of lasers.
These lasers were then used to manipulate the balls. Could some
sort of propulsion be doped out to place the molecules in a
"group packet" (thinking soliton)... microwaves or some such, as
an accelerator? Acceleration alone might muck up the chirality,
though.
David A. Smith
Richard Schultz
: A chemist making things is an expensive disaster.
Well, at least now we have an explanation for why you've never succeeded
in your attempts to make kg-sized diamonds.
: (The shortcut is to put Management in charge, thereby guaranteeing failure
: at maximum price no matter what.)
But you *are* management. Is this a confession or a cry for help?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Richard Schultz
:> I'm quite amazed. You have descended from heterodoxy to crackpottery.
:
: You offer no counterargument or references.
When you respond to someone and your entire response is "Idiot," you offer
no counterargument or references. Why do you expect any different from
people whose understanding is as far above yours as yours is over the
people whom you call "idiots"?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." -- The French Knight
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> :> I'm quite amazed. You have descended from heterodoxy to
> :> crackpottery.
> :
> : You offer no counterargument or references.
>
> When you respond to someone and your entire response is "Idiot,"
> you offer no counterargument or references. Why do you expect
> any different from people whose understanding is as far above
> yours as yours is over the people whom you call "idiots"?
Thank you Richard, but I've never made any pretense about my
qualifications. I'm a first year medical school student with
an amateur interest in physics, and an amateur's understanding.
Nevertheless, it's been obvious to me that Uncle Al exhibits
far less understanding of relativity than he pretends to have.
This latest series of posts illustrates that Uncle Al hasn't
had the slightest inkling what the PoR is all about! It's
amazing how he has managed to convince so many that he is some
sort of GR expert.
Why is it that so few people (other than the obvious crackpots)
have challenged him on his deficiencies? You are one of the few
genuinely qualified people who dare to correct him when he
makes a fool of himself. He has a pretty big fan club on these
newsgroups, and I've never been able to figure out why.
Jerry
Timo Nieminen
> we know for a FACT that the region outside total
> internal reflection would have classically ridiculous properties.
> That doesn't stop frustrated total internal reflectance spectroscopy
> from working.
Why do we know for a FACT that the region "outside total internal
reflection" (clarify this term, please, if it matters) would have
classically ridiculous properties when total internal reflection,
frustrated total internal reflection, penetration of barriers
by classical evanescant waves (ie tunnelling) are all readily and
thoroughly explained by classical theory?
--
Timo
Richard Schultz
: Why is it that so few people (other than the obvious crackpots)
: have challenged him [Uncle Al] on his deficiencies?
I think that most of them are smarter than I am and either laugh once
and hit the "n" key or ignore him entirely. I just have this neurotic
dislike of habitual liars.
: You are one of the few genuinely qualified people who dare to correct
: him when he makes a fool of himself.
Thank you for the kind words, but I will point out that there are some
subjects (e.g. organic chemistry) where Uncle Al does in fact know what
he's talking about most of the time, and indeed, is obviously more
knowledgable than I am. There are unfortunately plenty of naive people
out there who can't tell the difference, and as an educator, I sort of
feel it my duty to let them know when they are being misinformed.
: He has a pretty big fan club on these
: newsgroups, and I've never been able to figure out why.
Well, it's never difficult for a clever con man to find plenty of suckers.
I also think that some of the more vocal members of his fan club are
the sort of people who hung out with the class bully in elementary school --
they can shine in the reflected "glory" of someone who enjoys pushing
other people around.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : A chemist making things is an expensive disaster.
>
> Well, at least now we have an explanation for why you've never succeeded
> in your attempts to make kg-sized diamonds.
Unclear on the concept. Diamond is stuff not things. Go back to your
lab and your failure of a life.
Mark Fergerson
>>You offer no counterargument or references. If the thing severely
>>flattens in the direction of velocity, a gamma of 107 at RHIC
>>energies, then when it randomly tumbles in the beam it will be
>>flattening and repuckering like a maniac. A one in 10^9 chance that a
>>repucker goes in the wrong direction totally randomizes the chiral
>>centers during circulation time in the lab frame.
> It only LOOKS flattened to an outside observer. In its own frame of
> reference, there is NO flattening.
>
> Take a glass rod (a cylindrical lens with a very short focal length.
> Draw a small triangle on a piece of paper and look at it through the glass
> rod.
>
> At the right distance, your triangle will be flattened across the axis of
> the rod.
>
> If you rotate the paper or the rod does the triangle actually get flattened
> in its own frame of reference? Do the angels of the triangle change in any
> way? NO. You are seeing an optical illusion.
>
> The same is true of chiral molecules traveling at high velocities. We see
> them as flattened but that is an 'optical illusion'.
True, but to them the rest of the Universe is so flattened that
there's no reference against which to determine their chirality.
> Of course, if you stop the molecule suddenly, you may change the sense of
> chirality but that is NOT because it was flattened but because you have
> just hit it with a lot of energy when you stopped it.
His (excuse me Dr. Schund's) original proposal involved slowing
them down gently.
Mark L. Fergerson
Richard Schultz
:> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : A chemist making things is an expensive disaster.
:> Well, at least now we have an explanation for why you've never succeeded
:> in your attempts to make kg-sized diamonds.
: Unclear on the concept. Diamond is stuff not things. Go back to your
: lab and your failure of a life.
You keep telling us about the reactor you are supposedly designing (not
that any of us actually believe that there is such a reactor). Your
lack of interest in properly designing the reactor is probably evidence
that your statement about a "chemist making things" may be correct.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Richard Schultz
: Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
: universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment is
: weak for other, legitimate reasons.
What is the kinetic energy of one of your m=128 amu molecules moving at
0.9999c? What is the barrier to conformational inversion of that molecule?
Y.Porat
Stalin or Hitler had succeeded so much *at the firt place*
people admire self confidence!
they take it as a sighn of being right
(it hits the inferiority complex that is hiden in more or less amounts
in any of us ((and rightly so)) )
but that is mostly the less intelligent people who admire them
there is another group of people who admire agresion and force.
yet there i sanother irn rule:
you can cheat a person fo rall his life
you can cheat all just once
but you cant cheat everybody forever!!
that rule has to be kept in the mind of any croock.
not to mention that Uncle Als 'system' even in cases that he is
right
is a stoopid system because real scintists are not using such a system
and despise it
btw i wonder if Al ever contributed any worthy contribution to scince.
it seems that it stems out of his frustration just in that point.
Y.Porat
-------------------------------------
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
> : universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment is
> : weak for other, legitimate reasons.
>
> What is the kinetic energy of one of your m=128 amu molecules moving at
> 0.9999c? What is the barrier to conformational inversion of that molecule?
Accelerator beams are locally deeply cryogenic. Kinetic energy
between coordinate frames is arbitrary. Electromagnetic acceleration
and its reverse have no effect on local state energy any more than a
surfer is blown off the back his board for riding a wave.
BTW, Schultzy, here in California we use Dr. Zog's Sex Wax on our
boards. You might try that on your women to find the skin underneath
their coarse swarthy pelts.
Mark Thorson
> BTW, Schultzy, here in California we use Dr. Zog's Sex Wax
> on our boards. You might try that on your women to find the
> skin underneath their coarse swarthy pelts.
Al, you know better than to insult Israeli women.
Now Schultz's wife is going to push him even harder
than before to continue the flame war. :-)
hanson
news:4287D729...@sonic.net...
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> BTW, Schultzy, here in California we use Dr. Zog's Sex
>> Wax on our boards. You might try that on your women
>> to find the skin underneath their coarse swarthy pelts.
>
> Al, you know better than to insult Israeli women.
> Now Schultz's wife is going to push him even harder
> than before to continue the flame war. :-)
>
.... ahahaha... Wow, are you married to a dominant yenta
that you know this? Let these 2 entertaining Yidds have
at each other. They make (a) great soap opera and (b)
it shows that physics is a social enterprise in the final
analysis. So, Let'em sing!... All of'em!... It's a beautiful choir!
ahahaha... ahahanson
bz
> BTW, Schultzy, here in California we use Dr. Zog's Sex Wax on our
> boards.
s/boards/broads/
Uncle Al
Jewish wife to husband on the occasion of their 20th wedding
anniversary, "Take me some place I've never been before."
Husband, "Let's walk into the kitchen."
Wife, "Go to Hell."
Husband, lighting a long thick stinking cigar, "Already there, dear."
Judaism has no Hell. One cannot imagine a credible threat exceeding
what already obtains.
Bilge
>Stalin or Hitler had succeeded so much *at the firt place*
>
>people admire self confidence!
articles praising them in physics newsgroups instead of posting
physics?
Richard Schultz
:> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
:> : universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment is
:> : weak for other, legitimate reasons.
:> What is the kinetic energy of one of your m=128 amu molecules moving at
:> 0.9999c? What is the barrier to conformational inversion of that molecule?
: Accelerator beams are locally deeply cryogenic. Kinetic energy
: between coordinate frames is arbitrary. Electromagnetic acceleration
: and its reverse have no effect on local state energy any more than a
: surfer is blown off the back his board for riding a wave.
How do you plan to get your molecule from being at rest in your local
frame to 0.9999c in your local frame without accelerating it? If you
do plan to accelerate it, how do you plan to accelerate it without applying
a force to it? If you do plan to apply a force to it, how do you plan
to apply that force without applying it through a distance? Did you not
answer my original question for the obvious reason, or is there a more
subtle one that I am missing?
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> : Richard Schultz wrote:
> :> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> :> : Don't brainfart. Give a falsifying reason or don't comment. The
> :> : universe doesn't care about your opinions. The gedankenexperiment is
> :> : weak for other, legitimate reasons.
>
> :> What is the kinetic energy of one of your m=128 amu molecules moving at
> :> 0.9999c? What is the barrier to conformational inversion of that molecule?
>
> : Accelerator beams are locally deeply cryogenic. Kinetic energy
> : between coordinate frames is arbitrary. Electromagnetic acceleration
> : and its reverse have no effect on local state energy any more than a
> : surfer is blown off the back his board for riding a wave.
>
> How do you plan to get your molecule from being at rest in your local
> frame to 0.9999c in your local frame without accelerating it? If you
> do plan to accelerate it, how do you plan to accelerate it without applying
> a force to it? If you do plan to apply a force to it, how do you plan
> to apply that force without applying it through a distance? Did you not
> answer my original question for the obvious reason, or is there a more
> subtle one that I am missing?
Unclear on the concept. As the only hardware suited to the task is
tuned to q/m around 1:2, it is a moot point. The least massive,
chemically robust, synthetically facile, chiral quaternary ammonium
ion cannot be much smaller than
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/racem.png
(2-Butyl)trimethylammonium is only one carbon smaller (and one chiral
center fewer) than N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium, and not nearly as
elegant.
Here is the eldritch complexity, Schultzy:
1) Launch the quaternary ions into the gas phase. One can get a
fat beam easily enough (look what MALDI lofts), and need not resort to
electron stripping as with neutral atoms.
2) Run the ion bunches through the accelerator to a Special
Relativity beta of about 100 in Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider. That is what the machine can do, energy/amu, though it is
not tuned to the ions' mass ratio. Pity.
3) The acceleration process is not chemically active. Accelerated
ion beams in their own reference frame are massaged to be deeply
cryogenic to avoid beam spread.
4) A huge linear acceleration at the start is a little General
Relativity tossed in via the Equivalence Principle. High gees don't
do chemistry - ask a mass spec. A well-chosen molecular ion does not
fragment if you don't bang on it with an e-beam or energetic
collisions with gas. Look at the parent ion of heroin - happy happy
despite the abuse.
5) Let 'er fly round and round. Large ion mass means no
synchrotron radiation emitted.
6) De-phase the accelerator for deceleration, counter-ion
neutralization, and collection.
7) Measure the optical rotation of isolated product. Slap it in a
capillary. Microradian rotation measurements are cheap and easy in
Faraday effect memory media for computers.
8) Start with resolved optical isomer to look for racemization.
Start with the meso-isomer to look for optical induction.
Hey Schultzy, did you ever react (CN)3C- with Hydride Sponge?
Pentacoordinate carbons have been isolated, but they were highly
contrived systems with questionable hybridization. This would do its
thing at equilibrium without wearing braces.
Jerry
<snip>
> 4) A huge linear acceleration at the start is a little General
> Relativity tossed in via the Equivalence Principle. High gees don't
> do chemistry - ask a mass spec. A well-chosen molecular ion does not
> fragment if you don't bang on it with an e-beam or energetic
> collisions with gas. Look at the parent ion of heroin - happy happy
> despite the abuse.
>
> 5) Let 'er fly round and round. Large ion mass means no
> synchrotron radiation emitted.
>
> 6) De-phase the accelerator for deceleration, counter-ion
> neutralization, and collection.
>
> 7) Measure the optical rotation of isolated product. Slap it in a
> capillary. Microradian rotation measurements are cheap and easy in
> Faraday effect memory media for computers.
>
> 8) Start with resolved optical isomer to look for racemization.
> Start with the meso-isomer to look for optical induction.
<snip>
Only a person who lacks understanding of what the PoR means could
possibly propose such an experiment and think it might show anything
useful. Do you honestly believe that relativistic foreshortening
could cause racemization or optical induction?
Jerry
Richard Schultz
: Unclear on the concept.
That pretty much sums up your understanding of Relativity, yes.
Uncle Al
>
> In sci.chem Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Unclear on the concept.
>
> That pretty much sums up your understanding of Relativity, yes.
Who has the definitive Equivalence Principle experiment running in
China, Schultzy? Who caused NIST to rewrite its commmercial
stereochemistry assignment software, Schultzy? Who had a rollicking
good time doing it, Schultzy?
Your wear your least publishable bit publications on your sleeve,
Schultz. It sums to employment. Whatever the universe is, it won't
be discovered by people like you. Some of us have the ability and the
privilege of thinking new thoughts. We exercise the leadership to
marshall incredible resources under impossible circumstances.
If spacetime is demonstrated to be anisotropic it will be a historic
experiment. Falsifying General Relativity and conservation of angular
momentum both is big stuff. The investiture of new Fellows into the
Royal Society of London, one of the most ancient scholarly
organizations on the planet, includes a ceremony of signing a large,
rather old book. Said book's earliest pages include the signature of
Isaac Newton. Uour name will never be in that book; mine might be.
That is the difference between us. I wouldn't trade my life for yours
whatever the outcome of quartz dangling in vacuum.
77 days to go, then we'll know - and not a grant funding proposal,
PERT chart, progress report, or managerial oversight committee meeting
in any of it. Win or lose, it was 100% bullshit-free.
Uncle Al says, "Freedom is the ability to be incredibly bad at taking
orders from morons."
Richard Schultz
: Some of us have the ability and the privilege of thinking new thoughts.
: We exercise the leadership to marshall incredible resources under
: impossible circumstances.
How unfortunate for you that you are not among those people. A large part
of your sociopathic behavior can pretty clearly be linked to your cognitive
dissonance at knowing at some level that you are not while wanting very
hard to believe that you are.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you lied about
that Wisconsin cryptosporidium outbreak. After all, you are the one who
posted that doing so would be proper behavior.
: 77 days to go, then we'll know - and not a grant funding proposal,
: PERT chart, progress report, or managerial oversight committee meeting
: in any of it. Win or lose, it was 100% bullshit-free.
I'd be interested to see your evidence that you are involved in any
significant way in the experiment currently underway in China. I have
seen some evidence that you are lying about that as well.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Apparently, you take me for a complete fool."
"Yeah -- more or less."
Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"
Richard Schultz
: Here is the eldritch complexity, Schultzy:
One amusing thing about usenet is the opportunity it presents for a
student of human behavior to see what makes people tick. In the two
decades that I've been posting, I have found that the only people who
feel the need to refer to me by some (I suppose in their minds insulting)
variant on my name such as "Schultzy" (or "Schultzie" for the creative types)
are those who find themselves on the losing side of an argument with me.
After all, if they had an argument, they would make it without having to
result to playground insults.
So, Uncle Al, somewhere out there is a cosmic ray heading toward earth
at 0.999c. When it hits the atmosphere and decelerates to non-relativistic
velocities (or when the daughter particles of its breakdown or of its
collision with another atmospheric particle do), will the chiral molecules
in your body racemize?
hanson
news:Xns9657BD2CC22C6WQ...@130.39.198.139...
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
> news:4287C1C2...@hate.spam.net:
>> BTW, Schultzy, here in California we use
>> Dr. Zog's Sex Wax on our boards.
>
> s/boards/broads/
>
[hanson]
WOAAHHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... AHAHAHA..
This is hardcore, dude. The need to wax the broadies for
friction conjures up images of Needledick and Barndoor.
Certainty a cause to file for divorce... ominous!... ahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs.
ahaha... ahahanson
Uncle Al
(C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
time, Special Relativity says
T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
M = m(70.71)
A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
pinprick. The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
with left and right hands. Proteins, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides to
cellulose... only display one chirality each. Protein amino acids are
left-handed, sugars are right-handed.
Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as seen
by an outside observer. If "l" is the rest length and "L" is the
relativistic length,
L = l(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
L = l/(70.71)
N,N,2,5-tetramethylpyrrolidinium can be a chiral ammonium ion. A
five-membered ring includes the nitrogen, with two additional methyl
groups N-bonded to quaternize. Methyl groups in the ring's 2- and
5-positions, on either side of the nitrogen, one up and one down,
create two chiral centers in the same sense and overall C2-symmetry.
Up-up and down-down are alike and achiral.
___ ___ ___
H\ / \/CH3 CH3\ / \/H H\ / \/H
CH3/ \ /\H H/ \ /\CH3 H3C/ \ /\CH3
N+ N+ N+
Me/ \Me H3C/ \CH3 H3C/ \CH3
right-right left-left achiral
The two chiral carbons are almost tetrahedral. Their angles vary from
105.3 to 116.9 degrees compared with 109.5 degrees for a perfect
tetrahedron. Four different groups bonded in tetrahedral
configuration create a local chiral center. That both groups have the
same chiral sense prevents an internal mirror plane from existing, for
left reflects as right. The molecule is explicitly stably chiral both
locally and globally.
Boost the ion to 99.99% of lightspeed in an accelerator. The
tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
All three possible molecules will result.
Our lightspeed astronauts will not retain or reverse chirality as a
whole. Every chiral center in every biological molecule in their
bodies will do an independent coin flip. They will decelerate to be
not uniformly original or reversed but instead randomly racemized at
the atomic level and dead meat overall. Or are relativistic effects
only a trick of observer perspective?
Clocks certainly arrive slowed. Relativistic particles do not decay
as fast as their stationary counterparts. The ratio of half-lives is
just as Special Relativity predicts. Let us do the experiment!
We start with the resolved chiral ammonium salt. Being clever we
launch it into the gas phase and accelerate only the positive ions
into a deeply relativistic beam. Similarly decelerate, then
neutralize and collect. Measure the optical rotation or look at the
NMR spectrum as the Mosher's acid salt to resolve signals from either
enantiomer or the achiral third possibility.
Did the molecules really flatten vs. the lab frame of reference? Is
the recovered product racemized rather than homochiral as it began?
How much energy must we put in and take out? We have a molecular
weight of 128.24 atomic mass units. We will need 70.71 times that
mass or
(70.71)(128.24 amu)(1.66x10^(-27) kg/amu)(3x10^8
m/sec)^2/(1.60x10^(-19) J/ev) = 8467 GeV or 119 GeV/amu
This looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold nuclei at
196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other than
bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment priority.
If NASA gets lucky and builds a starship, Uncle Al is not signing on
until he knows the answer.
Creighton Hogg
Your analysis of the impact energy of interstellar dust
looked fine, but this bit about the chirality of molecules
doesn't make sense. In the frame of the astronauts, why
would anything happen to their molecules? Sure everything
becomes a pancake from an observer that sees them going at
.99...c, but your molecules wouldn't flip chirality just
because someone is moving away from you at near the speed of
light, right?
![Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjURN6b50hrZp1VmOKY6vUoD4xke_qxfdpwlGhkd6mvzimVI=s40-c)
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com
tetrahedral pucker flattens into a plane as distances shrink to
1/70.71, to less than the thermal vibration amplitudes of bond lengths
at room temperature. A flat plane is its own mirror plane of
symmetry. When we slow it down and it bounces back it could go either
way without bias, left-handed or right-handed, at each chiral center.
All three possible molecules will result. <<
Was this an April Fool message which got stuck in your computer some
where?
Bond energies are independent of inertial frame. Bond vibration
amplitudes orthogonal to motion of course will transform the same as
everything else, and will be 1/70th as much in the lab frame, but of
course normal in the rocket frame. Fitzgerald-flattened molecules going
by will have smaller vibrations in the motion orthogonal plane. But if
the rocket riders don't see them inverting in their own frame (and why
should they?) the lab frame people won't either.
SBH
Cephalobu...@comcast.net
Surely you're joking, Mr. Schwartz?
Jerry
tj Frazir
If an alein did come ,,the fucker would be a ticking machine with brass
nuckles .
If only the earth had the energy to send a pound that fast .
You are traveling in a galaxy that spins wile going 02 C twards a
colision with a black hole.
lets just wait and see evryone there !!!
You make evryone a recording of all you ever knew saw smelled and fucked
or road...just put it all down on an atom and we will play it all back
when we get there .
Where else might we ,,aha mm TOODle allong near light speed ??
Ill have the graple aple please ..
FrediFizzx
news:42796E78...@hate.spam.net...
No problem! The warp field will keep all the small crap out of the way.
LoL Ya won't even feel any acceleration. Ah, the miracles of modern
science.
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Dan
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
> pinprick. The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
This is actually true.
> Protein amino acids (except for glycine) and common sugars are
> chiral. A chiral object and its mirror image do not superpose, as
> with left and right hands. Proteins, DNA and RNA, polysaccharides to
> cellulose... only display one chirality each. Protein amino acids are
> left-handed, sugars are right-handed.
>
> Length in the direction of travel relativistically contracts as seen> This
looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
> Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold nuclei at
> 196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other than
> bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment priority.
Wow, even I haven't looked this stupid. Didn't you learn the most basic rule
of relativity?
In the space-ship time passes like normal, and also nothing changes its
length. It only appears to someone on earth that your clock is running
slower and that you are stretched out.
Old Man
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
> time, Special Relativity says
>
> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>
> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
> M = m(70.71)
>
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
Neat !!! Worth remembering.
Relativistic strain isn't caused by stress. Clearly, axial
stress, such as that induced by linear acceleration, can
flip a molecule's parity. Force is prerequisite. Relative
observer velocity doesn't cut it.
Old Man would say that life or death, right or left, are
invariant WRT observer velocity.
On the other hand, Old Man wonders if the causal strain
of gravitation might flip the parity of space ?
> Uncle Al
[Old Man]
Old Man
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
> time, Special Relativity says
>
> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>
> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
> M = m(70.71)
>
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
Neat !!! Worth remembering.
Relativistic strain isn't caused by stress. Clearly, axial
bz
news:1115257946.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I agree.
The molecule flattens (from earths viewpoint) but the energies for those
flatter molecules get much larger because the masses have increased, so
those small bond angles are sufficient.
Perhaps someone forged Uncle Al's name and posted this to make him look
bad?
G=EMC^2 Glazier
speed. Reason is the human body can't function when it weighs to much.
Bert
Greysky
Uncle Al wrote> [Garbage]
There is a bigger problem than Chirality. That is gender flipping. At
lightspeed genetalia undergo a reversal. Penises flatten and grow inward
becoming vaginas. Vaginas lengthen and grow a bulbous appendage at the end,
turning into Penises. At lightspeed, Uncle Al will come out of the starship
looking like Paris Hilton, and that is a scary thought!
Greysky
Bernardz
says...
> ASK DR. SCHUND
> (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
>
> Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
>
> Consider toodling through space at 99.99% of lightspeed. Never mind
> how we do it, both starting and stopping. The Centauri star system is
> 4.5 lightyears distant. Nine years of round trip on Earth clocks is
> shipboard clocks' 46 days. Given "t" as home time and "T" as ship's
> time, Special Relativity says
>
> T = t(sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)])
> T = t(sqrt[1-(0.9999)^2])T = t/(70.71)
>
> Sandblasting by cosmic dust and even individual atoms would be
> irksome. At 0.9999c we plug in the numbers to discover, with "m" as
> rest mass and "M" as relativistic mass,
>
> M = m/sqrt[1-(v^2)/(c^2)]
> M = m(70.71)
>
> A one microgram dust mote one thousandth the mass of a cubic
> millimeter of water impacts with the energy of 3000 lbs of TNT
> detonating, E=mc^2. That is major unhappiness resident in a tiny
> pinprick. The crew is in for nastier surprises still.
I have seen studies that suggest that 10% of C is about a fast as we
should go for this reason.
Also make a sheet that flies just in front of the ship to act as a
shield. Then put the fuel in front to act as a second layer.
Mark Martin
[1]- In the last few decades it's been recognised that mass doesn't
change with speed in special relativity. That was an early
misinterpretation.
[2]- Even when this was thought to be the case, it was never the case
that a mass changed relative to its own inertial reference system.
A human body can travel inertially at
99.99999999999999999999999...9% of c, with no ill effects due to mass
transformations, since there are none. The acceleration getting up to
speed, however, can be another issue.
-Mark Martin
Mark Martin
Greysky wrote:
> There is a bigger problem than Chirality. That is gender flipping.
At
> lightspeed genetalia undergo a reversal. Penises flatten and grow
inward
> becoming vaginas. Vaginas lengthen and grow a bulbous appendage at
the end,
> turning into Penises.
I wonder what'd happen to Barbra Streisand's nose?
-Mark Martin
The Ghost In The Machine
<fredi...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 5 May 2005 00:14:08 -0700
<3dtvc9...@individual.net>:
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:42796E78...@hate.spam.net...
> | ASK DR. SCHUND
> | (C)2005 Alan M. Schwartz
> |
> | Dr. Schund, what is the real hazard of lightspeed travel?
[snip for brevity]
> | This looks like a job for the Brookhaven National Laboratory's
> | Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That baby accelerates gold nuclei at
> | 196.96 amu to 100 GeV/nucleon. It is a doable experiment other than
> | bribing a few Congressional whores for budget and equipment priority.
> |
> | If NASA gets lucky and builds a starship, Uncle Al is not signing on
> | until he knows the answer.
>
> No problem! The warp field will keep all the small crap out of the way.
> LoL Ya won't even feel any acceleration. Ah, the miracles of modern
> science.
But will the warp core threaten to explode? :-)
>
> FrediFizzx
>
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
> or postscript
> http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Sam Wormley
> Hi Uncle Al The human body can not go any faster than 73% of light
> Bert
>
Herb--Even though you had a conversation with A. Einstein, you failed
to understand some basic concepts of SR theory.
Relativistic mass increase is real, but between to intertial frames
with velocity with respect to each other.
You don't need Google to read books, Herb.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html
Greysky
"Mark Martin" <qed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115301445....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...