Let's have a big round of applause for Mark Hopkins for summarizing
the salient points discussed in sci.physics.research
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#Teleparallel
The summary
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#BianchiTorsion
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#GeneralizedGravity
"The basic formula for a gravitational dynamics based on Poincare
symmetry is worked out here."
For that last link, it is my understanding that covariance with
respect to reflection in space and time is not required by the
Poincaré group of Special Relativity or the Einstein group of General
Relativity. How much fun is that?
Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically? The
parity Eötvös experiment can equally succeed or fail within classical
gravitation theory. This is a 50% better chance than any EP
experiment performed since 1585 AD (Stevin, Galileo). Somebody should
look.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Martin Ouwehand
May17-08, 05:02 AM
Dans l'article <4828D72D.12C27916@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> écrit:
] Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically? [...]
] Somebody should look.
didn't you ? I remember you described this experiment a few months ago:
--
| ~~~~~~~~ Martin Ouwehand ~ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ~ Lausanne
__|___________ Email/PGP: http://personnes.epfl.ch/martin.ouwehand ____________
The need for big brains may be what
explains the weakness of gravity [Brandon Carter]
Uncle Al
May19-08, 05:00 AM
Martin Ouwehand wrote:
>
> Dans l'article <4828D72D.12C27916@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> =E9crit:
>
> ] Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically? [...]
> ] Somebody should look.
>
> didn't you ? I remember you described this experiment a few months ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/16d6841acaa=32525
>
> What were the results ?
The Chinese academic with an Eotvos balance purportedly ran a
hemi-parity experiment P3(2)21 quartz (commercial) versus amorphous
fused silica and got a dirty null result - non-zero but not
statistically significant. He then purportedly ran P3(1)21 (custom
grown) versus P3(2)21 quartz... and quit half way through the run,
claiming he never ran any of it. Draw any conclusion you like,
including Official "weaponization".
This past Christmas we ran the parity calorimetry experiment at 45.04
degrees north latitude in a pair of commercial analytical
facility-donated DSCs. One DSC was 40% off the literature value for
/_\H(fusion) of benzil using pulverized racemic benzil (from single
crystals). Calibration is small stuff. OEM precision is 0.1%
claimed. We saw 3.5% precision, making it mostly worthless.
Now what?
1) A better argument - present explicit theoretical basis. Parity
violation is an arbitrary component in classical gravitation.
Ashtekar has a parity-violating Immirzi coefficient. Adding a certain
quadratic term for torsion restores parity even with a non-zero
Immirzi coefficient. "Metric-affine" is independent of "teleparallel"
or "Einstein-Cartan". It is a general framework in which these and
other geometries reside. Geometries are general frameworks in which
different dynamics reside. Models may or may not stipulate parity
violation, eg., the Hayashi family of models. If not, it is easy to
add.
A volunteer is punctliously assembling the bulging mathematical
bindlestaff that says the above in ways that choke the Microsoft Word
formula-writing utility. Academia won't cooperate until you talk its
language. A measurable EP parity violation is *still* no worse than a
50:50 chance of success.
2) A better research group - the US hosts the world's two finest
Eotvos balances both at better latitudes than China's. The respective
PIs would not mind empirically falsifying the Equivalence Principle.
They both exercise first rate minds. Neither one can look into a
stereodiagram and see the figure in 3-D, nor do they desire to learn.
This then defaults to (1).
3) Better differential scanning calorimeters - We'll do it
ourselves. DSCs must be calibrated after manufacture; 95 C with a
sealed sample carrier is piddles. We're talking with OEM
manufacturers with facilities at suitable latitudes. Benzil single
crystals of known space group are easily solvent-grown to cm diameter
in two steps in less than a week/double run.
4) Extended calculation - Quartz is adequately crunched (CHI =3D 1 is
perfect parity divergence),
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
bandwidth arises from discrete masses and anistropic distribution.
Corresponding benzil passes the test,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzhdense.png
though we'd like to extend the calculated points. There is always a
very slight curvature as opposed to the linear model. Several
companies have server farms with sustantial excess capacity. 30 CPUs
for three or four months would do the trick.
Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically? I want
to know and I will know. If physics has committed a subtly incorrect
simplifying assumption it requires correction. If not, you are stuck
with string theory and its 10^1000 accepable vacua. Which is more
believable?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Tom Roberts
May28-08, 05:00 AM
Uncle Al wrote:
> Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically?
I think that is an excellent question! So is the same question about
various quartz crystals, and the same question about spiral galaxies.
In most theories, gravity has no scale, and it seems to me that a
macroscopic helix could have a MUCH larger difference between left- and
right-handed couplings than any crystal, if those couplings are scale
independent.
So my question to you is: What makes you think chiral gravity has a
scale of an angstrom, and not of (say) the Planck length, femtometer,
millimeter or parsec?
[As I have asked before, please do not respond with dense
spews of jargon. Please respond in the style of a colloquium:
explain in terms a graduate student or postdoc not expert in
the field could understand.]
Tom Roberts
Uncle Al
May30-08, 05:00 AM
Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > Do left and right shoes locally vacuum free fall identically?
>
> I think that is an excellent question! So is the same question about
> various quartz crystals, and the same question about spiral galaxies.
This is physics. Decimal places are important.
Not "various". High quality (composition and structure) solid single
crystal spheres (no direction bias) of enantiomorphic space groups
P3(1)21 quartz vs. P3(2)21 quartz. Three spatial dimensions require
at least four non-colinear points for chirality to emerge. The
alpha-quartz x-ray crystal structure, 298 kelvin (Eur. J. of
Mineralogy 2 63 (1990)) through Petitjean's full QCM:
Sphere
CHI DSI COR Atoms diameter
===============================================
SiO3a 0.090232 0. 1 4 3.0385 A
SiO3b 0.090237 0. 1 4 3.0385 A
SiO3c 0.000143 0.061109 2 4 3.0310 A
SiO3d 0.000143 0.061103 2 4 3.0310 A
SiO4 0.000238 0.658392 2 5 3.2188 A
SiO4Si4 0.606391 0. 1 9 6.1153 A 119.74 A^3
unit cell 0.408110 0. 1 9 113.01 A^3
4.9137 x 4.9137 x 5.4047 A^3
CHI->1, DSI=0, COR=1 is achieved by 9 or more atoms included.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
to 4.44x10^17 atoms contained
Rotating objects have helicity not chirality. Helicity reverses with
point of view unless the object is relativistic with only one POV.
Beta-rays are 100% left-handed. They rapidly go achiral as they lose
velocity (energy) propagating through a medium.
There is a volunteer Web project to characterize the direction of
rotation of all photographed galaxies. For N galaxies the random
error is sqrt(N) (e.g., coin flips). A 1% helicity excess would
require more than 10,000 accurate assignments not to be mere noise
rather than signal.
> In most theories, gravity has no scale, and it seems to me that a
> macroscopic helix could have a MUCH larger difference between left- and
> right-handed couplings than any crystal, if those couplings are scale
> independent.
No. Gravitation (no quadrupole tidal stuff, folks) acts upon bodies
as though they were point masses. Use tightly packed points (atoms
self-similarly distributed in space with known uunvarying relative
coordinates) as the probe. A larger scale lump is a needlessly fat
point.
A lattice of close-packed bowling balls and a lattice of close
packed-one micron diameter silica spheres have exactly the same volume
void fraction (consider a zoom lens converting one to the other),
1 - (pi)/(3)sqrt(2) or 29.95%
Wind whistles through the bowling balls but the little spheres are all
but gas-tight. Displace air with water and you have wet bowling
balls. Do that with little spheres and you have a rock. Scale makes
a difference not as such but because smaller components pack more
active elements into a given volume. Trace interaction becomes
visible by concentration. A mole of atoms and a mole of bowling balls
are a mole either way. You can carry the atoms in your palm. The
bowling balls not so much.
> So my question to you is: What makes you think chiral gravity has a
> scale of an angstrom, and not of (say) the Planck length, femtometer,
> millimeter or parsec?
Gravitation is not chiral, the vacuum is a chiral background.
Gravitation theory then consistently fits into the chiral vacuum
background,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4148
Three gravitational models involving non-vanishing torsion are
examined: teleparallel gravity, Einstein-Cartan, and new general
relativity. Their dependability is critically examined.
<http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S0103-97332004000700014&script=sci_arttext>
Selected topics in teleparallel gravity, 2004
R. Aldrovandi; J. G. Pereira; K. H. Vu
"For the sake of completeness, we begin by reviewing, in the next
section, the basic concepts related to teleparallel gravity. The
equivalence principle is recast in its language, and shown to be
unnecessary."
> [As I have asked before, please do not respond with dense
> spews of jargon. Please respond in the style of a colloquium:
> explain in terms a graduate student or postdoc not expert in
> the field could understand.]
It is what it is. If the vacuum is a left foot then left and right
shoes fit into with different energies and fall along divergent
minimum action trajectories. Try walking a closed-eye straight line
while wearing two right shoes. Insufficient rigor in defining the
shoes leads to silly assertions.
1) All laboratory compositions of matter validate the Equivalence
Principle.
2) Relativistic and quantum distortions of paired pulsars PSR
J0737-3039A/B validate, arXiv:astro-ph/0609417
3) Pulsar plus sun-type star (huge B/mu, spin, magnetic field,
binding energy, strong vs. weak field... divergences) validate, PSR
J1903+0327, arXiv:0805.2396
4) Paired disparate black holes validate, arXiv:0803.2077
5) Polarized spin test masses validate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 021603
(2006),
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/prl97-021603.pdf>
What test mass differences do not arise from composition differences?
6) Either the EP is true, or
7) Chemically identical left versus right shoes falsify the EP.
Given (3) and (5) then (7) is the *only* possible lab EP test non-null
output remaining. If anybody has another candidate consistent with
prior observation, post it.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Nicolaas Vroom
Jun7-08, 05:00 AM
In Nature dd 29 May 2008 at page 586 we read:
One thing that even quantum computing can never
accomplish is "factoring large prime numbers".
It cannot even factor small ones.
End of quote.
Is this the current state of art ? opinion ?
Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
Jun8-08, 05:00 AM
In article <USe1k.55039$xJ7.1610@newsfe08.ams2>, "Nicolaas Vroom"
<nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> writes:
> In Nature dd 29 May 2008 at page 586 we read:
> One thing that even quantum computing can never
> accomplish is "factoring large prime numbers".
> It cannot even factor small ones.
> End of quote.
>
> Is this the current state of art ? opinion ?
This is, more or less, a tautology. Are you sure that wasn't the 1
April edition of Nature? A prime number, by definition, is a number
which has no factors other than the trivial ones of itself and 1. Thus,
it can never be factored (except trivially).
What does Bill Gates have to say about this? "The obvious mathematical
breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime
numbers." ---Bill Gates [THE ROAD AHEAD, p. 265]
Quantum computing is probably important in factoring large NON-prime
numbers. In particular, encryption schemes which rely on the difficulty
of factorisation might be less secure than previously assumed.
a student
Jun8-08, 05:00 AM
On Jun 7, 12:34 A.M., "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@pandora.be>
wrote:
> In Nature dd 29 May 2008 at page 586 we read:
> One thing that even quantum computing can never
> accomplish is "factoring large prime numbers".
> It cannot even factor small ones.
> End of quote.
>
> Is this the current state of art ? opinion ?
>
> Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/
Let p be a prime number of any size. The only factorisations into
positive integers are of the form
p = p x1 x 1 x .... x 1 .
This is well within the resources of even classical computing!!
As to the factorisation of large non-prime numbers, quantum computing
algorithms are much faster than any known classical algorithms, as a
function of the size of the numbers. However, the implementation of
quantum computers requires the manipulation of large coherent
superpositions, of hundreds of quantum systems. This is extremely
hard to set up in practice.
This is not surprising at first glance - decoherence arising from
(unwanted) interaction with external systems is thought to underly why
we see a 'classical' world whenever we get enough atoms etc together.
It is difficult to defeat nature.
It is an interesting question as to whether (nontrivial) quantum
computing is physically possible - i.e., whether the problem is one of
resources, or one of physics. The answer isn't known simply because
we don't understand precisely what makes a classical world emerge from
an underlying quantum world - or what makes one process 'unitary
evolution', and another process 'measurement' - there are no
definitive experiments in this regard, only a plethora of assertions
and preliminary suggestions.
I think one of the reasons to support experimental efforts to
implement quantum computers is precisely that it may increasing our
understanding of this issue.
Dr J R Stockton
Jun11-08, 05:00 AM
In sci.physics.research message <g2bjb7$4u7$2@online.de>, Sat, 7 Jun
2008 19:45:52, Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply <helbig@astro.mu
ltiCLOTHESvax.de> posted:
>
>This is, more or less, a tautology. Are you sure that wasn't the 1
>April edition of Nature? A prime number, by definition, is a number
>which has no factors other than the trivial ones of itself and 1. Thus,
>it can never be factored (except trivially).
If a number is prime and is known to be prime then its factoring is
trivial, whatever its size.
If a large number is not known to be prime (as opposed to known not to
be prime), then its factoring is often non-trivial, even if the number
is prime. AIUI, there are ways of proving fairly readily that a number
is almost certainly prime, or that it is certainly not prime; but
anything that correctly factors a number getting only the number and 1
gives an assured proof that the number is prime. That's a non-trivial
task.
In some crypto, AIUI, an encoder wants to obtain large prime numbers; in
the corresponding code-breaking, a breaker wants to factorise the
product of large primes.
--
(c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SoRFC1036)