Re: No new Einstein
- From: Uncle Al <UncleAl0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC)
Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> In article <daf5ts$tlj$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tim Josling <tej_at_melbpc.org.au_rubbish@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >Physics today is just huge. To learn enough to get to the questions is a
> >far bigger job than 100 years ago. By the time you learn enough you are
> >on the way to being an old man.
>
> Um. Yes and no. Much of physics is very secondary, and learning
> it is a positive handicap to doing anything new. It is still very
> complex, but not as huge as is made out.
>
> General relativity is conceptually very simple, for example, and it
> is the consequences of the formulae that are difficult. Many people
> have asked some of the real, fundamental questions about it with
> very little knowledge of physics - all you need is a good mathematical
> background. Of course, asking the questions and providing even
> plausible answers are two very different things :-)
>
> For example, I was one of the hundreds or thousands of people who
> posed the question "Is Einstein's formula the only one that fits the
> known facts?" and could demonstrate that it wasn't. I had already
> derived the exponential form (instead of 1/(1-v^2)), because the two
> formulae are well-known to be similar (to people with my background).
>
> Of course, that merely states the truism that, before we can be sure
> that Einstein's formula extends right up to event horizons, we need
> some measurements of behavour close to where it predicts the event
> horizons to be. And that isn't so easy to arrange ....
>
> >The cost of experiments. The energy and scale involved in experiments to
> >test modern theories are enormous and so require lots of government
> >funding, if it is possible at all.
>
> To a great extent that is a consequence of my previous remark that
> both general relativity and quantum mechanics are theories that have
> domains of validity far beyond what could be measured, and even some
> way beyond what can be measured today. There may be some simple,
> cheap tests to check on their boundaries, but I can't think of any.
Simple and cheap, to be run in existing apparatus, unambiguous and
reproducible; include gravitation, quantum mechanics, and all of
classical physics. No problem!
Metric gravitation appears from Special Relativity by postulating the
Equivalence Principle; its maths are overall symmetric to parity
inversion as is Newton. Affine gravitation does not postulate the EP;
its maths can be symmetric or antisymmetric to parity inversion.
Metric gravitation is wholly contained within affine gravitation as a
special case. Don't look where they agree, look where they are
disjoint.
If you find two local lumps that empirically reproducibly free fall
differently in vacuum - with different accelerations or along
non-parallel trajectories - then the EP is falsified and metric
gravitation is incomplete (as Euclid fails in hyperbolic or elliptic
spaces given his Fifth Postulate). Drop small stuff close together
(locality vs. tidal forces in Earth's divergent gravitational field)
and look. Simple and cheap.
We know where not to look: all contrasted chemical compositions of
matter, physically spinning bodies (gyroscope balls), spin-polarized
bodies (magnets), binding energies (Nordtvedt effect), superconductors
(Gravity Probe-B); and hyper-spinning, hyper-polarized, hyper-bound,
superconducting neutroniun (binary pulsars). Folks have already
looked and found nothing amiss to 10^(-13) difference/average.
Only *one* possiblity remains! Does a left hand fall identically to a
right hand? Does the Equivalence Principle have a parity violation?
If so, Lorentz invariance is violated (demonstrated anisotropy of
space) and quantum mechanics also falls. If space is anisotropic,
then angular momentum through Noether's theorem is not rigorously
conserved by opposite parity masses, and the remainder of physics
goes down as well. Parity-antisymmetric affine gravitation is a clean
sweep of everything known to be "true" - though only as an
ultramicroscopic perturbation (so far).
Quartz crystallizes in opposite parity crystallographic space groups
P3(1)21 and P3(2)21. Do single crystal bodies of left-handed quartz
fall identically to those of right-handed quartz? The results of the
parity Eotvos experiment will be out in mid-September. There is a 50%
chance a handful of sand will be tossed into General Relativity's
gears.
More than a 50% chance. What originated biological homochirality?
All chiral protein amino acids are left-handed; all chiral sugars are
right-handed. Was it coincidence or is there an intrinsic energetic
bias because space itself is chiral?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: No new Einstein
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: No new Einstein
- From: Nick Maclaren
- Re: No new Einstein
- From: LEJ Brouwer
- Re: No new Einstein
- References:
- No new Einstein
- From: John Baez
- No new Einstein
- Prev by Date: Re: No new Einstein
- Next by Date: Re: Neuton and Electron diffractions
- Previous by thread: Re: No new Einstein
- Next by thread: Re: No new Einstein
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
