Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report
From: Uncle Al (UncleAl0_at_hate.spam.net)
Date: 03/23/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: Baby talk and prejudices about absolute time and determinism"
- Previous message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Next in thread: John C. Polasek: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: John C. Polasek: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:25:29 -0800
Mark Martin wrote:
>
> Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > That's a truly deep insight. In this sense alone the experiment is
> also
> > > a test of the equivalence principle, of general relativity, under
> > > extreme conditions.
> >
> > How do you figure that? If the EP were violated by 10% or it were
> > not, what difference would it make in the cited example? If GR were
> > incorrect by 10% or it were not, what difference would it make in the
> > cited example?
>
> To be more clear, the specific experimental run may or may not have the
> precision to do so. I was more in the mindset of suddenly being shown
> something that was dangling in front of me all this time, that high
> energy accelerators may, at least in principle, be used to create
> extreme "gravitational" conditions. It's cool.
Particle accelerators create extreme accelerations on particle
impact. Gravitational and inertial acceleration are apparently
fundamentally indistinguishable. Current models of interaction during
and after such high energy collisions predict detected outputs with
remarkable accuracy. Do they include gravitational time anomalies
from the high accelerations?
Composition violations of the Equivalence Principle (EP) do not occur
to one part in 10^13 difference/average by observation,
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
Nobody knows if there are EP parity violations due to geometry (at
least until the end of this year). Relativistic polarized colliding
beams are chiral. Polarized collisions have been explored and they
must account for geometry. However...
1) Nobody has ever produced a TeV high luminance polarized
collider, and
2) Chirality degenerates to helicity when the particles slow. When
things would get interesting the variable vanishes.
Calculate the average acceleration of a 125 grain .357 Magnum
semijacketed hollow point bullet as it starts from rest and passes
down a 6" S&W barrel to exit at 1450 ft/sec. It is a rather large
number. The large /_\v of particle collisions given the short times
puts out some impressive acceleration numbers. To say that this is a
gravitational black hole is dancing on thin ice. Commercial
ultracentrifuges can generate more than one million gees continuous,
but there is no associated time dilation at the rim - by direct
measurement (Mossbauer resonance with the hub).
If the Earth had a surface gravity of one million gees its escape
velocity would be 7000 miles/second - not relativistic.
-- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
- Next message: PD: "Re: Baby talk and prejudices about absolute time and determinism"
- Previous message: Albert Wagner: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Mark Martin: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Next in thread: John C. Polasek: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Reply: John C. Polasek: "Re: Brookhaven Responds to black hole report"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
