|
<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>LEJ Brouwer wrote:\n> Nonsense. There are other ways for parity violation to originate which\n> do not require breakdown either of Lorentz invariance or of quantum\n> mechanics, or of conservation of angular momentum, or of the\n> equivalence principle. You just haven\'t thought of one yet.\n\nUncle Al and I went through that discussion a while back. The\n(generalized) teleparallel gravity gives you a geodesic law with an\neffective force on the right proportional to the acceleration. If it\nwere proportional to the velocity, you could incorporate it into a\nLorentz force; which is generally the only kind of force you have\naround to talk about. If it\'s proportional to the acceleration one can\nalways find a way to contort something that will fit (e.g. by forcing a\nredefinition of the connection to get it to fit the modified mass on\neach world line); but in the end, there is no real substitute for the\nsimplest explanation that there is two different kinds of masses\ninvolved.\n\nTeleparallel gravity would not have made the peer-reviewed published\nliterature, in the first place, had it been nothing more than a fancy\nreformulation of General Relativity. A little common sense is in order\nhere.\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>LEJ Brouwer wrote:
> Nonsense. There are other ways for parity violation to originate which
> do not require breakdown either of Lorentz invariance or of quantum
> mechanics, or of conservation of angular momentum, or of the
> equivalence principle. You just haven't thought of one yet.
Uncle Al and I went through that discussion a while back. The
(generalized) teleparallel gravity gives you a geodesic law with an
effective force on the right proportional to the acceleration. If it
were proportional to the velocity, you could incorporate it into a
Lorentz force; which is generally the only kind of force you have
around to talk about. If it's proportional to the acceleration one can
always find a way to contort something that will fit (e.g. by forcing a
redefinition of the connection to get it to fit the modified mass on
each world line); but in the end, there is no real substitute for the
simplest explanation that there is two different kinds of masses
involved.
Teleparallel gravity would not have made the peer-reviewed published
literature, in the first place, had it been nothing more than a fancy
reformulation of General Relativity. A little common sense is in order
here.
|