Re: Supersolidity and the breakdown of the General Relativity Equivalence Principle

On Jun 21, 3:40 pm, ny2292000 <quantunive...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 20, 12:55 pm, mathematician <hapor...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jun 20, 2:32 pm, ny2292000 <quantunive...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In my blog about the Hypergeometrical Universe, I posted a simple
solution to the supersolidity problem. This problem arises from an
experiment which has been interpreted along the lines of superfluidity
of solid Helium-4 phases.

Simple quantum mechanics argument showing that the core of the
rotating Helium-4 cell probes boths sides of motion and thus remains
effectivelly motionless below a critical temperature properly explains
the phenomena.

A quantum mechanical motionless states indicates a breakdown between
inertia mass and gravitational mass.

Are you claiming that the local principle of equivalence (the weak
form)
is wrong or are you claiming that the global principle of equivalence
is
wrong (the srong form) ?

Hannu

Further considerations also show that inertia depends upon which
motion you are considering. Although rotational motion inertial mass
(moment of inertia) goes to zero as temperature decreases,
translational mass (if one moves the whole He-4 cell) would not.

The site ishttp://hypergeometricaluniverse.blogspot.com/2007/06/going-nowhere-fa...

Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments.

Thanks,

MP- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hannu,

Thanks for your question.

Weak Equivalence Principle:
The trajectory of a falling test body depends only on its initial
position and velocity, and is independent of its composition.

Strong Equivalence Principle:
The gravitational motion of a small test body depends only on its
initial position in spacetime and velocity, and not on its
constitution.

I did not target any one of the principles, but a simple thought
experiment where one has a supercolled He-4 celestial body would
challenge the Weak form. I am proposing that the inertial properties

There is nothing to challenge in the local principle
of equivalence, which is true.

Situation is different in the case of the global
principle of equivalence, which is not true.

Hannu

of a body depends upon temperature and composition (bosonic or not).

What I am questioning is the one-to-one relationship between inertial
mass and gravitational mass implicit in the equivalence principle,
that is, 1 Kg of matter will always have one Kg of inertial mass. I
am also emphasizing the link between moment of inertia and its
counterparty inertial mass. The final result is that even though the
weight of a sample in the He-4 supersolidity experiment doesn't
change, its inertial mass to rotation can change.

This is totally different than conjuring up solid through solid flow
and explains the observed changes in the moment of inertia equally
well.

Thanks,

MP


.

Relevant Pages