Um, Mr. No Physics Knowledge (that’s me) will help. This relates to our knowledge of the principle of equivalency. He cites some evidence from the 1950s which demonstrated a certain, ah, lefthandedness to some subatomic, ah, stuff. Then he tries to walk us through how equivilency can be analyzed through many different areas of physics which I have no understanding of at all. Notably, he seems to be advocating more research, not some nutty position. Or, I’m wrong.
UncleAl, I see from your site that you are a witty member of MENSA. You do not appear to be a physicist. You have studied some physics well, and other bits you seem to pull out of thin air.
We’ll wait for the response from PRL. I will admit that testing EP against chirality is rather novel, it may even be intellectually titillating because of the peculiar nature of 3-d geometry that makes chirality possible.
Unfortunately, there is no theoretical basis for why this should happen. Chirality is a purely an arbitrary thing. There are plenty of conventions used to define it, but there is no inherent difference between one chiral molecule and another except for the fact that they polarize light orthogonally (which is pretty much a truism as the fact that there are two polarizations for light is also a consequence of the same phenomenon that produces chiral duality). An equivalent way to ask your question, then, is to ask whether two different polarizations of light are affected by gravity differently. Due to the EP and the consequences of GR, this is the same as asking whether the polarization of the light beam changes its propagation through space. The answer to this question is, “no”. And, yes, this HAS been tested.
OK, I am not even remotely a physicist, but I WAS paying attention in 9th-grade (Euclidean) geometry, and I think the OP missed something about Euclid’s Fifth Postulate:
As stated: “Euclid’s Fifth Postulate states there is one and only one line parallel to a given line.”
Shouldn’t that be “there is one and only one line parallel to a given line through a given point”?
I have no idea if that slight qualification affects this debate at all. In fact, I’m amazed I made it to the end of this page. I’ll just be over in the corner drinking beer now. Please carry on, High-Cranium types.
Actually, you’ve confused Eudlid’s Fifth Postulate with Playfair’s Postulate. (But don’t feel too bad; a lot of people do that.)
Euclid’s Fifth states: “That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.”
Playfair’s states: “Through a point not on a given line, there can be drawn one and only one line parallel to the given line.”
chirality, has been around for some time but to apply it to EP…
I Do agree with JS on this one.
Knocking this down to laymens terms… it sure works for chemicals (I.e. The Double Helix and why it curls in one direction, and why 2 mirror image chemicals taste different) and describing Asymetry in the universe. Even the ‘Spin’ in Quantum Ph, is a chirality albeit arbitrary and changeable. Yes it has been tested and the answer is ‘Nope aint gonna work’
Wasn’t there some experiment done in the late 1950s-early 1960s where a particular type of particle in a magnetic field moved at a different rate depending on whether the particle was of the left-handed or right-handed variety? I distinctly remember one of the tape-recorded Feynmann Lectures on Physics in which he uses this particle as an example of how you could describe the concepts of “left” and “right” to an alien from another galaxy.
Yes, tracer, you remember correctly. UncleAl0 already linked to it, but here it is again! Parity is not conserved in beta decay of Cobolt 60 nuclei. You can see the violation by putting the nuclei in a magnetic field.
Admittedly, this has nothing to do with the proposal in question. I stand by my previous challenge. Unless UncleAl0 wants to provide some theoretical explanation why we have measured no difference in the propagation of polarized light, I say there’s no reason to waste research money on the experiment.
Point taken on Euclid’s Fifth Postulate vs equivalent propositions. My purpose was to demonstrate that solid theory may not be complete beyond its boundary conditions. Newton fell to Einstein similarly. Try the addition of two velocities under ordinary and relativistic conditions. An invisible term in Newton becomes prominent in Einstein.
In regard to Sleestak,
“If you want to discuss your ideas put the idea in simple terms. If you cannot state your idea in simple terms then you are probably nothing more than a faker looking to baffle people with BS.”
I’m easy. Give me a “simple term” for “space group” and I will use it. There is no other route to describing the 230 different ways of arranging a self-similar lattice in three spatial dimensions. Group theory could pull it off, but that isn’t simple. Hoo boy, is group theory ever not simple!
“He said that you are suffering from BWS (Big Word Syndrome)and that you are basically an idiot. (His words, not mine).”
He is entitled to his aesthetic opinion. Does Harry offer a technical objection? Cut a Moebius band in half lengthwise. You may not like the counterintuitive results, but there they are. Alter your intuition accodingly
In regard to JS,
“Unfortunately, there is no theoretical basis for why this should happen.”
The point of the parity Eotvos experiment is to extend theory or show it is valid in the unexamined geometric test mass case. There is no theoretical basis for composition affecting the Equivalence Principle, either. There is powerful theory invalidating any test based upon properties evolved from internal symmetries through Noether’s theorem. Such experiments have been abundantly performed. The parity Eotvos experiment is therefore better than many orthodox compositional experiments because it is not immediately invalidated on paper. We wish to know whether it is valid or invalid in fact. As the apparatus already exists, the query is wholly straightforward. SOP stick in the calculated test masses and watch.
The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry. Roll shapes down an inclined plane. All balls roll identically and all cylinders roll identically. Do solid and hollow balls or cylinders roll identically? Do balls and cylinders roll identically? Geometry matters.
“Chirality is a purely an arbitrary thing.”
Geometric parity of a set of points (three axes inverted), a subset of chirality (one axis inverted), is not arbitrary. Chirality (physics not chemistry) has strong theoretical basis,
J. Mol. Phys. 43(6) 1395 (1981)
Parity can be rigorously quantitated from ab initio geometric theory.
Petitjean, Michel, J. Math. Phys. 43(8) 4147 (2002)
Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. (Paris), serie IIc, 4(5) 331 (2001)
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
J. Math. Chem. 22(2-4) 185 (1997)
Unlike the classical argument of “no Sn axes,” Petitjean’s work meets the standards of mathematical analysis. Quantitative parity considers nuclear coordinates only (bonding and electrons overall are ignored). It is a continuous function independent of translation, scale, and size. One value exists for a given target and its inverse lattice. It detects zero and arbitrary approach toward zero. It does not require added empirical constraint.
“there is no inherent difference between one chiral molecule and another except for the fact that they polarize light orthogonally.”
I definitively show that optical chirality is meaningless as a diagnostic of geometric chirality via the f-sum rule, the Kramers-Kronig relationship, and the integral of (n-1) over an optical spectrum containing at least one absorbance (“n” being the real component of the refractive index). Theory aside, achiral materials exist that are powerful rotators of plane polarized light: Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 in non-polar achiral tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has immense optical rotatory power: 522°/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm,
J. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)
The only requirement for optical chirality (gyrotropy) in ordered media is the absence of a symmetry point of inversion. Mirror planes are tolerated. Any medium with a mirror plane of symmetry cannot be geometrically chiral though it may be optically chiral.
“An equivalent way to ask your question, then, is to ask whether two different polarizations of light are affected by gravity differently.”
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT! Massed interactions are different. See geometric vs optical chirality abve. We already know polarized light is unaffected in mostly empty spacetime (electromagnetic anisotropy) - by looking,
“Due to the EP and the consequences of GR, this is the same as asking whether the polarization of the light beam changes its propagation through space. The answer to this question is, “no”. And, yes, this HAS been tested.”
GR immediately evolves from the EP. You cannot use either or both to judge a test of the EP - circular reasoning. Using your argument there obviously was no point in pursuing
because parity ws obviously conserved in all particle interactions. Everybody knew that and good theory demanded it. Theory was incomplete by empirical demonstration. Now we have different theory.
If you have a technically valid point, I am eager to hear it. All you have said so far is
Uncle Al, you disagree with orthodox physics on a 10^(-12) technicality (true);
You propose an unremarkable experiment to test your proposal, with a calculated best effort (true);
It is not worth looking because we have always looked elsewhere (Not good enough, except maybe politically).
If you look for a needle in a haystack and find the farmer’s daughter, she is not prone to argue. Somebody has to look.
Anyone want to take a crack at that part? I have never heard of mirror matter before. I only know it relates to equivalency and is not antimatter. What would the properties of mirror matter be? I know it would be upside down and reversed, whatever that means.
Gee, thanks for clearing that up Al. Except for a few moments of clarity, I began understanding your last post at “1).”
UncleAl0, you’re beginning to sound a bit crankish. The minute you decide to compare yourself to being oppressed like Galileo, I’m opting out of this discussion.
First of all… your math is a tad screwballish. Geometric chirality is no more robust than any other type of chirality you care to name. The mathematics you present simply do not say what you say they do. They do not say that geometric chirality is somehow a more intrinsic measure of the property than single-axis chirality. On the contrary, they speak to the similarities between the two. The theory just doesn’t indicate what you say it does. I suppose your argument is that you are trying to falsify theory, but you are fundamentally ignoring the issue of equivalence (this goes beyond simply EP, it goes to the fact that observations are linked and that deduction from theory is the only way science can progress).
This is exactly the point where you begin to get crankish. You seem to think that it is circular reasoning to apply the present theoretical model to your experiment since you are trying to falsify the present theoretical model. Talk about having it backwards. Basically, to me what you’re asking is akin to the following: “Hey everbody! No one has ever done a test where they dropped different colored balls that were exactly the same mass to determine whether the color of the balls affected gravity.” Explain to me how that is any more absurd than what you are proposing. You seem to think you can divorce the geometrical nature of chirality of matter from light and mass because EP will be violated in your effect. You offer, however, no explanation or hint at understanding of what this really means. Can you offer a motivation beyond the trite 1956 experiment involving the weak force that really didn’t say much at all about the particulars of what you’re doing? Similar to the guy talking about different colored balls, it is a practical waste of resources to be concerned with a particular end of a subject field that is well studied and accounted for through optics and indeed through certain sides of accelerator physics. Do you think people have been ignoring these effects until now? 10^-12 is small, but it’s detectable. I contend YOU are the one being dismissive because you seem to think that there is silence on a topic there really is no need for there to be silence ON.
Your grasp of the particulars of optical chirality is also lacking. Just because achiral molecules rotate the polarization vectors doesn’t falsify optical chirality. It is a very real result of the fact that light beams themselves are chiral. You fail to even address this issue at all, instead your handwaving seems to me to indicate you don’t care to look at the very real concerns that parity is an inherent property of nature. It’s my falsifying way or the highway, bub. I’m sorry that this is your baby, but I’m certain I will not be the first to tell you it’s not going to fly. A chiral particle is a chiral particle whether it is a photon or a macroscopic crystal. If you think there is something that is different, then YOU are obligated to explain what it is. Your “definitive” proof “that optical chirality is meaningless as a diagnostic of geometric chirality” is off-the-wall “Gyrotropy summed over the electromagnetic spectrum vanishes” is simply not true. The 4-point reasoning you give for this on your website is either tangential or irrelevant to the basic argument that light is a chiral particle.
The following statement is what truly indicated to me you are off somewhere in left field:
What are you living in the 19th century or something? The ability to change reference frames undeniably works and your proposal doesn’t begin to address this.
In short, you aren’t the first “Einstein was wrong” trumpeter to come along and you definitely won’t be the last.
The farmer’s daughter was smoking corn silks, drinking silage, and wondering if parity pair single crystals of tellurium fall identically in an Eotvos experiment. In the meanwhile, as I said, she wasn’t prone to argue.
Uncle Al did four years at Michigan State. Those cornfed muscular girls will give you memories. Some care is to be taken on dates when the ladies go through the castration course (steers, capons, etc.). First, they suddenly all sport unusual soft leather change purses. Second, there is a standing offer of automatic “A” to anyone who successfully uses their teeth in the traditional manner (though Scots and Laplanders have an unfair advantage). You don’t want a farm girl with that newly accredited skill nuzzling your marriage tackle, especially if she’s drunk or on acid (with only the null set remaining as an alternative).
This is not to imply tellurium is not possessed of its own memorable charms,
I meant to say “trite appeal to the 1956 experiment…” Parity violation was profound but has no bearing on what UncleAl0 is doing. (Neither does, for that matter, his whole forray into various definitions of gravity. In fact, there’s very little of substance in his paper other than, “let’s see if right handed and left handed massive objects that are otherwise identical fall at the same rate.”)
I have to agree with JS Princeton. The OP seems to misunderstand how science actually works. First, he assumes that, because there are no published papers, that no experiment ever done would have revealed this effect, were it to exist. This isn’t necessarily so. Unfortunately, negative results, especially if they are completely expected, very seldom get published. I just can’t see Nature publishing the astounding conclusion that JS’s coloured ball experiment showed no unexpected results whatsoever.
Second, as JS also pointed out, scientists don’t usually go around testing random hypotheses. It would be nice if there were sufficient resources (and scientists) to do so, but there isn’t. Instead, most experiments are conducted to test some theory or other. If there were some theory predicting say, a slight overabundance of left-handed gravitons and that left-handed gravitons coupled only with right-handed objects (or whatever) there’d be a reason to do an experiment like that proposed by the OP. Doing random experiments on the off chance it might contradict a theory isn’t particularly efficient, especially when there are so many experiments to do that will yield valuable results for sure.
[nitpick]
I believe it’s more correct to speak of helicity rather than chirality for zero-mass particles. Even though, for zero mass particles, I believe the concepts are equivalent.
[/nitpick]
“I have to agree with JS Princeton. The OP seems to misunderstand how science actually works. First, he assumes that, because there are no published papers, that no experiment ever done would have revealed this effect, were it to exist.
This isn’t necessarily so. Unfortunately, negative results, especially if they are completely expected, very seldom get published.”
I’ve talked with both Eric Adelberger and Riley Newman.
Get with the ticket, guys. I’ve got letters hanging off the end of my name. I can read the literature overtly and between the lines.
You cannot discredit the parity Eotvos experiment as an inquiry per se without equally discrediting all Eotvos experiments. You are obviously and massively in error here. 400+ years of physics says your arguments have no basis in fact.
If you question the use of calculated geometric parity as the test mass variable per se, you need a basis of objection that doesn’t equally apply to composition variables. Geometric parity arises from the same source as any other physical variable, from mathematical symmetry through Noether’s theorem,
A physical property is a physical property. You cannot protest one of them without protesting all of them. Geometric parity is no worse than lepton vs. baryon number or gravitational self-energy. It is certainly better than properties derived rom external variables (e.g., lepton and baryon numbers) since by definition these cannot affect translation and rotation.
One can trivially calculate what fraction of rest mass a property occupies. Geometric parity is the distribution of nuclei in 3-space. It at least 99% of rest mass in well-chosen cases. The next larger fractional property is nuclear binding energy. It is 0.76% of He rest mass - and that is big spike on the binding energy curve.
Test mass geometry is a natural and obvious test of spacetime geometry. Mass appears in neither General Relativity nor in the Standard Model. Only geometry is to be found in the maths. Mass is inserted empirically (e.g., the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model imparts mass). Physics historically overlooked test mass geometric parity for at least two reasons:
Gravitational physics had no language to describe a macroscopic self-similar lattice, nor did it care - the Equivalence Principle and the rest of physics said microscopic configuration didn’t matter. Therefore, why look? Theory said parity conservation was valid. Why look?
Physics had no math to quantitate the parity divergence of a lattice and its parity inversion.
(1) is the domain of crystallography. Somebody had better look before assuming the “truth,” as Newton’s sumation of two velocities has a hidden infinitesimal term - which need not be small. (2) was solved around 1998 by mathematician Michel Petitijean who rigorously derived a normalized continuous measure CHI to quantitate parity divergence of a discrete lattice or continuous function, and wrote software (QCM) to calculate CHI.
As to whether the parity Eotvos experiment will work or not… Nothing has worked at all in 400+ years. The bar defining success is not set very high.
Regarding JS Princeton,
“First of all… your math is a tad screwballish. Geometric chirality is no more robust than any other type of chirality you care to name. The mathematics you present simply do not say what you say they do. They do not say that geometric chirality is somehow a more intrinsic measure of the property than single-axis chirality.”
Petitjean will return from vacation the first week in September. If you have found a flaw in his work he is eager to hear of it. When I built “that diabolical molecule” [6.6]chiralane it busted the chops of QCM. It turns out there was a subtle error in the graph analysis (though the final answer, depending only upon nuclear coordinates in 3-space, was unaffected). Revised QCM is much faster. We found ways of exploiting the form of its analysis for vastly greater speed still. No matter what we do, the CHI of a given 3-D array remains the same to six decimal places, of course. Input coordinates do not change and geometry only depends upon position.
Calculation of CHI for 5700 atoms requires about 50 CPU-hours in an RS6000/Power3 mainframe.
You are trivially demonstrated wrong about gyrotropy vs geometric properties. Optical chirality exists independent of geometric chirality. Silver thiogallate is wholly achiral - achiral space group I-42d (#122) - and it exhibits massive optical rotation of 522 degrees/millimeter along [100] at 497.4 nm. Read that again. An achiral crystal has massive optical rotation.
Alpha-quartz’ optical rotation along its crystallographic c-axis is only 31.3 degrees/mm at 497.4 nm. Alpha-quartz is in parity pair space groups P3(1)21/P3(2)21. However, at 56.16 degrees from crystallographic [0001] there is no optical rotation at all at any wavelength. Optical chirality is meaningless in the parity Eotvos experiment.
Chirality is not the same as parity. Parity is a restricted subset of chirality.
Electromagnetic chirality is not the same as geometric parity. You’d save us both a world of pain if you would bother to read this stuff instead of shooting from the hip with unfounded pet misconceptions. Your lecturers were wrong.
“(this goes beyond simply EP, it goes to the fact that observations are linked and that deduction from theory is the only way science can progress).”
NO! That is an ATROCIOUS statement! Theory does NOT supercede observation. Theory may be wrong. Observation may require new theory to afford explanation (e.g., pulsars, the fall of parity conservation, the Woodward-Hoffmann rules). Purely deductive science is crap - Aristotle and insects having four legs. Galileo gave the One True Church a massive wedgie simply by observing Jupiter’s four moons through his crude telescope. There were visible bodies that did not circle the Earth as center. The Church resolved the issue by refusing to look. (Does that sound familiar?)
““Hey everbody! No one has ever done a test where they dropped different colored balls that were exactly the same mass to determine whether the color of the balls affected gravity.” Explain to me how that is any more absurd than what you are proposing.”
Optical phenomena are demonstrated irrelvant to the parity Eotvos experiment. Test mass geometric parity is defined by nuclear coordinates - discrete discontinuous mass distribution - in three-space. Ge it though your head: Chiroptical phenomena in ordered media exist independent of chirality.
Perceived color (there are at least 15 independent mechanisms for generating color) is not a fundamental physical property emerging from an intrinsic mathematical symmetry through Noether’s theorem.
Try an argument based on a technical foundation. I’m a professional scientist. I cannot be bullied.
“You seem to think you can divorce the geometrical nature of chirality of matter from light and mass because EP will be violated in your effect. You offer, however, no explanation or hint at understanding of what this really means.”
I have already punctiliously separated optical from geometric chirality via practical demonstration (above) and theory (f-sum rule, Kramers-Kronig relationship, integration of (n-1) across the spectrum,
Mol. Phys. 43 1385 (1981)
Chem. Phys. Lett. 45 477 (1977)
Eyring H, Walter J, and Kimball GE, Quantum Chemistry (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1944;1963)
Rev. Mod. Phys. 7 432 (1937)
I’ll repeat it again. There exist unremarkable achiral materials that manifest huge rotation of plane-polarized light. There exist chiral materials that do not rotate plane-polarized light through a given crystal direction at any wavelength. EVERY optical rotator without exception has at least one frequency close to a maximum rotation where it has ZERO optical rotation. Look at an ORD spectrum.
Spacetime is a purely geometric construct. It should be tested with quantitative test mass geometry at least once.
General relativity models CONTINUOUS spacetime past conformal symmetry (independence of scale) to symmetry under all smooth coordinate transformations (general covariance). Test mass parity is the only EP-untested property arising from a DISCRETE external symmetry.
Confronting a continuous function with a discontinuous input is exceedingly naughty. Try doing calculus on a discontinuous function. Things happen if you attempt to span a discontinuity or diddle at a pathological point (e.g, is a non-existent point a maximum or minimum? Try taking the first and second derivatives).
“Your grasp of the particulars of optical chirality is also lacking. Just because achiral molecules rotate the polarization vectors doesn’t falsify optical chirality.”
You’d better read that again. If all swans are white in theory and I find a black swan in Australia, all swans aren’t white and the swan theory is falsified. If I find a pair of test masses that do not fall identically, does the Equivalence Principle still hold? Nope. Anything based upon the EP is then falsified. All it requires is a single repeatable counterexample.
“A chiral particle is a chiral particle whether it is a photon or a macroscopic crystal.”
Trivially disproven. Relativistic electrons are chiral, non-relativistic electrons are achiral. Chirality of particle with spin is an axial vector. Apply the right-hand rule at both poles. If you can get both in front of and behind the thing you get both chiralities, or a sum of zero. All emitted beta rays are empirically left-handed (from parity violation in weak interactions). As their energy drops they lose optical chirality.
Bonner et al. made a big stink about chiral beta decay sourcing biological chirality. The numbers don’t hold even on paper. The experiments were done - degradation of racemic amino acids by energetic beta decay or circularly polarized electrons. High energies cause very small fractional percentage optical enrichment in the surviving amino acid mixture. As the radiation’s energy is lowered the enantiomeric excess rapidly goes to zero.
“In short, you aren’t the first “Einstein was wrong” trumpeter to come along and you definitely won’t be the last.”
I didn’t say that and I never said that, and you know that. I said that the Equivalence Principle has never been tested against quantitative geometric test mass parity. I offer calculated parity divergence and propose an orthodox experiment in existing qualified apparatus designed for that purpose with unambiguous output. If there is a non-null output then metric theories of gravitation fall to being heuristics and affine theories of gravitation are better founded. Both Euclid and Newton were absorbed into more inclusive supersets of their respective discplines. There is noting sacred about those supersets in turn.
Why are you afraid to look? Afer 400+ years of abject failures, one more won’t hurt.
A fellow walking at night drops a Morgan silver dollar from his pocket. A good manager will search at the street corner where there is a bright street light. A good scientist will search in the dark middle of the block where the guy dropped his coin.
The proper test of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry. Somebody should look.
You have failed, UncleAl0 to do anything more than propose that your meandering through the world of mirror images is arbritrarily a mind game. You are likely after some stake in the gold that is grand unification. Why not? Every other person seems to be that way. However, instead of using education that corresponds to the letters trailing off the end of your name to actually contributing to the community, you are insisting on playing games with something akin to gyroscopic levitation.
Falsification is a bit more robust than black swans, as you very well know. You persist in making no case for why polarized light fails your test. Furthermore, you criticize appeal to theory (that is the expected result from GR and EP) when it suits you, but nonchalantly postulate that two separate applications of Noether’s Theorem are somehow connected, as though you had discovered some symmetry relationship not before observed. Of course, this is precisely what your experiment is setting out to do. In short, your reasoning is MORE circular, than the appeal to current gravitational models. Since there are no other observations to back you up. Science isn’t falsified in a vacuum as you well know. You seem to think you are ingenious for being the first person to come up with this idea, and then slam fingers into your ears when someone suggests that your fundamental premise is flawed. Asking for people to point out “technical flaws” is a come-on. You want us to point out problems in your analysis which I think is not warranted to be made in the first place.
Furthermore, your self-promoting is getting rather annoying. I’m not the person you need to convince. PRL is a good start, but as I said, we’ll wait and see.
“Falsification is a bit more robust than black swans, as you very well know. You persist in making no case for why polarized light fails your test.”
Falsification is a single repeatable counterexample. Period. Nothing more is necessary. Ten thousand supporting examples would make no difference at all. Classical physics’ prediction of Mercury’s perihelion shift over time vs. observation is off by a factor of two. Classical physics is not a valid theory outside its postulates of c=infinity, h=zero, G=G.
Optical chirality bears no relationship to geometric chirality. I’ve demonstrated this in theory (f-sum rule, Kramers-Kronig relationship, integration of (n-1) across the optical spectrum.) I’ve demonstrated this in fact - geometrically achiral silver thiogallate is a powerful optical rotator; geometrically chiral alpha-quartz exhibits no optical chirality at any wavelength when viewed 56.16 degrees from crystallographic [0001].
You have offered nothing in counterpoint except whining - no theory, no literature citations, no counterexamples. Now I’m going to empirically rub your face in it some more.
The sense of optical rotation of plane-polarized light in single crystal tellurium along its crystallographic c-axis is in the same sense as its geometric helicity. The sense of optical rotation of plane-polarized light in single crystal cinnabar along its crystallographic c-axis is in the opposite sense to its helicity. The observed optical rotation can only be rationalized from electron polarizability, which is irrelevant in the parity Eotvos experiment.
P. Auvray Bull. Sco. Fr. Mineral. Crystallogr. 99 373-378 (1976)
The sense of optical rotation of plane-polarized light in single crystal sodium chlorate along its crystallographic c-axis is in the same sense as its helicity. The sense of optical rotation of plane-polarized light in single crystal sodium bromate along its crystallographic c-axis is in the opposite sense to its helicity. The crystals are isomorphous - same space group, chiral P2(1)3); identical unit cell angles and nearly identical unit cell dimensions; identical unique atom fractional coordinates within experimental error. Optical chirality says nothing about geometric chirality,
AM Glazer, K Stadnicka, “On the Origin of Optical Activity in Crystal Structures,” J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108-122 (1986)
Epitaxial growth of sodium chlorate onto a crystal of sodium bromate gives a seamless continuation of crystal structure with perfect reversal of optical rotation. This is not a new observation,
H. Marbach, Ann. Phys. Chem. 99 451-466 (1856)
“1856” is not a typographic error. Optical chirality exists independent of geomeric chirality. A list of atom coordinates as such does NOT allow one to predict the direction or magnitude of optical rotation, or even if there is optical rotation. One can find achiral crystals that are powerful optical rotators. One can find chiral crystals that have zero optical rotation at a given wavelength or zero rotation at all wavelengths at one or more crystallographic orientations.
You are wrong to equate optical and geometric chirality. You are terrifcally wrong to equate optical and geometric chirality. Physical reality doesn’t care about your personal discomfiture.
The parity Eotvos experiment is a contrast of the interaction of parity pair test masses in crossed inertial and gravitational accelerations as their phase angle rotates through 360 degrees. Electronic interactions are irrelevant. Gravitation addresses mass. Mass resides in atomic nuclei. (Electron mass)/(nuclear mass) in Te-130 is 0.221% or one in 4525. Electron mass is piddling small.
(atomic mass - nuclear mass)/(nuclear mass) for Te-130
(121.00782776 GeV - 120.98107910 GeV)/(120.98107910 GeV)
0.2210155% http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/massd.html
(one electron/proton, and then remember the neutrons)
“Science isn’t falsified in a vacuum as you well know.”
But it is! All modern Equivalence Princple tests are conducted in the hardest vacuums achievable! They can detect individual atoms hitting the test masses (macroscopic Brownian motion).
Whoever taught you about chiroptical methods vs. orginating geometry in the solid state had a very shallow understanding of the subject. Read
J Jerphagnon, DS Chemia, “Optical Activity of Crystals,” J. Chem. Phys. 65 1522-1529 (1976)
“You seem to think you are ingenious for being the first person to come up with this idea, and then slam fingers into your ears when someone suggests that your fundamental premise is flawed.”
Show a flaw with technical validation to make it stick. Stop whining.
“Exactly at the center of the side of the moon not facing the Earth there is buried at a depth of fourteen meters a cherry red 1988 Corvette.” There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the statement. It is easily proven or disproven in principle and certainly testable in fact. It’s still reprehensible maunder. It isn’t science.
If you cannot differentiate between the cherry red Corvette and a calculated geometric challenge to the Equivalence Principle, more’s the pity. Falsification is not saying “nyah, nyah.” Falsification is providing self-consistent or empirical counterexample.
I’ve got some 250 literature citations in incremental support of every aspect of development and statement of my proposal. I have supporting ab initio calculations. Provide a substantive counterargument - math, theory, or refereed citation.
If the parity Eotvos example does not null, no preceding observation from particle physics to cosmology is affected. The maxmum expected effect is one part in a trillion deviation in one very special case. For all that, the Equivalence Principle will have been falsified and all metric theories of gravitation will be falsified in turn. Because parity is an emergent phenomenon, any physics that postulates point (Planck dimension) interactions will be demonstrated wrong by a volume factor of 10^77 - all of physics from plebeian mechanics to the most esoteric quantum mechanics. What we have now will be demoted to being a useful heuristic. More complete theory will evolve to encompass observation.