Grav and Inertial Mass [Archive]

frisbieinstein@yahoo.com

Apr21-05, 04:28 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very accurately\nbut not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they should be the\nsame? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very accurately
but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they should be the
same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?

Blagoj Petrushev

Apr22-05, 03:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>The principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is\nquite established in physics since it is one of the founding principles\nin general gravity (which, aside of QED, is most accurately tested in\nthe history of physics), so I would say that this principle HOLDS.\nAnyway, there is no way, for now, to be sure whether the electrons\ncurve the spacetime.\n\nStill, all the matter that curves the space-time is made up of\nelementary particles, and there is no reason why should space-time be\ncurved only by condensed matter and not from an elementary particle\nsuch is the electron.\n\nB Petrushev\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>The principle of equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is
quite established in physics since it is one of the founding principles
in general gravity (which, aside of QED, is most accurately tested in
the history of physics), so I would say that this principle HOLDS.
Anyway, there is no way, for now, to be sure whether the electrons
curve the spacetime.

Still, all the matter that curves the space-time is made up of
elementary particles, and there is no reason why should space-time be
curved only by condensed matter and not from an elementary particle
such is the electron.

B Petrushev

Uncle Al

Apr22-05, 03:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:\n>\n> Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very accurately\n> but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they should be the\n> same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?\n\nWe know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no\ngravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments\n(umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +\nprotons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.\nFermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All\nchemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion\ndifference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding\nenergies,\n\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113\n<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)\nNordtvedt Effect\n\nEquivalence Principle: All local bodies fall identically in vacuum\nregardless of composition or geometric structure; inertial and\ngravitational mass are fundamentally indistinguishable. Aside from\neverything following, Gravity Probe-B adds 10,000 rpm antiparallel\nspinning fused silica balls and antiparallel spinning superconductors\nfall identically to their non-rotating fused silica housing.\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b34\nExcept for geometric parity those property amounts are total, not the\nnet active difference between contrasted tested masses (that obviously\nmust be smaller). Parity divergence only exists by contrast. Parity\ntest masses are 100% net active mass.\n\n<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>\nMathematics of gravitation\n\n<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>\n<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>\nEquivalence Principle testing\n\nScience 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086\nhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071\n<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>\n<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>\nDeeply relativistic neutron star binaries\n\nPlanets and moons, GPS atomic clocks, magnetized spinning neutronium,\ngoose feathers, permanent magnets (field from electron spin or\nelectron angular momentum)... everything falls identically in vacuum\nto one part in ten trillion difference/average.\n\nThere is only one possible large amplitude (as the things go)\nEquivalence Principle violation possible: Does a left hand fall\nidentically to a right hand? That is test mass geometry probing\nspacetime geometry and also looking for Lorentz Invariance violation\n(anisotropy of space). We\'ll know all that by 01 August.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very accurately
> but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they should be the
> same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?

We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no
gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments
(umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +
protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.
Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All
chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion
difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding
energies,

http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect

Equivalence Principle: All local bodies fall identically in vacuum
regardless of composition or geometric structure; inertial and
gravitational mass are fundamentally indistinguishable. Aside from
everything following, Gravity Probe-B adds 10,000 rpm antiparallel
spinning fused silica balls and antiparallel spinning superconductors
fall identically to their non-rotating fused silica housing.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b34
Except for geometric parity those property amounts are total, not the
net active difference between contrasted tested masses (that obviously
must be smaller). Parity divergence only exists by contrast. Parity
test masses are 100% net active mass.

<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation

<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

Planets and moons, GPS atomic clocks, magnetized spinning neutronium,
goose feathers, permanent magnets (field from electron spin or
electron angular momentum)... everything falls identically in vacuum
to one part in ten trillion difference/average.

There is only one possible large amplitude (as the things go)
Equivalence Principle violation possible: Does a left hand fall
identically to a right hand? That is test mass geometry probing
spacetime geometry and also looking for Lorentz Invariance violation
(anisotropy of space). We'll know all that by 01 August.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Nick Maclaren

Apr22-05, 11:40 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <1114086977.688063.170760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,\nfrisbieinstein@yahoo.com writes:\n|>\n|> Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?\n\nThe previous postings have answered that for electrons, so let\'s\nget a little more perverse. If we regard photons as particles,\nthey don\'t have quite the same mass relationships (though, really,\nthis is a reflection of the fact that the terms gravitational and\ninertial mass are over-simplifications).\n\nNow, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\nlike photons nor electrons in this respect.\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <1114086977.688063.170760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
frisbieinstein@yahoo.com writes:
|>
|> Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?

The previous postings have answered that for electrons, so let's
get a little more perverse. If we regard photons as particles,
they don't have quite the same mass relationships (though, really,
this is a reflection of the fact that the terms gravitational and
inertial mass are over-simplifications).

Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
like photons nor electrons in this respect.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Blagoj Petrushev

Apr22-05, 08:49 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Meclaren wrote:\n<<<\nNow, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\nlike photons nor electrons in this respect.\n>>>\n\nI don\'t believe that there is a massless neutrino. If there is, then it\ndoesn\'t have grav mass for sure.\n\nB Petrushev\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Meclaren wrote:
<<<
Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
like photons nor electrons in this respect.
>>>

I don't believe that there is a massless neutrino. If there is, then it
doesn't have grav mass for sure.

B Petrushev

Uncle Al

Apr23-05, 07:08 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren wrote:\n>\n> In article <1114086977.688063.170760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups .com>,\n> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com writes:\n> |>\n> |> Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?\n>\n> The previous postings have answered that for electrons, so let\'s\n> get a little more perverse. If we regard photons as particles,\n> they don\'t have quite the same mass relationships (though, really,\n> this is a reflection of the fact that the terms gravitational and\n> inertial mass are over-simplifications).\n>\n> Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\n> like photons nor electrons in this respect.\n\nMore read, less screed,\n\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014\nAmer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)\nfalling light (not an inertial frame of reference)\n\nALL compositions of matter fall identically in vacuum, including\nbinding energies that are negative energies (e.g., Nordtvedt effect).\nMass is anonymous and fungible in ALL observationally consistent\ntheories of gravitation.\n\na=GM/r^2 The test mass isn\'t present in the equation.\n\nGravitation is geometry. The proper challenge of spacetime geometry\nis test mass geometry not test mass composition. 99 days to the\nanswer.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <1114086977.688063.170760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com writes:
> |>
> |> Could it be that, say, electrons have zero gravitational mass?
>
> The previous postings have answered that for electrons, so let's
> get a little more perverse. If we regard photons as particles,
> they don't have quite the same mass relationships (though, really,
> this is a reflection of the fact that the terms gravitational and
> inertial mass are over-simplifications).
>
> Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
> like photons nor electrons in this respect.

More read, less screed,

http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light (not an inertial frame of reference)

ALL compositions of matter fall identically in vacuum, including
binding energies that are negative energies (e.g., Nordtvedt effect).
Mass is anonymous and fungible in ALL observationally consistent
theories of gravitation.

a=GM/r^2 The test mass isn't present in the equation.

Gravitation is geometry. The proper challenge of spacetime geometry
is test mass geometry not test mass composition. 99 days to the
answer.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al

Apr23-05, 03:56 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Blagoj Petrushev wrote:\n>\n> Meclaren wrote:\n> <<<\n> Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\n> like photons nor electrons in this respect.\n> >>>\n>\n> I don\'t believe that there is a massless neutrino. If there is, then it\n> doesn\'t have grav mass for sure.\n>\n> B Petrushev\n\nNeutrinos are massed or they could not oscillate flavors when\npropagating. It is the shape of space that determines free fall\ntrajectory in vacuum. Composition does not appear in any validated\ntestable theory of gravitation. Neutrinos fall like everything else\nfalls, with inertial and gravitational mass in invariant ratio.\n\nhttp://hep.bu.edu/~superk/osc.html\n<http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20030723113251.htm>\nhttp://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nu_timeline.html\n\nThe only unexamined property for Equivalence Principle violation is\ntest mass geometry, qz.pdf below. The full parity Eotvos experiment\nexamining maximally parity divergent left-handed vs. right-handed\nquartz will be completed by 01 August 2005. Then, we will know if\nthere is an EP parity anomaly, if Lorentz invariance can be broken, if\nspace is isotropic, if conservation of angular momentum is true for\nparity test masses.\n\nIt is *obvious* that all that stuff cannot fail! Before New Years Day\n1957 it was *obvious* that all of physics was symmetric to\nC,P,T,CP,CT, and PT symmetries,\n\nhttp://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html\n\nexcept it demonstrably isn\'t.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Blagoj Petrushev wrote:
>
> Meclaren wrote:
> <<<
> Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
> like photons nor electrons in this respect.
> >>>
>
> I don't believe that there is a massless neutrino. If there is, then it
> doesn't have grav mass for sure.
>
> B Petrushev

Neutrinos are massed or they could not oscillate flavors when
propagating. It is the shape of space that determines free fall
trajectory in vacuum. Composition does not appear in any validated
testable theory of gravitation. Neutrinos fall like everything else
falls, with inertial and gravitational mass in invariant ratio.

http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/osc.html
<http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20030723113251.htm>
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/\nu_timeline.html

The only unexamined property for Equivalence Principle violation is
test mass geometry, qz.pdf below. The full parity Eotvos experiment
examining maximally parity divergent left-handed vs. right-handed
quartz will be completed by 01 August 2005. Then, we will know if
there is an EP parity anomaly, if Lorentz invariance can be broken, if
space is isotropic, if conservation of angular momentum is true for
parity test masses.

It is *obvious* that all that stuff cannot fail! Before New Years Day
1957 it was *obvious* that all of physics was symmetric to
C,P,T,CP,CT, and PT symmetries,

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html

except it demonstrably isn't.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

frisbieinstein@yahoo.com

Apr23-05, 11:52 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nUncle Al wrote:\n> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:\n> >\n> > Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very\n> > accurately but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they\n> > should be the same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero\n> > gravitational mass?\n>\n> We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no\n> gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments\n> (umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +\n> protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.\n> Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All\n> chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion\n> difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding\n> energies,\n>\n> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22\n\nI looked at the reference but found it a bit of heavy going. It seems\nto me that what you could have two test masses made of different\nisotopes, measure the differential inertial mass, then test to see\nwhere the differential gravitational mass is the same via effect on a\nthird mass.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al wrote:
> frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very
> > accurately but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they
> > should be the same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero
> > gravitational mass?
>
> We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no
> gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments
> (umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +
> protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.
> Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All
> chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion
> difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding
> energies,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22

I looked at the reference but found it a bit of heavy going. It seems
to me that what you could have two test masses made of different
isotopes, measure the differential inertial mass, then test to see
where the differential gravitational mass is the same via effect on a
third mass.

Uncle Al

Apr24-05, 02:38 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:\n>\n> Uncle Al wrote:\n> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very\n> > > accurately but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they\n> > > should be the same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero\n> > > gravitational mass?\n> >\n> > We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no\n> > gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments\n> > (umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +\n> > protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.\n> > Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All\n> > chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion\n> > difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding\n> > energies,\n> >\n> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22\n>\n> I looked at the reference but found it a bit of heavy going. It seems\n> to me that what you could have two test masses made of different\n> isotopes, measure the differential inertial mass, then test to see\n> where the differential gravitational mass is the same via effect on a\n> third mass.\n\nBinary comparison, Eotvos balance, one shot, sensitive to one part in\nten trillion dfference/average.\n\nhttp://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/m6_2.html\n\nOn one side you load high density polyethylene, (-CH2-)n. That gives\nyou 8 electrons/14 baryons, 0.571 number ratio. On the other side you\nload bismuth. That gives you 83 electrons/209 baryons, 0.397 ratio\n(and no noise from radioactive decay). HDPE has a density of 0.96\ng/cm^3, Bi is 9.78 g/cm^3. You symmtrically surface drill and/or\nhollow the bismuth masses to balance the Eotvos rotor for mass and\nmoments of inertia, further imbalancing the electron population on the\ntwo opposing sides. Load them, button up the Eotvos balance, and let\nit run. If electrons fall differently from baryons, you get a net\nsignal over time.\n\nIf you worry about relativistic effects in heavy elements and whatnot,\nrun (Li-6)(H-1) with 0.571 ratio against (Li-7)(H-2) with 0.444\nratio. Folks have a lot of experience handling lithium hydride given\nH-bomb secondaries. The heavy lithium deuteride test mass must be\ndrilled or hollowed to balance rotor mass and moments of inertia, so\nagain the electron number discrepancy is amplified. Do you want to\nnull out nuclear binding energies/nucleon that vary wildy over those\nisotopic species? Run two more experiments, each isotopic species\nagainst HDPE (much too dense - carve it) or TPX\npoly(4-methyl-1-pentene) with density 0.83 g/cm^3 (still too dense,\nbut close). Natural abundance LiH is 0.77 g/cm^3.\n\nYou can permute compositions to test protons, neutrons, nuclear\nbinding energies, nuclear spin, nuclear quadrupole moments, electron\nspin vs. electron orbital angular momentum (magnets)... All this has\nbeen done, and more. *All* chemical compositions fall identically.\n\na = GM/r^2\nWhere is the test mass?\n\nGravitation by whatever credible theory is a backgroundless geometry.\nThe proper challenge of spacetime geometry is then test mass\ngeometry. Chirality, only requiring a causal and orientable spacetime\nmanifold, arises from coordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a\npseudoscalar field (Levi-Civita tensor). Parity is chirality\nsimultaneously along all coordinate axes. One therefore proposes that\nextremal opposite parity test masses of the *same* chemical\ncomposition form an interesting Equivalence Principle test.\n\nClassical physics says such an experiment will be exactly identical on\nboth sides for all measurable physical properties and will give a\nperfect null output. Optical rotation and piezoelectricity do not\nmatter because the test masses are opaquely gold-plated and passively\nmounted. Quartz is routinely fabricated to optical tolerences. A\nreproducible net output would be an inarguable Equivalence Principle\nparity violation.\n\nParity crystallographic space group P3(1)21 quartz and P3(2)21 quartz\ncalculate as being maximally theoretically parity divergent. We have\nthe added bonus of amorphous fused silica. The two hemiparity Eotvos\nexperiments\' outputs - if any - should algebraically sum to that of\nthe full parity Eotvos experiment. Quartz is commercially\nhydrothermally grown to extreme purity and perfection for frequency\nstabilizing electronic devices.\n\n98 days to completion of the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very
> > > accurately but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they
> > > should be the same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero
> > > gravitational mass?
> >
> > We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no
> > gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments
> > (umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +
> > protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.
> > Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All
> > chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion
> > difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding
> > energies,
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
>
> I looked at the reference but found it a bit of heavy going. It seems
> to me that what you could have two test masses made of different
> isotopes, measure the differential inertial mass, then test to see
> where the differential gravitational mass is the same via effect on a
> third mass.

Binary comparison, Eotvos balance, one shot, sensitive to one part in
ten trillion dfference/average.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/m6_2.html

On one side you load high density polyethylene, (-CH2-)n. That gives
you 8 electrons/14 baryons, .571 number ratio. On the other side you
load bismuth. That gives you 83 electrons/209 baryons, .397 ratio
(and no noise from radioactive decay). HDPE has a density of .96
g/cm^3, Bi is 9.78 g/cm^3. You symmtrically surface drill and/or
hollow the bismuth masses to balance the Eotvos rotor for mass and
moments of inertia, further imbalancing the electron population on the
two opposing sides. Load them, button up the Eotvos balance, and let
it run. If electrons fall differently from baryons, you get a net
signal over time.

If you worry about relativistic effects in heavy elements and whatnot,
run (Li-6)(H-1) with .571 ratio against (Li-7)(H-2) with .444
ratio. Folks have a lot of experience handling lithium hydride given
H-bomb secondaries. The heavy lithium deuteride test mass must be
drilled or hollowed to balance rotor mass and moments of inertia, so
again the electron number discrepancy is amplified. Do you want to
null out nuclear binding energies/nucleon that vary wildy over those
isotopic species? Run two more experiments, each isotopic species
against HDPE (much too dense - carve it) or TPX
poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) with density .83 g/cm^3 (still too dense,
but close). Natural abundance LiH is .77 g/cm^3.

You can permute compositions to test protons, neutrons, nuclear
binding energies, nuclear spin, nuclear quadrupole moments, electron
spin vs. electron orbital angular momentum (magnets)... All this has
been done, and more. *All* chemical compositions fall identically.

a = GM/r^2
Where is the test mass?

Gravitation by whatever credible theory is a backgroundless geometry.
The proper challenge of spacetime geometry is then test mass
geometry. Chirality, only requiring a causal and orientable spacetime
manifold, arises from coordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a
pseudoscalar field (Levi-Civita tensor). Parity is chirality
simultaneously along all coordinate axes. One therefore proposes that
extremal opposite parity test masses of the *same* chemical
composition form an interesting Equivalence Principle test.

Classical physics says such an experiment will be exactly identical on
both sides for all measurable physical properties and will give a
perfect null output. Optical rotation and piezoelectricity do not
matter because the test masses are opaquely gold-plated and passively
mounted. Quartz is routinely fabricated to optical tolerences. A
reproducible net output would be an inarguable Equivalence Principle
parity violation.

Parity crystallographic space group P3(1)21 quartz and P3(2)21 quartz
calculate as being maximally theoretically parity divergent. We have
the added bonus of amorphous fused silica. The two hemiparity Eotvos
experiments' outputs - if any - should algebraically sum to that of
the full parity Eotvos experiment. Quartz is commercially
hydrothermally grown to extreme purity and perfection for frequency
stabilizing electronic devices.

98 days to completion of the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Creator

Apr24-05, 11:13 PM

The only unexamined property for Equivalence Principle violation is
test mass geometry, qz.pdf below. The full parity Eotvos experiment
examining maximally parity divergent left-handed vs. right-handed
quartz will be completed by 01 August 2005. Then, we will know if
there is an EP parity anomaly, if Lorentz invariance can be broken, if
space is isotropic, if conservation of angular momentum is true for
parity test masses.

It is *obvious* that all that stuff cannot fail! Before New Years Day
1957 it was *obvious* that all of physics was symmetric to
C,P,T,CP,CT, and PT symmetries,

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html

except it demonstrably isn't.

Dito for free falling antiparticles?; no empirical data from local lab test - no verification of inertial/grav mass ratio; a presumed different coupling provides no confidence in a=GM/r^2. Critics contend it violates C.O.E.; wouldn't a non-null (chiral) full parity violation suffer the same criticism??

Creator

Nick Maclaren

Apr25-05, 04:05 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <42696D66.86313B5C@hate.spam.net>,\nUncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n|> >\n|> > Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\n|> > like photons nor electrons in this respect.\n|>\n|> More read, less screed,\n|>\n|> ALL compositions of matter fall identically in vacuum, including\n|> binding energies that are negative energies (e.g., Nordtvedt effect).\n\nWell, that is a very similar statement to mine (i.e. that both\ngravitational and inertial mass are over-simplifications). There\nare many ways of saying the same thing.\n\n|> Mass is anonymous and fungible in ALL observationally consistent\n|> theories of gravitation.\n\nReally? Well, you may be right, but that goes WAY beyond Einstein\nand into the realms of metaphysics. No, I am not going to ask you\nwhy there can be no other theories of gravitation than Einstein\'s;\nthat is getting far too religious for me :-)\n\n|> Gravitation is geometry. The proper challenge of spacetime geometry\n|> is test mass geometry not test mass composition. 99 days to the\n|> answer.\n\nThat is, indeed, what general relativity says. But you have\nmissed the point of my posting.\n\nThere is an alternative possibility. Let us say that neutrinos\nflip between an electron-like form and a photon-like form once\nevery chronon (yes, I do mean \'windjamming\' between a normal speed\nand the speed of light), or do some such other bizarre thing.\nThey could then follow all the laws of general relativity, and\nyet not have quite the same \'gravitational/inertial mass\'\nbehaviour as either electrons or photons.\n\nUntil and unless their behaviour has been confirmed by actual\nexperiment, all theories of exactly how they do behave has to be\nregarded as (possibly informed) speculation. Please remember,\nexperiment always trumps theory in real physics ....\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <42696D66.86313B5C@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
|> >|> > Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
|> > like photons nor electrons in this respect.
|>
|> More read, less screed,
|>
|> ALL compositions of matter fall identically in vacuum, including
|> binding energies that are negative energies (e.g., Nordtvedt effect).

Well, that is a very similar statement to mine (i.e. that both
gravitational and inertial mass are over-simplifications). There
are many ways of saying the same thing.

|> Mass is anonymous and fungible in ALL observationally consistent
|> theories of gravitation.

Really? Well, you may be right, but that goes WAY beyond Einstein
and into the realms of metaphysics. No, I am not going to ask you
why there can be no other theories of gravitation than Einstein's;
that is getting far too religious for me :-)

|> Gravitation is geometry. The proper challenge of spacetime geometry
|> is test mass geometry not test mass composition. 99 days to the
|> answer.

That is, indeed, what general relativity says. But you have
missed the point of my posting.

There is an alternative possibility. Let us say that neutrinos
flip between an electron-like form and a photon-like form once
every chronon (yes, I do mean 'windjamming' between a normal speed
and the speed of light), or do some such other bizarre thing.
They could then follow all the laws of general relativity, and
yet not have quite the same 'gravitational/inertial mass'
behaviour as either electrons or photons.

Until and unless their behaviour has been confirmed by actual
experiment, all theories of exactly how they do behave has to be
regarded as (possibly informed) speculation. Please remember,
experiment always trumps theory in real physics ....

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Uncle Al

Apr25-05, 07:57 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren wrote:\n>\n> In article <42696D66.86313B5C@hate.spam.net>,\n> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n> |> >\n> |> > Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither\n> |> > like photons nor electrons in this respect.\n> |>\n> |> More read, less screed,\n[snip]\n\n> There is an alternative possibility. Let us say that neutrinos\n> flip between an electron-like form and a photon-like form once\n> every chronon (yes, I do mean \'windjamming\' between a normal speed\n> and the speed of light), or do some such other bizarre thing.\n> They could then follow all the laws of general relativity, and\n> yet not have quite the same \'gravitational/inertial mass\'\n> behaviour as either electrons or photons.\n\nPhotons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much\nof physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More\nread, less screed\n\n[snip]\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <42696D66.86313B5C@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
> |> >
> |> > Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
> |> > like photons nor electrons in this respect.
> |>
> |> More read, less screed,
[snip]

> There is an alternative possibility. Let us say that neutrinos
> flip between an electron-like form and a photon-like form once
> every chronon (yes, I do mean 'windjamming' between a normal speed
> and the speed of light), or do some such other bizarre thing.
> They could then follow all the laws of general relativity, and
> yet not have quite the same 'gravitational/inertial mass'
> behaviour as either electrons or photons.

Photons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much
of physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More
read, less screed

[snip]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Nick Maclaren

Apr26-05, 07:13 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nIn article <426D7292.94458A21@hate.spam.net>,\nUncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n|>\n|> Photons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much\n|> of physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More\n|> read, less screed\n\nOh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.\n\nIt might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be\nknown is already known, that there are known inconsistencies\nbetween several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most\neminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to\nbe true may only be approximations.\n\nIt would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the\n"known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next\nlevel and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <426D7292.94458A21@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
|>
|> Photons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much
|> of physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More
|> read, less screed

Oh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.

It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be
known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies
between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most
eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to
be true may only be approximations.

It would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the
"known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next
level and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Blagoj Petrushev

Apr26-05, 01:27 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Maclaren wrote:\n<<<\nthat there are known inconsistencies\nbetween several aspects of basic physics\n>>>\n\nThere are no inconsistencies. The classical mechanics is right, you\njust use hbar=0, c=inf. The spec rel is right, just use hbar=0. So you\nhave to admit that qauntum theory is right you just have to use G=0.\nWhen the Quantum Gravity will be brought to life, it will not erase the\ncurrent physics, it will enlarge it, just as spec rel enlarges\nclassical mechanics.\n\n<<<\nOh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.\n>>>\n\nThere\'s no dogma in here, the physics came in various forms, e.g. the\nformalisms of Dirac quite differed frome those of von Neumann. Also, in\nextension of this, there is no such thing as scientific method, I\nrecommend "Against Method" by Paul Fayerabend.\n\n\nB Petrushev\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Maclaren wrote:
<<<
that there are known inconsistencies
between several aspects of basic physics
>>>

There are no inconsistencies. The classical mechanics is right, you
just use \hbar=0, c=inf. The spec rel is right, just use \hbar=0. So you
have to admit that qauntum theory is right you just have to use G=0.
When the Quantum Gravity will be brought to life, it will not erase the
current physics, it will enlarge it, just as spec rel enlarges
classical mechanics.

<<<
Oh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.
>>>

There's no dogma in here, the physics came in various forms, e.g. the
formalisms of Dirac quite differed frome those of von Neumann. Also, in
extension of this, there is no such thing as scientific method, I
recommend "Against Method" by Paul Fayerabend.

B Petrushev

Douglas Natelson

Apr26-05, 01:27 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren wrote:\n> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n[snip]\n> It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be\n> known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies\n> between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most\n> eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to\n> be true may only be approximations.\n\nUncle Al is well-versed in GR, is hardly immune from\niconoclastic tendencies, and knows the above. He also has\nlittle tolerance for those who propose suggestions that\nare prima facie "not even wrong" (that is, in obvious\ncontradiction to a wealth of experimental facts).\n\n> It would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the\n> "known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next\n> level and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.\n\nWell, one thing is certain: GR and standard quantum field\ntheory (incl. QED and QCD) are clearly both excellent\napproximations of any underlying combined theory, in appropriate\nregions of validity that cover almost everything we encounter.\n\nA serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based\nviolations of the equivalence principle, shouldn\'t one be\nable to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on\nspin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see\ntidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that\nantimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this\nshould certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue\nis one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than\nindividual spin-polarized point particles....\n\n--DN\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
[snip]
> It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be
> known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies
> between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most
> eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to
> be true may only be approximations.

Uncle Al is well-versed in GR, is hardly immune from
iconoclastic tendencies, and knows the above. He also has
little tolerance for those who propose suggestions that
are prima facie "not even wrong" (that is, in obvious
contradiction to a wealth of experimental facts).

> It would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the
> "known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next
> level and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

Well, one thing is certain: GR and standard quantum field
theory (incl. QED and QCD) are clearly both excellent
approximations of any underlying combined theory, in appropriate
regions of validity that cover almost everything we encounter.

A serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based
violations of the equivalence principle, shouldn't one be
able to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on
spin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see
tidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that
antimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this
should certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue
is one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than
individual spin-polarized point particles....

--DN

Uncle Al

Apr27-05, 12:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren wrote:\n>\n> In article <426D7292.94458A21@hate.spam.net>,\n> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n> |>\n> |> Photons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much\n> |> of physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More\n> |> read, less screed\n>\n> Oh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.\n>\n> It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be\n> known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies\n> between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most\n> eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to\n> be true may only be approximations.\n>\n> It would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the\n> "known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next\n> level and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.\n\nAll symmetries in physics are coupled to observable conserved\nproperties 1:1 and vice-versa. This happens through Noether\'s theorem\n(continuous symmetries) and other strong correspondences. Any\nproposed physics that contradicts observation is irrecoverably wrong.\nThat last sentence is absolute.\n\nYou cannot squeeze a pimple and assume the effect is strictly local.\nIf you violate a conservation law you break the symmetry generating\nit. That can have repercussions **everywhere.**\n\nUnless you can propose an executable experimental test of the untoward\nconsequences your wild assertions, they are invalid at face value.\nDead, dead, dead at birth. Nobody breaks conservation of angular\nmomentum, conservation of lepton generation number, conservation of\nmass-energy... all at once and lives. It is the prattling of an idiot\nif absent a proposed empirical test to make it stick.\n\nqz.pdf below would demonstrate spacetime anisotropy with an empirical\nEquivalence Principle parity violation. Left-handed and right-handed\nsingle crystal quartz would be seen to reproducibly fall differently\nin vacuum. Goodbye Lorentz Invariance, too.\n\nThe full parity Eotvos experiment will be completed by 01 August. If\nthere is a null output, none of the preceeding fantastical stuff\nobtains. If there is a non-null output, physics must be rewritten yet\nagain. The difference between my proposal and your proposal is that\nmy proposal is calculable and testable. Were it to happen, no\npreceding observation in any venue at any scale would be affected.\nThat makes all the difference in the world - and the rest of the\nuniverse.\n\nYou are wrong. Nothing can fix that, not even appeals to "there are\nknown inconsistencies between several aspects of basic physics."\nThere are no empirical inconsistencies. Not a single one. Theory is\njust that. It only survives until empirical falsification. That is\nwhy we do experiments.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <426D7292.94458A21@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
> |>
> |> Photons are unmassed bosons, electrons are massed fermions. How much
> |> of physics are willing to trash to maintain your illusions? More
> |> read, less screed
>
> Oh, just the dogma - I am quite happy with the science.
>
> It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be
> known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies
> between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most
> eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to
> be true may only be approximations.
>
> It would surprise me to learn that you know exactly which of the
> "known facts" will be preserved when physics moves on to the next
> level and/or unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

All symmetries in physics are coupled to observable conserved
properties 1:1 and vice-versa. This happens through Noether's theorem
(continuous symmetries) and other strong correspondences. Any
proposed physics that contradicts observation is irrecoverably wrong.
That last sentence is absolute.

You cannot squeeze a pimple and assume the effect is strictly local.
If you violate a conservation law you break the symmetry generating
it. That can have repercussions **everywhere.**

Unless you can propose an executable experimental test of the untoward
consequences your wild assertions, they are invalid at face value.
Dead, dead, dead at birth. Nobody breaks conservation of angular
momentum, conservation of lepton generation number, conservation of
mass-energy... all at once and lives. It is the prattling of an idiot
if absent a proposed empirical test to make it stick.

qz.pdf below would demonstrate spacetime anisotropy with an empirical
Equivalence Principle parity violation. Left-handed and right-handed
single crystal quartz would be seen to reproducibly fall differently
in vacuum. Goodbye Lorentz Invariance, too.

The full parity Eotvos experiment will be completed by 01 August. If
there is a null output, none of the preceeding fantastical stuff
obtains. If there is a non-null output, physics must be rewritten yet
again. The difference between my proposal and your proposal is that
my proposal is calculable and testable. Were it to happen, no
preceding observation in any venue at any scale would be affected.
That makes all the difference in the world - and the rest of the
universe.

You are wrong. Nothing can fix that, not even appeals to "there are
known inconsistencies between several aspects of basic physics."
There are no empirical inconsistencies. Not a single one. Theory is
just that. It only survives until empirical falsification. That is
why we do experiments.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al

Apr27-05, 12:55 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Douglas Natelson wrote:\n>\n> Nick Maclaren wrote:\n> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n> [snip]\n\n> A serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based\n> violations of the equivalence principle, shouldn\'t one be\n> able to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on\n> spin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see\n> tidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that\n> antimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this\n> should certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue\n> is one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than\n> individual spin-polarized point particles....\n\nIt\'s a good question and it deserves a good answer! This will take a\nwhile.\n\n1) The plane of linearly polarized photons is *not* rotated by\npropagation through lightyears of empty space. The parity Eotvos\nexperiment is relevant to static massed configuration only. (We might\nwhisper stuff about the Higgs interaction being the parity divergent\nboojum, but not in public.)\n\nAnnals of Mathematics 40 149 (1939)\nhttp://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 79 1801 (1997)\nhttp://www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/analysis.html\nhttp://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node11.html\nhttp://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102093\nPhys. Rev. D 52 3168 (1995)\n\n2) Nonrelativistic particles have helicity not chirality. Take a\ntennis ball and mark the poles plus an arrow parallel to the Equator.\nMake a right-hand fist with your thumb pointing up and align the\ntennis ball so one pole points in your thumb direction as the arrow\npoints in your fingers\' direction. Flip poles. Uh oh... If you can\nget around to view the other side you don\'t have chirality. High\nenergy beta-rays are uniformly left-handed (Weak Interaction) and\ninduce net chiral chemistries. They scatter, rapidly lose energy, and\nthe net chiral induction (e.g., differential decomposition of a\nracemic amino acid) rapidly falls off with depth of penetration.\n\n3) Polarized beams whether atoms, ions, nuclei, electrons,\nneutrons, protons, or mesons run through standard interferometric\nexperiments (Colella-Overhauser-Werner\n\nAm. J. Phys. 68 404 (2000)\narXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9602013\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975)\n\nand Bonse-Wroblewski neutron interferometers;\n\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401 (1983)\n\nKasevich-Chu atom interferometers)\n\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 67 181 (1991)\nAppl. Phys. B 54 321 (1992)\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 93 240404 (2004)\n\nshow *no* reported gravitational parity effects. First, such beams\nare generally not relativistic and are therefore not chiral. Second,\nexpected EP parity effects are **STRONGLY** constrained to be less\nthan 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and weakly constrained\nto be less than 10 parts-per-trillion difference/average. Mass\ninterferometric techniques are not much more sensitive than 10^(-3)\nrelative, and certainly not better than 10(-5) relative. If there\nwere an anomaly it would be hopelessly lost in noise.\n\n4) Green\'s function. How could a a parity anomaly arise from mass\nconfiguration? Newtonian gravitation is strictly symmetric to parity\ninversion, as is GR. An EP parity effect must source from nuclear\ndimensions\' fluctuations or smaller - the only scale not covered by\nclassical Green\'s function treatments - implying immense energies.\nSimilarly, why can\'t we configure 27 tungsten carbide balls plus thin\ncarbon struts into a CHI=1 configration and see major free fall or\nEotvos balance anomalies from the opposite parity configurations?\n\nThis was brought to my attention by several people. It was a real\nposer to classically source the parity anomaly. Saying Green\'s\nfunction does not apply to GR is a wimp excuse. Our original analysis\nof CHI vs. radius for single crystal quartz was sparsely sampled.\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png\n711 points from a couple of dozen atoms to 444 quadrillion atoms, or\na final ball radius of 0.22 mm. 30,000 CPU hrs total in a 16-cluster\nof Opteron-848s.\n\nThe answer is in there but it is invisible. Let\'s burn another\n120,000 CPU-hrs in a huge Xeon cluster and densely sample,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png\n90,386 points, same span. Low end tapers because CHI does not\nfluctuate. High end tapers because each point took three CPU-days to\ncrunch (time needed varies as R^2). Donated computer time only goes\nso far.\n\nEven at 100 A radius, CHI has incredibly dense fluctuations vs.\nradius. If "R" is the single crystal quartz ball radius and "r" is\nthe smallest radial increment of the crystal lattice that will always\ngive a CHI fluctuation, then we empirically fit from intensely dense\ndata sampling runs at modest radii\n\nr = 10 A/R^2\n\nAt R=10^5 angstroms, r=10^(-9) angstroms. A centimeter radius ball\nhas CHI fluctuations at 10^(-23) cm radius increments! Deeply\nsub-quark. There is your small distance anomaly source arising from\nsimple geometry. Opposite parity configurations will jog in opposite\ndirections along all directions. The 3% of bond length jiggling of\natoms at room temp intensely drives CHI fluctuations in macroscopic\ndimensions of parity crytsal lattice. Though it averages to zero,\nthermal anisotropy is a consistently oriented ellipsoid vs. the\ncrystal lattice. Thermal anisotropy is also chiral in quartz.\n\nWe see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to\nhave a CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must\naggregate a sufficient number of times to build those CHI fluctuations\nvs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full\nparity experiment giving a net output in principle.\n\n\nNow, let\'s have some fun. Will double slit diffraction of a molecular\nbeam of chirally-resolved camphor give the same pattern as double slit\ndiffraction of a racemic 50:50 mixture? 3:1 vs 1:3?\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Douglas Natelson wrote:
>
> Nick Maclaren wrote:
> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
> [snip]

> A serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based
> violations of the equivalence principle, shouldn't one be
> able to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on
> spin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see
> tidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that
> antimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this
> should certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue
> is one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than
> individual spin-polarized point particles....

It's a good question and it deserves a good answer! This will take a
while.

1) The plane of linearly polarized photons is *not* rotated by
propagation through lightyears of empty space. The parity Eotvos
experiment is relevant to static massed configuration only. (We might
whisper stuff about the Higgs interaction being the parity divergent
boojum, but not in public.)

Annals of Mathematics 40 149 (1939)
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/
Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 1801 (1997)
http://www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/analysis.html
http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node11.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102093
Phys. Rev. D 52 3168 (1995)

2) Nonrelativistic particles have helicity not chirality. Take a
tennis ball and mark the poles plus an arrow parallel to the Equator.
Make a right-hand fist with your thumb pointing up and align the
tennis ball so one pole points in your thumb direction as the arrow
points in your fingers' direction. Flip poles. Uh oh... If you can
get around to view the other side you don't have chirality. High
energy \beta-rays are uniformly left-handed (Weak Interaction) and
induce net chiral chemistries. They scatter, rapidly lose energy, and
the net chiral induction (e.g., differential decomposition of a
racemic amino acid) rapidly falls off with depth of penetration.

3) Polarized beams whether atoms, ions, nuclei, electrons,
neutrons, protons, or mesons run through standard interferometric
experiments (Colella-Overhauser-Werner

Am. J. Phys. 68 404 (2000)
arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9602013
Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975)

and Bonse-Wroblewski neutron interferometers;

Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401 (1983)

Kasevich-Chu atom interferometers)

Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 181 (1991)
Appl. Phys. B 54 321 (1992)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 240404 (2004)

show *no* reported gravitational parity effects. First, such beams
are generally not relativistic and are therefore not chiral. Second,
expected EP parity effects are **STRONGLY** constrained to be less
than 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and weakly constrained
to be less than 10 parts-per-trillion difference/average. Mass
interferometric techniques are not much more sensitive than 10^(-3)
relative, and certainly not better than 10(-5) relative. If there
were an anomaly it would be hopelessly lost in noise.

4) Green's function. How could a a parity anomaly arise from mass
configuration? Newtonian gravitation is strictly symmetric to parity
inversion, as is GR. An EP parity effect must source from nuclear
dimensions' fluctuations or smaller - the only scale not covered by
classical Green's function treatments - implying immense energies.
Similarly, why can't we configure 27 tungsten carbide balls plus thin
carbon struts into a \CHI=1 configration and see major free fall or
Eotvos balance anomalies from the opposite parity configurations?

This was brought to my attention by several people. It was a real
poser to classically source the parity anomaly. Saying Green's
function does not apply to GR is a wimp excuse. Our original analysis
of \CHI vs. radius for single crystal quartz was sparsely sampled.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
711 points from a couple of dozen atoms to 444 quadrillion atoms, or
a final ball radius of .22 mm. 30,000 CPU hrs total in a 16-cluster
of Opteron-848s.

The answer is in there but it is invisible. Let's burn another
120,000 CPU-hrs in a huge Xeon cluster and densely sample,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
90,386 points, same span. Low end tapers because \CHI does not
fluctuate. High end tapers because each point took three CPU-days to
crunch (time needed varies as R^2). Donated computer time only goes
so far.

Even at 100 A radius, \CHI has incredibly dense fluctuations vs.
radius. If "R" is the single crystal quartz ball radius and "r" is
the smallest radial increment of the crystal lattice that will always
give a \CHI fluctuation, then we empirically fit from intensely dense
data sampling runs at modest radii

r = 10 A/R^2At R=10^5 angstroms, r=10^(-9) angstroms. A centimeter radius ball
has \CHI fluctuations at 10^(-23) cm radius increments! Deeply
sub-quark. There is your small distance anomaly source arising from
simple geometry. Opposite parity configurations will jog in opposite
directions along all directions. The 3% of bond length jiggling of
atoms at room temp intensely drives \CHI fluctuations in macroscopic
dimensions of parity crytsal lattice. Though it averages to zero,
thermal anisotropy is a consistently oriented ellipsoid vs. the
crystal lattice. Thermal anisotropy is also chiral in quartz.

We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to
have a \CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must
aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those \CHI fluctuations
vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full
parity experiment giving a net output in principle.

Now, let's have some fun. Will double slit diffraction of a molecular
beam of chirally-resolved camphor give the same pattern as double slit
diffraction of a racemic 50:50 mixture? 3:1 vs 1:3?

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Nick Maclaren

Apr30-05, 03:29 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In article <d4ljs7\\$pt9\\$1@joe.rice.edu>,\nDouglas Natelson <natelson@no-spam.rice.no-spam.edu> writes:\n|> Nick Maclaren wrote:\n|> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n|> [snip]\n|> > It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be\n|> > known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies\n|> > between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most\n|> > eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to\n|> > be true may only be approximations.\n|>\n|> Uncle Al is well-versed in GR, is hardly immune from\n|> iconoclastic tendencies, and knows the above. He also has\n|> little tolerance for those who propose suggestions that\n|> are prima facie "not even wrong" (that is, in obvious\n|> contradiction to a wealth of experimental facts).\n\nHe is also incredibly dogmatic, and very keen on flaming people\nfor statements that they did not make (as he has done twice so\nfar to my postings in this thread alone). He really should follow\nhis own guidelines "more read, less screed".\n\nI shall try one last time to explain.\n\nNeutrinos have only recently been agreed to have a non-zero mass\n(yes, two decades IS recent), and I am not sure that all physicists\nagree with that even now. That is clearly rather important to\nwhether they travel at the speed of light, at a determined speed\nbelow it, or neither (as some quantum mechanical \'effects\' do).\n\nWhen you over-simplify GR down to "gravitational" and "inertial"\nmass, you get different behaviour for photons versus electrons,\nfrom precisely the same underlying theory and formulae. This is\nevidence that using those terms (and Newtonian mechanics) starts\nto break down in that example.\n\nNow, quantum mechanics and GR have never been combined, and there\nare inconsistencies (e.g. in the time it takes for an electron to\ntunnel). It is clear that any merged theory will not match BOTH\nperfectly for such cases. My point was that it isn\'t entirely\ncertain that ALL \'particles\' will be EITHER photon-like (zero\nrest mass and travel at the speed of light etc.) OR electron-like\n(non-zero rest mass and travel at a determined speed below the\nspeed of light etc.)\n\nMy original posting pointed out that the original posting was much\nmore plausible about the neutrino than the electron, and I had\nmany reasons to say that. I have no idea whether current theory\nadmits of a possibility of particles changing from zero rest\nmass forms into non-zero rest mass ones, and it would be amusing to\nbe informed of that. But, even if that is impossible, that is NOT\nthe only way that such anomalies could occur.\n\nNo, I am not going to give any more examples, because I am not going\nto follow up, but several papers in leading journals speculate on\nphenomena that might \'travel\' anomalously.\n\n|> Well, one thing is certain: GR and standard quantum field\n|> theory (incl. QED and QCD) are clearly both excellent\n|> approximations of any underlying combined theory, in appropriate\n|> regions of validity that cover almost everything we encounter.\n\nNo doubt about that. But that does NOT mean that they are perfect\npredictors of new phenomena. Claiming that a particular aspect\nis certain to apply under all conditions, even ones that have not\nyet been imagined, is not science, but dogma.\n\n\nRegards,\nNick Maclaren.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In article <d4ljs7$pt9$1@joe.rice.edu>,
Douglas Natelson <natelson@no-spam.rice.no-spam.edu> writes:
|> Nick Maclaren wrote:
|> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
|> [snip]
|> > It might surprise you to learn that not everything that is to be
|> > known is already known, that there are known inconsistencies
|> > between several aspects of basic physics, and that even the most
|> > eminent physicists admit that some things that they believe to
|> > be true may only be approximations.
|>
|> Uncle Al is well-versed in GR, is hardly immune from
|> iconoclastic tendencies, and knows the above. He also has
|> little tolerance for those who propose suggestions that
|> are prima facie "not even wrong" (that is, in obvious
|> contradiction to a wealth of experimental facts).

He is also incredibly dogmatic, and very keen on flaming people
for statements that they did not make (as he has done twice so
far to my postings in this thread alone). He really should follow
his own guidelines "more read, less screed".

I shall try one last time to explain.

Neutrinos have only recently been agreed to have a non-zero mass
(yes, two decades IS recent), and I am not sure that all physicists
agree with that even now. That is clearly rather important to
whether they travel at the speed of light, at a determined speed
below it, or neither (as some quantum mechanical 'effects' do).

When you over-simplify GR down to "gravitational" and "inertial"
mass, you get different behaviour for photons versus electrons,
from precisely the same underlying theory and formulae. This is
evidence that using those terms (and Newtonian mechanics) starts
to break down in that example.

Now, quantum mechanics and GR have never been combined, and there
are inconsistencies (e.g. in the time it takes for an electron to
tunnel). It is clear that any merged theory will not match BOTH
perfectly for such cases. My point was that it isn't entirely
certain that ALL 'particles' will be EITHER photon-like (zero
rest mass and travel at the speed of light etc.) OR electron-like
(non-zero rest mass and travel at a determined speed below the
speed of light etc.)

My original posting pointed out that the original posting was much
more plausible about the neutrino than the electron, and I had
many reasons to say that. I have no idea whether current theory
admits of a possibility of particles changing from zero rest
mass forms into non-zero rest mass ones, and it would be amusing to
be informed of that. But, even if that is impossible, that is NOT
the only way that such anomalies could occur.

No, I am not going to give any more examples, because I am not going
to follow up, but several papers in leading journals speculate on
phenomena that might 'travel' anomalously.

|> Well, one thing is certain: GR and standard quantum field
|> theory (incl. QED and QCD) are clearly both excellent
|> approximations of any underlying combined theory, in appropriate
|> regions of validity that cover almost everything we encounter.

No doubt about that. But that does NOT mean that they are perfect
predictors of new phenomena. Claiming that a particular aspect
is certain to apply under all conditions, even ones that have not
yet been imagined, is not science, but dogma.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Thomas Johnson

Apr30-05, 03:31 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Uncle Al wrote:\n\n> We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to\n> have a CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must\n> aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those CHI\nfluctuations\n> vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full\n> parity experiment giving a net output in principle.\n\nCould you put this in some perspective?\n\nI.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published\nliterature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing\ncalculations in GR can use a value of CHI? Can someone in experiment\nor theory see any difference in a crystal with a CHI=0.9999 and one of\n0.9998?\n\nThomas.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al wrote:

> We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to
> have a \CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must
> aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those \CHI
fluctuations
> vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full
> parity experiment giving a net output in principle.

Could you put this in some perspective?

I.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published
literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing
calculations in GR can use a value of \CHI? Can someone in experiment
or theory see any difference in a crystal with a \CHI=0.9999 and one of
.9998?

Thomas.

thanatos

Apr30-05, 03:35 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>who conceived the idea Al?\n\n\n"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message\nnews:426EBE48.99798C88@hate.spam.net...\n > Douglas Natelson wrote:\n>>\n>> Nick Maclaren wrote:\n>> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:\n>> [snip]\n>\n>> A serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based\n>> violations of the equivalence principle, shouldn\'t one be\n>> able to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on\n>> spin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see\n>> tidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that\n>> antimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this\n>> should certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue\n>> is one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than\n>> individual spin-polarized point particles....\n>\n> It\'s a good question and it deserves a good answer! This will take a\n> while.\n>\n> 1) The plane of linearly polarized photons is *not* rotated by\n> propagation through lightyears of empty space. The parity Eotvos\n> experiment is relevant to static massed configuration only. (We might\n> whisper stuff about the Higgs interaction being the parity divergent\n> boojum, but not in public.)\n>\n> Annals of Mathematics 40 149 (1939)\n> http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/\n> Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 1801 (1997)\n> http://www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/analysis.html\n> http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node11.html\n> http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102093\n> Phys. Rev. D 52 3168 (1995)\n>\n> 2) Nonrelativistic particles have helicity not chirality. Take a\n> tennis ball and mark the poles plus an arrow parallel to the Equator.\n> Make a right-hand fist with your thumb pointing up and align the\n> tennis ball so one pole points in your thumb direction as the arrow\n> points in your fingers\' direction. Flip poles. Uh oh... If you can\n> get around to view the other side you don\'t have chirality. High\n> energy beta-rays are uniformly left-handed (Weak Interaction) and\n> induce net chiral chemistries. They scatter, rapidly lose energy, and\n> the net chiral induction (e.g., differential decomposition of a\n> racemic amino acid) rapidly falls off with depth of penetration.\n>\n> 3) Polarized beams whether atoms, ions, nuclei, electrons,\n> neutrons, protons, or mesons run through standard interferometric\n> experiments (Colella-Overhauser-Werner\n>\n> Am. J. Phys. 68 404 (2000)\n> arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9602013\n> Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975)\n>\n> and Bonse-Wroblewski neutron interferometers;\n>\n> Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401 (1983)\n>\n> Kasevich-Chu atom interferometers)\n>\n> Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 181 (1991)\n> Appl. Phys. B 54 321 (1992)\n> Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 240404 (2004)\n>\n> show *no* reported gravitational parity effects. First, such beams\n> are generally not relativistic and are therefore not chiral. Second,\n> expected EP parity effects are **STRONGLY** constrained to be less\n> than 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and weakly constrained\n> to be less than 10 parts-per-trillion difference/average. Mass\n> interferometric techniques are not much more sensitive than 10^(-3)\n> relative, and certainly not better than 10(-5) relative. If there\n> were an anomaly it would be hopelessly lost in noise.\n>\n> 4) Green\'s function. How could a a parity anomaly arise from mass\n> configuration? Newtonian gravitation is strictly symmetric to parity\n> inversion, as is GR. An EP parity effect must source from nuclear\n> dimensions\' fluctuations or smaller - the only scale not covered by\n> classical Green\'s function treatments - implying immense energies.\n> Similarly, why can\'t we configure 27 tungsten carbide balls plus thin\n> carbon struts into a CHI=1 configration and see major free fall or\n> Eotvos balance anomalies from the opposite parity configurations?\n>\n> This was brought to my attention by several people. It was a real\n> poser to classically source the parity anomaly. Saying Green\'s\n> function does not apply to GR is a wimp excuse. Our original analysis\n> of CHI vs. radius for single crystal quartz was sparsely sampled.\n>\n> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png\n> 711 points from a couple of dozen atoms to 444 quadrillion atoms, or\n> a final ball radius of 0.22 mm. 30,000 CPU hrs total in a 16-cluster\n> of Opteron-848s.\n>\n> The answer is in there but it is invisible. Let\'s burn another\n> 120,000 CPU-hrs in a huge Xeon cluster and densely sample,\n>\n> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png\n> 90,386 points, same span. Low end tapers because CHI does not\n> fluctuate. High end tapers because each point took three CPU-days to\n> crunch (time needed varies as R^2). Donated computer time only goes\n> so far.\n>\n> Even at 100 A radius, CHI has incredibly dense fluctuations vs.\n> radius. If "R" is the single crystal quartz ball radius and "r" is\n> the smallest radial increment of the crystal lattice that will always\n> give a CHI fluctuation, then we empirically fit from intensely dense\n> data sampling runs at modest radii\n>\n> r = 10 A/R^2\n>\n> At R=10^5 angstroms, r=10^(-9) angstroms. A centimeter radius ball\n> has CHI fluctuations at 10^(-23) cm radius increments! Deeply\n> sub-quark. There is your small distance anomaly source arising from\n> simple geometry. Opposite parity configurations will jog in opposite\n> directions along all directions. The 3% of bond length jiggling of\n> atoms at room temp intensely drives CHI fluctuations in macroscopic\n> dimensions of parity crytsal lattice. Though it averages to zero,\n> thermal anisotropy is a consistently oriented ellipsoid vs. the\n> crystal lattice. Thermal anisotropy is also chiral in quartz.\n>\n> We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to\n> have a CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must\n> aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those CHI fluctuations\n> vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full\n> parity experiment giving a net output in principle.\n>\n>\n> Now, let\'s have some fun. Will double slit diffraction of a molecular\n> beam of chirally-resolved camphor give the same pattern as double slit\n> diffraction of a racemic 50:50 mixture? 3:1 vs 1:3?\n>\n> --\n> Uncle Al\n> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\n> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n>\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>who conceived the idea Al?

"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:426EBE48.99798C88@hate.spam.net...
> Douglas Natelson wrote:
>>
>> Nick Maclaren wrote:
>> > Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
>> [snip]
>
>> A serious question for Uncle Al: if there are chirality-based
>> violations of the equivalence principle, shouldn't one be
>> able to see this by comparing the effects of gravity on
>> spin-polarized beams in accelerators? Since one can see
>> tidal effects on such beams (and that was a big clue that
>> antimatter falls just like normal matter), it seems like this
>> should certainly detect any big differences, unless the issue
>> is one of precision. Certainly nothing is more "chiral" than
>> individual spin-polarized point particles....
>
> It's a good question and it deserves a good answer! This will take a
> while.
>
> 1) The plane of linearly polarized photons is *not* rotated by
> propagation through lightyears of empty space. The parity Eotvos
> experiment is relevant to static massed configuration only. (We might
> whisper stuff about the Higgs interaction being the parity divergent
> boojum, but not in public.)
>
> Annals of Mathematics 40 149 (1939)
> http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 1801 (1997)
> http://www.cc.rochester.edu/college/rtc/Borge/analysis.html
> http://www.ras.ucalgary.ca/SKA/science/node11.html
> http://arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102093
> Phys. Rev. D 52 3168 (1995)
>
> 2) Nonrelativistic particles have helicity not chirality. Take a
> tennis ball and mark the poles plus an arrow parallel to the Equator.
> Make a right-hand fist with your thumb pointing up and align the
> tennis ball so one pole points in your thumb direction as the arrow
> points in your fingers' direction. Flip poles. Uh oh... If you can
> get around to view the other side you don't have chirality. High
> energy \beta-rays are uniformly left-handed (Weak Interaction) and
> induce net chiral chemistries. They scatter, rapidly lose energy, and
> the net chiral induction (e.g., differential decomposition of a
> racemic amino acid) rapidly falls off with depth of penetration.
>
> 3) Polarized beams whether atoms, ions, nuclei, electrons,
> neutrons, protons, or mesons run through standard interferometric
> experiments (Colella-Overhauser-Werner
>
> Am. J. Phys. 68 404 (2000)
> arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9602013
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472 (1975)
>
> and Bonse-Wroblewski neutron interferometers;
>
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 1401 (1983)
>
> Kasevich-Chu atom interferometers)
>
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 181 (1991)
> Appl. Phys. B 54 321 (1992)
> Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 240404 (2004)
>
> show *no* reported gravitational parity effects. First, such beams
> are generally not relativistic and are therefore not chiral. Second,
> expected EP parity effects are **STRONGLY** constrained to be less
> than 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and weakly constrained
> to be less than 10 parts-per-trillion difference/average. Mass
> interferometric techniques are not much more sensitive than 10^(-3)
> relative, and certainly not better than 10(-5) relative. If there
> were an anomaly it would be hopelessly lost in noise.
>
> 4) Green's function. How could a a parity anomaly arise from mass
> configuration? Newtonian gravitation is strictly symmetric to parity
> inversion, as is GR. An EP parity effect must source from nuclear
> dimensions' fluctuations or smaller - the only scale not covered by
> classical Green's function treatments - implying immense energies.
> Similarly, why can't we configure 27 tungsten carbide balls plus thin
> carbon struts into a \CHI=1 configration and see major free fall or
> Eotvos balance anomalies from the opposite parity configurations?
>
> This was brought to my attention by several people. It was a real
> poser to classically source the parity anomaly. Saying Green's
> function does not apply to GR is a wimp excuse. Our original analysis
> of \CHI vs. radius for single crystal quartz was sparsely sampled.
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
> 711 points from a couple of dozen atoms to 444 quadrillion atoms, or
> a final ball radius of .22 mm. 30,000 CPU hrs total in a 16-cluster
> of Opteron-848s.
>
> The answer is in there but it is invisible. Let's burn another
> 120,000 CPU-hrs in a huge Xeon cluster and densely sample,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
> 90,386 points, same span. Low end tapers because \CHI does not
> fluctuate. High end tapers because each point took three CPU-days to
> crunch (time needed varies as R^2). Donated computer time only goes
> so far.
>
> Even at 100 A radius, \CHI has incredibly dense fluctuations vs.
> radius. If "R" is the single crystal quartz ball radius and "r" is
> the smallest radial increment of the crystal lattice that will always
> give a \CHI fluctuation, then we empirically fit from intensely dense
> data sampling runs at modest radii
>
> r = 10 A/R^2
>
> At R=10^5 angstroms, r=10^(-9) angstroms. A centimeter radius ball
> has \CHI fluctuations at 10^(-23) cm radius increments! Deeply
> sub-quark. There is your small distance anomaly source arising from
> simple geometry. Opposite parity configurations will jog in opposite
> directions along all directions. The 3% of bond length jiggling of
> atoms at room temp intensely drives \CHI fluctuations in macroscopic
> dimensions of parity crytsal lattice. Though it averages to zero,
> thermal anisotropy is a consistently oriented ellipsoid vs. the
> crystal lattice. Thermal anisotropy is also chiral in quartz.
>
> We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to
> have a \CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must
> aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those \CHI fluctuations
> vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full
> parity experiment giving a net output in principle.
>
>
> Now, let's have some fun. Will double slit diffraction of a molecular
> beam of chirally-resolved camphor give the same pattern as double slit
> diffraction of a racemic 50:50 mixture? 3:1 vs 1:3?
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
>

Uncle Al

May1-05, 03:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Thomas Johnson wrote:\n>\n> Uncle Al wrote:\n>\n> > We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to\n> > have a CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must\n> > aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those CHI\n> fluctuations\n> > vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full\n> > parity experiment giving a net output in principle.\n>\n> Could you put this in some perspective?\n>\n> I.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published\n> literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing\n> calculations in GR can use a value of CHI? Can someone in experiment\n> or theory see any difference in a crystal with a CHI=0.9999 and one of\n> 0.9998?\n\nCHI=0.99 is entirely satisfactory for the entire test mass. In my lab\n"good enough" is not good enough - certainly not for a fundamental\nobservation with no track record. We aim for mathematical perfection\nand take as close as we can get. The second series of experiments, if\nany, can relax parameters to determine what is necessary and\nsufficient.\n\nCalculation of CHI (normalized quantitative geometric parity\ndivergence) requires knowing the coordinates of every point in the\nset. In principle a periodic single crystal fulfills that requirement\ngiven its lattice space group, three unit cell axes, thee unit cell\nangles, and unique fractional coordinates of contained atoms. That\nsums to an SOP crystal structure from ICSD (inorganics) or the\nCambridge collection (organics). Given that light atoms like hydrogen\nwith large thermal anisotropies are iffy in gravitition and van der\nWaals spacing between discrete molecules is wasted empty space,\ninorganic single molecule parity pair inorganic crystals of heavier\natoms have first priority.\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png\nThe fluctuations of CHI vs. radius are real and desirable. The\ncalculation is conducted in long_double_precision to 18 decimal\nplaces.\n\nIn the real world there are imperfections -\n\n1) sparse noise: impurities, vacancies, interstitials,\ndislocations, mosaicity.\n\n2) intolerable faults: ferroelectric phase; allotropy,\npolymorphism, polytypism, magnetic inclusions, amorphous volumes,\ndisinclinations; and seven different twinning modes for quartz -\nBrazil, Dauphine, Liebisch, Japanese, Esterel, Sardinia, and\nBreithaupt.\n\nCultured quartz has none of (2) (magnetic inclusions of acmite\n(aegirine) and emleusite from autoclave spalling are trivially\ndetectable) and minimal (1). Any perfect periodic crystal lattice\nmust rapidly asymptote to CHI=0 or CHI=1. There is nothing\nin-between. Any real world parity pair crystal lattice will asymptote\nto CHI=1 less rapidly than its perfect model. Substantial structural\nimperfections can be tolerable,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/teshells.png\n\nThe parity Eotvos experiment has maximum possible output given the\nfastest increase of CHI with radius and the smallest emergent volume\nfor COR=1 (graph theoretic identity element only), DSI=0 (does not\nflatten when immersed in higher dimensions), and large CHI growth. If\nyou believe in M-theory and compactified dimensions, you want the\nsmallest possible emergent scale for chirality. Quartz is it,\n\naverage\nmaterial volume/atom\nA^3\n--------------------\ndiamond 5.68\nboron 7.57\nberyllium 8.09\nquartz 12.6 <--\nsilicon 20.3\nPdSbTe 23.3\ntellurium 35.3\n\nQuartz is awesomely tightly packed. Only the very smallest most\ntightly bound atoms beat it. Quartz reaches COR=1, DSI=0, and\nsubstantial CHI at very small radii. We see substantial parity\ndivergence effects in the optical rotation of twistane with CHI=0.72\nand [alpha]D=440 degrees at 100% enantiomeric excess. That is an\nincredibly large rotation for a compact non-polar hydrocarbon with\nroughly equal molecular moments of inertia. Globular chiral\nhydrocarbons typically have rotations of ~1 degree at standard\ndilution. CHI is non-linear. Bigger is better.\n\nFor quartz in Petitjean\'s fully rigorous QCM,\n\natoms CHI DSI COR\n------------------------------------\nSiO4 4 0.000238 0.658392 2\nSiO4Si4 9 0.606391 0 1 (~3 A radius)\nunit cell 9 0.408110 0 1\n\nradius\n------\n6.5 A 85 0.882430 0. 1\n7.0 107 0.964046) 0. 1\n7.5 139 0.941708 0. 1\n8.0 175 0.937344) 0. 1\n8.5 207 0.911911 0. 1\n9.0 249 0.979850 0. 1\n9.5 277 0.958044) 0. 1\n10.0 327 0.977161 0. 1\n11.0 445 0.989933 0. 1\n12.0 569 0.912443 0. 1\n13.0 715 0.972473 0. 1\n14.0 903 0.989786 0. 1\n15.0 1131 0.987555 0. 1\n\nTellurium is interesting for having heavier atoms and being a stack of\nisolated helices, though it grows CHI more slowly. PbSbTe is\ninteresting for having heavier atoms and faster CHI growth with\nradius, though it has math problems elsewhere that may or may not\nmatter.\n\nThermal anisotropy ellipsoids, typically less than 3% of bond length\nat ambient temps, are directed toward voids in the lattice structure.\nThey average to the crystal structure and are necessarily periodically\nchirally oriented in their extremes in quartz\n\nNobody - including you - can assign an output to a predicted\nobservation wthout knowing the coupling constant from theory to\nreality. You cannot derive G from first principles, or any of the 26\nnecessary inputs to the Standard Model. They can only be quantified\nby observation. Once you have them the Standard Model goes vastly\nfurther. That first observation is technically called "discovery."\nDiscovery is obscene in the 21st century because it does not fit into\na business plan, a PERT chart, or a DCF/ROI.\n\nNobody in 420 years has observed an Equivalence Principle violation,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22\n\nChemical composition does not exist in *any* credible theory of\ngravitation. Tthe test mass itself doesn\'t appear,\n\na = GM/r^2\n\nAre you saying, Thomas, that 420 years of experimentation were\nunfounded, ludicrous, stupid? Yes, you say exactly that. You are\npolitically correct and a monster. Theory exists to be falsified.\nAll gravitation is geometry. Challenging spacetime geometry with test\nmass goemetry is obvious, now. It is certainly valid by the rules of\nthe game - and exepctedly more fuitful than challenging the EP with\ncontrasted composition.\n\nThe full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz is running. The answer\nwill be whatever the answer is. If it perfectly nulls within\nexperimental and systematic errors it achieves the gold standard for\nEquivalence Princple testing. If it does not null, it is discovery.\n\n1) "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over\npublic relations, for Nature cannot be fooled," Richard P. Feynman.\n\n2) "If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before,\nwe must leave the door to the unknown ajar," Richard P. Feynman.\n\n3) "Can you give a reference in your own work or in the published\nliterature where someone performing an Eotvos experiment or doing\ncalculations in GR can use a value of CHI?" Thomas Johnson.\n\nIf the full parity Eotvos experiment has a net output, GR will have\nbeen empirically falsified. That is the point of the exercise, you\ntwit.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Thomas Johnson wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient only to
> > have a \CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must
> > aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those \CHI
> fluctuations
> > vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full
> > parity experiment giving a net output in principle.
>
> Could you put this in some perspective?
>
> I.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published
> literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing
> calculations in GR can use a value of \CHI? Can someone in experiment
> or theory see any difference in a crystal with a \CHI=0.9999 and one of
> .9998?

\CHI=0[/itex].99 is entirely satisfactory for the entire test mass. In my lab
"good enough" is not good enough - certainly not for a fundamental
observation with no track record. We aim for mathematical perfection
and take as close as we can get. The second series of experiments, if
any, can relax parameters to determine what is necessary and
sufficient.

Calculation of \CHI (normalized quantitative geometric parity
divergence) requires knowing the coordinates of every point in the
set. In principle a periodic single crystal fulfills that requirement
given its lattice space group, three unit cell axes, thee unit cell
angles, and unique fractional coordinates of contained atoms. That
sums to an SOP crystal structure from ICSD (inorganics) or the
Cambridge collection (organics). Given that light atoms like hydrogen
with large thermal anisotropies are iffy in gravitition and van der
Waals spacing between discrete molecules is wasted empty space,
inorganic single molecule parity pair inorganic crystals of heavier
atoms have first priority.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
The fluctuations of \CHI vs. radius are real and desirable. The
calculation is conducted in long_double_precision to 18 decimal
places.

In the real world there are imperfections -

1) sparse noise: impurities, vacancies, interstitials,
dislocations, mosaicity.

2) intolerable faults: ferroelectric phase; allotropy,
polymorphism, polytypism, magnetic inclusions, amorphous volumes,
disinclinations; and seven different twinning modes for quartz -
Brazil, Dauphine, Liebisch, Japanese, Esterel, Sardinia, and
Breithaupt.

Cultured quartz has none of (2) (magnetic inclusions of acmite
(aegirine) and emleusite from autoclave spalling are trivially
detectable) and minimal (1). Any perfect periodic crystal lattice
must rapidly asymptote to \CHI=0 or \CHI=1. There is nothing
in-between. Any real world parity pair crystal lattice will asymptote
to \CHI=1 less rapidly than its perfect model. Substantial structural
imperfections can be tolerable,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/teshells.png

The parity Eotvos experiment has maximum possible output given the
fastest increase of \CHI with radius and the smallest emergent volume
for COR=1 (graph theoretic identity element only), DSI=0 (does not
flatten when immersed in higher dimensions), and large \CHI growth. If
you believe in M-theory and compactified dimensions, you want the
smallest possible emergent scale for chirality. Quartz is it,

average
material volume/atom
A^3
--------------------
diamond 5.68
boron 7.57
beryllium 8.09
quartz 12.6 <--
silicon 20.3
PdSbTe 23.3
tellurium 35.3

Quartz is awesomely tightly packed. Only the very smallest most
tightly bound atoms beat it. Quartz reaches COR=1, DSI=0, and
substantial \CHI at very small radii. We see substantial parity
divergence effects in the optical rotation of twistane with \CHI=0.72
and [\alpha]D=440 degrees at 100% enantiomeric excess. That is an
incredibly large rotation for a compact non-polar hydrocarbon with
roughly equal molecular moments of inertia. Globular chiral
hydrocarbons typically have rotations of ~1 degree at standard
dilution. \CHI is non-linear. Bigger is better.

For quartz in Petitjean's fully rigorous QCM,

atoms \CHI DSI COR
------------------------------------
SiO4 4 .000238 .658392 2
SiO4Si4 9 .606391 1 (~3 A radius)
unit cell 9 .408110 1

radius
------
6.5 A 85 .882430 . 1
7. 107 .964046) . 1
7.5 139 .941708 . 1
8. 175 .937344) . 1
8.5 207 .911911 . 1
9. 249 .979850 . 1
9.5 277 .958044) . 1
10. 327 .977161 . 1
11. 445 .989933 . 1
12. 569 .912443 . 1
13. 715 .972473 . 1
14. 903 .989786 . 1
15. 1131 .987555 . 1

Tellurium is interesting for having heavier atoms and being a stack of
isolated helices, though it grows \CHI more slowly. PbSbTe is
interesting for having heavier atoms and faster \CHI growth with
radius, though it has math problems elsewhere that may or may not
matter.

Thermal anisotropy ellipsoids, typically less than 3% of bond length
at ambient temps, are directed toward voids in the lattice structure.
They average to the crystal structure and are necessarily periodically
chirally oriented in their extremes in quartz

Nobody - including you - can assign an output to a predicted
observation wthout knowing the coupling constant from theory to
reality. You cannot derive G from first principles, or any of the 26
necessary inputs to the Standard Model. They can only be quantified
by observation. Once you have them the Standard Model goes vastly
further. That first observation is technically called "discovery."
Discovery is obscene in the 21st century because it does not fit into
a business plan, a PERT chart, or a DCF/ROI.

Nobody in 420 years has observed an Equivalence Principle violation,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22

Chemical composition does not exist in *any* credible theory of
gravitation. Tthe test mass itself doesn't appear,

[itex]a = GM/r^2

Are you saying, Thomas, that 420 years of experimentation were
unfounded, ludicrous, stupid? Yes, you say exactly that. You are
politically correct and a monster. Theory exists to be falsified.
All gravitation is geometry. Challenging spacetime geometry with test
mass goemetry is obvious, now. It is certainly valid by the rules of
the game - and exepctedly more fuitful than challenging the EP with
contrasted composition.

The full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz is running. The answer
will be whatever the answer is. If it perfectly nulls within
experimental and systematic errors it achieves the gold standard for
Equivalence Princple testing. If it does not null, it is discovery.

1) "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled," Richard P. Feynman.

2) "If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before,
we must leave the door to the unknown ajar," Richard P. Feynman.

3) "Can you give a reference in your own work or in the published
literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiment or doing
calculations in GR can use a value of \CHI?" Thomas Johnson.

If the full parity Eotvos experiment has a net output, GR will have
been empirically falsified. That is the point of the exercise, you
twit.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al

May1-05, 03:16 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>thanatos wrote:\n>\n> who conceived the idea Al?\n\nThe parity Eotvos experiment - whether a left and right hand fall\nidentically, whether the Equivalence Principle contains a parity\nanomaly - is wholly my original idea, publicly stated in 2000 as the\nchiral Eotvos experiment. Chirality as such is insufficient.\nReduction to practice is also wholly my idea.\n\nEric Adelberger\'s group concurrently, independently, and privately\nwondered whether left-handed and right-handed machine screws would\nfall differently. That is a terrible conceptualization, as he\nadmits. We talked for an hour face-to-face at the 2005 APS national\nmeeting in Denver. He and his folk could not look into a stereogram\n(ORTEP diagram) and see it in 3-D. One hopes they have been\npracticing - 2-D crystal structure representations are unfathomable.\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/benzil.gif\nYou cannot see the beautiful helix in 2-D\n\nThe mathematics necessary for parity Eotvos experiment test mass\ncalculation was published in 1999 by Michel Petitjean. Petitjean\'s\nQCM software for calculating CHI (normalized parity divergence), DSI\n(whether the set flattens when immersed in higher dimeensions) and COR\n(graph theoretic symmetry elements) is limited to 15,000 atoms (11,000\natoms required two CPU-weeks in an RS6000/Power3) is published in the\npublic domain and downloadable from the Web. While QCM\'s answers are\nindependent of input file format, QCM calculation time is not. Unless\ninput just right, even 15 points would require the age of the\nuniverse. Some of the necessary input file formatting software for\nextended lattices was developed by my programmers to my specs.\n\nQCM development into BigCHI software for calculating crystal lattices,\n30 million atoms/second in a Linux PC in long_double_precision, is\nproprietary to me and my prgrammers. All BigCHI outputs are traceable\nby exact overlap ultimately to QCM results. Serial execution BigCHI\nis also available as CHIpir for parallel execution in computer\nclusters.\n\nMy first 18 months\' work with Petitjean resulted in a molecule we call\n[6.6]chiralane whose carbon skeleton is *exactly* CHI=1. The best his\nuniversity chemistry department could do was CHI=0.68. I got to\nCHI=0.72 and then... it was obvious. Other examples followed in three\nstructural classes, including buckeyballs,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/chiralan.htm\n\n[6.6]Chiralane\n\n1) caused a minor rewrite of QCM. Same CHI and DSI; COR needed\nwork.\n2) confounded and crashed all systematic nomenclature software at\nIUPAC and CAS. Merely C_27H_28. Shame on them.\n3) caused NIST to rewrite its commercial stereochemistry software.\nAs it had passed more than 10,000 test cases before release and had\nnever failed in the field, NIST was mildy surprised.\n\nThis CHI stuff already has long legs. By 01 August we will see\nwhether it pertains to gravitation and a possible Equivalence\nPrinciple empirical parity anomaly.\n\n--\nUncle Al\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/\n(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>thanatos wrote:
>
> who conceived the idea Al?

The parity Eotvos experiment - whether a left and right hand fall
identically, whether the Equivalence Principle contains a parity
anomaly - is wholly my original idea, publicly stated in 2000 as the
chiral Eotvos experiment. Chirality as such is insufficient.
Reduction to practice is also wholly my idea.

Eric Adelberger's group concurrently, independently, and privately
wondered whether left-handed and right-handed machine screws would
fall differently. That is a terrible conceptualization, as he
admits. We talked for an hour face-to-face at the 2005 APS national
meeting in Denver. He and his folk could not look into a stereogram
(ORTEP diagram) and see it in 3-D. One hopes they have been
practicing - 2-D crystal structure representations are unfathomable.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/benzil.gif
You cannot see the beautiful helix in 2-D

The mathematics necessary for parity Eotvos experiment test mass
calculation was published in 1999 by Michel Petitjean. Petitjean's
QCM software for calculating \CHI (normalized parity divergence), DSI
(whether the set flattens when immersed in higher dimeensions) and COR
(graph theoretic symmetry elements) is limited to 15,000 atoms (11,000
atoms required two CPU-weeks in an RS6000/Power3) is published in the
public domain and downloadable from the Web. While QCM's answers are
independent of input file format, QCM calculation time is not. Unless
input just right, even 15 points would require the age of the
universe. Some of the necessary input file formatting software for
extended lattices was developed by my programmers to my specs.

QCM development into BigCHI software for calculating crystal lattices,
30 million atoms/second in a Linux PC in long_double_precision, is
proprietary to me and my prgrammers. All BigCHI outputs are traceable
by exact overlap ultimately to QCM results. Serial execution BigCHI
is also available as CHIpir for parallel execution in computer
clusters.

My first 18 months' work with Petitjean resulted in a molecule we call
[6.6]chiralane whose carbon skeleton is *exactly* \CHI=1. The best his
university chemistry department could do was \CHI=0.68. I got to
\CHI=0.72 and then... it was obvious. Other examples followed in three
structural classes, including buckeyballs,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/chiralan.htm

[6.6]Chiralane

1) caused a minor rewrite of QCM. Same \CHI and DSI; COR needed
work.
2) confounded and crashed all systematic nomenclature software at
IUPAC and CAS. Merely C_{27H_28}. Shame on them.
3) caused NIST to rewrite its commercial stereochemistry software.
As it had passed more than 10,000 test cases before release and had
never failed in the field, NIST was mildy surprised.

This \CHI stuff already has long legs. By 01 August we will see
whether it pertains to gravitation and a possible Equivalence
Principle empirical parity anomaly.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu

May1-05, 03:17 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:\n\n[...]\n> When you over-simplify GR down to "gravitational" and "inertial"\n> mass, you get different behaviour for photons versus electrons,\n> from precisely the same underlying theory and formulae. This is\n> evidence that using those terms (and Newtonian mechanics) starts\n> to break down in that example.\n\nThis is a misunderstanding. GR doesn\'t predict any discontinuity.\nThe deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to\n1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the\nNewtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small\ncompared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction\nis that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating\nobject at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be\nnearly that of a photon.\n\n(This is exercise 25.21 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. This\nsimple expression holds when the impact parameter is large enough\nthat the "Newtonian" deflection is small. For the more general\ncase, the formula is much more complicated, and can be found in\nLonguski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2942. But it still\nvaries continuously from "nonrelativistic particle" to "light.")\n\nI don\'t know of a direct test of this, but there has been something\nvery close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and\nparticles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).\nFor photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy\'s\ngravitational field can be calculated -- it\'s about 5 months. But\nwe observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at\nEarth at very nearly the same time. This allows us to say that the\ntime delay is equal, to within about .2%. This, in turn, means that\nthe post-Newtonian parameter gamma, which determines both deflection\nand time delay, is equal for photons and neutrinos to a few parts in\na thousand. See M. Longo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 173 for details.\n\nThere is also a proposal to test the GR prediction for spacecraft\nmoving at nonrelativistic velocities. The GR corrections to the\nNewtonian prediction are still significant if the total deflection\nis large. See the paper by Longuski et al. I cited above for details.\n\nSteve Carlip\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

[...]
> When you over-simplify GR down to "gravitational" and "inertial"
> mass, you get different behaviour for photons versus electrons,
> from precisely the same underlying theory and formulae. This is
> evidence that using those terms (and Newtonian mechanics) starts
> to break down in that example.

This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn't predict any discontinuity.
The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to
1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the
Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small
compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction
is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating
object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be
nearly that of a photon.

(This is exercise 25.21 of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. This
simple expression holds when the impact parameter is large enough
that the "Newtonian" deflection is small. For the more general
case, the formula is much more complicated, and can be found in
Longuski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2942. But it still
varies continuously from "nonrelativistic particle" to "light.")

I don't know of a direct test of this, but there has been something
very close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and
particles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).
For photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy's
gravitational field can be calculated -- it's about 5 months. But
we observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at
Earth at very nearly the same time. This allows us to say that the
time delay is equal, to within about .2%. This, in turn, means that
the post-Newtonian parameter \gamma, which determines both deflection
and time delay, is equal for photons and neutrinos to a few parts in
a thousand. See M. Longo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 173 for details.

There is also a proposal to test the GR prediction for spacecraft
moving at nonrelativistic velocities. The GR corrections to the
Newtonian prediction are still significant if the total deflection
is large. See the paper by Longuski et al. I cited above for details.

Steve Carlip

Thomas Johnson

May1-05, 10:32 PM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nthanatos wrote:\n> who conceived the idea Al?\n\nThis is not such a simple question. There are multiple ideas being\ndiscussed:\n\n1) measuring chiral samples for EP violation\n2) using single crystals as the samples for (1)\n3) calculating chirality\n4) applying (3) to large crystals\n5) applying (4) to (2)\n\nTake the easy one first--\n\n3) there are a multiple of groups performing calculations of chirality.\nI am not going to look into who may be doing it first, better or\nanything else as it probably isn\'t of interest here. Say Petitjean to\navoid arguments.\n\n4) Applying Petitjean\'s calculations to large crystals. Looks like\nSchwartz is the winner there. From what little I can see, it looks\nlike Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.\nAgain, I don\'t want to spend the time to find out why.\n\nNow it starts getting more difficult to define both the question and\nthe answer.\n\n5) Applying calculations of chirality to large crystals, then taking\nthis and applying it to EP tests. Schwartz includes the calculation of\nchirality for large crystals in the same works that he presents a\ndiscussion of using chiral crystals in EP tests. However, I don\'t see\nthat the connection is really made. I.e. there is no real evidence\nthat a measure of CHI is useful to any theorist or experimentalist\nworking on the EP problem.\n\n1) Measuring chiral samples for EP tests. Well, lets face it, there\nare dozens of dissertations out there of testing EP. You have to\nimagine that many of them have a line in their introduction something\nlike, "the fundamental properties of matter are mass, baryon number,\nspin, chirality...We chose to study spin in this case because...".\n\nI.e. it is a well known property of matter. It may be a difficult one\nto test, but to say that it wasn\'t conceived of until Schwartz or\nAdelberger is like saying that people looked at blank spots in the\nperiodic table and didn\'t think there were elements there. Of course\npeople considered the idea of testing chiral samples. They just didn\'t\nhave a reasonable sample to measure. Which brings us to-\n\n2) Using single crystals for chiral EP tests. This is the gem in\nSchwartz\' work. The fact that a bright guy like Adelberger could\nactually perform the experiment and miss the idea of using a crystal\nshows that it was not obvious. It is so simple--after the fact--that\nit may seem obvious, but it was a real jump forward. This is further\nevidenced by the fact that Schwartz\' suggestion set Prof. Luo and his\nteam into action.\n\nThomas.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>thanatos wrote:
> who conceived the idea Al?

This is not such a simple question. There are multiple ideas being
discussed:

1) measuring chiral samples for EP violation
2) using single crystals as the samples for (1)
3) calculating chirality
4) applying (3) to large crystals
5) applying (4) to (2)

Take the easy one first--

3) there are a multiple of groups performing calculations of chirality.
I am not going to look into who may be doing it first, better or
anything else as it probably isn't of interest here. Say Petitjean to
avoid arguments.

4) Applying Petitjean's calculations to large crystals. Looks like
Schwartz is the winner there. From what little I can see, it looks
like Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.
Again, I don't want to spend the time to find out why.

Now it starts getting more difficult to define both the question and
the answer.

5) Applying calculations of chirality to large crystals, then taking
this and applying it to EP tests. Schwartz includes the calculation of
chirality for large crystals in the same works that he presents a
discussion of using chiral crystals in EP tests. However, I don't see
that the connection is really made. I.e. there is no real evidence
that a measure of \CHI is useful to any theorist or experimentalist
working on the EP problem.

1) Measuring chiral samples for EP tests. Well, lets face it, there
are dozens of dissertations out there of testing EP. You have to
imagine that many of them have a line in their introduction something
like, "the fundamental properties of matter are mass, baryon number,
spin, chirality...We chose to study spin in this case because...".

I.e. it is a well known property of matter. It may be a difficult one
to test, but to say that it wasn't conceived of until Schwartz or
Adelberger is like saying that people looked at blank spots in the
periodic table and didn't think there were elements there. Of course
people considered the idea of testing chiral samples. They just didn't
have a reasonable sample to measure. Which brings us to-

2) Using single crystals for chiral EP tests. This is the gem in
Schwartz' work. The fact that a bright guy like Adelberger could
actually perform the experiment and miss the idea of using a crystal
shows that it was not obvious. It is so simple--after the fact--that
it may seem obvious, but it was a real jump forward. This is further
evidenced by the fact that Schwartz' suggestion set Prof. Luo and his
team into action.

Thomas.

srp

May2-05, 12:22 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE><carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a écrit dans le message de\nnews:d50vv6\\$oi7\\$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...\n \n[snip]\n\n> This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn\'t predict any discontinuity.\n> The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to\n> 1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the\n> Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small\n> compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction\n> is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating\n> object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be\n> nearly that of a photon.\n\nHow does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,\nan electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can\nonly cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even\nless than even the Newtonian prediction?\n\nWhat don\'t I see?\n\n> I don\'t know of a direct test of this, but there has been something\n> very close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and\n> particles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).\n> For photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy\'s\n> gravitational field can be calculated -- it\'s about 5 months. But\n> we observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at\n> Earth at very nearly the same time.\n\nHow are the neutrinos detected in such circumstances?\n\nAndré Michaud\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky><carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:d50vv6$oi7$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...

[snip]

> This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn't predict any discontinuity.
> The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to
> 1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the
> Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small
> compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction
> is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating
> object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be
> nearly that of a photon.

How does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,
an electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can
only cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even
less than even the Newtonian prediction?

What don't I see?

> I don't know of a direct test of this, but there has been something
> very close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and
> particles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).
> For photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy's
> gravitational field can be calculated -- it's about 5 months. But
> we observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at
> Earth at very nearly the same time.

How are the neutrinos detected in such circumstances?

André Michaud

Thomas Johnson

May2-05, 12:24 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Uncle Al wrote:\n> Thomas Johnson wrote:\n> >\n> > Uncle Al wrote:\n(edited)\n> >\n> > > We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient\nonly to\n> > > have a CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must\n> > > aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those CHI\n> > fluctuations\n> > > vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full\n> > > parity experiment giving a net output in principle.\n> >\n> > Could you put this in some perspective?\n> >\n> > I.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published\n> > literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing\n> > calculations in GR can use a value of CHI? Can someone in\nexperiment\n> > or theory see any difference in a crystal with a CHI=0.9999 and one\nof\n> > 0.9998?\n> Are you saying, Thomas, that 420 years of experimentation were\n> unfounded, ludicrous, stupid? Yes, you say exactly that. You are\n> politically correct and a monster. Theory exists to be falsified.\n> All gravitation is geometry. Challenging spacetime geometry with\ntest\n> mass goemetry is obvious, now. It is certainly valid by the rules of\n> the game - and exepctedly more fuitful than challenging the EP with\n> contrasted composition.\n\nMr. Schwartz, I posed a perfectly reasonable question in a polite and\nrespectul manner.\n\nYou have made a statement about the fluctuation of CHI. I merely am\ntrying to assertain whether the fluctuations are useful in experiment\nor theory.\n\n> If the full parity Eotvos experiment has a net output, GR will have\n> been empirically falsified. That is the point of the exercise, you\n> twit.\n\nThat is the point of running the experiment. The question I pose is:\nWhat is the point of performing the CHI calculation? If it can not be\ntied to the experiment, then its purpose lies elsewhere.\n\n> Nobody - including you - can assign an output to a predicted\n> observation wthout knowing the coupling constant from theory to\n> reality.\n\nThis is really the heart of the matter--is CHI included in a possible\ncoupling between a possible EP violation with chiral samples and some\ntheory?\n\n>From your post, it appears that there is no theory to accomodite a\nfailure of EP with chiral samples. As such, it would appear that, for\nthe time being at least, CHI is not directly relevant to the\nexperiment.\n\nPlease let me know if that misrepresents the facts.\n\nThomas.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Uncle Al wrote:
> Thomas Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al wrote:
(edited)
> >
> > > We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient
only to
> > > have a \CHI~1 perfectly parity divergent configuration. It must
> > > aggregate a sufficient number of times to build those \CHI
> > fluctuations
> > > vs. small radial increments. We feel pretty good about the full
> > > parity experiment giving a net output in principle.
> >
> > Could you put this in some perspective?
> >
> > I.e. can you give a reference in your own work or in the published
> > literature where someone performing an Eotvos experiement or doing
> > calculations in GR can use a value of \CHI? Can someone in
experiment
> > or theory see any difference in a crystal with a \CHI=0.9999 and one
of
> > .9998?
> Are you saying, Thomas, that 420 years of experimentation were
> unfounded, ludicrous, stupid? Yes, you say exactly that. You are
> politically correct and a monster. Theory exists to be falsified.
> All gravitation is geometry. Challenging spacetime geometry with
test
> mass goemetry is obvious, now. It is certainly valid by the rules of
> the game - and exepctedly more fuitful than challenging the EP with
> contrasted composition.

Mr. Schwartz, I posed a perfectly reasonable question in a polite and
respectul manner.

You have made a statement about the fluctuation of \CHI. I merely am
trying to assertain whether the fluctuations are useful in experiment
or theory.

> If the full parity Eotvos experiment has a net output, GR will have
> been empirically falsified. That is the point of the exercise, you
> twit.

That is the point of running the experiment. The question I pose is:
What is the point of performing the \CHI calculation? If it can not be
tied to the experiment, then its purpose lies elsewhere.

> Nobody - including you - can assign an output to a predicted
> observation wthout knowing the coupling constant from theory to
> reality.

This is really the heart of the matter--is \CHI included in a possible
coupling between a possible EP violation with chiral samples and some
theory?

>From your post, it appears that there is no theory to accomodite a
failure of EP with chiral samples. As such, it would appear that, for
the time being at least, \CHI is not directly relevant to the
experiment.

Please let me know if that misrepresents the facts.

Thomas.

Uncle Al

Oct11-06, 02:41 PM

Blagoj Petrushev wrote:
>
> Meclaren wrote:
> <<<
> Now, could neutrinos be different yet again? I.e. behave neither
> like photons nor electrons in this respect.
> >>>
>
> I don't believe that there is a massless neutrino. If there is, then it
> doesn't have grav mass for sure.
>
> B Petrushev

Neutrinos are massed or they could not oscillate flavors when
propagating. It is the shape of space that determines free fall
trajectory in vacuum. Composition does not appear in any validated
testable theory of gravitation. Neutrinos fall like everything else
falls, with inertial and gravitational mass in invariant ratio.

http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/osc.html
<http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New_and_Exciting_Physics/Antimatter/20030723113251.htm>
http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nu_timeline.html

The only unexamined property for Equivalence Principle violation is
test mass geometry, qz.pdf below. The full parity Eotvos experiment
examining maximally parity divergent left-handed vs. right-handed
quartz will be completed by 01 August 2005. Then, we will know if
there is an EP parity anomaly, if Lorentz invariance can be broken, if
space is isotropic, if conservation of angular momentum is true for
parity test masses.

It is *obvious* that all that stuff cannot fail! Before New Years Day
1957 it was *obvious* that all of physics was symmetric to
C,P,T,CP,CT, and PT symmetries,

http://physics.nist.gov/GenInt/Parity/cover.html

except it demonstrably isn't.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Uncle Al

Oct11-06, 02:41 PM

frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > frisbieinstein@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Inertial mass of elementary particles may be measured very
> > > accurately but not the gravitational mass. Is there any reason they
> > > should be the same? Could it be that, say, electrons have zero
> > > gravitational mass?
> >
> > We know for a fact by direct observation that electrons exhibit no
> > gravitational vs. inertial mass anomaly, from Eotvos experiments
> > (umlaut over each "o"). The ratio of electrons to (neutrons +
> > protons) is different in select different elements and in isotopes.
> > Fermions vs. bosons is as good a question as leptons vs. baryons. All
> > chemical compositions fall identically to one part in ten trillion
> > difference/average. That includes differential gravitational binding
> > energies,
> >
> > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
>
> I looked at the reference but found it a bit of heavy going. It seems
> to me that what you could have two test masses made of different
> isotopes, measure the differential inertial mass, then test to see
> where the differential gravitational mass is the same via effect on a
> third mass.

Binary comparison, Eotvos balance, one shot, sensitive to one part in
ten trillion dfference/average.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/m6_2.html

On one side you load high density polyethylene, (-CH2-)n. That gives
you 8 electrons/14 baryons, 0.571 number ratio. On the other side you
load bismuth. That gives you 83 electrons/209 baryons, 0.397 ratio
(and no noise from radioactive decay). HDPE has a density of 0.96
g/cm^3, Bi is 9.78 g/cm^3. You symmtrically surface drill and/or
hollow the bismuth masses to balance the Eotvos rotor for mass and
moments of inertia, further imbalancing the electron population on the
two opposing sides. Load them, button up the Eotvos balance, and let
it run. If electrons fall differently from baryons, you get a net
signal over time.

If you worry about relativistic effects in heavy elements and whatnot,
run (Li-6)(H-1) with 0.571 ratio against (Li-7)(H-2) with 0.444
ratio. Folks have a lot of experience handling lithium hydride given
H-bomb secondaries. The heavy lithium deuteride test mass must be
drilled or hollowed to balance rotor mass and moments of inertia, so
again the electron number discrepancy is amplified. Do you want to
null out nuclear binding energies/nucleon that vary wildy over those
isotopic species? Run two more experiments, each isotopic species
against HDPE (much too dense - carve it) or TPX
poly(4-methyl-1-pentene) with density 0.83 g/cm^3 (still too dense,
but close). Natural abundance LiH is 0.77 g/cm^3.

You can permute compositions to test protons, neutrons, nuclear
binding energies, nuclear spin, nuclear quadrupole moments, electron
spin vs. electron orbital angular momentum (magnets)... All this has
been done, and more. *All* chemical compositions fall identically.

a = GM/r^2
Where is the test mass?

Gravitation by whatever credible theory is a backgroundless geometry.
The proper challenge of spacetime geometry is then test mass
geometry. Chirality, only requiring a causal and orientable spacetime
manifold, arises from coordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a
pseudoscalar field (Levi-Civita tensor). Parity is chirality
simultaneously along all coordinate axes. One therefore proposes that
extremal opposite parity test masses of the *same* chemical
composition form an interesting Equivalence Principle test.

Classical physics says such an experiment will be exactly identical on
both sides for all measurable physical properties and will give a
perfect null output. Optical rotation and piezoelectricity do not
matter because the test masses are opaquely gold-plated and passively
mounted. Quartz is routinely fabricated to optical tolerences. A
reproducible net output would be an inarguable Equivalence Principle
parity violation.

Parity crystallographic space group P3(1)21 quartz and P3(2)21 quartz
calculate as being maximally theoretically parity divergent. We have
the added bonus of amorphous fused silica. The two hemiparity Eotvos
experiments' outputs - if any - should algebraically sum to that of
the full parity Eotvos experiment. Quartz is commercially
hydrothermally grown to extreme purity and perfection for frequency
stabilizing electronic devices.

98 days to completion of the full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

srp

Oct11-06, 02:42 PM

<carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a écrit dans le message de
news:d50vv6$oi7$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...

[snip]

> This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn't predict any discontinuity.
> The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to
> 1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the
> Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small
> compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction
> is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating
> object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be
> nearly that of a photon.

How does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,
an electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can
only cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even
less than even the Newtonian prediction?

What don't I see?

> I don't know of a direct test of this, but there has been something
> very close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and
> particles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).
> For photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy's
> gravitational field can be calculated -- it's about 5 months. But
> we observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at
> Earth at very nearly the same time.

How are the neutrinos detected in such circumstances?

André Michaud

carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu

Oct11-06, 02:43 PM

srp <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> <carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a ecrit dans le message de
> news:d50vv6$oi7$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...

> [snip]

>> This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn't predict any discontinuity.
>> The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to
>> 1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the
>> Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small
>> compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction
>> is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating
>> object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be
>> nearly that of a photon.

> How does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,
> an electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can
> only cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even
> less than even the Newtonian prediction?

> What don't I see?

In Newtonian gravity, the deflection is independent of the mass, right?
(All Newtonian gravitational interactions are independent of the mass
of the "test body" -- that's one form of the principle of equivalence.)
In general relativity, there are additional "gravitomagnetic" interactions
proportional to velocity, which increase the deflection.

>> I don't know of a direct test of this, but there has been something
>> very close. According to GR, in addition to deflecting light and
>> particles, gravity also causes a time delay (the Shapiro time delay).
>> For photons from supernova SN1987A, the delay due to the galaxy's
>> gravitational field can be calculated -- it's about 5 months. But
>> we observed that the photons and neutrinos from SN1987A arrived at
>> Earth at very nearly the same time.

> How are the neutrinos detected in such circumstances?

They were seen at IMB and Kamiokande, both water Cerenkov detectors,
and also at the Baksan scintillation detector. See, for example,
http://hep.bu.edu/~superk/gc.html.

Steve Carlip

Thomas Johnson

Oct11-06, 02:43 PM

Uncle Al wrote:
> You have been repeatedly voluminously answered including abundant
> literature and Web citations in sci.physics.research, sci.physics,
and
> sci.chem You are abusive. You do not read references, you do not
> read exhaustive answers, you perseveratively restate the same
> unsupportable objections. To quote yourself here in
> sci.physics.research,
> <1114986874.327815.147770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>
> Mon, 2 May 2005 03:32:44 +0000 (UTC)
>
> "Thomas Johnson wrote:
> >From what little I can see, it looks
> like Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.
> Again, I don't want to spend the time to find out why."
>
>
> You are a waste of bytes.
>
> [snip]
>
> <http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf>
> Review of quantitative chirality and parity calculation
> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>
> "The mathematical theory of chirality" as multiple Web pages
> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>
> Public domain Quantatitve Chiraltiy Measure software (QCM)
> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>
> QCM documentation.
>
> Learn something before your presume to cricitize - at length! - those
> who have learned something.

We are going in circles. I ask for you to give proof of your assertion
that the CHI is relevant to GR and the Eotvos EP test, and you keep
posting extremely long summaries of your paper and the history of your
work. It wasn't there in the full version, it isn't in the summaries.

By the way--I don't read the references of the people who are working
on chirality in molecules because it is obviously irrelevant to whether
your calculations are connected to GR. That is unless you would like
to state that the references above already cover the connection between
chirality and GR! If so, update qz.pdf to give credit to Petitjean.

Don't downplay my understanding. I have done my homework on this. I
have carefully read your qz.pdf and many of your posts. Few people on
the newsgroups appear to have actually takent the time to do this
reading. I have drawn the conclusion that the two parts- (1) proposing
single crystals for Eotvos samples and (2) the chirality calculation on
single crystals -- are separate, unconnected works. I am probably the
only one to have contacted the researcher conducting the experiments
and found out his opinion of your calculation as well. Based on all
this, I am very confident in stating that the CHI calculations are not
connected to GR or the Eotvos experiment.

The referees who read your paper submission probably took a more
careful look at your paper than I. According to your own posts, it was
not accepted for publication. What conclusion are we to draw from
that?

Thomas.

Nick Maclaren

Oct11-06, 02:43 PM

In article <d591e5$4lq$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>,
carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu writes:
|>
|> In Newtonian gravity, the deflection is independent of the mass, right?

Not necessarily when you bring in special relativity.

|> (All Newtonian gravitational interactions are independent of the mass
|> of the "test body" -- that's one form of the principle of equivalence.)

There are several obvious ways that this can be combined with
Newtonian gravitation, F = m1.m2/d^2, including:

1) The gravitational mass of the other object is its rest mass,
which leads to a gravitational mass that is different from the
inertial mass.

2) The gravitational mass of the other object is its apparent
mass. You are assuming this one which, I agree, is more plausible.

The former would mean that photons do not deflect round the sun,
and do not red shift climbing out of wells. The latter predicts
both effects, but gets the magnitude of the former too low by a
factor of two.

One can get formulae that are compatible with both (as far as current
experiments demonstrate) by stating that the gravitational mass is
twice the apparent mass in directions perpendicular to the relative
velocity, which is a bit kludgy but still plausible. As far as I
know, the only experimental proof of general relativity that is not
accounted for by this formula-kludging ("theory" is too strong a
word) is the change in time due to a gravitational well.

|> In general relativity, there are additional "gravitomagnetic" interactions
|> proportional to velocity, which increase the deflection.

Don't you mean "gravitogeometric"?

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Uncle Al

Oct11-06, 02:44 PM

Thomas Johnson wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
> > You have been repeatedly voluminously answered including abundant
> > literature and Web citations in sci.physics.research, sci.physics,
> and
> > sci.chem You are abusive. You do not read references, you do not
> > read exhaustive answers, you perseveratively restate the same
> > unsupportable objections. To quote yourself here in
> > sci.physics.research,
> > <1114986874.327815.147770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>
> > Mon, 2 May 2005 03:32:44 +0000 (UTC)
> >
> > "Thomas Johnson wrote:
> > >From what little I can see, it looks
> > like Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.
> > Again, I don't want to spend the time to find out why."
[snip]

> We are going in circles. I ask for you to give proof of your assertion
> that the CHI is relevant to GR and the Eotvos EP test, and you keep
> posting extremely long summaries of your paper and the history of your
> work. It wasn't there in the full version, it isn't in the summaries.

General Relativity postulates the Equivalence Principle. Any two
local test masses in vacuum that fall non-identically falsify GR.
Does a left hand fall identically to a right hand? Nobody other than
you has a sustained problem understanding that question or the
implications of its two possible answers.

The full parity Eotvos experiment completes by 01 August. It is being
performed by a respected academic group in qualified apparatus
according to Petitjean's mathematics, examining P3(1)21 vs. P3(2)21
single crystal quartz test masses. We have never met, I have never
visited; raw materials are independently obtained and fabricated.

The results will speak for themselves.

[snip critic troll whining]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

Andr? Michaud

Oct11-06, 02:44 PM

carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<d591e5$4lq$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu>...
> srp <srp@microtec.net> wrote:
> > <carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a ecrit dans le message de
> > news:d50vv6$oi7$2@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
>
> > [snip]
>
> >> This is a misunderstanding. GR doesn't predict any discontinuity.
> >> The deflection of a particle with velocity v is proportional to
> >> 1 + v^2/c^2. This ranges from very nearly 1 -- that is, the
> >> Newtonian prediction -- for particles moving at speeds small
> >> compared to c (your "electrons") to 2 for light. The prediction
> >> is that if an electron, or a neutrino, passes a gravitating
> >> object at nearly the speed of light, its deflection should be
> >> nearly that of a photon.
>
> > How does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,
> > an electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can
> > only cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even
> > less than even the Newtonian prediction?
>
> > What don't I see?
>
> In Newtonian gravity, the deflection is independent of the mass, right?
> (All Newtonian gravitational interactions are independent of the mass
> of the "test body" -- that's one form of the principle of equivalence.)
> In general relativity, there are additional "gravitomagnetic" interactions
> proportional to velocity, which increase the deflection.

My assessment was as follows:

For a given transverse force between a light particle grazing a
massive body at a given distance (Newtonian setup) or alternately,
for an equivalent spacetime curvature GR setup, a particle with a
given inertia and relative velocity will be deflected less than a
particle with same relative velocity and less inertia and more than
a particle with same relative velocity and more inertia.

André Michaud