Regarding Henry,
Was not one of Harrison Ford’s better performances.
Okay, UncleAl0, now we’ve got something to talk about, and it only took two painful pages of posts to do it.
I am dubious about the connection you wish to make between the spin and gravitational quadrapole moments, though at least now you’re addressing the issues I brought up without going into your quoting litany from your website. What, praytell, is your rationale for connecting the spin-angular momentum eigenstates with gravitational waves (which, by the by, have yet to be discovered, though they are predicted by GR). You seem to be putting the horse before the cart in jumping to a conclusion about grand unification I do not think is warranted. But perhaps you’d like to supply some evidence? Furthermore, it seems to me that a state of polarized photons can be made tensorial in whatever weird coupling you have in mind.
**
You realize, of course, that you are babbling. None of this has anything remotely to do with the point I made. Who cares about the helicity of a vector field? We’re talking about photons.
As far as I know, helicity and chirality are the same thing for photons. Is there something you know that I don’t?
Physics cannot be explained in common language? I thought most physicists went by the saying “If you cannot explain your theory in terms that a barmaid would understand, you don’t really have a theory.”
BlinkingDuck, you can explain the basic premise with analogies, but explaining exactly how and why something works as it works must be done with tech talk(mathematical formulas, scientific words etc).
Of course I have no idea about all this or I would’ve posted.
But I think I understand the basics based on ethics posts.
As far as I can tell from looking it up x amount of times in x sources, something chiral is simply something with odd parity. If you perform a parity transformation of the wavefunction and it changes sign, it has odd parity. With other words it has “handedness”. Chier = hand. Chirality = handedness. Which means it has a “left” and “right” version. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me. No need to be cocky about it. Below is a sample of the term chirality used in a scientific context:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:d9NjJo0YzGUC:www.onid.orst.edu/~pohjanpp/manuscript.ps+“chirality”+“odd+parity”&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
[quote]
Optical chirality is not coupled to geometric structure.
[/quote[
Although optical isomerism seems to not be equated with structural isomerism, I could find not evidence that optical chirality is not “coupled with geometric structure”. According to the sources I could find, optical stereoisomers arise specifically from the physical “mirror imaging”, giving them either a right or left “handedness”.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/isomerism/optical.html
http://physics.mtsu.edu/~phys232/Lectures/L1-L5/L4/Other_Effects/other_effects.html
Even if we’re talking about chirality in quantum states, I don’t understand what you would mean by “not coupled with geometric structure”. What is it you do when you invert an eigenvalue? Either I don’t understand what you mean by “geometric structure” or I have not found the right materials. Or, perhaps, you are just plane wrong.
Again, you’re claiming that, for example, the term quanta is somehow endemically associated with something in nature. This is not the case. A semiotic sign is nothing more than a convention, a linguistic construct. Through a social agreement we choose with what observable phenomena to associate specific signs (which are in fact in-and-of-themselves observable phenomena). Scientific jargon is nothing more than a language. Quanta could just as well be called epoxyfloxies. Of course, changing the semiotic sign doesn’t alter the intentionality of said term. The observed phenomenon which the sign represents remains the same. But if we don’t know the intentionality of your chosen words, how can we judge what you’re saying? It doesn’t matter whether you are or aren’t following a standardized nomenclature within physics. If we don’t understand each other, we don’t understand each other. There are a lot of scientific fields, therefore a lot of scientific terminology. Just in the field of logic itself you have to make a consorted effort to keep up with the various linguistic jargons of the various schools and disciplines.
UncleAL0, you claim that silver thiolagatte is achiral but is a “powerful rotator of plane polarized light”. I could find no information about the chirality of silver thiolagatte. So all I have to go by is your word. As far as I can tell silver thiolagatte is used in nonlinear optics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A773174). But what it has to do with the discussion of chirality and Equivalence Principal I have been unable to determine.
I also searched for any material by a “Michel Petitjean” regarding parity. Nothing.
If anyone is interested in what the Eotvos Experiment was, I suggest reading this interesting account:
http://www.kfki.hu/~tudtor/eotvos1/onehund.html
As far as I can tell from looking it up x amount of times in x sources, something chiral is simply something with odd parity. If you perform a parity transformation of the wavefunction and it changes sign, it has odd parity. With other words it has “handedness”. Chier = hand. Chirality = handedness. Which means it has a “left” and “right” version. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me. No need to be cocky about it. Below is a sample of the term chirality used in a scientific context:
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:d9NjJo0YzGUC:www.onid.orst.edu/~pohjanpp/manuscript.ps+“chirality”+“odd+parity”&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
[quote]
Optical chirality is not coupled to geometric structure.
[/quote[
Although optical isomerism seems to not be equated with structural isomerism, I could find not evidence that optical chirality is not “coupled with geometric structure”. According to the sources I could find, optical stereoisomers arise specifically from the physical “mirror imaging”, giving them either a right or left “handedness”.
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/basicorg/isomerism/optical.html
http://physics.mtsu.edu/~phys232/Lectures/L1-L5/L4/Other_Effects/other_effects.html
Even if we’re talking about chirality in quantum states, I don’t understand what you would mean by “not coupled with geometric structure”. What is it you do when you invert an eigenvalue? Either I don’t understand what you mean by “geometric structure” or I have not found the right materials. Or, perhaps, you are just plane wrong.
Again, you’re claiming that, for example, the term quanta is somehow endemically associated with something in nature. This is not the case. A semiotic sign is nothing more than a convention, a linguistic construct. Through a social agreement we choose with what observable phenomena to associate specific signs (which are in fact in-and-of-themselves observable phenomena). Scientific jargon is nothing more than a language. Quanta could just as well be called epoxyfloxies. Of course, changing the semiotic sign doesn’t alter the intentionality of said term. The observed phenomenon which the sign represents remains the same. But if we don’t know the intentionality of your chosen words, how can we judge what you’re saying? It doesn’t matter whether you are or aren’t following a standardized nomenclature within physics. If we don’t understand each other, we don’t understand each other. There are a lot of scientific fields, therefore a lot of scientific terminology. Just in the field of logic itself you have to make a consorted effort to keep up with the various linguistic jargons of the various schools and disciplines.
UncleAL0, you claim that silver thiolagatte is achiral but is a “powerful rotator of plane polarized light”. I could find no information about the chirality of silver thiolagatte. So all I have to go by is your word. As far as I can tell silver thiolagatte is used in nonlinear optics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A773174). But what it has to do with the discussion of chirality and Equivalence Principal I have been unable to determine.
I also searched for any material by a “Michel Petitjean” regarding parity. Nothing.
If anyone is interested in what the Eotvos Experiment was, I suggest reading this interesting account:
http://www.kfki.hu/~tudtor/eotvos1/onehund.html
Those quotes got awfully mixed up. I hope it’s clear what was a quote and what wasn’t. Plus I double posted. Sheesh! Sorry about that…
[quote]
by coax:
BlinkingDuck, you can explain the basic premise with analogies, but explaining exactly how and why something works as it works must be done with tech talk(mathematical formulas, scientific words etc).
[\quote]
Exactly. The OP needs to do this. Pretend I’m a barmaid. No groping though.
Regarding JS Princeton,
Try doing a Faraday rotation in vacuum. Photons are irrelevant.
“I am dubious about the connection you wish to make between the spin and gravitational quadrapole moments.”
“Quadrupole.”
The connection is no connection at all stated, claimed or implied. It is your invention. Spin test masses (ferrimagnets in which magnetic field from umpaired electron spin is cancelled by other electrons’ orbital angular momentum to give zero net field despite a mole of unpaired spins/test mass) are Eotvos experiment nulls. The parity Eotvos experiment is strictly configurational, with test mass parity divergence calculated from nuclear coordinates in 3-space with Petitjean’s software.
As I posted, electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena have no overlap (despite Kaluza-Kelin treatments). Again and again, and again… massless particles are not a test of gravitational parity divergence. Any single particle is only chiral by virtue of possessing spin and being relativistic, which si irrelevant to my proposal. Again and again, and again… The parity Eotvos experiment opposes calculated extreme parity pair single crystal test masses in crossed inertial and gravitational acceleration fields. Again and again, and again… The equipment exists, it doesn’t care what is inserted. Insert parity pair test masses instead of composition test masses and look SOP.
Gravitation acts on mass. To perform a physical measurement on massless (photons) or low mass (electron) particles is unproductive. An electron has a mass of 0.000511 GeV. Te-130 has a nuclear mass of 120.98107910 GeV. If you are looking for a part-per-trillion relative, would you look at an electron or a nucleus that masses 237,000 times more? If you take a mole of each the ratio doesn’t change. Alas, if you want a mole of electrons nuclei come along for the ride as inert filler. The parity Eotvos experiment exploits 99+% of the rest mass of its test masses. This is clever; unlike
Phys. Rev D 52(10), 5417 (1995)
The parity Eotvos experiment is trivial to execute in existing apparatus. It examines the last unexamined physical variable evolved from a spacetime symmetry. Physics missed a beat. Somebody should look at the last remaining possiblity. Do you have a problem with that? If so, state it.
“Furthermore, it seems to me that a state of polarized photons can be made tensorial in whatever weird coupling you have in mind.”
Fine. You write a proposal to PRL. I have only distaste and disdain for your straw men. You insert your own fluff then huff at it. My case is unambiguous: Parity is a symmetry of spacetime. Noether’s theorem demands there exist a physical property coupled to it. Is there any physical variable that violates the Equivalence Principle? Test mass parity is the single omission in 400+ years if inquiry. Geometric parity now can be calculated. Single crystal tellurium is the optimum case. Somebody should look.
Regarding Ethic,
Parity referring to gerade or ungerade wavefunctions is not geometric parity of a 3-D spatial array of points. In the former case it refers to the symmetry of phase reversal. In the latter case it is a normalized calculated number measuring the geometric divergence of an array of points and its parity inversion (all three coordinates of every point each reversed in sign) at best overlap.
I could find not evidence that optical chirality is not “coupled with geometric structure”.
Again and again, and again… Silver thiogallate is optically chiral but not geometrically chiral. Is that an example? Optical chirality and geometric chirality are in the same sense in tellurium, in the opposite sense in cinnabar. Is that an example? Sodium chlorate and sodium bromate have identical crystal structures (isomorphous); they have opposite optical chiralities for the same geometric chiralities. Is that an example? I’m not posting the literature references again.
“I also searched for any material by a “Michel Petitjean” regarding parity. Nothing”
Google
petitjean chirality 46 hits
petitjean parity calculated 62 hits
Search better.
I put down a statement with literature citation, I get back the same ignorant spew - now pissy because I didn’t agree. I don’t agree. Charity is for the social sciences. If a mercy hump engineer designed your car you will die. Science is rigorous and punctilious. There are only so many words and alphabets to go around. There is overlap. Get your jargon straight and pertinent.
UncleAL0, you claim that silver thiolagatte is achiral but is a “powerful rotator of plane polarized light”. I could find no information about the chirality of silver thiolagatte. So all I have to go by is your word. As far as I can tell silver thiolagatte is used in nonlinear optics (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A773174). But what it has to do with the discussion of chirality and Equivalence Principal I have been unable to determine. "
Again and again, and again… Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with 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)
Silver thiogallate is GEOMETRICALLY ACHIRAL. ACHIRAL ACHIRAL ACHIRAL. Its crystal structure has mirror planes of symmetry. Silver thiogallate is INTENSELY OPTICALLY CHIRAL. It has a monstrously large optical rotation of plane-polarized light when measured in the lab. Now, why don’t you tell us what cognitive dysfunction prevents you from comprehending the problem with an ACHIRAL substance displaying optical CHIRALITY?
JS Princeton invented the straw man that optical chirality was tied to geometric chirality. This is trivially disproven in theory and by empirical demonstration. Optical chirality is not diagnostic of geometric chirality - not existence, magnitude, or expected sign. Optical chirality is irrelevant to the parity Eotvos experiment.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
Outlines the historical, theoretical, and practical challenges to the Equivalence Principle in exhaustive nitpicking detail. Every statement is backed by illustrative and usually scholarly examples in clickable footnotes. Is there some reason people are starving when confronted with an overflowing groaning board?
There was once a stable boy in charge of two horses who was terribly confused. He could never bring out the correct horse for his master and was whipped for his incompetence. He thought and thought and thought. Then he had a brilliant idea! One horse was two hands taller than the other horse! He never got the brown one confused with the white one ever again.
Sigh. BTW, does anybody else find this server to incredibly slow and the login procedure buggy?
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Aright, I’m not being picky here. I’m just trying to educate myself so I can make a reasonable assesment of your claims. I did a search for Petitjean using the words “petitjean”, “parity” and “calculated”. I got 66 results. Most of them refered to a C. Petitijean of Switzerland. Same person?
Using the words “petitjean” and “chirality”, I eventually (after browing several of your posts to various other discussion groups and having to drill down aditional layers of links), I found this:
http://www.artenum.org/jddl/Slides/ASV.html
Is this the right person? If this is correct, no need to go off on fifty-five tangents. A yes or no will do. And maybe you have additional links to material of his so that I can stop this investigative process.
UncleAl0, again you are getting to be insulting. Again, I you have failed to explain yourself. First you say,
and subsequently…
Do you see the apparent contradiction? Either you are using theoretical considerations for your designs or your not. You accuse me of setting up a straw man argument while all you do is present the evidence which seems to satisfy your arguments whenever it pleases you and then merrily dismiss them as contrived when it pleases you.
So let me see if I understand you. In effect, you are asking me to believe that your interpretation of coupling of this particular symmetry to EP, if seen must be…
a) only observable macroscopically because of the low signal
b) only observable (for mysterious reasons you have yet to present) for objects with non-zero restmass
c) only observable for geometrically chiral objects
Furthermore, your geometrical chirality is something that is endemic to space while optical chirality (or indeed the parity of physical arrangements of the magnetic and electric vacuum wave solutions from Maxwell’s Equations) are trivially discounted due to four considerations in your paper that seem only to prove that light is a difficult thing to measure.
Moreover, your arguments include three which seem to me to be ultimately straw men of the worst kind:
- People have been wrong in the past.
- There are a lot of physical models that have been proposed and right now there is no GUT.
- There’s no need to explain why this signal should be present as falsification occurs only through counterexample.
I should hope you are aware, too, that dull photonic systems with coupled spins, ESPECIALLY from decay reactions, are extremely common. I leave it to the reader to wade through the salient literature.
If what you propose is correct, there is some fundamental relationship between the mirror geometry of spacetime and the manner in which energy (or matter, if you feel that we are violating four vector momentum) interacts with the gravitational field. Rightly so, you state that it is not metric in nature then (lest we forget the principle of least action). But then there is no reason at all to appeal to conserations of gravity waves for dismissing electromagnetic parity coupling as this is a resultant of a metric treatment of GR.
Apologies for all the typos in my previous post. My auto_correct/auto_fill pipe from my text reader was turned off.
Michel Petitjean,
petitjean@itodys.jussieu.fr
ITODYS (CNRS, UMR 7086)
Phone: +33 (0)1 44 27 48 57
FAX : +33 (0)1 44 27 68 14
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)
Molecular modeling and fundamental geometry. Much of this stuff is done by chemists for chemists. One generally obtains facile heuristics. Petitjean is a mathematician. His work is rigorous but not necessarily user friendly.
The parity Eotvos experiment requires rigorous ab initio derivation or physicists will justifiably object. We have had great success in finding computational efficiency through a chemist, a mathematician, and a programmer collectively sweating blood for a year. QCM could originally calculate CHI for up to 40 points in 3-D. We can currently do 6000 points in acceptable CPU time. As the number of calculations rises factorially with the number of points, this is not too shabby.
Regarding JS Princeton,
Spin is irrelevant to the parity Eotvos experiment. In fact, it is counter-productive since a spinning anything, particle to macroscopic mass, will explicitly violate the Equivalence Principle by the book,
Gravitoelectromagnetism
Class. Quantum Grav. 17 4125-4157 (2000)
The maximum expected effect is 10^(-29) relative for spinning nuclei as opposed to ~10(-12) for parity pair test masses. The noise limit of current Eotvos balances is 10^(-13) relative. Electrons’ mass at least 3700 times less than their associated nuclei (except for protium with a ratio of 1800), and photons with more than 511 KeV/c^2 equivalent mass do not constitute testable mass - name a container.
In low Earth orbit a perfectly optimized gravitomagnetic effect would lead to a test mass counterorbit difference of 0.1 mm radial from the center of mass of the Earth.
PARTICLE SPIN IS IRRELEVENT. OPTICAL CHIRALITY IS IRRELEVANT. VACUUM ROTATION OF PLANE-POLARIZED LIGHT IS IRRELEVANT. If you think otherwise, provide a supporting literature citation.
http://www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/analysis.html
is thoroughly discredited by
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/
“a) only observable macroscopically because of the low signal”
What does that mean? Serious EP testing started with Galileo in 1590 and was good to 10^(-2) relative. Current detection limits are ~10^(-13) relative for contrasted composition test masses. Adelberger’s graphed data is dead flat amidst the noise, torsional displacement vs. inertial/gravitational phase angle.
“b) only observable (for mysterious reasons you have yet to present) for objects with non-zero restmass”
What mystery? One physical property has never been examined for EP violation. All other variables null. How many choices remain? (Hint: The answer is an integer between 0 and 2 exclusive.)
Gravitation acts on mass in space. Do you have a problem with that? Differential effect is the experiment. It would be stupid to favor massless particles over massive nuclei, d=2.3x10^14 g/cm^3. A point particle is not equivalent to a Te-130 nucleus of radius 6.08 fermis or a crystal unit cell on the scale of angstroms.
Gravitation diddles stuff/volume, as in Schwarzschild radius. The parity Eotvos experiment contrasts stuff/volume possessing contrasted incommensurable geometry. How do you measure the mass equivalent/volume for photons, bottle them? Ha.
“c) only observable for geometrically chiral objects”
NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. Learn the difference between chirality and parity. Chirality reflection does not change a space group. Parity inversion changes a space group,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif
The parity Eotvos experiment observes calculated maximally parity divergent test masses. Lithium iodate is chiral, space group P6(3). It calculates to CHI~0 for 411 atoms. A 309 Te atom lattice has CHI=0.97 of a maximal 1.0. It asymptotically increases with lattice volume through at least 5666 atoms. Of the 65 chiral space groups, only three parity pair space groups are acceptable at the get go (P31/P32, P3(1)12/P3(1)21, P3212/P3221) on symmetry arguments alone. In those three pairs, representative crystal lattices can still contain nearest neighbor reverse parity paths (e.g., alpha-quartz). Only tellurium and selenium of all lattices we have examined have no reverse parity nearest neighbor paths. Gray selenium cannot be grown as well-ordered centimeter diameter crystals. That leaves only tellurium for a first best choice.
“Furthermore, your geometrical chirality is something that is endemic to space while optical chirality (or indeed the parity of physical arrangements of the magnetic and electric vacuum wave solutions from Maxwell’s Equations) are trivially discounted due to four considerations in your paper that seem only to prove that light is a difficult thing to measure.”
One falsification kills a theory. I’ve killed your maunder four times with empirical examples and three times with theoretical examples. It’s dead. It isn’t sleeping, it isn’t pining for the fjords, it’s dead. Dead. Dead as phlogiston, dead as parity conservation, dead as there only being white swans.
Accurate optical measurement is trival - optical rotatory dispersion, circular dichoism; [alpha]D measured in the 1800s or in an undergrad lab. Chiroptical methods detect electronic polarizability. They do not measure solid state geometric structure. Electrons are irrelevant to the parity Eotvos experiment, differential geometry is central to the argument.
"If what you propose is correct, there is some fundamental relationship between the mirror geometry of spacetime and the manner in which energy (or matter, if you feel that we are violating four vector momentum) interacts with the gravitational field. Rightly so, you state that it is not metric in nature then (lest we forget the principle of least action).
Not mirror, parity. Given the simplicity and unremarkable cost of the parity Eotvos experiment, it’s at least worth one look. Fundamentally null composition experiments have been performed in abundance. It cannot do worse than they did. You can always go to affine models or hope M-theory says something computable.
“But then there is no reason at all to appeal to conserations of gravity waves for dismissing electromagnetic parity coupling as this is a resultant of a metric treatment of GR.”
I don’t give a sparrow’s fart in a hurricane about gravitational waves or electromagnetic interactions. They are your straw men and are irrelevant to the parity Eotvos experiment. Spacetime as considered in contemporary theory is a continuous (certainly until Planck lengths) generally covariant geometry. It’s challenges are legion and all confirmatory,
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html (one line)
Sure, why not? General Relativity is self-consistent. It contains no mistakes. Nor does Newton or Euclid, revealed are subsets of more general theory when their postulates are challenged. Nobody has ever challenged a metric theory of gravitation at its postulates. What are those postulates?
-
Point (no bigger than Planck length) interactions. Geometric parity is an emergent phenomenon not a point phenomenon. The parity Eotvos experiment with tellurium is not a point interaction by a volume factor of 10^77.
-
Continuous spacetime (at least to Planck lengths). The parity Eotvos experiment contrasts a discrete variable. Parity is discontinuous. Like infinity, CHI gets interesting near its top end. The tellurium lattice has calculated CHI>0.994 of a maximum CHI=1.00000.
-
The Equivalence Principle - all local test mases fall identically regardless of composition or internal configuration. That is what the parity Eotvos experiment examines. Same apparatus and personnel, new calculated test mass variable. Stick 'em in, pump it down, let it settle, observe.
-
Lightspeed is identical for all inertial observers. Local Lorentz invariance. Local position invariance. Etc.
One test mass property remains unexamined. Somebody should look.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
You’re joking, right? I’m not talking about spin-physics here but quantum mechanical considerations of your theory.
Fine, you think the stuff is too small to measure. But you still have yet to offer one good explanation for why we haven’t seen this effect in polarized beams we’ve sent off around the relatively massive nearby solar-system. If there is something to be noticed, then there must be some deviation. Or are you going to take the opinion that scientists are simply shrugging off the innacuracy, even though threshhold measurements of polarized beams do occur?
The effects of gravity on light are established:
Physical Review D (Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology), Volume 56, Issue 10, 15 November 1997, pp.6378-6387
And there are non-trivial effects that deal with polarization.
Nuovo Cimento, Sezione B, vol. 44B, Apr. 11, 1978, p. 275-288.
As I have already dealt with the first two subjects and you keep bringing them up as though I suggested differently, please see the above citation for my rational for vacuum rotation and gravity.
By some magic handwaving and you quoting paper abstracts I’m supposed to believe that you have someone determined theoretically that all other variables null?
I have patiently gone over your citations and continue to say, I don’t buy it. Your wish to say that the endemic property that may or may not violate EP is the ONLY property left untested is spurious as demonstrated in the journal article:
Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers …: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space, Edited by C. Lämmerzahl, C.W.F. Everitt and F.W. Hehl, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 562, p.195.
Perhaps you think that symmetry arguments necessarily provide for a systematic regard in your formulation. This is not the case at all. It is just as likely that violations will occur in non-fundamental states. You have basically stated that a small signal is entropically underfavored to be amplified in any system but the one which you set up. This is proved through appellations to n-body simulations and obtuse formalism that is incidentally related. Please, explain to me how you have come by your monumental conclusions about geometric chirality again; this time try to stay focused.
and anything with nontrivial momentum (see above)
Unless you consider propagation, which is much easier for massless particles. Thus the citations I have given above.
Which equivalency principle are you NOT appealing to here?
Uninspiring and misleading at best. Gravitation is an effect of spacetime and that which changes the effective geometry of spacetime in the metric formulation. It is an inherent attraction of observables in a nonmetric formulation.
No, you OBSERVE the effects that they experience as they travel. Look, you may not wish to believe it, but the nonmetric forms of gravitation all take this into account. Light is affected by gravity. End of story.
In stark contradiction to… “Geometric test masses benefit from small unit cells, heavy atoms (BiTeI[83] has mirror symmetry), and large calculated parity divergences[42].”
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif
So, they are the test masses you choose. You just like to throw fits every time anybody but yourself isn’t excruciatingly precise in their formulation of YOUR pet theory. Perhaps you might begin to understand why you’ve been received sourly. You don’t need to requote the meanderings of your explorations to me. You’ve already told me you like Tellurium.
No, you have stabbed in the dark at OTHER things. My critique still stands that the effect should be observable for polarized light (For example, radio waves bounced off the surface of Venus).
It matters not at all. The fields are vector-additive. If an effect exists it will show itself unless every single measurement ever done was with exactly orthogonal fields to the fifth-force.
This is the only argument you have. But again, it’s red balls vs. green balls. Good luck.
Only because you refuse to recognize the current paradigm as offering any guidance whatsover.
Therefore you should give a sparrow’s fart in a hurricane because geometry is just as important to current considerations of wave phenomena as your Eotvos experiment. Saying anything else is just proclaiming ignorance about spacetime medium wave propagation.
Your bell-clanging is preposterous. We are not talking about Newton or Euclid here. What is clear is that you are in it for the shock-value and are having fun mentally masturbating over Noether symmetries and constructing massive objects that conform to certain parity constraints. Nobody has looked because it is your invention. As far as I’m concerned, if you really thought you were on to something, you’d go ahead and do the thing and get off a message board that’s devoted to generally fighting ignorance. If you truly believe what you do, this is an utter waste of time for me and you.
BALONEY! It took me seconds to find this talk abstract:
American Physical Society, April Meeting, Jointly Sponsored with the High Energy Astrophysics Division (HEAD) of the American Astronomical Society April 20 - 23, 2002 Albuquerque Convention Center Albuquerque, New Mexico Meeting ID: APR02, abstract #O12.002
Regarding JS Princeton,
“Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers …: Testing Relativistic Gravity in Space, Edited by C. Lämmerzahl, C.W.F. Everitt and F.W. Hehl, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 562, p.195.”
Single crystal silicon polarized (chiral) interferometry; Colella-Overhauser-Werner and Bonse-Wroblewski neutron interferometers; Kasevich-Chu atom interferometers,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 46 1551 (1981)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 2441 (1986)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 1103 (1979)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 2859 (1995)
Am. J. Phys. 68 404 (2000)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401 (1983)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 181 (1991)
Appl. Phys. B 54 321 (1992)
Chemical calorimetry limits an Equivalence Principle parity violation to about 10^(-12) relative at most, or 21 cal/gm rest mass relative. Anything larger than that would be commonly detected as unequal enthalpies of whatever for enantiomers. None of your tests has the required sensitivity above noise by several orders of magntiude.
“Please, explain to me how you have come by your monumental conclusions about geometric chirality again”
Geometric parity is a property of mass distribution. Mass interacts with gravitation. Massless particles are irrelevant - the interaction cannot be engineered into detectability. Photons don’t commonly mass 118.8 GeV/c^2 each; tellurium nuclei do.
Spinning objects are not chiral - axial vector, after all - unless they are relativistic. Gravitomagnetic and gravitoelectric effects are irrelevant to the parity Eotvos experiment - way too small and not detected to date anyway.
"Gravitation is an effect of spacetime and that which changes the effective geometry of spacetime in the metric formulation. It is an inherent attraction of observables in a nonmetric formulation.
Gravitation theories model continous spacetime with absolute determinacy. They are all incomplete. Quantum mechanics’ observables display discrete states. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about conjugate variables in a system state, disallowing exact prediction of its evolution. Anomalies must exist. Challenging continuous spacetime predictions with a discrete geometric variable is so obvious it hurts.
What was missing was the ability of physics to quantitatively identify a pair of extreme geometrically divergent test masses. That is the province of mathematics and chemistry. I have rigorously calculated an extreme case (CHI>0.99 out of a possible 1.0) and provided a commercial source for the parity pair test masses. It runs in existing apparatus. If the parity Eotvos experiment is not incrementally difficult or overly expensive, physics will have to live with the convenience. Chemists are simple folk - on time, on budget, to spec.
“Unless you consider propagation, which is much easier for massless particles. Thus the citations I have given above.”
The reason massless paricles propagate is because they do not interact. This is death in searching for one in ten trillion relative effect. Kramers-Kronig relationship - no radiation interaction (real index of refraction) exists without absorption (imaginary index of refraction). Why don’t you propose polarized neutrinos? We’ll set up a lightyear of tellurium single crystal absorber, and then…
“Gravitation is an effect of spacetime and that which changes the effective geometry of spacetime in the metric formulation. It is an inherent attraction of observables in a nonmetric formulation.”
You can’t use a theory to discredit a challenge to that theory unless your name is Tommy Aquinas and the Pope is your butt-buddy. Newton says Einstein is incorrect. It doesn’t work in that direction. When experiment leads theory, theory can’t spit back. It’s nice to have an alterate theory making divergent predictions subject to subsequent test. It is even nicer to have a divergent observation falsify existing theory - everybody squirms, and for a brief while they can think original thoughts and still receive funding. Both are valid paths to discovery.
“No, you OBSERVE the effects that they experience as they travel. Look, you may not wish to believe it, but the nonmetric forms of gravitation all take this into account. Light is affected by gravity.”
Compare the angular deviation of light grazing the sun to the excess (relativistic) angular deviation of the orbits of sun-grazing asteroids at the same separation. A professor at the University of Victoria who retired three years ago made his career on calculating such orbits. Big swing Newton vs Einstein. That is why we use test masses.
“You just like to throw fits every time anybody but yourself isn’t excruciatingly precise in their formulation of YOUR pet theory.”
Provide a rational alternative or do your own theory and don’t call it mine. The benzodiazepam nucleus can give you everything from tranquilizers to deep anesthesia to antihistamines. Little changes mean a lot. There are rules, heruistic or otherwise.
The Equivalence Principle doesn’t need to be challenged. It is implicit in the mathematics of physics,
Folks seem to be in sustained disagreement, or ongoing EP testing (Eotvos balances, miniStep, GG, Bremen drop tower, etc.) would not be funded.
I submitted 2000 words, four Tables, and one Figure to “Physical Review Letters” this (Thursday) morning. We’ll see.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
We agree your effect is small in your test. If it indeed exists, it should be visible in similarly energetic reactions as a simple parity violation not effected by the usual suspects. Since parity is a universal symmetry, if we have a polarized photon from a source (which couples to matter in predictable ways) we can expect to see effects. This is all I am saying. In fact, because of the lower energies of the photons when compared to GeV scales, an effect in tests that are routinely done in particle accelerators (for example, this one done with collisional 1.5 GeV electrons and target polarization: American Physical Society, DAMOP Meeting, May 16-19, 2001 London, Ontario, Canada Bulletin of the American Physical Society, Vol. 46, No. 3, abstract #C4.001) should be noticeable. It has not been noticed.
Now are you going to interpret this as “they weren’t looking for the effect so they didn’t see it”? This is where the red balls/green balls comes into play.
This is an argument from ignorance. Gravity might not be incomplete at all. It might be quantum mechanics that’s incomplete. Furthermore, you seem to have no problem appealing to theory when determining signal size. What makes you think that a new fandangled gravity won’t effect the massless particle more than the massive one? If you want to throw out current formulations from your analysis, it seems you don’t have a leg to stand on.
You’ve demonstrated no reason for why I should believe you other than relying upon the line that no one has yet looked. There is no fundamental difference between this particular WAG and MOND except that you don’t even propose a rationale for your phenomenon. You claim you want to be “naughty to Physics” and you end up playing fast and loose with your assumptions.
The argument, however, is as I see it right now, dead. You have your words and I have mine. We could continue the war of citations back and forth till kingdom come. Why don’t we wait for a response from PRL and see what they say?
“Could Physics Be Terrifically Wrong?”
I know less than nothing about physics, but I do not think that one (or more) of these words means what you think it means.
Regarding JS Princeton,
“We agree your effect is small in your test. If it indeed exists, it should be visible in similarly energetic reactions as a simple parity violation not effected by the usual suspects.”
No. If the Strong Force is taken as 1 then the electromagnetic force is taken as 1/137. Calculate the cross-section for photon-photon scattering. It never happens at any fluence short of Planck-scale numbers. If the Strong Force is taken as 1 then the electromagnetic force is taken as 1/137, then gravitation comes in at 10^(-39) and the parity trimmings, if they exist, can be no larger than about 10^(-51). 10^(-51) is way smaller than (1/137)^2 without even considering whether it is a second order interaction and deserves to be squared.
If any gravitation effects could be measured in a particle accelerator you would not have people busting their hineys creating
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/alamshbig.gif
for
Phys. Rev. Lett. 87(5) 051301 (2001)
Phys. Rev. D 59(8) 086004 (1999)
Phys. Lett. B 436 257 (1998)
Phys. Lett. B 429 263 (1998)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/thesis.pdf
“This is an argument from ignorance. Gravity might not be incomplete at all. It might be quantum mechanics that’s incomplete.”
A TOE or GUT must incorporate c, G, and h. Gravitation (which is not gravity) must be a quantum field theory or other quantized theory. This isn’t even debatable. Metric theories of gravitation are continuous and absolutely determinate. They are fundamentally incomplete, trivially so at the Planck scale. The trick is to find an empirical anomaly.
Since said theories are also self-consistent, they can only be anomalous at the postulate level - they contain no internal mistakes. The parity Eotvos experiment tests a founding postulate, the Equivalence Principle, a new and clever way. Challenging calculated spacetime geometry with calculated test mass geometry is natural and appropriate.
“What makes you think that a new fandangled gravity won’t effect the massless particle more than the massive one?”
Gravitation affects mass. Massless parrticles are not at the fat end. I make no pronouncements of theory. I am an experimentalist. If there is a non-null output from
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
it isn’t my problem to model it within or without extant physics. My job is to consider an anomaly and devise a rational experiment to maximally exploit it. Experiment leading theory is technically called “discovery.” Does Raman spectrometry care about dipole moments like IR does? No. Did Spain toss back the New World because Columbus was paid to look for India?
Hint: What language is spoken in Central and South America?
“There is no fundamental difference between this particular WAG and MOND except that you don’t even propose a rationale for your phenomenon.”
I propose an inexpensive test of my proposal in existing equipment by the book run by disinterested academic staff. MOND is not testable even if Clifford Will is a really nice fellow. A full 10^(-12) relative output would falsify no preceding observation particle accelerator to cosmology, yet all of physics would be demoted to a heuristic. That’s a good trick. Talk is cheap - theorists are a dime a dozen priests to M-theory. Empirical trial is science.
Regarding Fatwater Fewl,
Every word says what it is supposed to say. If local parity pair test masses fall with trajectories non-parallel by one part in ten trillion - which quantity we can measure - all of physics is incorrect as formulated. The problem would appear right at the very start, that all interactions are fundamentally point interactions. In the same manner relativity and quantum mechanics showed Newton was only an approximation. In the same manner hyperbolic and elliptic geometries showed Euclid was only an approximation.
If the parity Eotvos experiment has non-null output, all of physics is terrifically wrong. It is still a great heuristic, but it is wrong.
If you think this is small stuff, try covincing a real estate agent that a mile square is a square mile. It isn’t. A mile square on the Earth’s surface (90 degree internal angles, geodesic sides) ecompasses more than a square mile. If you are tossing ICBMs, you care.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
uncleAl0, you’re just not listening. First of all, I am NOT talking about photon-photon scattering which we both agree is a mute point.
Secondly, your appeal to the fact that gravitational effects cannot be visible in accelerator physics due to the way the Eot-Wash group is looking for EP in an effect totally independent of your effect (which you have as much admitted). I am not surprised you refuse to accept that scattered photons should show parity-symmetery violation in the DAMOP presentation. You wish to believe that your effect would only be noticeable in the way you presented it.
Furthermore, your objection to gravity is incomplete. Just because we don’t know HOW to incorporate h and e into the metric formalism (or any other formalism right now) doesn’t mean they aren’t incorporated. The obvious parallel is the joining of optics and electromagnetism which came about because the measurements of the speed of the two seemingly independent wave phenomena were too coincidentally similar to be different phenomenon. Optics wasn’t “incomplete” just because it didn’t anticipate the field oscillations that caused its constituent wave(particle). Likewise, it’s not possible to say because we don’t see how to arrive at TOE there must be an inherent contradiction in gravity. We just don’t have enough information at this time to say that yet.
There are about 490 million people in Latin America. Of them, about 160 million speak Portuguese. 