Re: Crank Magnet

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 12/24/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:01:57 -0800

David McAnally wrote:
>
> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> writes:
>
> >No self-consistent mathematical construct can be internally falsified,
> >Euclid or Einstein. Euclid fell when his Fifth (Parallel) Postulate
> >fell - Riemann, and Bolyai and Lobechevsky; then Thurston to do them
> >all,
>
> I saw one person describe the work of Bolyai and Lobachevsky as a
> vindication of Euclid, on the basis that Euclid was aware enough to make
> his Fifth Postulate a Postulate, and not attempt to make it a Proposition.
> In other words, it vindicated Euclid because he never attempted to prove
> it, but chose, instead, to assume it.

The number of parallel lines through a point not on a given line is
not provable.

Euclid, of course, contains no errors. Euclid avoided using this
Fifth Postulate whenever possible because he distrusted it. Euclidean
geometry is merely incomplete - a special case of geometry in zero
curvature. Add hyperbolic (negative curvature; Riemann) and elliptic
(positive curvature; Bolyai and Lobechevsky) geometries and we're
home, right? Nope! Thurston identifies eight fundamental
simply-connected geometric 3-manifolds with compact quotients: E^3,
S^3, H^3, S^2 x R, H^2 x R, SL_2, Nil, and Sol.

SR tacitly assumes G=0 and h=0.
GR tacilty assumes h=0.
QM tacitly assumes G=0 and c=infinity.

These are satisfactory approximations in their own balliwicks. Things
get sloppy at interfaces (e.g. Planck distances). There is no
physical theory that allows G=G, c=c, and h=h simultaneously.
M-theory is utterly unpredictive. Lattice quantum gravitation cannot
reproduce GR. GR cannot be quantized. Stochastic electrodynamics
cannot produce a Schroedinger equation to describe the hydrogen atom.

But wait! It's worse than that!

Even-parity metric gravitation with geodesic paths is exactly
duplicated - every prediction down to the last decimal place - by
odd-parity affine gravitation with autoparallel paths. Well ***
howdy, they can't both be correct! (x,y,z)<->(-x,-y,-z) either makes
a difference (pseudotensors) or it does not (tensors). Newton,
Einstein, lattice quantum gravitation, and 3/5 of M theory are
parity-even. Anybody who identifies two test masses that reproducibly
fall differently in vacuum falsfies the Equivalence Principle and all
theory that postulates it - all even-parity physical theory.

Given that symmetries must be coupled to conserved properties via
Noether's theorem, we have a short mathematical menu of possiblities,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21

Properties coupled to internal symmetries cannot couple to rotation or
translation by definition. Now the list of test possiblities is very
short,

               Invariance Conserved Quantity
====================================================
Proper translation in time energy
orthochronous (homogeneity)
Lorentz translation in space linear momentum
symmetry (homogeneity)
               rotation in space angular momentum
                 (isotropy)
----------------------------------------------------
Discrete P, coordinates' spatial parity
symmetry inversion
              C, charge charge parity
                 conjugation
              T, time reversal time parity

Chemical composition is demonstrated inert to one part in ten trillion
diffence/average. Spinning and electromagnetically polarized
(magnets) test masses empirically validate the EP. Charge conjugation
is an internal symmetry. Unless you have a time machine, the only
untested property is spatial parity.

Curiously, parity is the only non-Noetherian symmetry-property
couple. Geometric parity divergence could not be ab initio calculated
until 1999. It makes perfect sense to challenge spacetime geometry
with test mass geometry. Convincing a physics research group to
invest funds and risk reputation on such parity experiments is rather
difficult. It is a very heterodox idea, though not contradicted by
any preceding observation in any venue.

A group in PR China is serially running the two hemiparity Eotvos
experiments (left- or right-handed single crystal quartz against
amorphous fused silica) and the full parity experiment (left- vs.
right-handed single crystal quartz). The first hemiparity experiment
is running as you read this. The full parity Eotvos experiment is
expected to kick off in January 2005. Then, we will know.

A US group also pledged collaboration "within two years." In fact,
they have the sweeter test mass configuration. Unless they have been
very diligent without telling me,

   1) They will be lauded for having held back in what was obviously
an ill-conceived quixotic proposal, or

   2) They can independently confirm the empirical falsification of
General Relativity (quantum mechanics also goes - no more Lorentz
invariance). Coming in second will not get them a lutafisk winter
holiday.

If any academic, government, or private research group wants to join
the fun before the ballot box is opened, there is a calorimetric
version and a parity Eotvos experiment using relaxed constraints on
test mass lattice geometry. Both of them are calculated for
quantitative parity divergence. The calormetric experiment could be
an undergrad summer project. The less constrained parity Eotvos
experiment requires a validated Eotvos balance in place. The Indian
TATA Institute could pull it off, ditto Wei-Tou Ni in Taiwan. Riley
Newman at UCI is uninterested. 

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