View Full Version : Grav and Inertial Mass
Thomas Larsson
May1-05, 03:02 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>Steve Carlip wrote:\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. This allows us to say that the\n>time delay is equal, to within about .2%.\n\nIf the neutrinos are massive, wouldn\'t we expect them to arrive later\nthan the photons? Can one deduce any bounds on neutrino mass from this\nsupernova?\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>Steve Carlip wrote:
>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%.
If the neutrinos are massive, wouldn't we expect them to arrive later
than the photons? Can one deduce any bounds on neutrino mass from this
supernova?
Meir Achuz
May2-05, 09:17 AM
The neutrinos probably arrived several hours before the first photons.
The arrival time suggested for the first photons depends on theoretical models, extrapolating the intensity distribution of the light flux back in time.
The main reason for the time difference is that the photons and the neutrinos were both delayed in leaving the SN by diffusion. The photons, having a stronger interaction, took longer to diffuse out than the neutrinos.
From the time duration of the neutrino pulse, a fairly firm upper limit of about 20 eV can be put on their masses. More detailed, but somewhat speculative, calculations suggest an upper limit of about 5 eV. Recent neutrino oscillation experiments imply neuttrino masses much less than this.
If the calculation of a 5 months gravitational delay is correct (I am not familiar with this calculation.), then gravity would be affecting the neutrinos in the same way as the photons. This is what I would expect.
<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 Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> writes\n>Steve Carlip wrote:\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. This allows us to say that the\n>>time delay is equal, to within about .2%.\n>\n>If the neutrinos are massive, wouldn\'t we expect them to arrive later\n>than the photons? Can one deduce any bounds on neutrino mass from this\n>supernova?\n\nAlso I was under the impression that neutrinos pass through the\nexploding star unhindered, whilst photons must essentially diffuse out\nfrom the core. Surely one would have expected the neutrinos to arrive\nsignificantly before the photons anyway, perhaps days?\n\nHowever your gravitational delay of five months is enormous.\nOne might have expected a differential time measured in days or months.\nHas any attempt at correlation between the various neutrino detectors\nover a much extended time period been carried out?\n\n\n--\nOz\nThis post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.\n\nUse oz@farmeroz.port995.com [ozacoohdb@despammed.com functions].\nBTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.\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 Larsson <thomas_larsson_01@hotmail.com> writes
>Steve Carlip wrote:
>>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%.
>
>If the neutrinos are massive, wouldn't we expect them to arrive later
>than the photons? Can one deduce any bounds on neutrino mass from this
>supernova?
Also I was under the impression that neutrinos pass through the
exploding star unhindered, whilst photons must essentially diffuse out
from the core. Surely one would have expected the neutrinos to arrive
significantly before the photons anyway, perhaps days?
However your gravitational delay of five months is enormous.
One might have expected a differential time measured in days or months.
Has any attempt at correlation between the various neutrino detectors
over a much extended time period been carried out?
--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Use oz@farmeroz.port995.com [ozacoohdb@despammed.com functions].
BTOPENWORLD address has ceased. DEMON address has ceased.
Uncle Al
May4-05, 01:53 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> > Thomas Johnson wrote:\n> > >\n> > > Uncle Al wrote:\n> (edited)\n> > >\n> > > > We see that *aggregation* is important. It is not sufficient\n> 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\n> experiment\n> > > or theory see any difference in a crystal with a CHI=0.9999 and one\n> of\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\n> test\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>\n> Mr. Schwartz, I posed a perfectly reasonable question in a polite and\n> respectul manner.\n>\n> You have made a statement about the fluctuation of CHI. I merely am\n> trying to assertain whether the fluctuations are useful in experiment\n> or theory.\n\nYou have been repeatedly voluminously answered including abundant\nliterature and Web citations in sci.physics.research, sci.physics, and\nsci.chem You are abusive. You do not read references, you do not\nread exhaustive answers, you perseveratively restate the same\nunsupportable objections. To quote yourself here in\nsci.physics.research,\n\n<1114986874.327815.14 7770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>\nMon, 2 May 2005 03:32:44 +0000 (UTC)\n\n"Thomas Johnson wrote:\n>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\n\nYou are a waste of bytes.\n\n[snip]\n\n<http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf>\nReview of quantitative chirality and parity calculation\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>\n"The mathematical theory of chirality" as multiple Web pages\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>\nPublic domain Quantatitve Chiraltiy Measure software (QCM)\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>\nQCM documentation.\n\nLearn something before your presume to cricitize - at length! - those\nwho have learned something.\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:
> > 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.
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.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
Uncle Al
May4-05, 01:54 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>Thomas Johnson wrote:\n>\n> thanatos wrote:\n> > who conceived the idea Al?\n>\n> This is not such a simple question. There are multiple ideas being\n> discussed:\n>\n> 1) measuring chiral samples for EP violation\n> 2) using single crystals as the samples for (1)\n> 3) calculating chirality\n> 4) applying (3) to large crystals\n> 5) applying (4) to (2)\n>\n> Take the easy one first--\n>\n> 3) there are a multiple of groups performing calculations of chirality.\n> I am not going to look into who may be doing it first, better or\n> anything else as it probably isn\'t of interest here. Say Petitjean to\n> avoid arguments.\n\nIgnorance and malice are your leading edges,\n\nhttp://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>\n\n> 4) Applying Petitjean\'s calculations to large crystals. Looks like\n> Schwartz is the winner there. From what little I can see, it looks\n> like Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.\n> Again, I don\'t want to spend the time to find out why.\n\nQuantitative chirality of small sets of points can be approached in\nmany ways, vida supra. There is obvious interest in characterizing\nchiral biologicial binding sites vs. pharmacology, and protein\nengineering of enzymes for industrial production. Obviously there is\nthe pure math. Petitjean\'s treatment is the sparest of them all -\ninput point coordinates and nothing more, get out the normalized\nanswer. All one requires for a coordinate system is the center of\nmass of the point set. CHI is without scale.\n\nAll mass compositions empirically fall identically - all atoms are\nweighed as 1 for Petitjean\'s analysis. Large crystal structure\nthermal anisotropies are associated with the lightest atoms. Said\nlight atoms are invisible or poorly located in x-ray crystallography.\nHydrogen-rich organics are therefore poor initial choices to calculate\nand evaluate the parity Eotvos experiment. Single molecule inorganic\ncrystals, preferably wholly built with heavy atoms of similar atomic\nmass, are preferred.\n\nThe combinatorics of COR and DSI calculation\n\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>\n<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>\n\ndemand that calculating even an optimally formatted input dataset will\nrequire high end CPU-days to calculate. QCM will do 11,000 atoms in\ntwo weeks in an RS6000/Power3. BigCHI will do 30 million atoms/sec in\na Linux PC without COR and DSI (that must be calculated in QCM to\nvalidate using BigCHI), given crystal stucture data (three lengths,\nthree angles, all atom fractional coordinates) for a periodic lattice\nand prior qualification in QCM to about 1100 atoms. CHIpir is\nparallel-executing BigCHI.\n\nCHIs for successive lattice radii are calculated and plotted as\nlog(1-CHI) vs. number of contained atoms (slope must be -2/3 by\ntheory) or vs. radius (slope must be -2 by theory). The straight line\nfit in the latter case is modeled as\n\nlog(1-CHI = -2[log(radius)] + [(180-(alpha))(pi)/60] + (pi)\n\nwhere (alpha) is the largest internal helix angle. The empirical\nintercept has no ab inito derivation but it works astoundingly well\n(contributed by Dr. Smith at Lehigh University/Dept of Mathematics),\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png\n711 points, quartz\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png\n90,386 points, quartz\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/pddense.png\n75,894 points, PdSbTe\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png\n48,137 points, benzil\n\nThe scatter is real, resulting from the geometry of a lattice vs. its\nthree moments of inertia as sampling radius is progressively\nincremented. We\'ve QCM-analyzed about two dozen periodic crystal\nlattices and graphed about a half-dozen lattices. We\'ve run about 100\nsmall point sets (molecules) through QCM for the parity Eotvos\nexperiment project while getting the hang of things.\n\n> Now it starts getting more difficult to define both the question and\n> the answer.\n\nThe straw men assemble.\n\n> 5) Applying calculations of chirality to large crystals, then taking\n> this and applying it to EP tests. Schwartz includes the calculation of\n> chirality for large crystals in the same works that he presents a\n> discussion of using chiral crystals in EP tests. However, I don\'t see\n> that the connection is really made. I.e. there is no real evidence\n> that a measure of CHI is useful to any theorist or experimentalist\n> working on the EP problem.\n\nYour ignorance is not our problem. Read and understand the foregoing\nreferences. The only ab initio calculation of test mass quantitative\nparity divergence is Petitjean\'s analysis of a periodic crystal\nlattice starting with QCM for small lattice volumes then employing the\nbrute force abilities of BigCHI and CHIpir to calculate large lattice\nvolumes. One then reduces to practice by growing the parity pair\nsingle crystals, shaping test masses to Petitjean\'s requirements, and\nloading an Eotvos balance to its requirements. All layers of the\nparity Eotvos experiment, from calculation to final reduction to\npractice, are compatible without alteration of standard operating\nprocedures.\n\nDavid Avnir\'s semi-empirical analysis of quartz is consistent with\nPetitjean\'s ab inito results,\n\nGoogle\navnir quartz 194\n\nthough it cannot generate results unless manually "tuned" to the\nlattice to enable calculation. That\'s cheating and it is not rigorous\n- even if its predictions do go beyond its empirical inputs.\n\nWeak Equivalence Principle: All local bodies fall identically in\nvacuum regardless of composition and structure; inertial and\ngravitational masses are fundamentally indistinguishable. The WEP\nconstrains the Strong and Very Strong EP.\n\nPhys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)\narXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209110\narXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062\narXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088\narXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034\n\nAccelerating frames with consistent definitions of energy and momentum\n(or mass and angular momentum) require non-zero spacetime curvature\n(assuming an asymptotic symmetry group, which obtains: the\nBondi-Metzner-Sachs group restricted to the Poincare subgroup).\n\nPhys. Rev D 56(8) 4729 (1997)\nPhys. Rev D 55(4) 1971 (1997)\nJ. Math. Phys. (NY), 7 863 (1966)\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 10 669 (1963)\nProc. R. Soc. London 270 103 (1962)\n\nLocal spacetime must have a unique curvature. Local test masses\nexhibiting non-parallel trajectories require simultaneous different\nvalues of local spacetime curvature. Any paired (sets of) test masses\nviolating the Equivalence Principle empirically falsify metric\ntheories of gravitation at their founding postulate.\n\nComposition is empirically demonstrated to be EP-inert to one part in\nten trillion difference/average,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22\n\n<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>\n<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>\nEquivalence Principle testing\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\nComposition is EP-inert. What fundamental aspect of *structure* can\nbe real-world EP tested? Geometric parity.\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21\n\nA chiral body is not superposable upon its mirror image. Chirality,\nonly requiring a causal and orientable spacetime manifold, arises from\ncoordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a pseudoscalar field\n(Levi-Civita tensor). True chiral systems exist in two distinct\nenantiomorphic states interconverted by space inversion but not by\ntime reversal combined with any proper spatial rotation.\n\nJ. Mol. Phys. 43, 1395 (1981)\n\nGeometric parity inverts all spatial coordinates. It is more limiting\n(direct symmetry index, DSI) than chirality plus 180-degree rotation\nin 3-space, notably if rotation is discontinuous. The Weak force\nbreaks parity without coordinates or reference frames with the\ncoordinate-invariant vector triple product. EP chirality is purely\ngeometric not compositional. Chirality is an emergent phenomenon\nrequiring at least four non-coplanar points in 3-space. The ratio of\nemergent scale to experimental scale, the degree of aggregation of the\nchiral units, is consequential.\n\nThe only ab initio calculation of test mass quantitative parity\ndivergence is Petitjean\'s analysis of a periodic crystal lattice\nstarting with QCM for small lattice volumes then employing the brute\nforce ability of BigCHI and CHIpir to calculate large lattice\nvolumes. One then reduces to practice by growing the parity pair\nsingle crystals, shaping test masses to Petitjean\'s requirements, and\nloading an Eotvos balance.\n\n> 1) Measuring chiral samples for EP tests. Well, lets face it, there\n> are dozens of dissertations out there of testing EP.\n\nThey all report a perfect null output within experimental error,\n\nCiufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University\nPress: Princeton, 1995) pp. 117-119\n\nNull net output within experimental error is the gold standard for EP\ntesting by whatever means in whatever apparatus, icluding free fall\nGravity Probe-B with its two pairs of antiparallel 10,000 rpm\ngyroballs plated with Type I superconducting niobium vs. the\nstationary fused silica housing. The full parity Eotvos experiment\'s\nnet output can do no worse than meet the highest academic and\nscientific standards for any and all EP investigations\' results to\ndate.\n\n> You have to\n> imagine that many of them have a line in their introduction something\n> like, "the fundamental properties of matter are mass, baryon number,\n> spin, chirality...We chose to study spin in this case because...".\n\nChirality and parity are not spin or helicity. Gravity Probe-B:\nantiparallel 10,000 rpm spins of fused silica and their platings of\nType I niobium superconductor coole bdlow its Tc are all EP-inert vs.\ntheir non-spinning (les than 1 rpm) fused silica housing. If you like\nbleeding edge lab work, add\n\nPhys. Rev. D. 66 022002 (2002)\nPhys. Rev. D. 65 042005 (2002)\n\nfor dual differential interferometic measurement of free fall 17,000\nrpm 420-gram steel balls. Null result within experimental error.\n\n> I.e. it is a well known property of matter. It may be a difficult one\n> to test, but to say that it wasn\'t conceived of until Schwartz or\n> Adelberger is like saying that people looked at blank spots in the\n> periodic table and didn\'t think there were elements there. Of course\n> people considered the idea of testing chiral samples. They just didn\'t\n> have a reasonable sample to measure.\n\nYou are both ignorant and malicious. Test mass parity divergence is\nan exceedingly hot topic. Nobody until the parity Eotvos experiment\nhas a handle on it given only atom coordinates. Semi-empirical\ntreatments merely restate existing prejudices.\n\nGoogle\n"parity violating energy difference" 151 hits\npved parity 69 hits\n\nAngew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)\nAngew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)\nAngew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)\nChem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)\nPhys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)\n\nThe was no way to ab initio quantitate geometric parity divergence\nbefore Petitjean,\n\nJ. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)\n\nor reduce to practice before Uncle Al.\n\n> Which brings us to-\n>\n> 2) Using single crystals for chiral EP tests. This is the gem in\n> Schwartz\' work. The fact that a bright guy like Adelberger could\n> actually perform the experiment and miss the idea of using a crystal\n> shows that it was not obvious. It is so simple--after the fact--that\n> it may seem obvious, but it was a real jump forward. This is further\n> evidenced by the fact that Schwartz\' suggestion set Prof. Luo and his\n> team into action.\n\n21st century PR Chinese are what Americans were at the turn of the\n20th century - Rockefeller, Stanford, Carnegie, Edison, Ford,\nWestinghouse, Morgan... They are tough achievers tolerant of modest\nrisks in pursuit of tremendous gains. 21st century America is\nemasculated. Kids riding bicycles wear \\$100 helmets by law.\n\nThe milestones are recognizing parity (not merely chirality) as an EP\ntest plus ab inito pure math theory and derived software to explicity\ncalculate geometric parity divergence given only atom coordinates.\nSingle crystal test masses are a derivative trivial requirement since\n- at least in principle - every atom can be located in space given\nonly periodic lattice space group and its unit cell information.\nCommon perturbations to well-grown crystal structure (impurities,\nvacancies, interstitials, dislocations, mosaicity) are tolerable at\ncustomary concentrations. Even inserted major flaws are not fatal,\n\nhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/teshells.png\n\nElectrons are irrelevant. 99.97+% of matter\'s mass is nuclear.\nAchiral crystals can display optical rotation - silver thiogallate,\nAgGaS2 with non-polar achiral tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has\nimmense optical rotatory power: 522 degrees/millimeter along [100] at\n497.4 nm,\n\nJ. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)\n\nEnantiomorphic crsytals can display no optical rotation - Quartz\ndisplays no detectable optical rotation 56.16 degrees from\ncrystallographic [0001],\n\nJ. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)\n\nAdd a brilliant crystallographer who, for his own curiosity, had\nindependently calculated anwwers to parity Eotvos experiment-relevant\nlattice symmetry questions. Nine awarded academic crystallographers\nhad no idea.\n\nThe full parity Eotvos experiment in single crystal P3(1)21 vs.\nP3(2)21 quartz is loaded and running. Its reproducible empirical\nresults will define reality. The universe does not care whom it\noffends, what cherished beliefs it violates, or what extant theories\nit falsifies.\n\nAs to who did what when: sci.physics.research mirror archives and\nGoogle Usenet archives datestamped document Uncle Al\'s independent\ndevelopment of whether left and right hands fall identically. One can\nexhaustively trace the crooked path Uncle Al walked from initial\n"chiral Eotvos experiment" idea starting in 2000 to independently\nexecuted experimental results of two hemiparity and the full parity\nEotvos experiments in fused silica and enantiomorphic single crystal\nquartz, empirical answer due by 01 August 2005. One can also\nexhaustively document that NOBODY supported a non-null output\nprediction from the parity Eotvos experiment. Not a single person.\nNot once. The parity Eotvos experiment is an orphan without exception\noutside some 24 participants in the project.\n\nUncle Al, "Somebody should look." A respected academic group with\nfully qualified modern apparatus is looking as you read this. 50%\nchance that the parity Eotvos experiment was a modestly clever idea\nthat failed. 50% chance that the parity Eotvos experiment will cause\nthe whole of physics to turn on a pivot. Win or lose, an\nexperimentalist cannot configure a better three months in the lab than\nthat.\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:
>
> 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.
Ignorance and malice are your leading edges,
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>
> 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.
Quantitative chirality of small sets of points can be approached in
many ways, vida supra. There is obvious interest in characterizing
chiral biologicial binding sites vs. pharmacology, and protein
engineering of enzymes for industrial production. Obviously there is
the pure math. Petitjean's treatment is the sparest of them all -
input point coordinates and nothing more, get out the normalized
answer. All one requires for a coordinate system is the center of
mass of the point set. \CHI is without scale.
All mass compositions empirically fall identically - all atoms are
weighed as 1 for Petitjean's analysis. Large crystal structure
thermal anisotropies are associated with the lightest atoms. Said
light atoms are invisible or poorly located in x-ray crystallography.
Hydrogen-rich organics are therefore poor initial choices to calculate
and evaluate the parity Eotvos experiment. Single molecule inorganic
crystals, preferably wholly built with heavy atoms of similar atomic
mass, are preferred.
The combinatorics of COR and DSI calculation
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>
<http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>
demand that calculating even an optimally formatted input dataset will
require high end CPU-days to calculate. QCM will do 11,000 atoms in
two weeks in an RS6000/Power3. BigCHI will do 30 million atoms/sec in
a Linux PC without COR and DSI (that must be calculated in QCM to
validate using BigCHI), given crystal stucture data (three lengths,
three angles, all atom fractional coordinates) for a periodic lattice
and prior qualification in QCM to about 1100 atoms. CHIpir is
parallel-executing BigCHI.
CHIs for successive lattice radii are calculated and plotted as
log(1-\CHI) vs. number of contained atoms (slope must be -2/3 by
theory) or vs. radius (slope must be -2 by theory). The straight line
fit in the latter case is modeled as
log(1-\CHI =[/itex] -2[log(radius)] + [(180-(\alpha))(\pi)/60] + (\pi)
where (\alpha) is the largest internal helix angle. The empirical
intercept has no ab inito derivation but it works astoundingly well
(contributed by Dr. Smith at Lehigh University/Dept of Mathematics),
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzsparse.png
711 points, quartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
90,386 points, quartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/pddense.png
75,894 points, PdSbTe
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.png
48,137 points, benzil
The scatter is real, resulting from the geometry of a lattice vs. its
three moments of inertia as sampling radius is progressively
incremented. We've QCM-analyzed about two dozen periodic crystal
lattices and graphed about a half-dozen lattices. We've run about 100
small point sets (molecules) through QCM for the parity Eotvos
experiment project while getting the hang of things.
> Now it starts getting more difficult to define both the question and
> the answer.
The straw men assemble.
> 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.
Your ignorance is not our problem. Read and understand the foregoing
references. The only ab initio calculation of test mass quantitative
parity divergence is Petitjean's analysis of a periodic crystal
lattice starting with QCM for small lattice volumes then employing the
brute force abilities of BigCHI and CHIpir to calculate large lattice
volumes. One then reduces to practice by growing the parity pair
single crystals, shaping test masses to Petitjean's requirements, and
loading an Eotvos balance to its requirements. All layers of the
parity Eotvos experiment, from calculation to final reduction to
practice, are compatible without alteration of standard operating
procedures.
David Avnir's semi-empirical analysis of quartz is consistent with
Petitjean's ab inito results,
Google
avnir quartz 194
though it cannot generate results unless manually "tuned" to the
lattice to enable calculation. That's cheating and it is not rigorous
- even if its predictions do go beyond its empirical inputs.
Weak Equivalence Principle: All local bodies fall identically in
vacuum regardless of composition and structure; inertial and
gravitational masses are fundamentally indistinguishable. The WEP
constrains the Strong and Very Strong EP.
Phys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)
arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209110
arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062
arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088
arXiv.org/abs/http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034
Accelerating frames with consistent definitions of energy and momentum
(or mass and angular momentum) require non-zero spacetime curvature
(assuming an asymptotic symmetry group, which obtains: the
Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group restricted to the Poincare subgroup).
Phys. Rev D 56(8) 4729 (1997)
Phys. Rev D 55(4) 1971 (1997)
J. Math. Phys. (NY), 7 863 (1966)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 669 (1963)
Proc. R. Soc. London 270 103 (1962)
Local spacetime must have a unique curvature. Local test masses
exhibiting non-parallel trajectories require simultaneous different
values of local spacetime curvature. Any paired (sets of) test masses
violating the Equivalence Principle empirically falsify metric
theories of gravitation at their founding postulate.
Composition is empirically demonstrated to be EP-inert to one part in
ten trillion difference/average,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b22
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
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
Composition is EP-inert. What fundamental aspect of *structure* can
be real-world EP tested? Geometric parity.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21
A chiral body is not superposable upon its mirror image. Chirality,
only requiring a causal and orientable spacetime manifold, arises from
coordinate-free Hodge duality equivalent to a pseudoscalar field
(Levi-Civita tensor). True chiral systems exist in two distinct
enantiomorphic states interconverted by space inversion but not by
time reversal combined with any proper spatial rotation.
J. Mol. Phys. 43, 1395 (1981)
Geometric parity inverts all spatial coordinates. It is more limiting
(direct symmetry index, DSI) than chirality plus 180-degree rotation
in 3-space, notably if rotation is discontinuous. The Weak force
breaks parity without coordinates or reference frames with the
coordinate-invariant vector triple product. EP chirality is purely
geometric not compositional. Chirality is an emergent phenomenon
requiring at least four non-coplanar points in 3-space. The ratio of
emergent scale to experimental scale, the degree of aggregation of the
chiral units, is consequential.
The only ab initio calculation of test mass quantitative parity
divergence is Petitjean's analysis of a periodic crystal lattice
starting with QCM for small lattice volumes then employing the brute
force ability of BigCHI and CHIpir to calculate large lattice
volumes. One then reduces to practice by growing the parity pair
single crystals, shaping test masses to Petitjean's requirements, and
loading an Eotvos balance.
> 1) Measuring chiral samples for EP tests. Well, lets face it, there
> are dozens of dissertations out there of testing EP.
They all report a perfect null output within experimental error,
Ciufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995) pp. 117-119
Null net output within experimental error is the gold standard for EP
testing by whatever means in whatever apparatus, icluding free fall
Gravity Probe-B with its two pairs of antiparallel 10,000 rpm
gyroballs plated with Type I superconducting niobium vs. the
stationary fused silica housing. The full parity Eotvos experiment's
net output can do no worse than meet the highest academic and
scientific standards for any and all EP investigations' results to
date.
> 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...".
Chirality and parity are not spin or helicity. Gravity Probe-B:
antiparallel 10,000 rpm spins of fused silica and their platings of
Type I niobium superconductor coole bdlow its Tc are all EP-inert vs.
their non-spinning (les than 1 rpm) fused silica housing. If you like
bleeding edge lab work, add
Phys. Rev. D. 66 022002 (2002)
Phys. Rev. D. 65 042005 (2002)
for dual differential interferometic measurement of free fall 17,000
rpm 420-gram steel balls. Null result within experimental error.
> 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.
You are both ignorant and malicious. Test mass parity divergence is
an exceedingly hot topic. Nobody until the parity Eotvos experiment
has a handle on it given only atom coordinates. Semi-empirical
treatments merely restate existing prejudices.
Google
"parity violating energy difference" 151 hits
pved parity 69 hits
Angew. Chem. \Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)
Angew. Chem. \Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)
Angew. Chem. \Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)
Chem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)
The was no way to ab initio quantitate geometric parity divergence
before Petitjean,
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
or reduce to practice before Uncle Al.
> Which brings [itex]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.
21st century PR Chinese are what Americans were at the turn of the
20th century - Rockefeller, Stanford, Carnegie, Edison, Ford,
Westinghouse, Morgan... They are tough achievers tolerant of modest
risks in pursuit of tremendous gains. 21st century America is
emasculated. Kids riding bicycles wear $100 helmets by law.
The milestones are recognizing parity (not merely chirality) as an EP
test plus ab inito pure math theory and derived software to explicity
calculate geometric parity divergence given only atom coordinates.
Single crystal test masses are a derivative trivial requirement since
- at least in principle - every atom can be located in space given
only periodic lattice space group and its unit cell information.
Common perturbations to well-grown crystal structure (impurities,
vacancies, interstitials, dislocations, mosaicity) are tolerable at
customary concentrations. Even inserted major flaws are not fatal,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/teshells.png
Electrons are irrelevant. 99.97+% of matter's mass is nuclear.
Achiral crystals can display optical rotation - silver thiogallate,
AgGaS2 with non-polar achiral tetragonal space group I-42d (#122), has
immense optical rotatory power: 522 degrees/millimeter along [100] at
497.4 nm,
J. Appl. Cryst. 33 126 (2000)
Enantiomorphic crsytals can display no optical rotation - Quartz
displays no detectable optical rotation 56.16 degrees from
crystallographic [0001],
J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)
Add a brilliant crystallographer who, for his own curiosity, had
independently calculated anwwers to parity Eotvos experiment-relevant
lattice symmetry questions. Nine awarded academic crystallographers
had no idea.
The full parity Eotvos experiment in single crystal P3(1)21 vs.
P3(2)21 quartz is loaded and running. Its reproducible empirical
results will define reality. The universe does not care whom it
offends, what cherished beliefs it violates, or what extant theories
it falsifies.
As to who did what when: sci.physics.research mirror archives and
Google Usenet archives datestamped document Uncle Al's independent
development of whether left and right hands fall identically. One can
exhaustively trace the crooked path Uncle Al walked from initial
"chiral Eotvos experiment" idea starting in 2000 to independently
executed experimental results of two hemiparity and the full parity
Eotvos experiments in fused silica and enantiomorphic single crystal
quartz, empirical answer due by 01 August 2005. One can also
exhaustively document that NOBODY supported a non-null output
prediction from the parity Eotvos experiment. Not a single person.
Not once. The parity Eotvos experiment is an orphan without exception
outside some 24 participants in the project.
Uncle Al, "Somebody should look." A respected academic group with
fully qualified modern apparatus is looking as you read this. 50%
chance that the parity Eotvos experiment was a modestly clever idea
that failed. 50% chance that the parity Eotvos experiment will cause
the whole of physics to turn on a pivot. Win or lose, an
experimentalist cannot configure a better three months in the lab than
that.
--
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
May4-05, 01:57 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>srp <srp@microtec.net> wrote:\n> <carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> a ecrit dans le message de\n> news: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\n> How does this prediction fit with the fact that at near lightspeed,\n> an electron will sustain an increase in relativistic mass that can\n> only cause it, as far as I can assess, to be inertialy deflected even\n> less than even the Newtonian prediction?\n\n> What don\'t I see?\n\nIn Newtonian gravity, the deflection is independent of the mass, right?\n(All Newtonian gravitational interactions are independent of the mass\nof the "test body" -- that\'s one form of the principle of equivalence.)\nIn general relativity, there are additional "gravitomagnetic" interactions\nproportional to velocity, which increase the deflection.\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\n> How are the neutrinos detected in such circumstances?\n\nThey were seen at IMB and Kamiokande, both water Cerenkov detectors,\nand also at the Baksan scintillation detector. See, for example,\nhttp://hep.bu.edu/~superk/gc.html.\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>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
May4-05, 10:04 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> You have been repeatedly voluminously answered including abundant\n> literature and Web citations in sci.physics.research, sci.physics,\nand\n> sci.chem You are abusive. You do not read references, you do not\n> read exhaustive answers, you perseveratively restate the same\n> unsupportable objections. To quote yourself here in\n> sci.physics.research,\n> <1114986874.327815.147770@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups .com>\n> Mon, 2 May 2005 03:32:44 +0000 (UTC)\n>\n> "Thomas Johnson wrote:\n> >From what little I can see, it looks\n> like Petitjean and others are interested in chirality of molecules.\n> Again, I don\'t want to spend the time to find out why."\n>\n>\n> You are a waste of bytes.\n>\n> [snip]\n>\n> <http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf>\n> Review of quantitative chirality and parity calculation\n> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html>\n> "The mathematical theory of chirality" as multiple Web pages\n> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM>\n> Public domain Quantatitve Chiraltiy Measure software (QCM)\n> <http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme>\n> QCM documentation.\n>\n> Learn something before your presume to cricitize - at length! - those\n> who have learned something.\n\nWe are going in circles. I ask for you to give proof of your assertion\nthat the CHI is relevant to GR and the Eotvos EP test, and you keep\nposting extremely long summaries of your paper and the history of your\nwork. It wasn\'t there in the full version, it isn\'t in the summaries.\n\nBy the way--I don\'t read the references of the people who are working\non chirality in molecules because it is obviously irrelevant to whether\nyour calculations are connected to GR. That is unless you would like\nto state that the references above already cover the connection between\nchirality and GR! If so, update qz.pdf to give credit to Petitjean.\n\nDon\'t downplay my understanding. I have done my homework on this. I\nhave carefully read your qz.pdf and many of your posts. Few people on\nthe newsgroups appear to have actually takent the time to do this\nreading. I have drawn the conclusion that the two parts- (1) proposing\nsingle crystals for Eotvos samples and (2) the chirality calculation on\nsingle crystals -- are separate, unconnected works. I am probably the\nonly one to have contacted the researcher conducting the experiments\nand found out his opinion of your calculation as well. Based on all\nthis, I am very confident in stating that the CHI calculations are not\nconnected to GR or the Eotvos experiment.\n\nThe referees who read your paper submission probably took a more\ncareful look at your paper than I. According to your own posts, it was\nnot accepted for publication. What conclusion are we to draw from\nthat?\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:
> 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.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.