Re: World's Greatest Scientist Shocking Revelations

From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 09:45:58 -0800

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
>
> If I understand Al correctly,
> he is suggesting gravitation may be dependent on substance.

Exactly ***NOT***! Composition is EP-inert in both theory and 400+
years of observation. The proper test of spacetime geometry is test
mass geometry. The full parity Eotvos experiment in quartz contrasts
two sets of COMPOSITIONALLY IDENTICAL test masses, both of them being
macroscopically identical single crystal solid cylinders (PR China) or
solid spheres (US). Ultrapure single crystal SiO_2. Same mass, same
density, same dimensions, same everything. One set is carved from
single crystal P3(1)21 quartz (geometrically right-handed); the other
set is carved from from single crystal P3(2)21 quartz (geometrically
left-handed).

> There are
> two types of the Principle of Equivalence (PoE), strong and weak.
> See Weinberg's "Grav & Cosmo" ch. 3 and pg.69,
> for a clear professional distinction.
> Al is testing the strong PoE, suggesting then the weak PoE is truer.

Exactly ****NOT***! First, the parity Eotvos experiment specifically
goes after the Weak EP. Second, all three EPs - Weak, Strong, and
Very Strong - are dependent upon the Weak EP,

Phys. Rev. D 7(12) 3563 (1973)
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209110
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9806062
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9805088
arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0212034
Phys. Rev. D 43(12) 3789 (1991)
 
> What Al is doing is to place a g-field on a Euclidian
> Geometry that is able to interact with the substance
> being accelerated.

Not substance, geometry. Not Euclidean, either.
 
> Einstein advocates the strong PoE, specifically Newton's 1st law (of
> inertia) and states that law is modified in the presence of matter, so
> that freely falling bodies are not acted upon by any measureable force,
> but instead follow geodesics.
>
> I'm critical of the weak PoE, because a substance dependant
> gravitational reaction appears to violate the conservation of
> mass-energy. For example, two different substances accelarated by a
> g-field will create energy (apart from the tidal part), if there
> relative acceleration varies.

Test mass composition cannot violate the EP. There is no mechanism
for it and no empirical evidence. Test mass geometry causes no
paradoxes. A chiral spacetime would interact diastereotopically with
opposite parity test masses of identical composition. Their differing
paths (autoparallels - not geodesics - in affine gravitation) would
*both* be minimal action paths.

Test mass difference in energy upon racemization or chirality
destruction (e.g., enthalpy of combustion) must be consistent with
thermodynamic measurements to date. The parity violation therefore
cannot be greater than 100 parts-per-trillion difference/average and
will probably be smaller than 10 parts-per-trillion
difference/average. Uncle Al is betting on 3 parts-per-trillio
difference/average with at least 90% of the anomaly residing in
P3(1)21 quartz.
 
> In 1916 Einstein published a paper relating the Hamiltonian (a
> conservation of energy) to the strong PoE, and therein finds General
> Covariance and the strong PoE to be consistent in all FoR's.
>
> I've asked Al for a similiar examination of the Hamiltonian, using GC,
> and specifically, what modification does he propose to the equation of
> motion, specifically the geodesic.
>
> It's tough, but I'm listening...

GR cannot do the analysis any more than Euclidean geometry can
navigate on a surface with non-zero curvature. Uncle Al invites Ken
to formulate a Hamiltonian in affine gravitation. "8^>) 

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

Relevant Pages