The Trillion
Uncle Al
identically in vacuum regardless of composition and geometry. General
Relativity immediately follows from this postulate. Test mass
compositions have been contrasted for 400+ years, since Galileo.
Modern results null within experimental error to one part in ten
trillion relative.
The EP has *never* been tested against test mass geometry. Nobody
could quantitate geometric parity and identify suitably divergent test
masses to contrast. Single crystal tellurium - space groups P3(1)21
vs. P3(2)21 - is a self-similar lattice that passes all group theory,
graph theory, crystallographic, ab inito math, and calculation tests.
CHI is an ab inito mathematical measure of lattice parity divergence
on a scale of zero (superposable parity inversions; achiral) to one
(perfect parity divergence) inclusive,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
We have calculated CHI for a Te lattice sphere of radius 20,100
angstroms,
1,002,263,651,236 atoms
CHI=0.99999998
Would anybody venture a guess as to just how many !!&#%$#)!! 9s we
have to string out before a physicist will get off his duff and do the
parity Eotvos experiment? A trillion atoms is a 4 micron diameter
sphere.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Do something naughty to physics.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Richard J Kinch
> Would anybody venture a guess as to just how many !!&#%$#)!! 9s we
> have to string out before a physicist will get off his duff and do the
> parity Eotvos experiment? A trillion atoms is a 4 micron diameter
> sphere.
Milliken tweezed a single electron with stuff you find today in a high-
school lab.
Mark Tarka
[snip...]
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> Do something naughty to physics.
You had submitted some articles for publication;
any news to share?
Mark
Uncle Al
Sure, and high temp ceramic supercons utterly lack descriptive theory
20 years after their discovery. Should we stop basic research until
theory evolves? General Relativity never mentions test mass
composition - GR is an exercise in pure geometry. I maintain a proper
test of spacetime geometry is (calculated) test mass geometry, not
test mass composition.
Talking to physicists is like talking to a wall. All the juice has
been squeezed out of basic research by a grant funding process
demanding a business plan, a PERT chart, and guaranteed results.
1) Heterodox proposal publication requires theoretical backing;
2) Heterodox theory won't be written except to explain anomalous
experimental results;
3) Heterodox experiment won't be conducted unless validated by
prior publication.
"No, the One True Church will not look through your telescope at
Jupiter, Galileo, for there is nothing to be seen."
Theory is not controlling. Empirical experiment backed by calculation
is controlling. Theory can play catchup thereafter as necessary.
Euclid was expanded by Riemann and Bolyai/Lobechevsky. Newton was
expanded by Einstein and quantum mechanics. Nobody in 400+ years has
tested the Equivalence Principle against parity pair test masses
(validated by Noether's theorem).
Somebody has to look.
Uncle Al
The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
impact. So we did better.
Two years ago we had theory and could calculate normalized parity
divergence, CHI, of maybe 15 atoms in a lattice. Good argument, poor
numbers. Chirality looked OK, but it really wasn't enough in
hindsight.
One year ago we had theory and could calculate CHI for 11,000 atoms in
a lattice. Good argument, good numbers, still a question of
microscopic vs. macroscopic values.
As of two days ago we calculated a trillion atoms - a 4 micron radius
Te sphere. The mathematician is talking with the programmer. There
is a more fundamental and faster, albeit more subtle, route to
computation. A quadrillion atoms, 10^15, may not be unreasonable.
Fundamental math, programming, chemistry, and physics will be
inarguable in a month or three. I'll have nice lattice graphics, data
graphics, and a small skew least squares fit over four or five decades
of radius to predict CHI for a 10^22 atom test mass, now hand-fitted
at CHI=0.999999999999985 out of a perfect 1.0.
Some time next year I will give it another shot as a full paper of
unrelenting impact. I will start with Galileo and be punctilious,
rigorous, and undeniable.
A homogeneous solid sphere is the most ACHIRAL 3-D body possible. It
possesses the following symmetry elements:
1) the identity element;
2) one point of inversion (its center);
3) an infinity of Cn rotation axes each passing through the
inversion point;
4) an infinity of mirror planes each containing the inversion point
and a rotation axis;
5) an infinity of mirror planes each containing the inversion point
and normal to a rotation axis;
6) an infinity of Sn improper axes each passing through the
inversion point.
"Infinity" above is the number of points on a line, which is
infinitely bigger than the infinity of integers. Te parity pair
spheres, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21, suitable for a parity
Equivalence Principle challenge will contain *only* the identity
element. The positions of their respective atoms constitute chiral
lattices that are quantitatively self-similarly maximally
non-superposable - eyeball, crystallography, group theory, graph
theory, and explciit calculation. Pure rotation axes will even be
microscopically absent.
I propose that the GR's continuous covariant spacetime will choke on
discrete incommensurable test mass geometry - the parity Eotvos
experiment. The measured divergence will be on the close order of
10^(-12) relative. About 3x10^(-12) is allowed by calorimetry of
racemization or combustion. 10^(-13) can be accurately measured in
existing apparatus.
Quantitative test mass geometry is the only place nobody has ever
looked. Somebody should look. What can it do, fail? Chemists have
waste crocks because identifying a good idea requires admitting a
bunch of bad ones.
Jonathan
Kinch <nob...@nowhere.com> writes
And there are full cook-book level instructions in one of the Scientific
American "Amateur Scientist" collections.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
Darren Rhodes
Uncle Al said -
"> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> rejection."
So, name the referees here, please ... Darren.
Take off UrPants to reply
>been squeezed out of basic research by a grant funding process
>demanding a business plan, a PERT chart, and guaranteed results.
>
Well said, That is true of all the sciences. That is party of the reason why I
am probably not going to try and complete my dissertation. Scientific research
has come to be populated by people whom in another time would have been
accountants, politicians, and salesmen.If you have any real creativity or an
incisive analytical mind you get labelled a troublemaker and marginalized.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3DEE442D...@hate.spam.net...
> > Mark Tarka wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:<3DED2842...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > [snip...]
> > >
> > > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> > > > Do something naughty to physics.
> Uncle Al said -
>
> "> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> > technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> > rejection."
>
> So, name the referees here, please ... Darren.
Nope. I couldn't if I wanted to, and the journals will remain
undisclosed. No kiss and tell.
The code poet who has taken a fancy to CHI calculation has again
revised code after colluding with the mathematician who did the
theory. It runs faster, avoids a sporadic convergence glitch, and can
be broken up into serial or parallel processes and later recombined.
After benchmarks are run to validate the thing, we're looking for
Linux or Unix hardware to do the Quad, 10^15 atoms, or maybe a Beowulf
cluster. This is going to be a lot of fun!
The "no existing theory" objection to trying the parity Eotvos
experiment is dust. There's an explicit hole in quantum field theory,
and parity is half the gap. Extant theory will be challenged. Pookie
pookie.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Talking to physicists is like talking to a wall.
Your problem in talking to physicists is that you fail to take into
account the observation that GR is one of the most successful theories
in the history of science. If you want to be taken seriously, you have
to at least indicate that you have an inkling of what kind of theory
would be needed to replace it should your experiment give an answer
inconsistent with GR. That you are an obvious crackpot in other ways
doesn't help your cause.
: All the juice has
: been squeezed out of basic research by a grant funding process
: demanding a business plan, a PERT chart, and guaranteed results.
Which granting agencies demand a business plan?
I personally find it amusing (I hope you aren't offended) that you spend
most of your time complaining about the jackbooted government thugs --
and most of the rest complaining about how they won't give you any money.
I've already explained to you the easiest way for you to get your experiment
done, one that does not rely on the largesse of the taxpayers. Why am I
not surprised that you have ignored that plan?
: "No, the One True Church will not look through your telescope at
: Jupiter, Galileo, for there is nothing to be seen."
I realize that every crackpot thinks that he's Galileo. But there was one
big difference between Galileo's position and yours -- he actually had
a result, namely, that anyone could build a telescope and look at Jupiter's
moons. In your case, you have nothing except one idea that even you admit
probably won't work.
-----
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
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Talking to physicists is like talking to a wall.
>
> Your problem in talking to physicists is that you fail to take into
> account the observation that GR is one of the most successful theories
> in the history of science. If you want to be taken seriously, you have
> to at least indicate that you have an inkling of what kind of theory
> would be needed to replace it should your experiment give an answer
> inconsistent with GR. That you are an obvious crackpot in other ways
> doesn't help your cause.
I don't dispute GR or any metric theory of gravitation. Being
self-consistent they contain no errors. I propose an SOP test of the
founding postulate, the Equivalence Principle, using test masses
machined from tellurium single crystals, space groups P3(1)21 vs.
P3(2)21. Eotvos experiments contrasting isospin and hypercharge are
legion. As they both derive from internal symmetries via Noether's
theorem, they must by definition leave physical states (translation,
roation) unaltered. Geometric parity derives from external symmetry
parity. External symmetries do interact with translation and
rotation, by definition.
Contribute something for once other than your thin whine. Tell us how
an experiment guaranteed to fail is a good pursuit and one that might
succeed is not a good pursuit. If you cannot, shut up or sing a
different tune.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is invariant under the Poincare group and
spatial reflections (parity) are part of the Poincare group, but...
parity is a spatial reflection and parity is *not* a symmetry of QFT.
QFT is invariant under the *identity component* of the Poincare group
- the subgroup consisting of elements that can be joined to the
identity of the Poincare group by a *continuous* path. The identity
component of the Poincare group does *not* contain discrete processes
parity, time reversal, or PT.
The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct and unambiguous experimental
assault upon the singular omission of discontinuous properties -
intrinsic quantization - from spacetime models. It is something new
and arguably better. For all that, the parity Eotvos experiment runs
in existing apparatus using commercial tellurium single crystals and
with explicit calculation.
It's a ball buster of an experiment. We will have a quadrillion atom
lattice computed in a week or so - 2/3 the diameter of a human hair
and visible to the naked eye. I will not argue with my critics; I
will crush them with rigorous fact.
Richard Saam
Uncle Al wrote:
>
>
>The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct and unambiguous experimental
>assault upon the singular omission of discontinuous properties -
>intrinsic quantization - from spacetime models. It is something new
>and arguably better. For all that, the parity Eotvos experiment runs
>in existing apparatus using commercial tellurium single crystals and
>with explicit calculation.
>
>It's a ball buster of an experiment. We will have a quadrillion atom
>lattice computed in a week or so - 2/3 the diameter of a human hair
>and visible to the naked eye. I will not argue with my critics; I
>will crush them with rigorous fact.
>
>
>
Haven't seen much discussion in this area since lengthy posts about
chiralane about a year ago. The objective was to construct a condensed
"twist" diamond (slightly distorted sp3 tetrahedral bonding) lattice
based on the chiralane cell unit. Ball and stick constructs indicated
that distortions in this lattice accumulated with radius making this an
impossible venture. My interest was peaked to the extent, that 1000
springs were purchased to see if length and bending stresses in this
sp3 lattice could assume periodic patterns with overall equilibrium in
infinite lattice. Such is not the case. Stresses still build up with
radius compressing everything to the center.
With the pile of springs, tetrahedral vertices and bonding connectors before me, I then put together a ball and stick model
with tetrahedral vertices
for a 3D lattice cell containing fullerene type units
25 units of C20 (spheroidal shape with 20 carbons)
(dodecahedron)
8 units of C26 (spheroidal shape with 26 carbons)
5 units of C24 (spheroidal shape with 24 carbons)
with no dangling connections (bonds) or inter-fullerene
(inter_spheroidal) voids.
More pragmatically, start with dodecahedrons, and attach
their faces resulting in a linear chain of these
dodecahedrons. Then arrange four of these linear
dodecahedron chains parallel to each other with there
linear centers arranged in a rectangular pattern.
Then connect the sp3 bonds between
4 linear dodecahedron chains. All sp3 bonds are
accounted for. Nothing dangles.
Some distortion in bond angles (1 or 2 degrees)
from pure tetrahedron
is obvious, but this distortion does not
accumulate with radius from crystal center.
In other words such a crystal could be constructed
to macro scale and would have density
greater than conventional diamond and possibly strength
greater than conventional diamond.
Maybe somebody has an approach to synthesis at the
nanoscale
or has observed such a structure serendipitously?
If it could be synthesized from pure sp3 carbon,
it would be extremely strong (like diamond) and
it possibly could support some interesting physics.
What is the chirality of this structure.
Visually, I see reflection planes in the structure.
I know the next step would be to construct a computer model for this lattice. What would be the best one to use and the easiest?
Richard Saam
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct and unambiguous experimental
> >assault upon the singular omission of discontinuous properties -
> >intrinsic quantization - from spacetime models. It is something new
> >and arguably better. For all that, the parity Eotvos experiment runs
> >in existing apparatus using commercial tellurium single crystals and
> >with explicit calculation.
> >
> >It's a ball buster of an experiment. We will have a quadrillion atom
> >lattice computed in a week or so - 2/3 the diameter of a human hair
> >and visible to the naked eye. I will not argue with my critics; I
> >will crush them with rigorous fact.
> >
> >
> >
> Haven't seen much discussion in this area since lengthy posts about
> chiralane about a year ago. The objective was to construct a condensed
> "twist" diamond (slightly distorted sp3 tetrahedral bonding) lattice
> based on the chiralane cell unit. Ball and stick constructs indicated
> that distortions in this lattice accumulated with radius making this an
> impossible venture. My interest was peaked to the extent, that 1000
> springs were purchased to see if length and bending stresses in this
> sp3 lattice could assume periodic patterns with overall equilibrium in
> infinite lattice. Such is not the case. Stresses still build up with
> radius compressing everything to the center.
[snip]
We (me; Roald Hoffmann at Cornell) didn't see any way to make it work
in theory, much less in practice. No matter how you tap dance the
lattice strain builds and builds.
Conceivably one could take [6.6]chiralane substituted with a central
quaternized boron anion or a central quaternized nitrogen anion and
make a dense though discrete lattice of the homochiral ionic salt.
Nobody can imagine how to do the syntheses.
Single crystal tellurium, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21, proved to
be computationally excellent and trivially physically accessible in
the required dimensions. My Web page revision goes up next Monday,
but I'll give you a taste,
Sphere CHI Atoms
radius, A
=============================================
100,000 0.99999999968 123,422,348,782,767
10,000 0.99999989774 123,422,354,560
1,000 0.99999348189 123,422,301
100 0.99867408745 123,411
10 0.95316125184 126
We're looking around for a fast Linux box to do the Quadrillion (about
a week of CPU time to output one line of data.).
[6.6]chiralane does have happy ending, though. NIST is developing a
universal algorithm for digitally encoding molecular structure in
progressive layers of complexity (connectivity, electron distribution,
chirality, tautomerism, isotope distribution, etc.). The code will
then be used for universal database search or graphics importation.
You encode just enough to get the job done. Their beta code was 100%
successful going through the NIST database of organics. They got six
chiralanes two days ago about which they got all jiggy.
I'll e-mail them on Monday and see if there were any survivors.
Josh Halpern
> > >The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct and unambiguous experimental
> > >assault upon the singular omission of discontinuous properties -
> > >intrinsic quantization - from spacetime models. It is something new
> > >and arguably better. For all that, the parity Eotvos experiment runs
> > >in existing apparatus using commercial tellurium single crystals and
> > >with explicit calculation.
1. what level of theory
2. what level of purity
3. what level of defects.
4. what detectivity
5. what scale length
josh halpern
Uncle Al
1) Founding postulate. It is silly to bother the huge and perfect
buiding that is self-consistent theory. You go after the very few
foundation struts.
2) Trace impurity atoms or vacancies make next to no difference at
all. A little fuzz actually helps! CHI assumes no symmetry elements
other than the identity element exists (including Cn axes). Electrons
(core and bonding) are ignored. Te is readily available in 4-6 nines
metallic purity, and trace light elements are efficiently removed by
growth and thermal annealing under hydrogen. Even a Te hollow cube
has CHI>0.95, which is the worst case we've tested by far.
3) Semiconductor grade intrinsic Te is well studied. Lattice
dislocations aren't important in well-annealed crystals in measured
densities. Twinning would be potentially bad, but that is easily
optically detectable in a thin slice cut normal to crystallographic
c-axis - which must be done anyway to assign space group via direction
of rotation of plane of linear polarized IR.
4) Adelberger's Eotvos balance is good to an Eotvos factor of about
10^(-13). Chemical calorimetery allows parity divergent test masses
to give an Eotvos factor of 3x10^(-12) at least, without
contradiction. That's around 7-10 sigma. Versus total rest mass,
composition test masses are not more than 0.2% active relative
property divergence. Parity pair single crystal tellurium is at least
99.977% active relative property divergence - a 500X advantage right
there.
5) Parity is an emergent phenomenon. The minimum self-similiar
scale volume for Te is 101.82 A^3. If you give credence to
compactified dimensions in M-theory, that is comfortably smaller the
interaction length of three compactified dimensions and within the
Yukawa fringing of four compactified dimensions. This region has not
been well explored.
The parity Eotvos experiment with single crystal Te, space groups
P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21, is very robust. Given that isospin and
hypercharge Eotvos experiments have been run - which must null by
definition and Noether's theorem - my proposal is already better than
many trivially accepted studies. But... it is different.
Uncle Al says, "Any competent MBA will trade possible success for
definitive failure on a known timeline."
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Contribute something for once other than your thin whine. Tell us how
: an experiment guaranteed to fail is a good pursuit and one that might
: succeed is not a good pursuit. If you cannot, shut up or sing a
: different tune.
Apparently you can't read. I have said that I think that your proposed
experiment is interesting even though it almost certainly will give a
negative result, and even though according to your calculation, only in
the most favorable circumstances would a positive signal be observable
over the noise.
What I have objected to is your obvious hypocrisy in expecting the
government to fund your experiment, and your "whining" (to coin a phrase)
about how grant agencies discriminate against your proposals, journals
won't publish your revolutionary ideas, Galileo was persecuted, etc.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> What I have objected to is your obvious hypocrisy in expecting the
> government to fund your experiment, and your "whining" (to coin a phrase)
> about how grant agencies discriminate against your proposals, journals
> won't publish your revolutionary ideas, Galileo was persecuted, etc.
Someone named Baez developed a method of quantifying your objections.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
Richard J Kinch
> What I have objected to is your obvious hypocrisy in expecting the
> government to fund your experiment
We are all hypocrites. We all criticize the government. Your assertion is
vacuous.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Contribute something for once other than your thin whine. Tell us how
> : an experiment guaranteed to fail is a good pursuit and one that might
> : succeed is not a good pursuit. If you cannot, shut up or sing a
> : different tune.
>
> Apparently you can't read. I have said that I think that your proposed
> experiment is interesting even though it almost certainly will give a
> negative result, and even though according to your calculation, only in
> the most favorable circumstances would a positive signal be observable
> over the noise.
You don't know what result will result. Nobody does. Nobody has ever
tested the Equivalence Principle with calculated parity test masses.
Geometric parity is the last remaining unexamined property arising
from a mathematical external symmetry through Noether's theroem. It
is virgin ground.
As for the rest of the parity Eotvos experiment, it goes by the book
wthout exception in existing qualfied apparatus. The maximum expected
signal, bounded by chemical calorimetry of racemization or combustion
of resolved materials, is 3x10^(-12) relative. The apparatus is good
to 10(-13) relative. 10^(-12) would be a mammoth trivially detected
signal.
However... Since single crystal tellurium is calculated to be the
theoretically most extreme parity test case possible, CHI asymptotic
to a perfect 1, there is some hope calorimetry studies of resolved
amino acid or other chiral organics are not definitive. Alanine
amide, assuming C,N,O are pretty much the same atom and H isn't even
there by mass, is CHI=0.000625. Giving all atoms equal weight,
CHI=0.574623. CHI is nonlinear, of course. Te with
CHI=0.999999999999985 extrapolated for a 1 cm diameter sphere might do
a major boogaloo as everybody stands there with their mouths open
dripping spit. No prior physics would be contradicted.
Or, it does nothing. Somebody has to look.
The MBA philosophy decries any project that contains unquantitated
risk. This is nothing new. Back in the bad old days American
companies licensed TV patents to the Japanese for a song. MBAs knew
that the Japanese could not create vacuum tube manufacture to compete
with huge entrenched US facilities. "Give 'em the razor, sell 'em the
blades."
The Japanese took the big risk and used clunky transistors. While
they were at it they used stronger yoke magnets, too, making the
picture tube shallower for its width. Hell, they had to make picture
tubes from scratch anyway. TVs were suddenly small and US manufacture
disappeared.
Pilkington tossed away a full year's production of float glass until
they got it right. Oh how the accountants screamed! Then, plate
glass disappeared. Keuffel & Esser had a $500 million/year slide rule
empire planetwide. The crappy HP-35 cost $400 in 1972. What fool
would buy one? There were no K&E slide rules in late 1973. Everybody
went electronic.
Detroit told unworldly Dr. W. Edward Deming to take his "continuous
quality improvement" and shove it. If a door didn't quite fit on a
new car they had a soft face baby sledge to tap it into place. Deming
went to Japan. Detroit was slaughtered by a flood of inexpensive
perfect cars.
If you want trivial increments, call an MBA. If you want a bloodbath
filled with somebody else's blood, somebody has to look.
Mark Tarka
this message...beginning to think like Lydick!
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<aspl1v$g3q$1...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> In article <3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Contribute something for once other than your thin whine. Tell us how
> : an experiment guaranteed to fail is a good pursuit and one that might
> : succeed is not a good pursuit. If you cannot, shut up or sing a
> : different tune.
IMHO, no crook will leap to the "right answer" if it will
jeapordize her income and job security :-)
> Apparently you can't read. I have said that I think that your proposed
> experiment is interesting even though it almost certainly will give a
> negative result, and even though according to your calculation, only in
> the most favorable circumstances would a positive signal be observable
> over the noise.
You think the experiment is interesting but will fail because you
have calculations and literature support for your position, or
because you believe Uncle Al has done calculations and literature
searches and interpreted them conservatively?
> What I have objected to is your obvious hypocrisy in expecting the
> government to fund your experiment, and your "whining" (to coin a phrase)
> about how grant agencies discriminate against your proposals, journals
> won't publish your revolutionary ideas, Galileo was persecuted, etc.
I saw no hypocrisy and heard no "whining" except from the (I presume)
Jew apparently baiting another of the same (I presume) heritage
("castle-under-siege" mentality?). Perhaps you'd like to fill me
in with copies of your substantive posts tht I may have missed
whilst checking out the dumpsters (er...trap lines :-)
> -----
> 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
> -----
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
You smell bad, Richard; the man may have an idea -- let him run.
Care to purchse a few more Patriots to protect your office?
Mark (No reply expected. Would you like to hear about
my sister abandoning an appeal to a decision removing her
as administrator of my late mother's estate because of a
motion made by yours truely based upon her preliminary
statements?)
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> Apparently you can't read. I have said that I think that your proposed
:> experiment is interesting even though it almost certainly will give a
:> negative result, and even though according to your calculation, only in
:> the most favorable circumstances would a positive signal be observable
:> over the noise.
:
: You think the experiment is interesting but will fail because you
: have calculations and literature support for your position, or
: because you believe Uncle Al has done calculations and literature
: searches and interpreted them conservatively?
I didn't say that I think that it *will* fail. I said that I think that it
*almost certainly* will fail. The difference is not trivial.
-----
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."
Uncle Al
>
> In article <6b70c71c.02120...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> Apparently you can't read. I have said that I think that your proposed
> :> experiment is interesting even though it almost certainly will give a
> :> negative result, and even though according to your calculation, only in
> :> the most favorable circumstances would a positive signal be observable
> :> over the noise.
> :
> : You think the experiment is interesting but will fail because you
> : have calculations and literature support for your position, or
> : because you believe Uncle Al has done calculations and literature
> : searches and interpreted them conservatively?
>
> I didn't say that I think that it *will* fail. I said that I think that it
> *almost certainly* will fail. The difference is not trivial.
The difference is science.
Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is invariant under the Poincare group, and
spatial reflections are part of the Poincare group. Parity is a
spatial reflection and parity is *not* a symmetry of QFT! QFT is
invariant under the *identity component* of the Poincare group - the
subgroup consisting of elements that can be joined to the identity of
the Poincare group by a *continuous* path. The identity component of
the Poincare group does *not* contain discrete processes parity, time
reversal, or PT.
The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct experimental assault upon the
omission of discrete processes - intrinsic quantization - from ALL
spacetime models. If a non-null output emerges from my proposal, it
ALL goes to Hell - General Relatvity and QFT - without contradicting
any prior observation...
...and nobody has ever looked. It's a virgin. Let's put unfathomable
theory to a simple empirical test in existing apparatus.
(This is better than sex: all of the pleasure and none of the cleanup
afterward).
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct experimental assault upon the
: omission of discrete processes - intrinsic quantization - from ALL
: spacetime models. If a non-null output emerges from my proposal, it
: ALL goes to Hell - General Relatvity and QFT - without contradicting
: any prior observation...
Except that you still have to explain why General Relativity is one of the
most successful theories in the history of science. If its basis is
completely wrong, then why has it successfully withstood every attempt
to produce a result contrary to its predictions? (By the way, quantum
mechanics is known not to conserve parity.)
Your main problem is that you are not a scientist. A gifted technician,
certainly, but not a scientist. Since you're into Eotvos, consider Feschbach
and the Fifth Force. No one started doing careful measurements of gravity
on mesoscopic scales until he provided evidence (that turned out to be
wrong, but that's beside the point) that there was something there not
predicted by the standard theories of gravitation. As soon as he gave
people a reason to look, they looked.
Your proposal is just that -- a proposal. There is no reason to believe that
it is true. Why should people waste their time doing an experiment that
will be time-consuming and costly, and serve no purpose except to prove
what everyone knows already? Especially since your experiment contains no
way of *disproving* your hypothesis.
Or to put it another way -- have you ever shown your proposal to someone
who is actually expert in General Relativity? You'll forgive my saying so,
but when I see how badly you screw up when you try to explain NMR, about
which I understand a little, I have to assume that the odds are against you
when you try to explain General Relativity, about which I know practically
nothing.
: ...and nobody has ever looked. It's a virgin. Let's put unfathomable
: theory to a simple empirical test in existing apparatus.
Perhaps you can explain why looking for cold fusion is such a waste of time.
-----
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 article <3DF3AB24...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : The parity Eotvos experiment is a direct experimental assault upon the
> : omission of discrete processes - intrinsic quantization - from ALL
> : spacetime models. If a non-null output emerges from my proposal, it
> : ALL goes to Hell - General Relatvity and QFT - without contradicting
> : any prior observation...
>
> Except that you still have to explain why General Relativity is one of the
> most successful theories in the history of science. If its basis is
> completely wrong, then why has it successfully withstood every attempt
> to produce a result contrary to its predictions? (By the way, quantum
> mechanics is known not to conserve parity.)
No I don't. Aren't you listening? (Of course not).
1) The parity Eotvos experiment only pertains to parity pair test
mases. All extant observations will be unaltered either way. There
are no resolved chiral astronomic bodies to be anomalous.
2) The anomaly is limited to a few parts-per-trillion maximum by
chemical calorimetry results of resolved enantiomer racemization or
combustion. This is trivially detectable in an Eotvos balance and way
too small to be detectable in other GR challenges.
3) Newton works fine until you stretch the envelope of his tacit
assumptions that c=infinity and h=0. Einstein may work fine until you
stretch the envelope of his assumption that spacetime is
mirror-symmetric along all four axes (generally covariant, in fact).
> Your main problem is that you are not a scientist.
All wind, no sails. Contribute something other than your incessant
whining.
[snip]
An academic physicist has taken an interest in the parity Eotvos
experiment. Perhaps it was a matter of finding faculty young enough
that it had not already eaten its mind.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: All extant observations will be unaltered either way.
Then there really isn't much point in doing the experiment, is there?
: All wind, no sails. Contribute something other than your incessant
: whining.
Since when does pointing out that you are a liar and a hypocrite count as
"whining"? Does the truth only hurt when it's pointed in *your* direction?
After all, *I'm* not the one who incessantly, well, whining about how I'm
being persecuted like Galileo was, or how granting agencies run by the
jackbooted stormtroopers of the federal government aren't interested in
funding new and audacious ideas (or rather, Uncle Al's new and audacious ideas;
anyone else who has a new and audacious idea should be making zillions of
dollars or else his idea isn't really worth much), or how anyone who thinks
that my experiment is a waste of time has had his mind eaten. . .
I noticed that you deleted my question about why cold fusion is a priori
not worth funding. I wonder why.
-----
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
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article <EEI1o...@world.std.com>
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : All extant observations will be unaltered either way.
>
> Then there really isn't much point in doing the experiment, is there?
NO, STOOOPID! Stop looking in a mirror with awe.
If the Equivalence Principle is empirically counterdemonstrated, all
metric theories of gravitation are falsified. Spacetime curvature
ceases to exist as a concept. Quantum field theories are invariant
under the identity component of the Poincare group - the subgroup
consisting of elements that can be joined to the identity of the
Poincaré group by a continuous path. The identity component of the
Poincare group does not contain discrete processes parity, time
reversal, or PT. QFT are falsified.
Classical physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all point
phenomena. A "point" spans the Planck length, sqrt[(hG/2(pi)c^3) or
1.616·10^(-26) nm and thus implies a spherical volume approximating
2.21·10^(-78) nm^3. A tellurium unit cell contains three atoms that
would define an achiral plane. Lattice geometric parity is an emergent
phenomenon vanishing at smaller than unit cell scales. A proper
tellurium unit cell contains six half-atoms in a 0.1018 nm^3
irreducible configuration. A non-null parity Eötvös experiment
breaches "point phenomenon" by a volume factor of 10^77, confronting
Planck-regime physics with a bench top experiment.
Jackass. Learn something before you spew. Here, get somebody to read
these to you, slowly,
Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität Elect. 4 411 (1907)
Phys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088
Phys. Rev. D 43(12) 3789 (1991)
> : All wind, no sails. Contribute something other than your incessant
> : whining.
[snip]
Uncle Al
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b31
We go out to a 123 trillion atom tellurium sphere now, 20 micrometers
in diameter - visible to the naked eye! The least squares fit will
knock socks off.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
:> In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : All extant observations will be unaltered either way.
:>
:> Then there really isn't much point in doing the experiment, is there?
:
: NO, STOOOPID! Stop looking in a mirror with awe.
:
: If the Equivalence Principle is empirically counterdemonstrated, all
: metric theories of gravitation are falsified.
Then you have to give us some clue what a new theory of which General
Relativity is a limiting case will look like.
:> : All wind, no sails. Contribute something other than your incessant
:> : whining.
:
: [snip]
Once again he snips the part that's hardest for him to take. And once again
he refuses to answer the questions: why is it, if government funding of
science is such a bad thing in principle, you want the government to fund
*your* research? Have you shown your theories to an expert in General
Relativity? Why should I believe that you know more about General Relativity
than you do about, say, NMR spectroscopy? If disagreement with
well-established theories is not in and of itself a condition for deciding not
to pursue certain lines of research, why is research in cold fusion a bad
thing in principle?
And did you really claim that no federal employees were killed in the
Oklahoma City bombing? (That's a yes or no question.) If "no," what
precisely *did* you claim?
And where are those kg-sized diamonds, anyway? If you're so sure that you
know how to make them, why don't you buy out the interest of the other five
guys in your company and strike out on your own? Isn't that the American Way?
-----
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
-----
Mark Tarka
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > In article <6b70c71c.02120...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (This is better than sex: all of the pleasure and none of the cleanup
> afterward).
(Yeah. Say, I'm not going to get sued at some later
time for my little part in this action, will I? All
I did was take the pictures!)
M
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DF4D3C8...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> : sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> :> In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
> : If the Equivalence Principle is empirically counterdemonstrated, all
> : metric theories of gravitation are falsified.
>
> Then you have to give us some clue what a new theory of which General
> Relativity is a limiting case will look like.
Nope. Absolutely not. If theory is empirically demonstrated to fail,
a patch or replacement is not my problem. I'm an experimentalist. It
is time the volumnous theoretical hot air in physics (QFT, M-theory)
was held to an empirical standard or two. They should have released
better product at the start.
High temp ceramic supercons have been around 20 years, glaringly since
YBCO, and there is no theory at all to describe them. All progress
has been strictly qualitative and experimental. Even hallowed BCS
theory for low temp supercons was utterly non-predictive. If you
wanted a new supercon you had to diddle it with heuristics plus trial
and error. Then MgB2 came along, by accident and with much of the
work done by an undergrad, and even BCS looked a little pale.
[snip]
> And where are those kg-sized diamonds, anyway? If you're so sure that you
> know how to make them, why don't you buy out the interest of the other five
> guys in your company and strike out on your own? Isn't that the American Way?
The reactor is being rebuilt in Michigan to accomodate one of Devil
Solvent's peccadilloes as you read this, by a shop that thinks it's a
really neat experiment. If the thing works I've got a month of work
growing product for commemorative pinky rings. I'll hang tough as the
Devil Solvent flows. The Mark I will only go to about 30 carats best
case, but the furnace is sized to allow kg runs in a larger volume
Mark II. I like volume - it goes as the cube of dimension.
http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/Research.html
I personally find LPU transition metal chemistry to be intensely
uninteresting, but what the heck. It helps separate the covers of
second-tier journals
http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/Publications.html
(LPU = "Least Publishable Unit," the quantum of button-sorting
research. Man was meant to reach, not to snivel about expanding a
ring by another methylene.)
So discover something already. "8^>) W(CO)5(S=CPh2) is worth the
effort, reactant and product - nice visual aesthetics, great photochem
demo.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> Then you have to give us some clue what a new theory of which General
:> Relativity is a limiting case will look like.
:
: Nope. Absolutely not. If theory is empirically demonstrated to fail,
: a patch or replacement is not my problem. I'm an experimentalist.
Yes, but if you want to convince anyone else that your experiment is worth
wasting time on, then you have to give them a reason to think that it
might actually produce a worthwhile result. How is what you say any different
in principle from the cold fusion researchers who said "if current theories
of nuclear physics are empirically demonstrated to fail, a patch or
replacement is not my problem"?
: High temp ceramic supercons have been around 20 years, glaringly since
: YBCO, and there is no theory at all to describe them. All progress
: has been strictly qualitative and experimental.
If you had been paying attention, however, you would have noted that Budnorz
and Mueller weren't working in a vacuum -- they had empirical evidence
from prior research that the materials they were investigating were likely
to have an unusually high Tc. That is, they did not say, "no one has tested
cuprates, let's see what they do," which is a closer analogy to "no one has
tested this possibility before, let's see what happens."
[Uncle Al once again snips any reference to the possibility that he may
not be the smartest person in the world, and that he is so afraid of that
possibility that he is unwilling to admit that he might have been wrong
about something]
:> And where are those kg-sized diamonds, anyway? If you're so sure that you
:> know how to make them, why don't you buy out the interest of the other five
:> guys in your company and strike out on your own? Isn't that the
:> American Way?
:
: The reactor is being rebuilt in Michigan to accomodate one of Devil
: Solvent's peccadilloes as you read this, by a shop that thinks it's a
: really neat experiment. If the thing works I've got a month of work
: growing product for commemorative pinky rings. I'll hang tough as the
: Devil Solvent flows. The Mark I will only go to about 30 carats best
: case, but the furnace is sized to allow kg runs in a larger volume
: Mark II. I like volume - it goes as the cube of dimension.
Then you'll have no problem financing your Eotvos balance research out
of your own pocket, and all of your whining about other people's refusal
to fund it will have been a major waste of your time and of ours.
: http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/Research.html
:
: I personally find LPU transition metal chemistry to be intensely
: uninteresting, but what the heck. It helps separate the covers of
: second-tier journals
Since you haven't read any of my publications, you have no way of knowing
whether it is "LPU" chemistry or not. I have no need to defend myself from
your attempted attacks on me, but I do feel that I have to counter your
libel to the extent of pointing out that _Organometallics_ is not a
second-tier journals. Of course, since you can't get published in *any*
journal, I might think that your comments were just jealousy on your part. . .
: http://www.biu.ac.il/ESC/ch/faculty/schultz/Publications.html
:
: (LPU = "Least Publishable Unit," the quantum of button-sorting
: research. Man was meant to reach, not to snivel about expanding a
: ring by another methylene.)
Unfortunately, due to a rather stupid system here for web page updates,
that publication list is out of date. But none of my publications have
anything to do with expanding a ring, and are not "LPU" chemistry. Although
I can understand why you would find it necessary to think so.
: So discover something already.
And what makes you think that I haven't? Just because my interests (trying
to understand how the world works) are different than yours (making money)
doesn't mean that my interests are any less valuable than yours are. And
the funny part is that you go on whining about how no one is interested in
an experiment that you want to do that by your own admission won't make any
practical difference to anyone.
-----
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
-----
"I have, if you will forgive the expression, known several bastards
with very high IQs."
--J. Bronowski
Dale A Trynor
> In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : All extant observations will be unaltered either way.
>
> Then there really isn't much point in doing the experiment, is there?
[snip]
Dale Trynor wrote:
You may have noticed our universe is predominately matter with no antimatter, its still a
misery.
I have my own hypothesis on an idea that could account for this difference and eliminate
the need for parity violations, however it also requires an equivalence principle
violation. Its even easily tested if one had a decent sample of antimatter and a way to
handle it long enough for such a test. It dose involve the idea that antimatter being
positive energy would still have positive mass but its gravity could be reversed, meaning
that a gram of it still weighs a gram but the tiny gravity produced by it could be
repulsive. If this were so it would mean that only when masses are equal would you see the
potential for separation for something like a big bang. Note that if parity is involved
that you cant get anything much more like this, than with antimatter.After all, *I'm* not
the one who incessantly, well, whining about how I'm
> being persecuted like Galileo was, or how granting agencies run by the
> jackbooted stormtroopers of the federal government aren't interested in
> funding new and audacious ideas (or rather, Uncle Al's new and audacious ideas;
> anyone else who has a new and audacious idea should be making zillions of
> dollars or else his idea isn't really worth much), or how anyone who thinks
> that my experiment is a waste of time has had his mind eaten. . .
I used to think that the cranks were crazy when they complained that no body accepts their
ideas now I am not so sure. I have been posting on a theory that examines a way of proving
that gravity will expand space and even after about a year of this and no one pointing
out a its wrong because of this or that concept being wrong, it just gets ignored. I am by
far the most ignored crank on usenet.
Even one of my latest posts points out that the best disproof of the theory, is that if it
were good, it would have become popular by now. That's a lousy disproof.
Its seriously easy to explain, unfortunately my site needs to be upgraded to show this.
> I noticed that you deleted my question about why cold fusion is a priori
> not worth funding. I wonder why.
Wasn't it researched to death, and I am not surprised if its still continuing. I have some
questions on the idea for what the potentials are for an electrostatic mass driver that
might be useful for fusion triggering if anyone wants to take a look at it. It was the
result of another similar thread in sci.physics, forgot who started it. Its because I
suspect that if its possible to get a charge to mass ratio high enough, i.e., surface
area to mass ratio in a rugged pellet, as in super kinetic dust bunnies, it could be a
viable approach. Then it might be possible to get a balance between the performance of an
ordinary electromagnetic mass driver to the extreme performance of particle accelerators.
Idea being that if you could accelerate 1 milligram masses to 10 percent of light speed
with something like a 1000 km long skinny mass driver, it might also be enough to trigger
decent sized fusion pellets. Big advantage if it allows a freer choice of target sizes
increasing the chances for break even.
Should change this to sci.physics and or a few others if anyone wants to discuss this as
its OT here.
www.alternatescience.com
Dale A Trynor
> In article <3DF4BE3C...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : All extant observations will be unaltered either way.
>
> Then there really isn't much point in doing the experiment, is there?
[snip]
Dale Trynor wrote:
You may have noticed our universe is predominately matter with no
antimatter, its still a
misery.
I have my own hypothesis on an idea that could account for this
difference and eliminate
the need for parity violations, however it also requires an
equivalence principle
violation. Its even easily tested if one had a decent sample of
antimatter and a way to
handle it long enough for such a test. It dose involve the idea
that antimatter being
positive energy would still have positive mass but its gravity
could be reversed, meaning
that a gram of it still weighs a gram but the tiny gravity
produced by it could be
repulsive. If this were so it would mean that only when masses
are equal would you see the
potential for separation for something like a big bang. Note that
if parity is involved
that you cant get anything much more like this, than with
antimatter.
>After all, *I'm* not
>the one who incessantly, well, whining about how I'm
> being persecuted like Galileo was, or how granting agencies run by the
> jackbooted stormtroopers of the federal government aren't interested in
> funding new and audacious ideas (or rather, Uncle Al's new and audacious ideas;
> anyone else who has a new and audacious idea should be making zillions of
> dollars or else his idea isn't really worth much), or how anyone who thinks
> that my experiment is a waste of time has had his mind eaten. . .
I used to think that the cranks were crazy when they complained
that no body accepts their
ideas now I am not so sure. I have been posting on a theory that
examines a way of proving
that gravity will expand space and even after about a year of
this and no one pointing
out a its wrong because of this or that concept being wrong, it
just gets ignored. I am by
far the most ignored crank on usenet.
Even one of my latest posts points out that the best disproof of
the theory, is that if it
were good, it would have become popular by now. That's a lousy
disproof.
Its seriously easy to explain, unfortunately my site needs to be
upgraded to show this.
> I noticed that you deleted my question about why cold fusion is a priori
> not worth funding. I wonder why.
Wasn't it researched to death, and I am not surprised if its
still continuing. I have some
questions on the idea for what the potentials are for an
electrostatic mass driver that
might be useful for fusion triggering if anyone wants to take a
look at it. It was the
result of another similar thread in sci.physics, forgot who
started it. Its because I
suspect that if its possible to get a charge to mass ratio high
enough, i.e., surface
area to mass ratio in a rugged pellet, as in super kinetic dust
bunnies, it could be a
viable approach. Then it might be possible to get a balance
between the performance of an ordinary electromagnetic mass
driver to the extreme performance of particle accelerators.
Idea being that if you could accelerate 1 milligram masses to 10
percent of light speed
with something like a 1000 km long skinny mass driver, it might
also be enough to trigger
decent sized fusion pellet. Big advantage if it allows a freer
choice of target sizes
increasing the chances for break even.
I was going to point out how OT this is in chemistry, but then
one of the main parts of this question is how could such a pellet
be made and how well it could be made to work. Should be moved
and or included in a few other such as sci.physics etceteras if
any one wants to continue this.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DF4FE70...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> :> Then you have to give us some clue what a new theory of which General
> :> Relativity is a limiting case will look like.
> :
> : Nope. Absolutely not. If theory is empirically demonstrated to fail,
> : a patch or replacement is not my problem. I'm an experimentalist.
>
> Yes, but if you want to convince anyone else that your experiment is worth
> wasting time on, then you have to give them a reason to think that it
> might actually produce a worthwhile result. How is what you say any different
> in principle from the cold fusion researchers who said "if current theories
> of nuclear physics are empirically demonstrated to fail, a patch or
> replacement is not my problem"?
The parity Eotvos experiment is reproducible at will. Cold fusion is
crap. More bytes thrown at pigs (other readers are invited to click
out).
It is curious that a trivial system, a finite collection of
non-interacting massless particles in a box, displays spontaneous
breaking of rotational symmetry. The interested reader is invited to
consider the analogous spacetime case with matter geometric parity
states and gravitation.
Black-body radiation is the electromagentic field in thermodynamic
equilibrium. Put a non-interacting Maxwell field in a finite cubic
box (periodic boundary conditions). Black-body radiation is
thermodynamic equilibrium at zero chemical potential (the free Maxwell
field approximation has conserved photon number - modulo all
subtleties). Consider thermodynamic equilibrium at fixed photon number
N. What are the the Hamiltonian eigenstates? As the theory is
non-interacting, they are achieved when each of the N photons is in
its own Hamiltonian eigenstate, which might be chosen as a momentum
eigenstate. The possible values of the momentum lie on a cubic
lattice *without the origin* and each has a degeneracy of two due to
helicity. If one takes the particle-first approach to QFT, the
state-space of the free photon field is achieved by forming the
Fock-space of the one-photon space which is the mass-0 spin-1 unitary
representation of the Poincare group. This representation has no zero
mode - for vanishing mass, the zero mode would have a vanishing
4-momentum and thus would be Poincare invariant - that would make the
whole representation reducible. The vanishing 4-momentum
representation corresponds to the "vacuum" and stands as a distinct
(trivial) representation in the classification for the Poincare group.
Start at absolute zero. At absolute zero the thermodynamic
equilibrium is the groundstate. What is the ground-state? There is
no zero mode. There are six lowest-lying momentum values (cubic box)
and each comes with two helicities. There are 12 degenerate vacua for
N = 1! They are related by the remnant rotational symmetry of space.
Hence, the later is now broken (completely). Moreover, for photons -
free scalar massless particles - a part would be broken. The unbroken
group would be Z/4Z which preserves one of the lowest-lying momenta.
These degenerate vacua (and symmetry breaking for some of them) form
for any N except 0. It also works for spin 1/2 particles and N = 1.
For higher N - it depends (because of the exclusion principle).
A cubic box is simpler than a spherical box. In the Fock-space
picture, periodic boundary conditions may be imposed by picking
states invariant under the appropriate lattice subgroup of spatial
translations. In a spherical box there is full-fledged rotational
symmetry. If that is broken, one obtains a *continuous* broken
symmetry group. Goldstone bosons? New scalars forming?
At zero chemical potential, the degenerate vacua disappear. There is
a single groundstate, which is the N = 0 state. What happens at higher
temperature?
[snip]
Mark Tarka
> Mark Tarka wrote:
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3DED2842...@hate.spam.net>...
> > [snip...]
> > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> > > Do something naughty to physics.
> > You had submitted some articles for publication;
> > any news to share?
>
> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
> impact. So we did better.
OK. Time for a group photo :-)
Richard assumed the position, apparently
(I'm not sure about time-zone effects and
quirks associated with ISPs), _after_ I asked
and you answered with info on the alleged
submittals of articles wrt the etovus
experiment. The thread sequences are nicely
displayed by Google's newsgroups access
site and Microsoft's Explorer.
Now, would the three of you hold that pose
for a few seconds more while I adjust the
focus on the camera :-)
Mark
[snip...]
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> How is what you say any different
:> in principle from the cold fusion researchers who said "if current theories
:> of nuclear physics are empirically demonstrated to fail, a patch or
:> replacement is not my problem"?
:
: The parity Eotvos experiment is reproducible at will. Cold fusion is
: crap. More bytes thrown at pigs (other readers are invited to click out).
I hope you noticed that you didn't answer my question. You have not given
any reason why cold fusion is "crap." One might argue that the best argument
against CF is circular -- if some unknown process is taking place, then the
theories that predict that decay of 4He* should be temperature independent
(and the ones that predict that room-temperature deuterons won't be able to
overcome the Coulomb barrier unless they get help from somewhere else) will
necessarily be wrong.
Note also that since the parity Eotvos experiment has not been done, you
don't know whether it is "reproducible at will" or not. For that matter,
there is some sense in which synthesis of high Tc superconductors is not
"reproducible at will," and yet nobody doubts their existence.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
:> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
:> rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
:> impact. So we did better.
:
: Richard assumed the position, apparently
: (I'm not sure about time-zone effects and
: quirks associated with ISPs), _after_ I asked
: and you answered with info on the alleged
: submittals of articles wrt the etovus
: experiment. The thread sequences are nicely
: displayed by Google's newsgroups access
: site and Microsoft's Explorer.
I'd be more interested in learning to which journal(s) he submitted his
article and how many of them knew that he had already published the material
on his web site (many journals have a precondition that the material
submitted has never been published elsewhere).
-----
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
-----
Terry Wilder
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> >
> > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > : Talking to physicists is like talking to a wall.
> >
> > Your problem in talking to physicists is that you fail to take into
> > account the observation that GR is one of the most successful theories
> > in the history of science. If you want to be taken seriously, you have
> > to at least indicate that you have an inkling of what kind of theory
> > would be needed to replace it should your experiment give an answer
> > inconsistent with GR. That you are an obvious crackpot in other ways
> > doesn't help your cause.
>
> I don't dispute GR or any metric theory of gravitation. Being
> self-consistent they contain no errors. I propose an SOP test of the
> founding postulate, the Equivalence Principle, using test masses
> machined from tellurium single crystals, space groups P3(1)21 vs.
> P3(2)21. Eotvos experiments contrasting isospin and hypercharge are
> legion. As they both derive from internal symmetries via Noether's
> theorem, they must by definition leave physical states (translation,
> roation) unaltered. Geometric parity derives from external symmetry
> parity. External symmetries do interact with translation and
> rotation, by definition.
>
> Contribute something for once other than your thin whine. Tell us how
> an experiment guaranteed to fail is a good pursuit and one that might
> succeed is not a good pursuit. If you cannot, shut up or sing a
> different tune.
>
> spatial reflections (parity) are part of the Poincare group, but...
> parity is a spatial reflection and parity is *not* a symmetry of QFT.
> QFT is invariant under the *identity component* of the Poincare group
> - the subgroup consisting of elements that can be joined to the
> component of the Poincare group does *not* contain discrete processes
> parity, time reversal, or PT.
>
> assault upon the singular omission of discontinuous properties -
> intrinsic quantization - from spacetime models. It is something new
> and arguably better. For all that, the parity Eotvos experiment runs
> in existing apparatus using commercial tellurium single crystals and
> with explicit calculation.
>
> lattice computed in a week or so - 2/3 the diameter of a human hair
> and visible to the naked eye. I will not argue with my critics; I
> will crush them with rigorous fact.
>
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
wouldn't it handle a tiling, (more specifically tetrahedral tiling, centers
removed) differently? Wouldn't the space or color space need to be
infinite, for the measure to be bounded? At first glance it would seem to be
trying to establish an equivalence(or respectively, a continuity) between(or
respectively on) sets with different fundamental groups, where there isn't
one..
I believe it is a similar questions about the existence of certain non-zero
nilpotent operators (on conservative fields) in most metric spaces, however,
you can always ask, "why uniform motion?" and "why not uniform
acceleration?", and wonder about this sleight of hand,
that can often sound to good to be true.
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
CHI for four points in 3-D is entirely meaningful. For any finite set
of points in any number of dimensions...
1) Find the center of mass of the given distribution.
2) Invert all coordinates. By default you also have its center of
mass.
3) Coincide the two centers of mass.
4) Rotate in all dimensions to minimize the sum of the squares of
the distances between each point and its parity-inverted point.
5) Normalize the least squares sum by the abstract math rules.
That's CHI. An achiral distribution will have CHI=0 by exactly
superposing upon its parity inversion point by point. The
implications of CHI=1 are, well, curious. Tellurium single crystals,
space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21, hit CHI=0.995 by a 20 A spherical
radius and then boogie on down,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b31
There are no loose ends. QCM will handle any distribution of points;
naked theory will handle any distribution - arbitrary number of
dimensions, discrete or continuous. The only constraint as far as I
know is that the number of discontinuities of a pathological function
must be countable.
> I believe it is a similar questions about the existence of certain non-zero
> nilpotent operators (on conservative fields) in most metric spaces, however,
> you can always ask, "why uniform motion?" and "why not uniform
> acceleration?", and wonder about this sleight of hand,
> that can often sound to good to be true.
Classical chirality is discontinuous - left-handed or right-handed.
CHI is much more powerful as an analytical function: CHI is a
continuous function of point coordinates only - independent of
translation, scale, and size. One value exists for a given target and
its inverse lattice. It detects zero and approach toward zero. It
does not require empirical constraints.
It isn't one guy doing it, it's an abstract mathematical endeavor.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
Based upon real world crystal lattices, CHI crunches chemical group
theory in assigning chirality. If you have a problem with that,
provide a counterexample.
Terry Wilder
> Terry Wilder wrote:
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > For this CHI to be a valid measure
> > wouldn't it handle a tiling, (more specifically tetrahedral tiling,
centers
> > removed) differently? Wouldn't the space or color space need to be
> > infinite, for the measure to be bounded? At first glance it would seem
to be
> > trying to establish an equivalence(or respectively, a continuity)
between(or
> > respectively on) sets with different fundamental groups, where there
isn't
> > one..
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
>
> CHI for four points in 3-D is entirely meaningful. For any finite set
> of points in any number of dimensions...
>
> 1) Find the center of mass of the given distribution.
> 2) Invert all coordinates. By default you also have its center of
> mass.
> 3) Coincide the two centers of mass.
> 4) Rotate in all dimensions to minimize the sum of the squares of
> the distances between each point and its parity-inverted point.
and unique?
> 5) Normalize the least squares sum by the abstract math rules.
> That's CHI. An achiral distribution will have CHI=0 by exactly
> superposing upon its parity inversion point by point. The
> implications of CHI=1 are, well, curious. Tellurium single crystals,
> space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21, hit CHI=0.995 by a 20 A spherical
> radius and then boogie on down,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b31
>
> There are no loose ends. QCM will handle any distribution of points;
> naked theory will handle any distribution - arbitrary number of
> dimensions, discrete or continuous. The only constraint as far as I
> know is that the number of discontinuities of a pathological function
> must be countable.
>
> > I believe it is a similar questions about the existence of certain
non-zero
> > nilpotent operators (on conservative fields) in most metric spaces,
however,
> > you can always ask, "why uniform motion?" and "why not uniform
> > acceleration?", and wonder about this sleight of hand,
> > that can often sound to good to be true.
>
> Classical chirality is discontinuous - left-handed or right-handed.
You can also think of this as a one-dimensional parameter space (or as a
product space with the original space).Then you can have properties not
expressible in the space itself, which is the whole idea. This avenue is
much more travelled
An ideally thin plane spinning laminae could also be subject to similar
arguments'
Tacit is the assumption of a tangent.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3DF75889...@hate.spam.net...
> > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > For this CHI to be a valid measure
> > > wouldn't it handle a tiling, (more specifically tetrahedral tiling,
> centers
> > > removed) differently? Wouldn't the space or color space need to be
> > > infinite, for the measure to be bounded? At first glance it would seem
> to be
> > > trying to establish an equivalence(or respectively, a continuity)
> between(or
> > > respectively on) sets with different fundamental groups, where there
> isn't
> > > one..
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
> >
> > CHI for four points in 3-D is entirely meaningful. For any finite set
> Yes but thats different than continuous distributions as claimed.
Talk with Michel Petitjean,
petitjean*at*itodys.jussieu.fr
[snip]
> > Classical chirality is discontinuous - left-handed or right-handed.
>
> You can also think of this as a one-dimensional parameter space (or as a
> product space with the original space).Then you can have properties not
> expressible in the space itself, which is the whole idea. This avenue is
> much more travelled
> An ideally thin plane spinning laminae could also be subject to similar
> arguments'
> Tacit is the assumption of a tangent.
If such an analysis is discontinuous it is easily demonstrated to be
defective. CHI is continuous, from perfect achirality to perfect
chirality without gaps. This is important. Turn a glove inside-out
to reverse its handedness. Is there any point along any path when an
intermediate structure is overall achiral? No. Nevertheless, the
glove is continuously transformed from left-handed to right-handed or
vice-versa.
http:// arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9901174
Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 1745 (1999)
http:// arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/9908277
http:// arXiv.org/abs/physics/0101101
Terry Wilder
Wouldn't there be a multitude of homeomorphisms with this property? Then
wouldn't you be forced to decide between case by case dilations and
inversions through an inversion center, or to admitting multiple inversion
chiral centers (meso forms)? .The use of parameter spaces would seem to rid
one of this problem and avail one to the dynamics of the system also. I
prefer the notion not of perfect chirality, instead of a parameterized
quantity that can always be recursively compounded without limit, as in a
chiral tetrahedron of chiral tetrahedrons etc (but, then again
velocity doesn't compound in this way).
Shouldn't you always ask of a given structure:
what if I took its components enantiomers and wrapped them the otherway. Any
parity experiment such as this should take this into equal account.
However, the mere idea of testing the effects
of "handedness" on various experiments should be worthy in their own right.
If I remember correctly, plenty of work went into the effect of B/M ratios,
with very little to show for (the fifth force fad) beyond the margins of
error
(as touchy as those Bose-Einstein condensations,
but never knowing it?).
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
Don't argue with the organiker, argue with the pure mathematicians.
Read Petitjean's articles.
Mirror image enantiomers aren't nearly good enough because that biases
one coordinate axis. You must only play with full parity - the
inversion of all axes. In 3-D parity is certainly the inversion of
all axes, but it is also a single axis inversion followed by a sigma-h
C2 rotation. Since physics is invariant under rotation (conservation
of angular momentum), the math of chirality and the math of parity
appear to give indistinguishable ends. This is rigorously
insufficient.
Chiral inversion of a crystal lattice gives back the same space
group. Left- or right-handed lithium iodate is space group P6(3)
either way, ditto sodium chlorate and bromate in P2(1)3. Parity
inversion of a crystal lattice generates a *different* space group -
the e;even pairs of parity space groups among the 65 chiral space
groups total among the 230 space groups overall. There are no other
ways of exactly self-similarly arranging points in 3-space.
(Pentagonal alloys are not exactly self-similar and they are not
chiral).
The parity Eotvos experiment is a hunt for footnotes. It excludes all
waffling, heuristics, empirical parameterizations, aesthetic calls,
and convenient assumptions. It embraces only rigorous abstract math
to target the most extreme case possible: single crystal parity pair
heavy atom tellurium test masses, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21.
If the parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium succeeds, folks can
build a cottage indsutry of looking for weaker constraints. Failing
at a weak case and then condemning the whole endeavor would be stupid.
Mark Tarka
> In article <6b70c71c.02121...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> :> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> :> rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
> :> impact. So we did better.
> :
> : Richard assumed the position, apparently
> : (I'm not sure about time-zone effects and
> : quirks associated with ISPs), _after_ I asked
> : and you answered with info on the alleged
> : submittals of articles wrt the etovus
> : experiment. The thread sequences are nicely
> : displayed by Google's newsgroups access
> : site and Microsoft's Explorer.
>
> I'd be more interested in learning to which journal(s) he submitted his
> article and how many of them knew that he had already published the material
> on his web site (many journals have a precondition that the material
> submitted has never been published elsewhere).
I believe he said "no kiss and tell". And putting something
up on a web page is a bit different than having it in a
peer-reviewed journal ("tho it's possible that "academic
types" who rarely appear on the WWW might use such to
discredit a possibly more rambunctious and productive member
of the science community -- gotta salvage your ego somehow :-)
About the level of a modern journal ("tier"-wise), it would seem to me
(and I tend to be extremely ignorant at times) that the German-
language Ber. and Zeit. series would stand as first tier as would
something like the Journal of the Royal Chemical Society. I don't
know about the Acta series. Where Eastern European publications
fit in, I know not. In the USA, there were publications
that preceeded the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS),
but I would place JACS in the first tier. I am assuming, that as
science grew in America, publications were diverted from JACS into
new publications (Analytical Chem, J. Org. Chem., J. Inorg. Chem.,
etc.) which could fairly be called second tier? From these
"premier" journals evolved in one way or another, more specialized
journals (e.g. Tetrahedron Letters, Organometallics, etc.), that
might be called third tier, if only to distinguish them from the
original parent and underscore the limited audience appeal. IIRC,
the founding journals that reported the fundamentals of chemistry,
also included other topics of scientific interest and reached out
to a broader audience.
This is all hazy conjucture based on logic -- I haven't been
seriously "in the stacks" for several years. If someone has
a better handle on this topic I would appreciate any input.
Mark (Hey -- the camera man's off limits!)
Mark Tarka
> Terry Wilder wrote:
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3DF79D1D...@hate.spam.net...
> > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3DF75889...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > > > > > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > [snip]
[snip...]
> The parity Eotvos experiment is a hunt for footnotes. It excludes all
> waffling, heuristics, empirical parameterizations, aesthetic calls,
> and convenient assumptions. It embraces only rigorous abstract math
> to target the most extreme case possible: single crystal parity pair
> heavy atom tellurium test masses, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21.
>
> If the parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium succeeds, folks can
> build a cottage ind[us]try of looking for weaker constraints. Failing
> at a weak case and then condemning the whole endeavor would be stupid.
Do you have the samples, or how are and can they obtained? Purity?
Mark (Cheeeeezzze! Thanks :-)
Uncle Al
http://www.stda.be/bull972.pdf
http://www.mateck.de/MeSiCrys/e32e.htm
Cooper, W. Charles "Tellurium" (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.: NY, 1971)
pp. 55-57
Start with five 9s or better Te, clean out the light elements by
fusion under flowing hydrogen, Czochralski grow single crystals under
hydrogen, anneal under hydrogen for 10 days at 380 C. You identify the
space group from optical rotation of the plane of linearly polarized
NIR light through a slice cut normal to the crystallogrpahic c-axis
(the long vertical axis of the Czochralski boule). It's not a big
deal, other than tellurium breath.
Mark Tarka
> Mark Tarka wrote:
[snip list of perps...]
> > > The parity Eotvos experiment is a hunt for footnotes. It excludes all
> > > waffling, heuristics, empirical parameterizations, aesthetic calls,
> > > and convenient assumptions. It embraces only rigorous abstract math
> > > to target the most extreme case possible: single crystal parity pair
> > > heavy atom tellurium test masses, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21.
> > >
> > > If the parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium succeeds, folks can
> > > build a cottage ind[us]try of looking for weaker constraints. Failing
> > > at a weak case and then condemning the whole endeavor would be stupid.
> >
> > Do you have the samples, or how are and can they obtained? Purity?
> >
> > Mark (Cheeeeezzze! Thanks :-)
>
> http://www.stda.be/bull972.pdf
> http://www.mateck.de/MeSiCrys/e32e.htm
> Cooper, W. Charles "Tellurium" (Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.: NY, 1971)
> pp. 55-57
>
> Start with five 9s or better Te, clean out the light elements by
> fusion under flowing hydrogen, Czochralski grow single crystals under
> hydrogen, anneal under hydrogen for 10 days at 380 C. You identify the
> space group from optical rotation of the plane of linearly polarized
> NIR light through a slice cut normal to the crystallogrpahic c-axis
> (the long vertical axis of the Czochralski boule). It's not a big
> deal, other than tellurium breath.
I saw your reply to Halpern's post (_after_ I hit the send
button). Nevertheless, would it be of any help if you had
the necessary samples in one hand and your thesis in the
other? You are facing a status quo that has the equipment
and established theory; you only have a counterproposal.
Another way of putting it is...would it measurably aid
your quest to have the measurement made if you could
unequivocally state that you have the two crystals
ready to go...now...to go into a lab...and when someone
says let's try it, you immediately go into that lab...lock
the door...order cases of beer and the requsite number of
pizzas and do the experiment while still under the effects
of possible failure and that euphoria of potential for
turning the page and obtaining a new vision of the world.
NO COOLING-OFF PERIOD, PERIOD! If the experiment is that
difficult to set-up and run, then you need the maximum
motivation _and_ momentum to do the job -- an assault on
the gates of the fuzzicyst's castle.
Mark (OK. Now a shot of you firing off a "Hail Mary")
Uncle Al
1) An Eotvos rotor loads four or eight test masses in opposed pairs
2) The test masses are single point diamond machined to the limits
of current technology, then vacuum gilded.
3) A usable net 2 cm diameter Czochralski single crystal of Te is
gonna run about $10K/test mass. Fabrication in an isolation facility
is extra.
4) Nobody is going to trust "donated" test masses, especially if
they give a net output.
5) It requires averaging over a 3-6 month run to achieve 10^(-13)
sensitivity.
Overturning the most hallowed precepts of physics on a technicality is
not a kitchen experiment. The parity Eotvos experiment is a serious
endeavor with a serious goal. It must be performed by the book and
without cutting corners.
Take off UrPants to reply
Maybe I am misunderstanding you but it seems to me that your emphasis is
wrongheaded. Was it ever an issue that you find a perfectly chiral substance?
What needs to be done is a very precise weighing of orientations and inertial
mass measurement of any crystal that is reasonably chiral.
What are you whining for the physicists to do and why don't you do it yourself?
You need a lab partner? I'd be glad to help.
Mark Tarka
[snip...]
> 1) An Eotvos rotor loads four or eight test masses in opposed pairs
> 2) The test masses are single point diamond machined to the limits
> of current technology, then vacuum gilded.
> 3) A usable net 2 cm diameter Czochralski single crystal of Te is
> gonna run about $10K/test mass. Fabrication in an isolation facility
> is extra.
> 4) Nobody is going to trust "donated" test masses, especially if
> they give a net output.
> 5) It requires averaging over a 3-6 month run to achieve 10^(-13)
> sensitivity.
>
> Overturning the most hallowed precepts of physics on a technicality is
> not a kitchen experiment. The parity Eotvos experiment is a serious
> endeavor with a serious goal. It must be performed by the book and
> without cutting corners.
If there's anything I can do...lick stamps, fill the
paper-clip dispenser, empty the trash....
Mark
Uncle Al
Any Equivalence Principle violation is guaranteed to be vanishingly
small - no bigger than parts-per-trillion relative in a measurement
sensitive to one tenth that at best. Only the most divergent sets of
test masses offer any hope of detection at all. Rigorous analysis via
graph theory and exhaustive crystallographic simulation shows
chirality (chemists' group theory) is insufficient - it must be full
parity. Only single crystals possess self-similar structure from cm to
fractional nanometer dimensions. To perform the parity Eotvos
experiment with some R- and S-binaphthyl would be monumental stupidity
- we've done the calculations.
An Eotvos balance sees the thermal jiggle of its atoms as limiting
noise. A mirror on its rotor forms one arm of an optical
interferometer whose laser intensity must be kept to an absolute
minimum or the photons move the rotor. Adelberger's rig is kept
dynamically level to nanoradians with two Peltier heaters on its legs
and a fractional degree C thermal expansion or contraction.
Read about the apparatus and its data analysis before you say silly
things,
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/NewUFF.pdf
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/selfEP.pdf
Two-cm annealed single crystal Czochralski Te cylinders single point
diamond machined into test masses... yada yada... will cost about $10K
each. Four or eight will be necessary, half in optically certified
space group P3(1)21 and half in P3(2)21. One wishes to exert some
punctilous care to NEVER confuse the handedness - rigorously separate
the two hands of matter.
Mark Thorson
> Two-cm annealed single crystal Czochralski Te cylinders single point
> diamond machined into test masses... yada yada... will cost about $10K
> each. Four or eight will be necessary, half in optically certified
> space group P3(1)21 and half in P3(2)21. One wishes to exert some
> punctilous care to NEVER confuse the handedness - rigorously separate
> the two hands of matter.
Well, no wonder you haven't gotten any takers yet.
Unless you're offering the test masses, why should they
spend money out of THEIR budget to perform YOUR
experiment.
Appealing to the scientists who do the work is like asking
Boeing to build a custom airplane for you. You're confusing
the people who do the work with the people who fund
the work.
Who controls the purse strings that fund these scientists?
That's where you need apply the pressure. And if that
doesn't work, go over their heads to their bosses. We've got
a Congress full of twits like Dan Burton, who has taken
up the fight for the loons who believe that trace amounts
mercury in vaccines are responsible for an epidemic of
autism. Find yourself a twit on an important committee,
then rally public support for your proposal.
I should point out that your proposal could be easily
grasped by the mind of the layman -- if you just explained
it in simple words without any math. And, it has extraordinary
implications (again, of a kind easily grasped by the lay mind
-- at least at a superficial level) if a non-null result is found.
In these regards, it's a very "marketable" proposal. And
the money you require is so small. Let's say $80K for the
test masses and another factor of 10 for incidentals and
overhead.
If you were going around saying "Hey, I've got $880K
in government money looking for a lab to do the work,"
don't you think you'd get a different reception than you've
gotten up till now?
It's all marketing and politics. I'd suggest as a first step
thet you write up a description of the proposed experiment
in the most non-technical language you can muster, and submit
it to _Analog_, the science fiction magazine. That would
get the ball rolling in terms of building a base of support
for the project.
Michael Michalchik
Overall a good answer, but how are you sure that the phenomena that
you are looking for is so subtle as to require such high powered
techniques? Newton measured G with a few cannon balls and a wire.
Uncle Al
If parity divergence violation of the Equivalence Principle were
larger then chemical calorimetry would detect a difference in enthalpy
of racemization or combustion of resolved chiral materials. Folks
have specifically looked and found nothing. The materials they used
were admittedly inferior - guesses rather than abstract math
quantitative calculations - but the conservative course is to demand
the proper and unambiguous test. The conclusion is so outlandish that
only the most rigorous exploration of the question is acceptable.
Chemistry can play catch up.
This isn't cold fusion. I want to know.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: . . . but the conservative course is to demand
: the proper and unambiguous test.
Suppose you do the experiment and find that there is no effect. Does that
mean that the effect does not exist, or that your estimate of its size
was off by an order of magnitude?
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: About the level of a modern journal ("tier"-wise), it would seem to me
: (and I tend to be extremely ignorant at times)
This is one of those times.
If you want one measure of which "tier" a journal is in, you can check
the "impact factor," which is basically a measure of how often papers
that appear in the journal are cited as references by other researchers.
For "multidisciplinary" journals, the top tier is Angewandte Chemie
and JACS; Chemistry - A European Journal and Chemical Communications (RSC) are
borderline; everyone else is way behind. Most chemists tend to publish
in more specialized journals, however, in order to reach the audience
of interest. In physical chemistry, the first tier is probably J Phys Chem
A and B, J Chem Phys, arguably Chemistry of Materials. In inorganic chemistry,
Organometallics is fairly clearly the first rank journal in the field;
Inorganic Chemistry and J. Chem. Soc. Dalton are borderline, although both
have improved in recent years; J. Organomet. Chem. is an example of a
second-rank journal; I'd say that Inorganica Chimca Acta and Polyhedron
are examples of third-rank journals. You'll notice that most of my
publications go to Organometallics, which is why Uncle Al deleted my reply
to his comment about my publications being fodder for second-rank journals.
The Sceptical Chymist
Michael Michalchik <micha...@aol.com> wrote in message
20f4bb84.02121...@posting.google.com...
>Overall a good answer, but how are you sure that the phenomena that
>you are looking for is so subtle as to require such high powered
>techniques? Newton measured G with a few cannon balls and a wire.
I think it was Cavendish who did that, no?
Kostas
To reply by private e-mail remove the antispam device
Darren Rhodes
>
> This isn't cold fusion. I want to know.
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Why don't you just sit back in a state of smugness? In maybe twenty years
time if someone does the experiment then ... "Yeah, but Uncle Al thought of
that 20 years ago ... "
Darren.
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DFBE0A2...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : . . . but the conservative course is to demand
> : the proper and unambiguous test.
>
> Suppose you do the experiment and find that there is no effect. Does that
> mean that the effect does not exist, or that your estimate of its size
> was off by an order of magnitude?
Look up gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric effects. If you toss in
another four or five orders of magnitude sensitivity the Equivalence
Principle may be violated as a matter of course and without surprise.
When an exogenous parity effect overlaps effects of nuclear-electronic
Z(zero) exchange in the electroweak force, no additional outside
variable is necessary - as Casimir force disappears into London
dispersion forces. The parity Eotvos experiment is correct as stated
given current state of the art and the causality being sought.
Science does not discuss truth. Science respects empirical
falsification.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> : . . . but the conservative course is to demand
:> : the proper and unambiguous test.
:> Suppose you do the experiment and find that there is no effect. Does that
:> mean that the effect does not exist, or that your estimate of its size
:> was off by an order of magnitude?
: Look up gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric effects. If you toss in
: another four or five orders of magnitude sensitivity the Equivalence
: Principle may be violated as a matter of course and without surprise.
: When an exogenous parity effect overlaps effects of nuclear-electronic
: Z(zero) exchange in the electroweak force, no additional outside
: variable is necessary - as Casimir force disappears into London
: dispersion forces. The parity Eotvos experiment is correct as stated
: given current state of the art and the causality being sought.
:
: Science does not discuss truth. Science respects empirical
: falsification.
You may not be aware of it yourself, but I certainly noticed that you failed
to answer my question. Any experiment has a limit to its sensitivity; when
one says "the effect does not exist," that statement is always qualified by
the limitation that it does not exist *to within the ability of the
equipment to measure it*.
So I will ask a second time: if you do the parity Eotvos experiment and see
no effect, does that mean that you have proven that the Equivalence Principle
holds for chiral masses, or does it mean that you have merely proven that
any violation of the Equivalence Principle for chiral masses is smaller than
the ability of the Eotvos balance to measure?
-----
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
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Uncle Al
Read the literature, bozo,
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publication.html
Any argument that rationalizes an Eotvos experiment rationalizes a
parity Eotvos experiment. You must be a real laugh in the lab, having
your grad slaves disassemble and reassemble the IR each time before
taking a spectrum. "How do you know all the pieces are there?"
When you fire a handgun it makes no difference if the bullet is a
round nose, wad cutter, hollow point, Glaser... as long as you get the
caliber right. No Equivalence Principle test in 400+ years has done
anything but null within experimental error. There is only one
unexamined physical property coupled to a mathematical symmetry
remaining - parity. This isn't opinion, this is exhaustively cited
fact. That's what the footnotes are for, fool.
Why don't you tell us why the last possible place to look isn't worth
looking when 400 years of looking - including perhaps 40% of
experiments that could not possibly have generated a signal because
they were coupled to internal variables - were and are avidly pursued.
You piss and moan and contribute nothing. If the parity Eotvos
experiment doesn't give net output it is fully as good as anything
preceeding. That geometric parity/rest mass is 520 times the best
possible signal from the next most intense classical property is
telling.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/etovos.htm
Know something before you spew. The 250 footnotes aren't there for
decoration.
As for your whining bullshit about no signal measured vs. no signal to
measure, go extract a Cardinal from a little boy's bung and debate
angels and pinheads.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Any argument that rationalizes an Eotvos experiment rationalizes a
: parity Eotvos experiment. You must be a real laugh in the lab, having
: your grad slaves disassemble and reassemble the IR each time before
: taking a spectrum. "How do you know all the pieces are there?"
The fact that you don't understand the difference between putting a
piece of apparatus together and being able to tell a significant result
from an insignificant one may be part of the key to why you are having
such a hard time being taken seriously. I mean, aside from your being
an obvious crackpot in other fields of endeavor (as in "no Federal employees
were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing").
: . . . No Equivalence Principle test in 400+ years has done
: anything but null within experimental error.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Aha! He's on the track.
: Why don't you tell us why the last possible place to look isn't worth
: looking when 400 years of looking - including perhaps 40% of
: experiments that could not possibly have generated a signal because
: they were coupled to internal variables - were and are avidly pursued.
I see -- reading comprehension is indeed not one of your special skills.
Considering how many times I have told you that the above statement is
a complete misrepresentation of my opinions about your experiment.
You made a claim that your experiment is unambiguous. I maintain that it
is only unambiguous if it provides a positive result. If it provides a
null result, all that you have done is placed an *upper limit* on a
*possible* deviation from the Equivalence Principle. You must be a wonder
in the lab. "Your yield was zero -- therefore your proposed product
does not exist!"
: You piss and moan and contribute nothing.
As opposed to you who piss and moan and contribute. . . hardly anything.
: If the parity Eotvos experiment doesn't give net output it is fully as
: good as anything preceeding.
Have I ever denied that?
: As for your whining bullshit about no signal measured vs. no signal to
: measure, go extract a Cardinal from a little boy's bung and debate
: angels and pinheads.
I suggest that you go and look up the word "unambiguous" in the dictionary.
I don't think that it means what you think it means.
But you can tell that Uncle Al has backed himself into a corner (i.e. being
forced to admit that he made a misstatement, however minor) when he starts
frothing at the mouth even more than usual.
And the funny thing is, I really was curious to know, although I guess I
got my answer in a more indirect way.
-----
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."
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DFDFDC2...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : Any argument that rationalizes an Eotvos experiment rationalizes a
> : parity Eotvos experiment. You must be a real laugh in the lab, having
> : your grad slaves disassemble and reassemble the IR each time before
> : taking a spectrum. "How do you know all the pieces are there?"
>
> The fact that you don't understand the difference between putting a
> piece of apparatus together and being able to tell a significant result
> from an insignificant one
Hey thick and stooopid: Uncle Al assembled the Gifted
interdisciplinary professionals, created quantitative new knowledge,
and identified a commercially available real world case beyond
anything heretofore imagined. If you have a problem with the
experiment itself, go bother Eric Adelberger U/Wash, or Riley Newman
UC/Irvine, or Wei-Tou Ni in Taiwan, or CS Unnikrishnan of the TATA
Institute of Fundamental Research and its Gravitation Laboratory in
Gauribidanur, India. I am certain they will enjoy your telling them
they don't know what they are doing. They will also be amused by your
steadfast refusal to read their papers and therein contained physical
and statistical analysis of the rig, its operation, its output, and
output interpretation.
Any justification for a composition Eotvos experiment is equal
justification for spin Eotvos experiment is equal justification for a
parity Eotvos experiment. A gun doesn't care if it fires hollow
points or wadcutters - though the target generally has some second
thoughts. Get it through your thick head: An Eotvos balance doesn't
care what is mounted in isolation in its rotor. It goes ahead and SOP
operates.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I am certain they will enjoy your telling them
: they don't know what they are doing.
I never said that, or anything of the sort. I asked you a simple technical
question about the experiment and the relationship of your expected results
to your hypothesis. You *could* have answered that question without frothing
at the mouth. But answering questions without frothing at the mouth is
hardly your style, now, is it?
: Get it through your thick head: An Eotvos balance doesn't care what is
: mounted in isolation in its rotor. It goes ahead and SOP operates.
Get it through *your* thick head that this comment has absolutely *nothing
whatsoever* to do with the question that I asked you.
Terry Wilder
This would be so if not for the fact that you can in some cases, as here,
actually add chirality (in this case a chiral center
and actually destroy the chirality of the system as a whole(meso).
Anyway all this would beg the question: why would
nature care in what unit cell a certain tellurium atom
was located in, when surrounded by sufficiently identical neighbors, playing
little if no part in the properties in question amongst themselves.
The mere thought of point symmetry partners, say p and p* and q and q* of an
equal and finite number of points of equally (let alone unequally) weighted
components
diverging should rid us of a few conservation laws.
This bears a resemblance to
1 = 1^1/2 = (1x1)^1/2 = 1^1/2x1^1/2 = ixi = -1.
What was the term Glashow once used.
"All smoke and mirrors"
.
If one measure of chirality implies something
every measure should.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3DF8ADFD...@hate.spam.net...
> > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3DF79D1D...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3DF75889...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > > > > > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > > > > > > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > > [snip]
> > The parity Eotvos experiment
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> > is a hunt for footnotes. It excludes all
> > waffling, heuristics, empirical parameterizations, aesthetic calls,
> > and convenient assumptions. It embraces only rigorous abstract math
> > to target the most extreme case possible: single crystal parity pair
> > heavy atom tellurium test masses, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21.
> >
> > If the parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium succeeds, folks can
> > build a cottage indsutry of looking for weaker constraints. Failing
> > at a weak case and then condemning the whole endeavor would be stupid.
>
> This would be so if not for the fact that you can in some cases, as here,
> actually add chirality (in this case a chiral center
> and actually destroy the chirality of the system as a whole(meso).
Chirality is not parity. Geometric parity is tied to the mathematical
symmetry parity through Noether's theorem (look it up). Chirality in
general has no such connection. A chiral center is not a self-similar
chiral lattice, nor is a lattice composed of chiral objects
necessarily chiral overall (Coup du Roi). One could arrange four ball
bearings as the vertices of a chiral distorted tetrahedron,
left-handed and right-handed, or carve helical machine screws. Would
they fall differentially oddly? Of course not.
What is the grain of spacetime? Planck distances certainly. M-theory
demands gravitational divergences on scales between the proton Compton
wavelength and crystal unit cells (larger scales have been emprically
eliminated - Varney). Nobody has looked at crystal unit cell
dimensions. Somebody should look - the parity Eotvos experiment.
> Anyway all this would beg the question: why would
> nature care in what unit cell a certain tellurium atom
> was located in, when surrounded by sufficiently identical neighbors, playing
> little if no part in the properties in question amongst themselves.
Single crystal tellurium is in parity pair space groups P3(1)21 or
P3(2)21. You know nothing about solid state structure or
crystallography. You ignorance is profound and your conclusions are
embarassments unsupported by empirical observation. Rigorous
mathematical calculation of a tellurium lattice
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.logiciels.html
from 10 A to 100,000 A radius (up to 123 trillion atoms)
quantitatively shows it is the theoretically most parity divergent
arrangement of points in 3-space. Graph theory, group theory, and
crystallography are in uniform agreement. You are wrong.
> The mere thought of point symmetry partners, say p and p* and q and
q* of an
> equal and finite number of points of equally (let alone unequally) weighted
> components
> diverging should rid us of a few conservation laws.
No. It merely requires that spacetime diastereomerically interact
with chiral mass configurations. It is no more remarkable than parity
not being a symmetry of electroweak interactions or Hermitian quantum
field theory. The maximum parity Eotvos experiment deviation
empirically allowed is around one part-per-trillion, which would leave
all prior observations unaffected even though extant theory would
crash and burn. Einstein didn't destroy Newton, Einstein expanded
Newton. Ditto plane geometry vs. elliptic and hyperbolic geometries
in the 19th century.
> This bears a resemblance to
>
> 1 = 1^1/2 = (1x1)^1/2 = 1^1/2x1^1/2 = ixi = -1.
>
> What was the term Glashow once used.
> "All smoke and mirrors"
Sure. In quantum mechanics, "the math is only metaphor." That
doesn't mean it doesn't work, as epicycles worked entirely
satisfactorily if computationally onerously and unintuitively. The
Standard Model for all its strengths is a horrible assemblage of about
20 assigned masses, a ridiculous exercise in curve fitting. The
Standard Model only evolves massless particles, then the handwaving
begins. Something fundamental has been overlooked that would
naturally evolve particle mass.
> If one measure of chirality implies something
> every measure should.
Kind and magnitude. We start by examining the calculated most extreme
case in suitable existing qualified apparatus run by disinterested
(flat out skeptical) academics. If nothing is observed it is one more
point on a 400-year long line of failure. If something is observed,
the rest of physics has to change to accommodate it. Even if a
borderline maximim three parts-per-trillion divergence were observed,
the effect upon plebeian chiral materials would be too small to
measure (except for explaining the differential origin of biological
homochirality of protein amino acids (lgycine excepted - achiral) and
sugars). Chiral organics with CHNO are much more like flat vacuum
than tellurium:
human insulin, C(257)H(383)N(65)O(77)S(6), average atomic mass = 7.37
(protein, 50 amino acids)
cyclooctaamylose, C(48)H(80)O(40), average atomic mass = 7.72 (sugar)
palytoxin, C(129)H(223)N(3)O(54), average atomic mass = 6.55 (64
chiral centers)
Tellurium, average atomic mass =127.60
What is the big deal? Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity and
quantum mechanics. The perfect symmetry of all physics gave way to
parity, charge conjugation, and time violations, as well as all binary
pair violations,
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2002/conlaw.pdf
Somebody must look. Then, either way, we know more. It makes no
difference how intuitively unlikely it is if it can be observed at
will. The math says "look." Don't argue with math - it's a poor bet
to bet against the house.
Mark Tarka
[It is with great regret that I...snip...]
> This bears a resemblance to
>
> 1 = 1^1/2 = (1x1)^1/2 = 1^1/2x1^1/2 = ixi = -1.
Would this be sort of kind of maybe like where,
you know, where the biochemist holds up a model
of the helix of the double stranded DNA derived
from x-ray analysis of the crystalline material
and says this is the way it is folks, and folks
go on to explain how it functions in the living
organism. Uh huh...look dead DNA is dead stuff
which is not live stuff. An negligible detail?
> What was the term Glashow once used.
> "All smoke and mirrors"
> .
> If one measure of chirality implies something
> every measure should.
Any comments about the chirality of a gas-phase
molcule compared to one in the solid-phase? Is
there any significant difference between a free
species unaffected by neighbors and usually (?)
the condition under which calculations are made
for its properties and a condensed phase inter-
acting collection of the same molecule, wherein
strains might be expected, distorted electronic
distributions arising from surface/interface or
edge effects, etc., etc., leading to unexpected
changes in physical properties -- that could be
the root cause for different behavior between a
pair or set of chiral crytals?
1. One brick is one brick and has certain pro-
perties. I for one would not care to be in the
middle of a pile of a trillion bricks -- what's
the distortion?
2. Would a computer calculation lead to a real
result?
Mark (No teeth needed for a PB&J sandwich :-)
Terry Wilder
I would simply define for a similar case by case
definition for point sets of n points as a real valued function H such
that H(p)= --H(p*) H(p)=CHI(p).
(IUPAC defines chirality rules you can too). No Noetherian summation
needed. Does this force anything on the physical world, without prior
knowledge. Absolutely not.
> symmetry parity through Noether's theorem (look it up). Chirality in
> general has no such connection. A chiral center is not a self-similar
> chiral lattice, nor is a lattice composed of chiral objects
> necessarily chiral overall (Coup du Roi). One could arrange four ball
> bearings as the vertices of a chiral distorted tetrahedron,
> left-handed and right-handed, or carve helical machine screws. Would
> they fall differentially oddly? Of course not.
>
> What is the grain of spacetime? Planck distances certainly. M-theory
> demands gravitational divergences on scales between the proton Compton
> wavelength and crystal unit cells (larger scales have been emprically
> eliminated - Varney). Nobody has looked at crystal unit cell
> dimensions. Somebody should look - the parity Eotvos experiment.
Well at some scale a true quantum theory of gravity would reveal itself
also.
>
> > Anyway all this would beg the question: why would
> > nature care in what unit cell a certain tellurium atom
> > was located in, when surrounded by sufficiently identical neighbors,
playing
> > little if no part in the properties in question amongst themselves.
>
> Single crystal tellurium is in parity pair space groups P3(1)21 or
> P3(2)21. You know nothing about solid state structure or
> crystallography. You ignorance is profound and your conclusions are
> embarassments unsupported by empirical observation. Rigorous
> mathematical calculation of a tellurium lattice
That may be so but these space groups are by definition just a
"Non-metaphorically " speaking minimally sized mathematical construct used
to describe observed
crystal structure. Does the math force this upon us as you claim, no its
just the most efficient way to describe observation, consistently. For
example the pentagonal alloys you mentioned are explained otherwise
(twinning)
Well any ZPF would do the same.
>
> > If one measure of chirality implies something
> > every measure should.
>
> Kind and magnitude. We start by examining the calculated most extreme
> case in suitable existing qualified apparatus run by disinterested
> (flat out skeptical) academics. If nothing is observed it is one more
> point on a 400-year long line of failure. If something is observed,
> the rest of physics has to change to accommodate it. Even if a
> borderline maximim three parts-per-trillion divergence were observed,
> the effect upon plebeian chiral materials would be too small to
> measure (except for explaining the differential origin of biological
> homochirality of protein amino acids (lgycine excepted - achiral) and
> sugars). Chiral organics with CHNO are much more like flat vacuum
> than tellurium:
>
> human insulin, C(257)H(383)N(65)O(77)S(6), average atomic mass = 7.37
> (protein, 50 amino acids)
> cyclooctaamylose, C(48)H(80)O(40), average atomic mass = 7.72 (sugar)
> palytoxin, C(129)H(223)N(3)O(54), average atomic mass = 6.55 (64
> chiral centers)
> Tellurium, average atomic mass =127.60
Then you must say that an electronic interaction is also involved. You give
me most helixes, I'll
I'll remove the bonds and connect the dots the other way
You give me a unit cell, I'll add an atom or two.
This probably is not the answer to the L-configurational problem, your
hoping for.
>
> What is the big deal? Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity and
> quantum mechanics. The perfect symmetry of all physics gave way to
> parity, charge conjugation, and time violations, as well as all binary
> pair violations,
either CHI(p)= CHI(p*) or not.
Uncle Al
>
> "Terry Wilder" <terry....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<kMFL9.34982$4W1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> [It is with great regret that I...snip...]
[snip]
> Any comments about the chirality of a gas-phase
> molecule compared to one in the solid-phase?
It was published in JACS long ago that a single molecule in vacuum has
no structure whatsoever, much less chirality. There were the usual
elegant quantum mechanical woolgatherings to justify the statement.
Hard vacuum distillation or sublimation of sufficiently volatile
chiral materials that are enantiomerically stable in a condensed phase
at the same temperature does not result in racemized collected
product. The parity Eotvos experiment,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
is conducted with dimensionally stable solids since local test mass
and overall rotor moments of inertia must be controlled to as many
decimal places as possible for at least two reasons:
1) To eliminate a source of error in a non-null measurement, if
any;
2) To eliminate differential interactions as the Earth's gravity
(not gravitation) deforms with lunar phase, ocean tides, rain and
lawns being watered, vehicular traffic, folks walking by...
> Is
> there any significant difference between a free
> species unaffected by neighbors and usually (?)
> the condition under which calculations are made
> for its properties and a condensed phase inter-
> acting collection of the same molecule, wherein
> strains might be expected, distorted electronic
> distributions arising from surface/interface or
> edge effects, etc., etc., leading to unexpected
> changes in physical properties -- that could be
> the root cause for different behavior between a
> pair or set of chiral crytals?
A self-similar lattice of homochiral chiral objects can be 100%
*achiral.* It's called the "Coup du Roi." It places four cuts into a
spherical homogeneous apple (or ball of modeling clay) to obtain two
disconnected identical homochiral pieces. Tellurium is single atoms
in unit cells of six half-atoms arrayed in one of two self-similar
parity pair space groups with no intermolecular spacing (since there
are no molecules). Tellurium is the perfect test case with no waffle
room.
Electrons are irrelevant. 99.977% of tellurium rest mass, corrected
for isotopic abundance, is in the nucleus. Inner shell electrons
aren't going anywhere and average to nuclear coordinates in any case.
Atomic thermal ellipsoids average to stationary nuclear coordinates.
Achiral units can assemble into chiral lattices - sodium nitrite,
chlorate, bromate; benzil, 4,4'-dimethylchalcone; alpha-quartz;
tellurium atoms. If the parity Eotvos experiment is run a second
time, physicists can examine mathematically quantitatively weaker
cases than parity pairs of single crystal tellurium.
> 1. One brick is one brick and has certain pro-
> perties. I for one would not care to be in the
> middle of a pile of a trillion bricks -- what's
> the distortion?
No average distortion at all - it's a single crystal. The x-ray
crystal structure was done on a 100 micron diameter single crystal.
We calculated out to 20 microns diameter, a bit more than 123 trillion
atoms. *Small* crystals (nano stuff) can be distorted because of
their high surface energies due to small radius of curvature and small
volumes in comparison to surface atoms. Surface tension is not like
bulk stuff. You can float a razor blade or needle atop water but not
neutrally buoyant within it in a gravitational field.
> 2. Would a computer calculation lead to a real
> result?
What result? You need an empirical observation and then a model, or a
model then an observation to transform mathematics into physics. All
the hard work of discovery, calculation, and reduction to practice is
completed. Dump it in existing apparatus and run that puppy. As I
have been saying for nearly three years, somebody should look.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3DFF5E68...@hate.spam.net...
> > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > >
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3DF8ADFD...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3DF79D1D...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3DF75889...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> > > > > > > > > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > > > > [snip]
> >
> > > > The parity Eotvos experiment
> >
> >
> > > > is a hunt for footnotes. It excludes all
> > > > waffling, heuristics, empirical parameterizations, aesthetic calls,
> > > > and convenient assumptions. It embraces only rigorous abstract math
> > > > to target the most extreme case possible: single crystal parity pair
> > > > heavy atom tellurium test masses, space groups P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21.
> > > >
> > > > If the parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium succeeds, folks can
> > > > build a cottage indsutry of looking for weaker constraints. Failing
> > > > at a weak case and then condemning the whole endeavor would be stupid.
> > >
> > > This would be so if not for the fact that you can in some cases, as
> here,
> > > actually add chirality (in this case a chiral center
> > > and actually destroy the chirality of the system as a whole(meso).
> >
> > Chirality is not parity. Geometric parity is tied to the mathematical
>
> I would simply define for a similar case by case
> definition for point sets of n points as a real valued function H such
> that H(p)= --H(p*) H(p)=CHI(p).
> (IUPAC defines chirality rules you can too). No Noetherian summation
> needed. Does this force anything on the physical world, without prior
> knowledge. Absolutely not.
Quantitative geometric parity analysis is rigorous abstract ab initio
math done by professional and acamdemic mathematicians, and peer
reviewed prior to publication.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
and references therein.
If you have a problem with the math, write to the journals with
letters or papers in counterpoint. I maintain that the published work
is without error. Chemistry's chirality and group theory pertaining
thereto are insufficient (good enough for spectroscopy, not good
enough for solid state structure). Graph theory is more general and
powerful, and its analysis agrees with explicit lattice construction
in crystallographic software. Mislow and Avnir are semi-empirical.
You don't begin by inserting the desired answer unless you are a
philosopher, economist, poltician, psychologist, or Enviro-whiner.
Noether's theorem ties physical or gauge mathematical symmetries to
physical properties, and vice versa, 1:1. It has nothing to do with
calculation of quantitative parity divergence of a lattice. It does
bond parity as a mathematical symmetry excluded from metric and
quantum field theories of gravitation to geometric parity of a test
mass lattice. That is why parity pair space group test masses are
interesting - they cannot be accomodated by any hot to trot theory of
gravitation. (Affine theories of gravitation don't care about test
mass parity because they contain no spacetime curvature.)
Uncle Al says, "If you want to know how an engine works, you don't
toss in oil - you toss in carborundum dust."
> > What is the grain of spacetime? Planck distances certainly. M-theory
> > demands gravitational divergences on scales between the proton Compton
> > wavelength and crystal unit cells (larger scales have been emprically
> > eliminated - Varney). Nobody has looked at crystal unit cell
> > dimensions. Somebody should look - the parity Eotvos experiment.
>
> Well at some scale a true quantum theory of gravity would reveal itself
> also.
2.21·10^(-78) nm^3, a Planck length diameter sphere, is not accessible
by any known or imagined physics. 0.1018 nm^3 tellurium unit cells
assemble into self-similar multi-cm crystals in labware nice as you
please. It's still smaller than anybody has ever looked, and good for
10-fold smaller by Yukawa fringing arguments. Somebody should look.
> > Single crystal tellurium is in parity pair space groups P3(1)21 or
> > P3(2)21. You know nothing about solid state structure or
> > crystallography. You ignorance is profound and your conclusions are
> > embarassments unsupported by empirical observation. Rigorous
> > mathematical calculation of a tellurium lattice
>
> That may be so but these space groups are by definition just a
> "Non-metaphorically " speaking minimally sized mathematical construct used
> to describe observed
> crystal structure. Does the math force this upon us as you claim, no its
> just the most efficient way to describe observation, consistently. For
> example the pentagonal alloys you mentioned are explained otherwise
> (twinning)
Pentagonal alloys have their own assigned space groups. No twinning
arguments were necessary once a projection from five spatial
dimensions onto three was performed. Magnetic lattices have 4-D space
groups. It's no big deal. Tellurium lattice structure does not exist
at smaller than unit cell dimensions, nor does its parity or
chirality.
If the parity Eotvos experiment nulls, there is no result to
rationalize. If there is a net output, it's not my problem to
explain. Given then numbers extant from a few tens of thosuands of
catalogued inorganic crystal structures, I have presented the abstract
mathemtically rigorous most optimum case.
[snip]
> > Sure. In quantum mechanics, "the math is only metaphor." That
> > doesn't mean it doesn't work, as epicycles worked entirely
> > satisfactorily if computationally onerously and unintuitively. The
> > Standard Model for all its strengths is a horrible assemblage of about
> > 20 assigned masses, a ridiculous exercise in curve fitting. The
> > Standard Model only evolves massless particles, then the handwaving
> > begins. Something fundamental has been overlooked that would
> > naturally evolve particle mass.
>
> Well any ZPF would do the same.
Haisch's stochastic electrodynamics is a dud. It's covariant, but it
cannot evolve the Schroedinger equation or a substitute. Haisch's
argument about Unruh radiation and accelerated quarks in matter
birthing inertia was denied by Unruh. The Standard Model has no way
to even admit to mass existing except through the ad hoc
Higgs mechananism. Even with that, all fundamental particle masses
must be explictly inserted as their empirical measured values. A
theory with 23 inserted empirical parameters overall is not a done
deal.
snip]
> > human insulin, C(257)H(383)N(65)O(77)S(6), average atomic mass = 7.37
> > (protein, 50 amino acids)
> > cyclooctaamylose, C(48)H(80)O(40), average atomic mass = 7.72 (sugar)
> > palytoxin, C(129)H(223)N(3)O(54), average atomic mass = 6.55 (64
> > chiral centers)
> > Tellurium, average atomic mass =127.60
>
> Then you must say that an electronic interaction is also involved.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Electrons are utterly irrelevant to geometric parity
divergence. Chiroptical measures are absolutely irrelevant to
geometric parity divergence. Any lattice lacking an inversion point
will display optical rotation at some wavelength whether it contains
planes of symmetry (is achiral) or not.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b4
> You give
> me most helixes, I'll
> I'll remove the bonds and connect the dots the other way
> You give me a unit cell, I'll add an atom or two.
> This probably is not the answer to the L-configurational problem, your
> hoping for.
Bullshit. The math only sees coordinates in three-space. All N!
possible connectivities will give identical CHI for a given lattice.
The software tests for that, you turkey, and I've confirmed it
explicity because I don't overmuch trust mathemticians compelx
abstract arguments until tested,
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.logiciels.html
> > What is the big deal? Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity and
> > quantum mechanics. The perfect symmetry of all physics gave way to
> > parity, charge conjugation, and time violations, as well as all binary
> > pair violations,
>
> either CHI(p)= CHI(p*) or not.
CHI is computed from the irreducible non-overlap of an object and its
parity inversion. Your statement is a sciolism. A given lattice can
only have one CHI. Its parity inversion has the identical CHI - by
definition and execution.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: It was published in JACS long ago that a single molecule in vacuum has
: no structure whatsoever, much less chirality.
Do you have the reference to that paper? It sounds amusing.
-----
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"
Terry Wilder
So the chicken came before the egg?
> arguments were necessary once a projection from five spatial
> dimensions onto three was performed. Magnetic lattices have 4-D space
> groups. It's no big deal. Tellurium lattice structure does not exist
> at smaller than unit cell dimensions, nor does its parity or
> chirality.
>
> If the parity Eotvos experiment nulls, there is no result to
> rationalize. If there is a net output, it's not my problem to
> explain. Given then numbers extant from a few tens of thosuands of
> catalogued inorganic crystal structures, I have presented the abstract
> mathemtically rigorous most optimum case.
>
> [snip]
>
> > > Sure. In quantum mechanics, "the math is only metaphor." That
> > > doesn't mean it doesn't work, as epicycles worked entirely
> > > satisfactorily if computationally onerously and unintuitively. The
> > > Standard Model for all its strengths is a horrible assemblage of about
> > > 20 assigned masses, a ridiculous exercise in curve fitting. The
> > > Standard Model only evolves massless particles, then the handwaving
> > > begins. Something fundamental has been overlooked that would
> > > naturally evolve particle mass.
> >
> > Well any ZPF would do the same.
>
> Haisch's stochastic electrodynamics is a dud. It's covariant, but it
Well that's there theory of this very real manifestaion.
Yes!... and not the chirality?
Remember point chirality of equally weighted points is a function of a
"ordered set of points" (the bonds are used to determine this order) and a
starting point and an ending point and thus has a sense not in that space
itself.
Change either the set, the order, the start and end points and you change
the quantity and/ or the sense in which it was taken. This is best mapped to
the parametrically to the real line
> possible connectivities will give identical CHI for a given lattice.
> The software tests for that, you turkey, and I've confirmed it
> explicity because I don't overmuch trust mathemticians compelx
> abstract arguments until tested,
Try explaining explaining two oppositely spinning
discs in 2D by vector point functions in 2D.
You could map them ( the angular components) to the 2D space for no reason
at all. With trust comes convenience, even in the simplest of modelling.
>
> http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
> http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.logiciels.html
>
> > > What is the big deal? Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity and
> > > quantum mechanics. The perfect symmetry of all physics gave way to
> > > parity, charge conjugation, and time violations, as well as all binary
> > > pair violations,
> >
> > either CHI(p)= CHI(p*) or not.
>
> CHI is computed from the irreducible non-overlap of an object and its
> parity inversion. Your statement is a sciolism. A given lattice can
> only have one CHI. Its parity inversion has the identical CHI - by
> definition and execution.
I think the problem here is the use of descriptive mathematics to make
predictions of which it is not capable.
Terry Wilder
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:atouv0$b43$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
I believe he is referring to the necessity of eliminating
some asymmetric solutions among "identical" particles
for "keepsake", in certain superpositions of possible states arguments by
taking symmetric(bosons) and antisymmetric(fermions) solutions only. But
this really applies to more than one particle in more than one state, and
should be rephrased as lacking any asymmetric property, over two or more
solutions.
Terry Wilder
anti-orientation preserving (clockwise to counterclockwise) as defined. so
any "handedness argument" will not be affected.news:3DFFCD2F...@hate.spam.net...
Mark Tarka
[snip]
> I believe he is referring to the necessity of eliminating
> some asymmetric solutions among "identical" particles
> for "keepsake", in certain superpositions of possible states arguments by
> taking symmetric(bosons) and antisymmetric(fermions) solutions only. But
> this really applies to more than one particle in more than one state, and
> should be rephrased as lacking any asymmetric property, over two or more
> solutions.
Did you mean "or", as in "...Bose-Einstein _or_ Fermi-Dirac
statistical solutions only..."?
Mark
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3DFFCD2F...@hate.spam.net...
> > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3DFF5E68...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3DF8ADFD...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:3DF79D1D...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > news:3DF75889...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > > > news:3DEF9504...@hate.spam.net...
> > > > > > > > > > > > sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In article <3DEE280D...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle
> Al
> > > > > > > > > > > <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
[snip]
> > Pentagonal alloys have their own assigned space groups. No twinning
>
> So the chicken came before the egg?
There is no need for theory before there is observation requiring
explanation. The set of all possible theories is one of the larger
infinities. There isn't enough funding available.
> > [snip]
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b4
> >
> > > You give
> > > me most helixes, I'll
> > > I'll remove the bonds and connect the dots the other way
> > > You give me a unit cell, I'll add an atom or two.
> > > This probably is not the answer to the L-configurational problem, your
> > > hoping for.
> >
> > Bullshit. The math only sees coordinates in three-space. All N!
>
> Yes!... and not the chirality?
> Remember point chirality of equally weighted points is a function of a
> "ordered set of points" (the bonds are used to determine this order) and a
> starting point and an ending point and thus has a sense not in that space
> itself.
That is *not* true. Chirality and parity are utterly abstract and
depend only upon point position and identity. Chemistry's analysis is
a flawed heuristic often good enough for molecules but neither
rigorous nor operational in the real world. Trivial counterexample:
Consider a tetrahedral carbon atom bonded to four rigorously identical
groups. Can it be chiral? Of course it can be chiral! Each of the
four appended groups is rigorously identical to the other three and is
itself chiral, with the R-configuration. The central tetrahdral
carbon is exactly tetrahderal (no distortion) and has no point,
planes, or improper axes of symmetry. It is chiral. Now, why don't
you assign S,R or M,P or lambda,delta configuration to that chiral
tetrahedral carbon with four identical substituents for Uncle Al?
> Change either the set, the order, the start and end points and you change
> the quantity and/ or the sense in which it was taken. This is best mapped to
> the parametrically to the real line
It is a special case and it is weak - preceding new paragraph. You
cannot order a configuration of identical groups, said configuration
containing Cn axes making all groups identical in space as well as in
identity.
> > possible connectivities will give identical CHI for a given lattice.
> > The software tests for that, you turkey, and I've confirmed it
> > explicity because I don't overmuch trust mathemticians compelx
> > abstract arguments until tested,
>
> Try explaining explaining two oppositely spinning
> discs in 2D by vector point functions in 2D.
> You could map them ( the angular components) to the 2D space for no reason
> at all. With trust comes convenience, even in the simplest of modelling.
Axial vs. polar vectors. You must be *very* careful rotating an arrow
through Eulerian angles in front of a mirror vs. rotating a helix
through Eulerian angles in front of a mirror. There is a difference.
Chemistry's analysis of chiralty is weak and incomplete - not through
some arcane mathematical argument, but by trival physical disproof.
> > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
> > http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.logiciels.html
> >
> > > > What is the big deal? Newtonian physics gave way to Relativity and
> > > > quantum mechanics. The perfect symmetry of all physics gave way to
> > > > parity, charge conjugation, and time violations, as well as all binary
> > > > pair violations,
> > >
> > > either CHI(p)= CHI(p*) or not.
> >
> > CHI is computed from the irreducible non-overlap of an object and its
> > parity inversion. Your statement is a sciolism. A given lattice can
> > only have one CHI. Its parity inversion has the identical CHI - by
> > definition and execution.
>
> I think the problem here is the use of descriptive mathematics to make
> predictions of which it is not capable.
The theory is sound by derivation and peer review. Chemistry is
horribly flawed in its analysis of chirality. Mislow's semi-emprical
anaysis is looked upon with horror and derision by mathematicians. If
a theory has a counterexample, the theory is wrong. If a theory does
not have a counterexample, the theory may be correct. No model of
quantitative chirality or parity survives falsification except
Petitjean's work.
The originally published version of QCM fielded hundreds of molecules
Uncle Al created to test the limits of its analysis. No problem. QCM
choked on chiralane - the CHI was OK but the graph theory diagnostics
gave wrong symemtry element outputs for the first time ever.
HyperChem Lite gave a structure minimalization good to a 10^(-5) group
theory residual level of geometric uncertainty in SYMMETRY. The
molecule was put through Hartree-Fock/6-61G(d), then giving 10^(-15)
residuals, and QCM still died.
The minor error was fixed, the correct symmetry outputs were obtained,
and CHI did not change. The maximum value of CHI is only sensitive to
coordinates (assumption of all unique colors). Symmetry elements can
only decrease it. CHI is the Rolls Royce of quantitative parity
divergence. It makes no assumptions and only considers coordinates
and point colors in its abstract math.
Mark Tarka
> Mark Tarka wrote:
> >
> > "Terry Wilder" <terry....@gte.net> wrote in message news:<kMFL9.34982$4W1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > [It is with great regret that I...snip...]
>
> [snip]
>
> > Any comments about the chirality of a gas-phase
> > molecule compared to one in the solid-phase?
>
> It was published in JACS long ago that a single molecule in vacuum has
> no structure whatsoever, much less chirality. There were the usual
> elegant quantum mechanical woolgatherings to justify the statement.
> Hard vacuum distillation or sublimation of sufficiently volatile
> chiral materials that are enantiomerically stable in a condensed phase
> at the same temperature does not result in racemized collected
> product.
Profound empirical evidence for the stability of structure
in the condensed-phase -- that Coulombic forces ultimately
overpower frivolous gas-phase random or probably more
accurately limited variety of possible arrangements in space
(isn't it only by convention that we focus on the calculated
lowest energy conformation of a collection of associated
nuclii?). Ed Abbott at Montana State figures that there're
only two controlling conditions possible in inorganic
chemistry: Coulomb's Law, or, the Uncertainty Principle.
Do I recall correctly that x-ray structural studies have
also been done using gas- or vapor-phase species? That
would have more bearing on the "absence of structure in
vacuo (but not Abs. 0)", probably showing a "preferred"
or average structure. I can't leave this message to
Googlize (couldn't resist) the question, the software
is inflexible in that regard.
> The parity Eotvos experiment,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
>
> is conducted with dimensionally stable solids since local test mass
> and overall rotor moments of inertia must be controlled to as many
> decimal places as possible for at least two reasons:
>
> 1) To eliminate a source of error in a non-null measurement, if
> any;
> 2) To eliminate differential interactions as the Earth's gravity
> (not gravitation) deforms with lunar phase, ocean tides, rain and
> lawns being watered, vehicular traffic, folks walking by...
I recall mentioning, and would this be the case, that all
permutations of however many pairs of test samples are
examined -- and I've forgotten the formula :-( With just
two pairs....AABB...BBAA...ABAB...BABA...ABBA...BAAB...
that's four (4) holes each to be filled by one of two (2)
orientations, but as each hole is filled with a particular
orientation, there is a reduction in the possibilities for
the next hole. Perms = 4!2!/(4-1)! = 8 OOPS! Would you
also have to measure each mass by considering inverting
crystals individually and in pairs, groups.... Well,
anyway, a complete experiment would consume an awful lot
of yogurt and healthy green salads.
> > Is
> > there any significant difference between a free
> > species unaffected by neighbors and usually (?)
> > the condition under which calculations are made
> > for its properties and a condensed phase inter-
> > acting collection of the same molecule, wherein
> > strains might be expected, distorted electronic
> > distributions arising from surface/interface or
> > edge effects, etc., etc., leading to unexpected
> > changes in physical properties -- that could be
> > the root cause for different behavior between a
> > pair or set of chiral crytals?
>
> A self-similar lattice of homochiral chiral objects can be 100%
> *achiral.* It's called the "Coup du Roi." It places four cuts into a
> spherical homogeneous apple (or ball of modeling clay) to obtain two
> disconnected identical homochiral pieces.
Knuckle sandwich via King? Nothing in a good Fr/Eng
dictionary nor in any English language web page.
> Tellurium is single atoms
> in unit cells of six half-atoms arrayed in one of two self-similar
> parity pair space groups with no intermolecular spacing (since there
> are no molecules). Tellurium is the perfect test case with no waffle
> room.
Yow! Then the organiker's concept of say +/- enantiomers
for polynuclear systems maps to the physicur's space group
model for atomic aggregates?
Maybe this is a question from the level of an
undergrad -- what is the source of distortion or
abnormality that drives Te (At. No. 52) to condense
in one of two solid forms -- "spin"? Are there more than
two space groups for Te? This is the same concept
for allotropes of Sn (At. No. 50)? How many elements
exhibit allotrophy? And why is tellurium the best
substance to use (any funny-stuff possible due
to it's location with or near the semi-conductors)?
(I've just taken from the shelf, here at the Cape Coral/
Lee County, FL, library the 83rd edition of the CRC. I
haven't touched such a reference work since, since, since
I was run off campus on a rail. The binding _cracks_ when
I raise the cover! Having my sister removed as the estate's
administrator may be exhibiting a beneficial effect :-) )
> Electrons are irrelevant. 99.977% of tellurium rest mass, corrected
> for isotopic abundance, is in the nucleus. Inner shell electrons
> aren't going anywhere and average to nuclear coordinates in any case.
> Atomic thermal ellipsoids average to stationary nuclear coordinates.
The electrons may be irrelevant for some purposes, but
not to the overall integrety of the solid structure.
Doesn't corrosion involve the outermost electrons. Aren't
those "Plutos" essential to the vibrational stability
of the nucleii? And surface effects -- say...is the
Eotvos experiment done under vacumm or in an inert
atmosphere after the surfaces have been cleaned (or
are these considerations only for spectroscopic
studies or critical chemical or physical manipulation)?
> Achiral units can assemble into chiral lattices - sodium nitrite,
> chlorate, bromate; benzil, 4,4'-dimethylchalcone; alpha-quartz;
> tellurium atoms. If the parity Eotvos experiment is run a second
> time, physicists can examine mathematically quantitatively weaker
> cases than parity pairs of single crystal tellurium.
>
> > 1. One brick is one brick and has certain pro-
> > perties. I for one would not care to be in the
> > middle of a pile of a trillion bricks -- what's
> > the distortion?
>
> No average distortion at all - it's a single crystal. The x-ray
> crystal structure was done on a 100 micron diameter single crystal.
> We calculated out to 20 microns diameter, a bit more than 123 trillion
> atoms. *Small* crystals (nano stuff) can be distorted because of
> their high surface energies due to small radius of curvature and small
> volumes in comparison to surface atoms. Surface tension is not like
> bulk stuff. You can float a razor blade or needle atop water but not
> neutrally buoyant within it in a gravitational field.
Well stated.
> > 2. Would a computer calculation lead to a real
> > result?
>
> What result? You need an empirical observation and then a model, or a
> model then an observation to transform mathematics into physics. All
> the hard work of discovery, calculation, and reduction to practice is
> completed. Dump it in existing apparatus and run that puppy. As I
> have been saying for nearly three years, somebody should look.
Oh, oh. Look, look. Dammit! Getting a U.S. academic
to think out of the box at a time when the tenure system
is under attack, schools are hurting for cash, and
survival depends upon accepting the self-infliced pain
of the feminist movement is hopeless, isn't it. What
exists in Europe and the former Soviet Union wrt
apparatus? Wouldn't expect to find something like this
in a private lab. Are Eotvos balances still being
_built_? If so, by whom, and would they...?
And is this essentially correct: Space-time may have
chirality which might be detected by the use of (52)Te(0)
in its two crystallographic space groups and an Eotvos
torsion balance.
Mark (Eotvos balances by Ronco...they slice, they dice,
they busted the GUT :-)
Uncle Al
>
> Remember also that the mapping used in defining CHI is isometric
> anti-orientation preserving (clockwise to counterclockwise) as defined. so
> any "handedness argument" will not be affected.
Clockwise or counterclockwise is an anthropomorphic artifact. A
rigorously undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four rigorously
identical substituents, all R or all S, is rigorously chiral by not
containing a point, planes, or improper axes of symmetry - point group
T (not Td).
One enantiomer has four R substituents and one enantiomer has four S
substituents. Which tetrahderal carbon is "clockwise," and by what
reasoning?
Uncle Al
>
> In article <3DFFC32F...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> : It was published in JACS long ago that a single molecule in vacuum has
> : no structure whatsoever, much less chirality.
>
> Do you have the reference to that paper? It sounds amusing.
1980s or earlier. It's long gone from my stack, but I remember being
bemused by it. Philosophy is such a hoot.
Uncle Al
Electron diffraction and microwave spectrscopy are done in reasonably
hard vacuum. Mass spec is done in hard vacuum. There is no empirical
evidence that anything unexpected is transpiring. Quite the contrary
- microwave spectroscopy numbers are quoted to an outrageous number of
decimal places, and isotopic substitution studies are SOP. Mass spec
fragmentations are typically analyzed at the LCAO level of theory, one
step up from stone knives and bear skins.
> > The parity Eotvos experiment,
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> >
> > is conducted with dimensionally stable solids since local test mass
> > and overall rotor moments of inertia must be controlled to as many
> > decimal places as possible for at least two reasons:
> >
> > 1) To eliminate a source of error in a non-null measurement, if
> > any;
> > 2) To eliminate differential interactions as the Earth's gravity
> > (not gravitation) deforms with lunar phase, ocean tides, rain and
> > lawns being watered, vehicular traffic, folks walking by...
>
> I recall mentioning, and would this be the case, that all
> permutations of however many pairs of test samples are
> examined -- and I've forgotten the formula :-( With just
> two pairs....AABB...BBAA...ABAB...BABA...ABBA...BAAB...
> that's four (4) holes each to be filled by one of two (2)
> orientations, but as each hole is filled with a particular
> orientation, there is a reduction in the possibilities for
> the next hole. Perms = 4!2!/(4-1)! = 8 OOPS! Would you
> also have to measure each mass by considering inverting
> crystals individually and in pairs, groups.... Well,
> anyway, a complete experiment would consume an awful lot
> of yogurt and healthy green salads.
One set of parity space group test masses is on one side of the Eotvos
rotor, the set of opposite parity space group test masses of identical
material composition is on the other side of the Eotvos rotor. One
permutation. The Earth is spinning vs. the fixed stars, the
Earth-moon system is in orbit about a common point in space, the
Earth-Moon system is orbiting the sun, the sun is orbiting in the
Milky Way galaxy... the Eotvos balance is itself on a turntable for
phase lock detection... space is isotropic (conservation of
momentum)... the Eotvos experiment runs over at least three months.
Test mass crystallographic orientation is not a first order concern.
[snip]
> > A self-similar lattice of homochiral chiral objects can be 100%
> > *achiral.* It's called the "Coup du Roi." It places four cuts into a
> > spherical homogeneous apple (or ball of modeling clay) to obtain two
> > disconnected identical homochiral pieces.
>
> Knuckle sandwich via King? Nothing in a good Fr/Eng
> dictionary nor in any English language web page.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Use your browser "find" for Coupe (bloody French language!)
> > Tellurium is single atoms
> > in unit cells of six half-atoms arrayed in one of two self-similar
> > parity pair space groups with no intermolecular spacing (since there
> > are no molecules). Tellurium is the perfect test case with no waffle
> > room.
>
> Yow! Then the organiker's concept of say +/- enantiomers
> for polynuclear systems maps to the physicur's space group
> model for atomic aggregates?
Only the most general graph theory matters. Any less general, less
fundamental analysis is a flawed heuristic. Group theory is not good
enough - we showed it failed with lithum iodate in chiral space group
P6(3) both crystallgraphically and abstract math analytically.
> Maybe this is a question from the level of an
> undergrad -- what is the source of distortion or
> abnormality that drives Te (At. No. 52) to condense
> in one of two solid forms -- "spin"? Are there more than
> two space groups for Te? This is the same concept
> for allotropes of Sn (At. No. 50)? How many elements
> exhibit allotrophy? And why is tellurium the best
> substance to use (any funny-stuff possible due
> to it's location with or near the semi-conductors)?
Parity space groups always come in pairs. The lattice and its parity
inversion are different space groups. these are not allotropes.
Selenium and tellurium have their unique structures in delicate
balance. Catena-sulfur is metastable helical chains. Selenium has a
bunch of interconverting allotropic forms. Polonium is unremarkably
packed. Compress selenium or tellurium in a diamond anvil press and
you get simple packings. I expect there is elegant solid state theory
to rationalize why the formally one-dimensional Se or Te helices
loosely pack into homochiral 3-D lattices in perfect register. I
don't care what that theory is.
It is a known and measured fact that homochiral crystals are higher in
free energy than crystals of the racemate. You can also have crystals
of 1:1 racemate in chiral space groups. Again, the bottle washing
and button sorting are irrelevant. Tellurium can be Czochralski grown
from the melt and then thermally annealed, both under hydrogen, to
give remarkably perfect single crystals in parity pair space groups
P3(1)21 or P3(2)21. Calculation shows the lattice structure is
asymptotic to perfect parity divergence, achieving CHI=0.953 by a 10 A
radius sphere and CHI=0.995 by 20 A radius. A 1 cm diameter Te sphere
extrapolates to CHI=0.9999999999999983. That's adequately close to
theoretical maximum 1 exactly. A modest density of lattice
dislocations or impurity atoms does not reduce CHI as long as it is a
single crystal test mass.
Tellurium is the most massive atom that packs into a very small unit
cell - 101.8 A^3 - with perfect homochirality of all nearest neighbor
paths and perfect computed CHI. It is easly growable to 2-cm
dimensioned single crystals. It's good enough.
If somebody has something better, fine sing out. The totality of
recorded heavy atom crystal structures with unit cell volumes less
than 100 A^3 in parity space groups is easily searched. It's a very
small number. I've looked. Light atoms - CHNO - are too much alike
and too much like vacuum. Organic molecules have average atomic
weights of less than 10, compared to homoatomic tellurium at 127.60.
> > Electrons are irrelevant. 99.977% of tellurium rest mass, corrected
> > for isotopic abundance, is in the nucleus. Inner shell electrons
> > aren't going anywhere and average to nuclear coordinates in any case.
> > Atomic thermal ellipsoids average to stationary nuclear coordinates.
>
> The electrons may be irrelevant for some purposes, but
> not to the overall integrety of the solid structure.
Gravitation affects mass. 99.977% of the mass is in the nucleus, plus
core electrons to raise that number a bit.
> Doesn't corrosion involve the outermost electrons. Aren't
> those "Plutos" essential to the vibrational stability
> of the nucleii? And surface effects -- say...is the
> Eotvos experiment done under vacumm or in an inert
> atmosphere after the surfaces have been cleaned (or
> are these considerations only for spectroscopic
> studies or critical chemical or physical manipulation)?
Gravity doesn't care about composition. We've got 400 years of
Equivalence Principle challenges to prove that.
[snip]
> > > 2. Would a computer calculation lead to a real
> > > result?
> >
> > What result? You need an empirical observation and then a model, or a
> > model then an observation to transform mathematics into physics. All
> > the hard work of discovery, calculation, and reduction to practice is
> > completed. Dump it in existing apparatus and run that puppy. As I
> > have been saying for nearly three years, somebody should look.
>
> Oh, oh. Look, look. Dammit! Getting a U.S. academic
> to think out of the box at a time when the tenure system
> is under attack, schools are hurting for cash, and
> survival depends upon accepting the self-infliced pain
> of the feminist movement is hopeless, isn't it. What
> exists in Europe and the former Soviet Union wrt
> apparatus? Wouldn't expect to find something like this
> in a private lab. Are Eotvos balances still being
> _built_? If so, by whom, and would they...?
I'm doing some phone jive with a quantum field theory guy this
afternoon. He has publications past and accepted in the queue to be
published on parity as a symmetry of Hermitian and non-Hermitian QFT.
The only difference between a chemist wth a heterodox stooopid
proposal and a physicist wth a novel brilliant idea is the physicist.
Either he kills my idea for good technical reasons, or accepts its
argument and we go on from there. I hate referee waffling,
1) "It has never been done." Yes, that is the point.
2) "It will probably fail." Yes, so what? Somebody should look.
3) "It's a solid state proposal." You know what the solid state
folks replied.
I want somebody with both a brain and balls. Women need not feel
excluded.
I've done industrial research for 26 years. I've filled waste crocks
and been granted patents. I've never seen a proposal danced around
like this one. Is it awful for a fatal error in reasoning, or is it
viable? When a chemist finds himself riding a dead horse, he begins
considering alternate horses - and doesn't require 400 years to find a
different mount.
Terry Wilder
asymmetrical solutions.
"Mark Tarka" <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b70c71c.0212...@posting.google.com...
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il wrote:
:> In article <3DFFC32F...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
:> : It was published in JACS long ago that a single molecule in vacuum has
:> : no structure whatsoever, much less chirality.
:> Do you have the reference to that paper? It sounds amusing.
: 1980s or earlier. It's long gone from my stack, but I remember being
: bemused by it. Philosophy is such a hoot.
_Be_mused or _a_mused?
-----
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
-----
Terry Wilder
> Terry Wilder wrote:
> >
> > Remember also that the mapping used in defining CHI is isometric
> > anti-orientation preserving (clockwise to counterclockwise) as defined.
so
> > any "handedness argument" will not be affected.
>
> Clockwise or counterclockwise is an anthropomorphic artifact. A
> rigorously undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four rigorously
> identical substituents, all R or all S, is rigorously chiral by not
> containing a point, planes, or improper axes of symmetry - point group
> T (not Td).
>
> One enantiomer has four R substituents and one enantiomer has four S
> substituents. Which tetrahderal carbon is "clockwise," and by what
> reasoning?
There not chiral until ordered, then by mere whim.
Maybe I should have clarified by using the idea of
Mirrored trials(point symmetric analogs) for an experiment similar to
yours. One point here is that once you establish a initial state for p
you've also established an antisymmetric (I do believe, but not quite sure
that this is not using the term loosely) state(geometric state) for p*(point
symmetry partner to p), so this can be done either way, as you please unless
you involve properties that are not expressible in the geometry for p.
Further, it would be a different matter, if instead of your CHI rule 4 above
this result was independent of rotations. The sense or direction in this
case would be to "minimize" a certain function. Like the 2D case from 3D you
can insert for the rotational dynamics of a point particle rotating in a
plane about a point , rotate the plane of rotation(or the space) until the
r x w is a maxima (r=radius, w =angular velocity, x the cross product of the
plane axb=a*bJ^t.
The phrase independent axis is quite usefully sought here
The result chirality of motion
The mere words maxima and minima imply
themselves order, as in a bounded compact set.
Your definition would have to state "either maximize or minimize" and hope
that these lead to the same
result.
It seems that for two point sets p and q of identical numbers of identical
masses, with different geometries the questions should be quite limited.
Example for the Hamiltonian doe Hp = IHIp = H*p* or not?( I = -delta(i,j)
If so does Hp=Hq ?.(Covariance doesn't even have to be mantained)
Let a few demons throw in a device based on an operator like K(p)=p*, K(p*)
= p and you can probably end up with things like missing masses on parallel
trajectories. Objects with no or many centers of mass., etc. Even on the
smallest scale this could be a mathematical nightmare. But then again an
open mind probably wouldn't give a definite yes to: are there "really"
conservative forces? Does anything really obey Hamilton's theorem? The good
thing about the mathematics is that it is still good at scales a thousands
orders less than Plancks constant
I would venture to guess that there are also many
similar 3D repetitive achiral structures occupying certain regions that
would decompose solely into chiral components of a single sense(Certain
solenoids and toroids come to mind but the names of the decomposition
theorems escape me at the moment). Matter of fact it has just dawned on me
that the model for the calculation of
self- induction for some conductors requires such chiral decompositions
(the integrals involved will null otherwise)
Right now I am thinking of a certain old and frail professor emeritus
mentioned by someone in this ng recently I believe (from Cambridge I believe
also) lecturing, if I'm not mistaken, during the proceedings of the Royal
Society of London using similar logic to prove that a spinning top obeys
neither the classical physics
of Newton and Hamilton, nor any theory hitherto.
His proof lay in the anti- gravity effect that he demonstrated using a very
large and heavy spinning
wheel. He picked it up with such considerable ease and easily spun it into
the air. What he overlooked before and after lifting it was the rates at
which it was spinning.
And the resulting energy transfers
Thus you must not only know which way your wheels are turning but how.
Direction with a twist.
The best way usually seems to be is to get the formalisms syntax nice and
tidy first, and ready for any possibility.
Uncle Al
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3E00AC64...@hate.spam.net...
> > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > >
> > > Remember also that the mapping used in defining CHI is isometric
> > > anti-orientation preserving (clockwise to counterclockwise) as defined.
> so
> > > any "handedness argument" will not be affected.
> >
> > Clockwise or counterclockwise is an anthropomorphic artifact. A
> > rigorously undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four rigorously
> > identical substituents, all R or all S, is rigorously chiral by not
> > containing a point, planes, or improper axes of symmetry - point group
> > T (not Td).
> >
> > One enantiomer has four R substituents and one enantiomer has four S
> > substituents. Which tetrahderal carbon is "clockwise," and by what
> > reasoning?
>
> There not chiral until ordered, then by mere whim.
You are horribly wrong! An undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four
identical chiral substituents is very definitely chiral by the
rigorous definition of chirality: Not superposable upon its mirror
image. There is utter absence of all improper rotation axes including
mirror planes (S1 improper axes), a point of inversion (S2 improper
axis), and all higher improper axes (Sn improper axes). It will also
pass all group theory and graph theory requirements for absence of
improper symmetries. Cn axes don't affect chirality.
Your chirality heuristic is crap. It fails in a trivial obvious test
case. This is why rigorous abstract mathematics works and
touchy-feelie chemistry does not work.
Apply your heuristic to a Moebius band (only one side and one edge) of
edge-fused benzene rings. How do you "order" a Moebius band? It is
very definitely chiral by the rigorous definition of chirality: Not
superposable upon its mirror image. A two-sided cylindrical band is
converted to a Moebius band buy cutting across its width, adding an
odd number of half-turns, then reattaching. The turn can be clockwise
or counterclockwise and for either end. At no point is the twist
localized. In fact, all local views are achiral The thing is only
chiral globally. Consider progressively increasing the
circumference. OK, so add an even number of half-twists. Your
heuristic still fails.
> Maybe I should have clarified by using the idea of
> Mirrored trials(point symmetric analogs) for an experiment similar to
> yours. One point here is that once you establish a initial state for p
> you've also established an antisymmetric (I do believe, but not quite sure
> that this is not using the term loosely) state(geometric state) for p*(point
> symmetry partner to p), so this can be done either way, as you please unless
> you involve properties that are not expressible in the geometry for p.
That is why we use parity (inversion of all three coordinate axes) not
chirality in general (a mirror image is inversion of only one
coordinate axis). By favoring one coordinate axis as special you add
a non-existent anomaly.
> Further, it would be a different matter, if instead of your CHI rule 4 above
> this result was independent of rotations. The sense or direction in this
> case would be to "minimize" a certain function. Like the 2D case from 3D you
> can insert for the rotational dynamics of a point particle rotating in a
> plane about a point , rotate the plane of rotation(or the space) until the
> r x w is a maxima (r=radius, w =angular velocity, x the cross product of the
> plane axb=a*bJ^t.
> The phrase independent axis is quite usefully sought here
> The result chirality of motion
> The mere words maxima and minima imply
> themselves order, as in a bounded compact set.
> Your definition would have to state "either maximize or minimize" and hope
> that these lead to the same
> result.
You didn't read the mathematical derivation,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
You are blathering You are propounding unjustifiable minutia when all
this has been rigorously, exhaustively laid out for the most general
case on down and published in refereed literature. Don't tell me how
mathematics made a major error in not agreeing with you. Go argue
with the mathematicians who did the work.
[snip elegant nonsense]
If empirical reality says you are wrong, you are wrong. I can assign
chirality to an undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four identical
chiral substituents or a Moebius strip. You cannot assign chirality
to an undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four identical chiral
substituents or a Moebius strip. My model is more inclusive.
Mark Tarka
> In article <6b70c71c.0212...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : About the level of a modern journal ("tier"-wise), it would seem to me
> : (and I tend to be extremely ignorant at times)
>
> This is one of those times.
On the attack, again -- to save face?
> If you want one measure of which "tier" a journal is in, you can check
> the "impact factor," which is basically a measure of how often papers
> that appear in the journal are cited as references by other researchers.
Desperate boys citing desperate boys.
> For "multidisciplinary" journals, the top tier is Angewandte Chemie
> and JACS; Chemistry - A European Journal and Chemical Communications (RSC) are
> borderline; everyone else is way behind. Most chemists tend to publish
> in more specialized journals, however, in order to reach the audience
> of interest. In physical chemistry, the first tier is probably J Phys Chem
> A and B, J Chem Phys, arguably Chemistry of Materials. In inorganic chemistry,
> Organometallics is fairly clearly the first rank journal in the field;
> Inorganic Chemistry and J. Chem. Soc. Dalton are borderline, although both
> have improved in recent years; J. Organomet. Chem. is an example of a
> second-rank journal; I'd say that Inorganica Chimca Acta and Polyhedron
> are examples of third-rank journals. You'll notice that most of my
> publications go to Organometallics, which is why Uncle Al deleted my reply
> to his comment about my publications being fodder for second-rank journals.
Are you implying that Uncle Al removed your post from the Net?
And you're taking me to task because of my approach to the
ranking of journals?
Does Organometallics publish reviews? Any seminal papers of
note -- something that's moved the world, so to speak? I
suggest that you're clinging to a very short-sighted view of
scientific publications.
Mark
Mark Tarka
> In article <6b70c71c.02121...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> :> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> :> rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
> :> impact. So we did better.
> :
> : Richard assumed the position, apparently
> : (I'm not sure about time-zone effects and
> : quirks associated with ISPs), _after_ I asked
> : and you answered with info on the alleged
> : submittals of articles wrt the etovus
> : experiment. The thread sequences are nicely
> : displayed by Google's newsgroups access
> : site and Microsoft's Explorer.
>
> I'd be more interested in learning to which journal(s) he submitted his
> article and how many of them knew that he had already published the material
> on his web site (many journals have a precondition that the material
> submitted has never been published elsewhere).
After examination of the available evidence and
brutal interviews with the usual suspects, I have
come to the conclusion that Uncle Al submitted
his article to the New Delhi Times. It was rejected
because of a plethora of spellling errorrs.
Mark
Mark Tarka
> Mark Tarka wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3DED2842...@hate.spam.net>...
> > [snip...]
> >
> > > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> > > Do something naughty to physics.
> >
> > You had submitted some articles for publication;
> > any news to share?
>
> The referees rejected them without comment. Without comment! No
> technical objections - I asked for a specific deficiency - just
> rejection. Heterodox proposals bear no weight without overwhelming
> impact. So we did better.
If it was the letter, I sure hope the symbols and technical
language was very familiar to the reviewers -- made little
sense to me (tight wording may have contributed to my
unease -- I'll try again, later).
> Two years ago we had theory and could calculate normalized parity
> divergence, CHI, of maybe 15 atoms in a lattice. Good argument, poor
> numbers. Chirality looked OK, but it really wasn't enough in
> hindsight.
I haven't found the meaning of "CHI"... -->0, bad; -->1, good.
It's not the Greek character, or you'd've, I suppose, used
same in your eotvos.htm# page.
> One year ago we had theory and could calculate CHI for 11,000 atoms in
> a lattice. Good argument, good numbers, still a question of
> microscopic vs. macroscopic values.
>
> As of two days ago we calculated a trillion atoms - a 4 micron radius
> Te sphere. The mathematician is talking with the programmer. There
> is a more fundamental and faster, albeit more subtle, route to
> computation. A quadrillion atoms, 10^15, may not be unreasonable.
[snip...]
What was your final choice for the programming language?
You started with Fortran, then wrote of having difficulties
with Windows. Has anyone suggested Pascal (I was very
impressed with the accuracy of output from a math function
or calculation).
Mark
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3DEE442D...@hate.spam.net>...
> > Mark Tarka wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3DED2842...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > [snip...]
> > As of two days ago we calculated a trillion atoms - a 4 micron radius
> > Te sphere. The mathematician is talking with the programmer. There
> > is a more fundamental and faster, albeit more subtle, route to
> > computation. A quadrillion atoms, 10^15, may not be unreasonable.
> [snip...]
>
> What was your final choice for the programming language?
> You started with Fortran, then wrote of having difficulties
> with Windows. Has anyone suggested Pascal (I was very
> impressed with the accuracy of output from a math function
> or calculation).
Special restricted case of QCM wherein there are no lattice symmetry
elements but the identity element (confirmed on a block of 1000 unit
cells, 10x10x10), C++ compiled for Unix, new faster strategy to build
the lattice points, Jacobi transformation to handle the 3x3 inertia
matrices... 123+ trillion atoms in tellurium and 140+ billion atoms in
selenium. Selenium has a 17% shorter repeat distance at the same
scaled helical radius than tellurium, but its curve of log(1-CHI) vs
log(radius) is identical. So much for the tighter helix being more
chiral or getting there faster.
We can't go for the quadrillion. We've run out of sig figs in the
spec. No matter, the graphed points are reasonably tight to the line
from 10 A to 100,000 A radius,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b27
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b31
Next revision is 02 January - two more figures, another table, more
citations. I've been jawing with the folks who do quantum field
theory, and already have my first 2003 citation. The parity Eotvos
experiment can impact both Hermitian and non-Hermitian QFTs because
1) Neither contains parity as an allowed symmetry or spatial
inversion as its conserved observable, though PT is OK in
non-Hermitian theories, and
2) Even though Hermitian QFTs do not allow geometric parity, they
do contain a pseudo-P symmetry and its conserved observable with all
the properties of parity *except* it isn't spatial inversion.
Metric theories of gravitation (continuous coordinate transformations
only) plus both Hermitian and non-Hermitian QFTs (spatial inversion
not an allowed symmetry) are all helpeless against the onslaught of a
parity Eotvos experiment,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
though affine/teleparallel theories appear to be safe - no Equivalence
Principle as founding postulate.
Bwa ha ha! Almost everything they know could be wrong without
contradiction of prior observations! Anyway, I've got to write the
paper doing crystallgraphy for physicists. Ongoing discussions have
been very helpful - even a physicist can't be much more ignorant than
the common level of awareness in these things.
Gravitation and quantum mechanics are deeply irreconcilable.
Something fundamental has been omitted. There aren't many unexamined
places remaining. Somebody should look.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<athjau$rku$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
:> : About the level of a modern journal ("tier"-wise), it would seem to me
:> : (and I tend to be extremely ignorant at times)
:> This is one of those times.
: On the attack, again -- to save face?
No, I'm telling you the truth: your guess as to which journals are considered
first-tier was completely wrong.
:> If you want one measure of which "tier" a journal is in, you can check
:> the "impact factor," which is basically a measure of how often papers
:> that appear in the journal are cited as references by other researchers.
:
: Desperate boys citing desperate boys.
No, it is one indication of which journals are publishing papers that people
care about. Some journals will publish anything sent to them -- even if
the referees recommend that they don't. These journals tend to publish
work that is on average of lower quality, and that is reflected in the
lack of citations of that work. And by that no one reads those journals.
:> For "multidisciplinary" journals, the top tier is Angewandte Chemie
:> and JACS; Chemistry - A European Journal and Chemical Communications (RSC)
:> are borderline; everyone else is way behind. Most chemists tend to publish
:> in more specialized journals, however, in order to reach the audience
:> of interest. In physical chemistry, the first tier is probably J Phys
:> Chem A and B, J Chem Phys, arguably Chemistry of Materials. In inorganic
:> chemistry, Organometallics is fairly clearly the first rank journal in the
:> field;Inorganic Chemistry and J. Chem. Soc. Dalton are borderline, although
:> both have improved in recent years; J. Organomet. Chem. is an example of a
:> second-rank journal; I'd say that Inorganica Chimca Acta and Polyhedron
:> are examples of third-rank journals. You'll notice that most of my
:> publications go to Organometallics, which is why Uncle Al deleted my reply
:> to his comment about my publications being fodder for second-rank journals.
: Are you implying that Uncle Al removed your post from the Net?
: And you're taking me to task because of my approach to the
: ranking of journals?
No, I am not implying that Uncle Al removed my post from the net -- he
couldn't if he wanted to. What I am saying outright is that when Uncle
Al replied to my post, he deleted the part in which I pointed out that my
publications generally don't appear in second-rank journals, because he
would have had to admit that he was wrong about something. Or rather, that
he told another one of his patented lies.
As for you, I'm taking you to task because you appear not to care whether or
not you appear to be an idiot.
: Does Organometallics publish reviews?
Only very occasionally. But review papers are not reports of original
research in any case.
: Any seminal papers of note -- something that's moved the world, so to
: speak? I suggest that you're clinging to a very short-sighted view of
: scientific publications.
And have any seminal papers of note appeared in the journals *you* listed?
I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
-----
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
-----
Mark Tarka
> No, I am not implying that Uncle Al removed my post from the net -- he
> couldn't if he wanted to. What I am saying outright is that when Uncle
> Al replied to my post, he deleted the part in which I pointed out that my
> publications generally don't appear in second-rank journals, because he
> would have had to admit that he was wrong about something. Or rather, that
> he told another one of his patented lies.
>
> As for you, I'm taking you to task because you appear not to care whether or
> not you appear to be an idiot.
So, you _are_ on the attack :-)
> : Does Organometallics publish reviews?
>
> Only very occasionally. But review papers are not reports of original
> research in any case.
Reviews are like fingerprints, pointing at idiocy :-)
> : Any seminal papers of note -- something that's moved the world, so to
> : speak? I suggest that you're clinging to a very short-sighted view of
> : scientific publications.
>
> And have any seminal papers of note appeared in the journals *you* listed?
> I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
The reports by Stern and Gerlach regarding their novel
experiment with silver atoms. I suspect you only know
of the "sanitized" version -- pap...something you need
only memorize as the "right" answer, never to actually
think about it :-)
I'm quite sure the editoral boards producing the likes
of Proc. U.S. Nat. Acad. Sci and Proc. Roy. Chem. Soc.
would take issue with your silly little suggestion :-)
Mark (An example of quack - antiquack noise?)
Mark Tarka
[snip...]
> Next revision is 02 January - two more figures, another table, more
> citations. I've been jawing with the folks who do quantum field
> theory, and already have my first 2003 citation. The parity Eotvos
> experiment can impact both Hermitian and non-Hermitian QFTs because
For an effective joke...it's all in the delivery :-)
> Bwa ha ha! Almost everything they know could be wrong without
> contradiction of prior observations! Anyway, I've got to write the
> paper doing crystallgraphy for physicists. Ongoing discussions have
> been very helpful - even a physicist can't be much more ignorant than
> the common level of awareness in these things.
The abstract...you introduced "Eotvos experiment"
with all the finesse of a Neandertal wielding a
legbone from last week's feast (IMHO). Is this your
first attempt with a topic outside of your chosen
field?
FWIW...for a seminar requirement I chose to blather
on about the Kalman Filter. I think I've still got
the slides, somewhere, maybe in a closet in MT. It
ain't too difficult to show that it's basically a
convoluted expression of the well-know linear least
squares approach to data analysis (LLS). LLS smooths
essentially linear data. The Kalman Filter smooths
linear and non-linear data. "QED". Did I get anywhere
trying to explain that to someone higher up on the KF
ladder than I?
You've got to convince people who've memorized the
"right" answers that you're not going to destroy
their careers or make fools of them (sort of like
getting a paranoid to buy tickets to a policeman's
ball :-) You're the only person on the WWW talking
up this experiment. Be bold, be brief, be brutal
in a most gentle and congenial way :-)
I sent a letter to an editor suggesting a new way
of thinking about ionization of organic molecules
in a laser-desorption time-of-flight mass spec
machine. He wanted to add a "?" to the title.
Sure! It was published just _after_ a major review
of ionization theories in the Matrix-Assisted Laser
Desorption-Ionization venue. That letter has not been
cited, AFAIK. Now, several years later, a big gun
in that area has a title with...a "?". The prior
theories might hold, but it's clear those guys never
considered the fellows who were blamed for suggesting
that electrons move more rapidly than nuclii.
This is the second time I feel that I've tweaked the
nose of the runt, with just letters :-) References
upon request.
[snip...]
Mark
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3E02690C...@hate.spam.net>...
> [snip...]
> > Next revision is 02 January - two more figures, another table, more
> > citations. I've been jawing with the folks who do quantum field
> > theory, and already have my first 2003 citation. The parity Eotvos
> > experiment can impact both Hermitian and non-Hermitian QFTs because
> [snip...]
>
> For an effective joke...it's all in the delivery :-)
More like in the co-authorship. I've achieved a level of "clever, but
I myself wouldn't risk it." Next stop is an academic co-author. In
physics, anything not forbidden is enforced. Acceptance will be a
delta function. What was criticized for being unbelieveable will be
criticized for being obvious and trivial.
> The abstract...you introduced "Eotvos experiment"
> with all the finesse of a Neandertal wielding a
> legbone from last week's feast (IMHO). Is this your
> first attempt with a topic outside of your chosen
> field?
When the parity Eotvos experiment is performed and gives net output,
what is my chosen field? Anybody with the temerity to propose a
*doable* experiment right in General Relativity's face had better not
go limp in the delivery.
[snip]
> You've got to convince people who've memorized the
> "right" answers that you're not going to destroy
> their careers or make fools of them (sort of like
> getting a paranoid to buy tickets to a policeman's
> ball :-) You're the only person on the WWW talking
> up this experiment. Be bold, be brief, be brutal
> in a most gentle and congenial way :-)
I eagerly anticipate simultaneous co-discovery and an external claim
for priority. Alas, Usenet is archived forever by Google - with date
stamps. Anybody who tries to duplicate my proposal with supporting
calculation cannot do it without the insight of Dr. Petitjean, the
programming ability of Mat Francey, and the blistering
interdisciplinary knowledge base of Uncle Al. Academics have narrow
gauge tunnel vision in their studies, and crappy Web skills. It would
take a committee of abilities to pull it off, guaranteeing it will not
efficiently happen.
[snip]
I'll be a winsome nuisance to refereed journals unless and until
sombody points to a technical error or gets on the bandwagon. The
next submission will be a full paper, not a Letter. I have
accumulated a weighty preponderence of support in all areas of the
endeavor - now including empirical challenge of quantum field
theories. Since affine/teleparallel theories don't care about the
Equivalence Principle, I even have a potential camp of supporters.
We'll see. For all the politics and bushwa, science still has to
know.
Mark Tarka
> In article <6b70c71c.02121...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message news:<athjau$rku$2...@news.iucc.ac.il>...
> :> In article <6b70c71c.0212...@posting.google.com>, Mark Tarka <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> : About the level of a modern journal ("tier"-wise), it would seem to me
> :> : (and I tend to be extremely ignorant at times)
>
> :> This is one of those times.
>
> : On the attack, again -- to save face?
>
> No, I'm telling you the truth: your guess as to which journals are considered
> first-tier was completely wrong.
I don't think so, Richard. The "modern" journal arose
during the time of the development of the "scientific
method" (IMHO). My analysis is flawed, to the extent
that it did not explicitly address the decline of some
first tier journals with time -- but the passage of
time can never diminish their legacy (despite feeble
attacks by people of your capacity :-)
> :> If you want one measure of which "tier" a journal is in, you can check
> :> the "impact factor," which is basically a measure of how often papers
> :> that appear in the journal are cited as references by other researchers.
> :
> : Desperate boys citing desperate boys.
>
> No, it is one indication of which journals are publishing papers that people
> care about. Some journals will publish anything sent to them -- even if
> the referees recommend that they don't. These journals tend to publish
> work that is on average of lower quality, and that is reflected in the
> lack of citations of that work. And by that no one reads those journals.
See the list, Richard...your field is practically insignificant,
save for the hope that you might come up with new catalysts
for the organic R&D efforts (you can only coast so long on Pt
compounds as cancer treatment :-)
> :> For "multidisciplinary" journals, the top tier is Angewandte Chemie
> :> and JACS; Chemistry - A European Journal and Chemical Communications (RSC)
> :> are borderline; everyone else is way behind. Most chemists tend to publish
> :> in more specialized journals, however, in order to reach the audience
> :> of interest. In physical chemistry, the first tier is probably J Phys
> :> Chem A and B, J Chem Phys, arguably Chemistry of Materials. In inorganic
> :> chemistry, Organometallics is fairly clearly the first rank journal in the
> :> field;Inorganic Chemistry and J. Chem. Soc. Dalton are borderline, although
> :> both have improved in recent years; J. Organomet. Chem. is an example of a
> :> second-rank journal; I'd say that Inorganica Chimca Acta and Polyhedron
> :> are examples of third-rank journals. You'll notice that most of my
> :> publications go to Organometallics, which is why Uncle Al deleted my reply
> :> to his comment about my publications being fodder for second-rank journals.
Study the list, Richard. Just about anyone here can
provide assistance if you ask for it :-)
> : Are you implying that Uncle Al removed your post from the Net?
> : And you're taking me to task because of my approach to the
> : ranking of journals?
>
> No, I am not implying that Uncle Al removed my post from the net -- he
> couldn't if he wanted to. What I am saying outright is that when Uncle
> Al replied to my post, he deleted the part in which I pointed out that my
> publications generally don't appear in second-rank journals, because he
> would have had to admit that he was wrong about something. Or rather, that
> he told another one of his patented lies.
Well, now Uncle Al has to admit he was wrong about something.
He said you were second tier material, clearly, you're lower
than that :-)
> As for you, I'm taking you to task because you appear not to care whether or
> not you appear to be an idiot.
Hee hee.... Get a life, buddy.
> : Does Organometallics publish reviews?
>
> Only very occasionally. But review papers are not reports of original
> research in any case.
>
> : Any seminal papers of note -- something that's moved the world, so to
> : speak? I suggest that you're clinging to a very short-sighted view of
> : scientific publications.
>
> And have any seminal papers of note appeared in the journals *you* listed?
> I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
Asked, and answered.
> -----
> 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
But they should be -- birds of a feather....
> -----
> "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
An analysis using your "impact factor" still puts you
in the third and fourth tiers. There's little hope
that you'll be able to improve on that, but you might
try to write a review (other people tend to hold reviews
in higher regard than you do). And please don't complain
that the following are not all chemistry titles -- we've
come a long way, baby, chemistry is everywhere!
_2001_Impact_Factors_for_selected_journals_ -- Mark Tarka 20DEC02
See: http://andy.iamp.tohoku.as.jp/~mio/index-eng.html
DISCLAIMER: All herein is herewith and hereby disclaimed.
Listed alphabetically
* Factors > 20
Adv Immunol 23.083
Cell 29.044
Chem Rev 21.044
Nat Genet 29.600
Nat Med 27.906
Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio 20.556
Nature 27.955
New Eng J Med 29.065
Pharmacol Rev 23.825
Physiol Rev 30.061
Science 23.329
* Factors >10 and =<20
Adv Phys Org Chem 16.200
Adv Cancer Res 11.192
Am J Human Genet 10.542
J Am Med Assoc 17.569
Lancet 13.251
Mol Cell 16.611
Nat Biotechnol 11.310
Nat Cell Biol 14.739
Nat Neurosci 15.668
Nat Rev Genet 12.333
Nat Rev Neurosci 14.353
Nat Struct Biol 10.446
Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 10.896
Plant Cell 11.081
Proc Inorg Chem 16.500
Prog Mater Sci 14.000
Rev Mod Phys 12.762
Surf Sci Rep 14.091
Trends Biochem Sci 14.329
Trends Cogn Sci 11.606
Trends Ecol Evol 10.508
Trends Genet 12.417
Trends Pharmacol Sci 11.394
Trends Plant Sci 10.360
* Factors >1 and =<10
Adv Inorg Chem 9.567
Angew Chem Int Ed 8.255
Can J Chem 1.386
Coordin Chem Rev 5.224
Crit Rev Anal Chem 1.262
Faraday Discuss 3.261
Inorg Chem 2.946
Israel J. Chem 1.984
J Am Chem Soc 6.079
J Anal Atom Spectrom 3.305
J Biol Chem 7.258
J Biol Inorg Chem 3.392
J Chem Phys 3.147
J Chem Soc Dalton 2.820
J Chem Soc Perk T 1 2.208
J Chem Soc Perk T 2 1.837
J Chemometr 1.845
J Chromatogr A 2.793
J Chromatogr B 1.911
J Comput Chem 2.766
J Electrochem Soc 2.033
J Fluorine Chem 1.063
J Magn Reson 2.332
J Mass Spectrom 2.685
J Med Chem 4.139
J Mol Catal A-Chem 1.520
J Mol Spectrosc 1.490
J Nat Prod 1.737
J Mear Infrared Spec 1.377
J Neurochem 4.834
J Org Chem 3.280
J Organomet Chem 1.803
J Phys Chem A 2.630
J Phys Chem B 3.379
J Phys Chem Ref Data 4.488
J Supercrit Fluid 1.975
Macromolecules 3.733
Mass Spectrom Rev 8.391
Nucl Phys B 6.226
Nucleic Acids Res 6.373
Opt Lett 3.195
Org Lett 3.670
Org Synth 1.293
Organometallics 3.182
Proc Roy Soc Lond A Mat 1.188
Proc Roy Soc Lond B Bio 3.192
Parisitol Today 6.134
Pediatr. Res 3.289
Philos T Roy Soc A 1.471
Philos T Roy Soc B 3.066
Phys Lett A 1.220
Phys Lett B 4.377
Phys Rev A 2.180
Phys Rev B 3.070
Phys Rev C 2.695
Phys Rev D 4.363
Phys Rev E 2.235
Phys Rev Lett 6.668
Prog Biophys Mol Bio 8.286
Prog Nucleic Acid Re 9.900
Prog Optics 6.545
Prog Polym Sci 3.738
Prog Quant Electron 5.000
Prog Surf Sci 7.960
Prostate 3.407
Protein Sci 3.472
Proteins 3.894
Psychol Bull 6.807
Psychol Med 3.119
Psychol Rev 5.756
Q Rev Biol 5.588
Quaternary Sci Rev 3.055
Rapid Comm Mass Sp 2.478 <<<<<My second letter, here :-)
Rev Comp Ch 4.136
Rev Sci Instrum 1.352
Schizophr Res 3.567
Schizophrenia Bull 4.040
Sci Am 2.050
Spectrochim Acta B 2.172
Struct Bond 5.100
Tetrahedron Lett 2.280
Top Curr Chem 5.800
Trac-Trend Anal Chem 4.260
* Factors =<1
Anal Lett 1.000 <<<<<My first letter, here :-)
Can J Phys 0.623
J Chem Thermodyn 0.956
J Chem Crystallogr 0.312
J Chem Educ 0.596
J Chem Eng Data 0.960
J Chromatogr Sci 0.987
J Indian Chem Soc 0.413
J Mol Struct 0.907
Laser Chem 0.220
Main Group Chem 0.375
Main Group Met Chem 0.633
Microchem J 0.771
Pol J Chem 0.533
Rev Inorg Chem 0.421
Spectrochim Acta A 0.838
Transit Metal Chem 0.779
This is one measure of where the "modern" journal
has evolved to. I would speculate that "pure"
science journals have been outpaced by those
dealing with pursuits likely leading to gold, e.g.
organometallics, natural products, drugs..., a
place where one will get published in the hopes of
moving someone forward to patent claims :-) Does
your institution hunger for that patentable discovery
from you, Richard?
Mark
Terry Wilder
Using the "only" side and "only" edge only
you cannot determine any connectivity > edge-fused benzene rings. How do
you "order" a Moebius band?
You choose an order for everyone of its points.
Some will be good for some things others will not,
the most convenient most often.
If I had never saw this definition of the "CHI"
and tried using an identical process say using
an orientation that maximized the least squares
would this alter how it fell under the influence of gravity.
> very definitely chiral by the rigorous definition of chirality: Not
> superposable upon its mirror image. A two-sided cylindrical band is
> converted to a Moebius band buy cutting across its width, adding an
> odd number of half-turns, then reattaching. The turn can be clockwise
> or counterclockwise and for either end. At no point is the twist
> localized.
But at every point their is also a non-zero constant torsion, that can be
related to chirality assigned, again a direction by mere whim to the
center circle.
Last I checked you could still assign an angular momentum to the object
>in fact, all local views are achiral The thing is only
If I'm not mistaken, here may be a clue, for any point set p in R^3, your
method still consists
in finding a restricted Norm At p of a product of strictly
Linear operators. What operator is causing the confusion?
If you consider further the process of adjoining p
up to the point of finding the
p* including of finding the least squares rotations and keeping those
inverted
points, along with original and apply the rules again on the Union pUp*.
Name this process M, then M(M(p)=0 , M^k+1=M^k=0 for k>1 (the center of
masses and least squares already coincide)
Very similar to the definition of a projection onto M(R)
Look it up (of zero magnitude from an orthogonal direction)
From a higher dimension to a lower again as in case of the spinning disc in
3D to 2D (like the dot product being made a minimum for the angular
quantities- that is its projection made zero).
Remember your process can be done in one rotation
and one inversion of this rotation, Sounds like two degrees of freedom, with
one free vector remaining
Also, you can ask of this "additional degree" of freedom
in what direction?. No direction!
Even if you can't answer, and say that i'm incorrect and your experiment
actually had shown an anomalous
positive result, the discovering physicists could blurt "in that
direction!... in the direction of the anamalous result!". If not the
experiment would be non-causal and then at best only statistically
resolvable, in which case you could just as easily use the achral forms.
Something with no sense of direction causing a net angular or linear
momentum?
Also then you must also explain why as proposed a whole handfull of the
stuff (Te) would not show the same anomalous effects, how one unit lattice
will deny a certain property to another. Sorry but "sieve or grain size"
arguments probably will not work here, you cannot deny EM arguments in one
case and allow them in another.
The opening paragraph of the first math reference you mentioned would beg
the seeking of alternative methods, and best leave it to things for which it
suited
Terry Wilder
> Terry Wilder wrote:
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3E00AC64...@hate.spam.net...
> > > Terry Wilder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Remember also that the mapping used in defining CHI is isometric
> > > > anti-orientation preserving (clockwise to counterclockwise) as
defined.
> > so
> > > > any "handedness argument" will not be affected.
> > >
> > > Clockwise or counterclockwise is an anthropomorphic artifact. A
> > > rigorously undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four rigorously
> > > identical substituents, all R or all S, is rigorously chiral by not
> > > containing a point, planes, or improper axes of symmetry - point group
> > > T (not Td).
> > >
> > > One enantiomer has four R substituents and one enantiomer has four S
> > > substituents. Which tetrahderal carbon is "clockwise," and by what
> > > reasoning?
> >
> > There not chiral until ordered, then by mere whim.
>
> You are horribly wrong! An undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four
> identical chiral substituents is very definitely chiral by the
> rigorous definition of chirality: Not superposable upon its mirror
Better get rid of those " identical " arguments that you were alluding to
then.
> image. There is utter absence of all improper rotation axes including
> mirror planes (S1 improper axes), a point of inversion (S2 improper
> axis), and all higher improper axes (Sn improper axes). It will also
> pass all group theory and graph theory requirements for absence of
> improper symmetries. Cn axes don't affect chirality.
>
> Your chirality heuristic is crap. It fails in a trivial obvious test
> case. This is why rigorous abstract mathematics works and
> touchy-feelie chemistry does not work.
>
> Apply your heuristic to a Moebius band (only one side and one edge) of
Using the "only" side and "only" edge only
you cannot determine any connectivity
> edge-fused benzene rings. How do
you "order" a Moebius band?
You choose an order for everyone of its points.
Some will be good for some things others will not,
the most convenient most often.
If I had never saw this definition of the "CHI"
and tried using an identical process say using
an orientation that maximized the least squares
would this alter how it fell under the influence of gravity.
> very definitely chiral by the rigorous definition of chirality: Not
> superposable upon its mirror image. A two-sided cylindrical band is
> converted to a Moebius band buy cutting across its width, adding an
> odd number of half-turns, then reattaching. The turn can be clockwise
> or counterclockwise and for either end. At no point is the twist
> localized.
But at every point their is also a non-zero constant torsion, that can be
related to chirality assigned, again a direction by mere whim to the
center circle.(but preferably orthogonal to its planeether up or down you
decide) you could still assign an angular momentum to the object,
I seen one application where a simple sine half function
for the magnitude kept everything in order, a mixed tensor in another.
Identification and parameterization
is how you keep track of these non-orientable surfaces
>in fact, all local views are achiral The thing is only
If I'm not mistaken, here may be a clue, for any point set p in R^3, your
method still consists in finding a restricted Norm At p of a product of
strictly Linear operators. What operator is causing the confusion?
If you consider further the process of adjoining p
up to the point of finding the p* including of finding the least squares
rotations and keeping those
inverted points, along with original and apply the rules again on the Union
pUp*. Name this process M, then M(M(p)=0 , M^k+1=M^k=0 for k>1 (the center
of masses and least squares already coincide)
Very similar to the definition of a projection onto M(R)
Look it up (of zero magnitude from an orthogonal direction)
From a higher dimension to a lower again as in case of the spinning disc in
3D to 2D (like the dot product being made a minimum for the angular
quantities- that is its projection made zero).
Remember your process can be done in one rotation
and one inversion of this rotation, Sounds like two degrees of freedom, with
one free vector remaining
to me
Also, you can ask of this "additional degree" of freedom
in what direction?. No direction!
Even if you can't answer, and say that I'm incorrect and your experiment
actually had shown an anomalous
positive result, the discovering physicists could blurt "in that
direction!... in the direction of the anamalous result!". If not the
experiment would be non-causal and then at best only statistically
resolvable, in which case you could just as easily use the achiral forms.
Something with no sense of direction causing a net angular or linear
momentum?
Also then you must also explain why as proposed a whole handfull of the
stuff (Te) would not show the same anomalous effects, how one unit lattice
will deny a certain property to another. Sorry but "sieve or grain size"
arguments probably will not work here, you cannot deny EM arguments in one
case and allow them in another.
The opening paragraph of the first math reference you mentioned would beg
the seeking of alternative methods, and best leave it to things for which it
coulb be suited
Mark Tarka
[snip...]
> More like in the co-authorship. I've achieved a level of "clever, but
> I myself wouldn't risk it." Next stop is an academic co-author. In
> physics, anything not forbidden is enforced. Acceptance will be a
> delta function. What was criticized for being unbelieveable will be
> criticized for being obvious and trivial.
OK...you're "launched". But remember...stonewalling is also
a delta function...the more you push your point, the louder
the screeching becomes (with the idea that you'll eventually
give up, it's gotta be an ancestral thing -- _this_ is _my_
banana, you big ape; go find your own :-).
[snip...]
> I eagerly anticipate simultaneous co-discovery and an external claim
> for priority. Alas, Usenet is archived forever by Google - with date
> stamps. Anybody who tries to duplicate my proposal with supporting
> calculation cannot do it without the insight of Dr. Petitjean, the
> programming ability of Mat Francey, and the blistering
> interdisciplinary knowledge base of Uncle Al.
The older journals have examples of simultaneous co-discovery
(e.g. Newton/Leibnitz). And outright theft -- I've heard
at least one "story" about the chemist who discovered the
vulcanization of rubber, making rubber tires a reality. There
are others...controversy over who developed the laser/maser, the
wind-shield wiper system...(anyone want to start a new thread
on this topic?).
That you've established your role is disputable to some minds,
I'm sure. This is a give-away, Uncle Al; you and your team
should get a good night's sleep, hit it again in the morning,
publish, and then let history sort things out, IMHO, of course :-)
[snip...]
Mark Tarka
Uncle Al
[snip]
> > You are horribly wrong! An undistorted tetrahedral carbon with four
> > identical chiral substituents is very definitely chiral by the
> > rigorous definition of chirality: Not superposable upon its mirror
> > image. There is utter absence of all improper rotation axes including
> > mirror planes (S1 improper axes), a point of inversion (S2 improper
> > axis), and all higher improper axes (Sn improper axes). It will also
> > pass all group theory and graph theory requirements for absence of
> > improper symmetries. Cn axes don't affect chirality.
> >
> > Your chirality heuristic is crap. It fails in a trivial obvious test
> > case. This is why rigorous abstract mathematics works and
> > touchy-feelie chemistry does not work.
> >
> > Apply your heuristic to a Moebius band (only one side and one edge) of
>
> Using the "only" side and "only" edge only
> you cannot determine any connectivity > edge-fused benzene rings. How do
> you "order" a Moebius band?
It's not not my problem. QCM gave CHI for a moebene without a hitch
(low value). All QCM examines is coordinates in 3-space.
Connectivity, "real" or otherwise, is irrelevant. That is why the
math is powerful and your heuristic is crap.
> You choose an order for everyone of its points.
> Some will be good for some things others will not,
> the most convenient most often.
>
> If I had never saw this definition of the "CHI"
> and tried using an identical process say using
> an orientation that maximized the least squares
> would this alter how it fell under the influence of gravity.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Why don't you try reading the proposal.
The parity Eotvos experiment is about contrasted parity pair test mass
self-similar lattices. So explicity and protractedly explanatory is
the Web page - exhaustively and with an empirical example using an
apple - that even an American zero-goal education teacher could get it
best 3 out of 5. Lattice components do not determine the chirality of
a self-similar lattice. Take a perfect sphere. Give it four cuts.
You now have two identical homochiral pieces, the Coupe du Roi. A
lattice solely composed of those identical homochiral pieces can
trivally be utterly achiral jsut like the parent sphere.
We know that 1:1 racmic mixtures can crystallize in chiral space
groups, because they do (sometimes). Sodium nitrite, chlorate, and
bromate are achiral ions but they crystallize in chiral space groups
Tellurium and selenium are point atoms. They each crystallize in
parity pair space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21. You heuristic has no
power by a multitude of explicit counterdemonstrations. The rigorous
math swallows all without raising a sweat,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/petit.htm
Open your eyes. You have been empirically counterdemonstrated. You
are explicitly falsified. You are wrong. A theory once falsified
cannot be salvaged; it is dead meat.
[snip bloviation]
You are wrong. There are no patches to an incorrect analysis. If you
think you know more than a bevy of professional mathematicians who
have survived peer review, you go argue with them not me.
I dont' care if you can "prove" rockets cannot fly through the vacuum
of space, or that you can square a circle using only linear and
quadratic operations. You can't, nor can anybody else.
Uncle Al
>
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3E036904...@hate.spam.net>...
> [snip...]
> The older journals have examples of simultaneous co-discovery
> (e.g. Newton/Leibnitz). And outright theft -- I've heard
> at least one "story" about the chemist who discovered the
> vulcanization of rubber, making rubber tires a reality. There
> are others...controversy over who developed the laser/maser, the
> wind-shield wiper system...(anyone want to start a new thread
> on this topic?).
>
> That you've established your role is disputable to some minds,
> I'm sure. This is a give-away, Uncle Al; you and your team
> should get a good night's sleep, hit it again in the morning,
> publish, and then let history sort things out, IMHO, of course :-)
Uncle Al says, "The only way to accurately predict the future is to
create it yourself."
One also does well to remember a tenet of Zen Judaism: "Buying retail
is not The Way."
Terry Wilder
parity "spin" there is nothing new here.
This line of reasoning also violates the entropy/information interpretation
of the world. The inversion, or rotational operators no more create
information than destroy it. Your only discouraging
legitimate work in this area.
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E04A1DC...@hate.spam.net...
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:> And have any seminal papers of note appeared in the journals *you* listed?
:> I suggest that you don't know what you are talking about.
:
: The reports by Stern and Gerlach regarding their novel
: experiment with silver atoms.
And this was published when, exactly?
: I'm quite sure the editoral boards producing the likes
: of Proc. U.S. Nat. Acad. Sci and Proc. Roy. Chem. Soc.
: would take issue with your silly little suggestion :-)
First of all, PNAS publishes relatively little chemistry of any sort, and
most chemists that I know don't even read it. Second, for your information,
there is no such journal as "Proc. Roy. Chem. Soc."