Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum B Factory Results

B factory experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in the USA and at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) in Japan have reached a new milestone in the quest to understand the matter-antimatter imbalance in our universe. These experiments are used by scientists from around the world, including the UK, to probe such fundamental questions.

Experimenters have leaped from inference to direct knowledge of the proportions of the B unitarity triangle. Not just a simple geometric shape, this triangle summarizes knowledge of the rare processes that contribute to the universes partiality for matter over antimatter. Understanding the difference between matter and anti-matter is fundamental to understanding why our Universe looks the way it does.

Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060624115839.htm

"The amount of asymmetry found experimentally is still far too small to explain why we live in a universe of matter rather than antimatter."

Existing theory therefore

1) contains an overlooked consequence, or

2) existing theory contains a weak founding postulate, or

3) existing theory omits a subtle necessary component.

Any improvement of contemporary theory must be consistent with prior observations within experimental error and must be vigorously predictive for testing and utility. Where could there be slack in the gears?

EASY! All of existing theory can be written in two ways. The simple way is even-parity math. Consider raising numbers to even powers. If you measure physical distance of separation it always defaults to a positive number. Negative separations (by defining a suitable reference frame) had better give the same answers. Gauge symmetries are only labels. They do not couple to translation or rotation.

The nasty way is theory written in odd-parity math (that includes even-parity as a special case). Consider raising numbers to odd powers. Negative numbers give different answers if you can somehow obtain a physically real negative number.

If a true description of reality contains large even-parity contributors and very small odd-parity contributors, even-parity theory is good enough - until somebody looks at far decimal places. Then, even-parity theory fails.

Is there any physical process wherein turning the universe inside-out in all directions makes a difference in the resulting physics? As an experiment, does a a single crystal solid sphere of left-handed quartz vacuum free-fall identically to an externally indistinguishable like sphere of right-handed quartz? If so, one need simply use theory written to odd-parity maths and the correct answers will obtain.

Somebody should look.

Also,

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

Uncle Al writes:

"Existing theory therefore

1) contains an overlooked consequence, or

2) existing theory contains a weak founding postulate, or

3) existing theory omits a subtle necessary component. "

I'm not sure about 1). Consequences follow from hypotheses. The hypothetical aspects of current physics has been pretty well farmed for their consequences. The journals are filled with LPUs that speculate on this kind of thing.

But 2) seems like safe bet. Physical theory has a host of assumptions - alway has and always will. Advances in physics come from critical analysis of postulates or new experimental findings. You "gotta lift the paint somewhere".

That brings up 3). Hidden elements are metaphysics until an experiment, observation, null-results or some such shows that something is missing.

I get the feeling Uncle Al seems to think that running the maths will get answers. There is something to this - but I believe more in physical reasoning than mathematics. My personal feeling is physics first then math if you want to avoid getting lost in Plato's heaven.

Uncle Al is mostly advertising his ideas on using crystals to check for equivalence principle violations.

If you take the time to look over his work, you will find that while there is a lot of computer generated arithmetic involved, a connection with physical reasoning is lacking.

Hi J. A. God,

You sort of lost me on this one. Are you speaking of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass?

The article that DA Morgan noted is about recent events at SLAC's BABAR. One of the things BABAR is supposed to do is to examine the assymmetry in the decay rates of B-particles and anti-B-particles. The idea is to get some experimental data concerning CP violation - the sine-two-beta parameter. (Of course they do other things.)

Uncle Al seems to be talking about using quartz crystals to accomplish the same thing - I think?

What am I missing here?

Dr. R.

What you are missing is that Uncle Al, for a decade or more, has been seriously trying to get someone to run an experiment he calls: Parity Eotvos.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/message_board9/messages/21.shtml

Equally serious is the world physics community that has found Uncle Al's suggestion lacking in merit thus it seems it will not be run unless he does it himself.

Thanks for the input DA Morgan. A little insight goes a long way.

According to Uncle Al's website, the experiment is "completed". Based on the statement, I gather that he does not think highly of the experimental team.

My impression is that Uncle Al doesn't think highly of anyone but that may just be an impression he has cultivated over the years.

Oh, I can think of one person he thinks very highly of...

There are only two internally consistent ways to build observed physical reality:

1) The Equivalence Princple is true, gravitation is gerade, inertial and gravitational mass are fundamentally identical, spacetime is achiral. Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are inserted exceptions due to local symmetry breakings.

2) The Equivalence Principle can be violated, gravitation is ungerade, inertial and gravitational mass can be decoupled, spacetime is chiral. Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are the consequence of a vacuum pseudoscalar background (spacetime is intrinsically left-handed).

A left foot can only be tested by a (snugly fitting) right shoe. Left shoes and socks will all fit identically. Therefore,

3) What is geometric (not optical) chirality? All chemical compositions of matter fall identically. Only relative mass distribution (atom positions) is active in the experiment. Parity is chirality in all directions,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif

4) How can we calculate geometric parity divergence to identify the most extreme opposite
examples?

5) How can we reduce theory to practice, to an actual experiment? Solid single crystal spheres of enantiomorphic space groups P3(1)21 versus P3(2)32 quartz are maximally parity divergent by theory and calculation,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
A three-month parity Eotvos experiment

The same result can be obtained in two days in a chem lab, with 32,000 times greater sensitivity,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm

Inertial and gravitational masses would be non-equivalent for a contrasted pair of enantiomorphic crystals (for their parity-divergent atom locations) but not in their identical amorphous achiral melts. E=mc^2. The difference must show as an anomalous differential heat of fusion.

Critic troll J. Arthur God is playing his vile little game. The truth is

6) Weak Interaction asymmetry is insufficient to explain the observed preponderence of matter over antimatter from an otherwise unbiased Big Bang,

http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/triangle.asp
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060624115839.htm
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/special/cp.htm

7) Biological homochiralty has no reasonable source (all chiral protein amino acids are L-configuration, all chiral sugars are D-configuration).

8) Nobody has examined gravitation for a parity anomaly. If it exists it would easily explain both (6) and (7) and have no effect whatsoever on common matter. Note that meat and wood cancel in Earth's biosphere so there is no hope of a detectable parity Nordtvedt effect.

The preceding technical claims have solid refereed literature backing,

HD Flack, "Chiral and achiral crystal structures"
Helv. Chim. Acta 86 905 (2003)
http://www.flack.ch/howard/cristallo/cacs.pdf
http://www.flack.ch/howard/cristallo/Howard.Flack.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flack_parameter

M. Petitjean, "On the root mean square quantitative chirality and quantitative symmetry measures"
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png
Theoretical slope is -2 exactly. Intercept depends on crystal structure.
CHI=1 is maximum geometric parity divergence
CHI=1-[10^(-15)], 1 cm diameter quartz solid sphere
CHI=1-[10^(-16)], 3 cm diameter quartz solid sphere

D. Yogev-Einot and D. Avnir "Quantitative Symmetry and Chirality of the Molecular Building Blocks of Quartz"
Chem. Mater. 15 464 (2003)
"Pressure and temperature effects on the degree of symmetry and chirality of the molecular building blocks of low quartz"
Acta Cryst. B60, 163?173 (2004)
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/employee/avnir/topics.html

Wow! Uncle Al, I now feel an idiot. Maybe my chirality does not fit space-time?

I guess "nobody" means everyone except for Jun Luo? Or, is your website mistaken in listing that the experiment is completed?

I don't seem to recall claiming that your points 6 and 7 were incorrect. I don't recall it because I didn't do it. I did and do claim that point 8 ( Nobody has examined gravitation for a parity anomaly) is incorrect. I use your own words to make that claim.

Well, at least you resurected your favored troll subject.

Hey J. Arthur God,

While I am sure that for Uncle Al there is "one person he thinks very highly of..." and that his writing style is not beyond reproach, he does have some things going in his favor.

Looking at the above post my inital reaction was jeez what a gas bag. For example: "1) ... Parity violations (e.g., the Weak Interaction) are inserted exceptions due to local symmetry breakings." Here I thought that these are not just "inserted" into a theory. Parity violations are based on solid experimental evidence.

In 1956 Tsung Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang, in their studies of sub-atomic particle interactions began to suspect that parity might not be conserved in weak interactions. Others had suspected as much and some felt that the assumption of parity conservation needed to be checked as a matter of principle, but no one had anything solid to go on. In 1957 Chien Shiung Wu showed experimentally that beta decay, a weak interaction, in cobalt-60 is anisotropic depending on the spin of the nuclei.

Any respectable theory must deal accordingly with these facts. Gluing things in as an after thought will not do. Then I got to thinking how symmetry come into the standard model. Some of it was just glued in while much of it is part and parcel of the wider theroy. A pretty good discussion of symmetry, broken or otherwise, can be found at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/symmetry-breaking/

So the point I am trying to make is that while our Unc's writing style is less that clear and direct, it does have some content. Of course he is still rather pompous, overbearing, etc. etc.


Dr. R.

I have no gripe with pompous, overbearing people if they can back it up with ability.

Of course there is a reason to test all characteristics of matter for EP violation. It isn't like the community with Eovos balances sat back and said, "Dang, parity. Why didn't we think of that". What they may have said is, "Dang, single crystals, why didn't we think of that?".

Uncle Al spent over a month of high-end CPU time calculating a number that can be had in an instant using your brain. (the chirality of a single crystal). In the end, that number isn't useful for theory or experiment in the EP test.

So, the noise/signal ratio on this subject is just too high.

Hey God,

Signal/noise ratio, good way of putting it. (LOL)

There is something I had to learn and it has helped me immensely to do so. Science is a human enterprise and so people and communication skills are very important.

I'll give you an example of how things can go wrong and right. Julius R. von Mayer(1814–1878) was the first to propose the modern principle of energy conservation (Erhaltungssatz der Kraft) in 1841. Mayer was trained as a physician not as a physicist. In the medical science of the times more latin dogeral was used than was found in the physics journals. (This is still true today!) When he submitted his ideas to Zeitschrift f?r Physik it was not only rejected but severely ridiculed. This abuse spread even so far as the local news paper in his home town. They really blasted him. Now, in 1843 James P. Joule (1818–1889) made the same discovery as Mayer, but he presented himself differently. Joule took the time to present his ideas in the current scientific format in a meeting of the BAAS and above all he was a gentleman in fact. When Lord Kelvin, of absolute temperature fame, heard Joule's ideas he was skeptical - even contrary. However, he took Joule seriously and eventually became a leading champion of the energy law.

The moral of the story, at least for me, is that it really helps to put the human factor back into the equation.

Dr. R.

Yes, how sad. Why do scientists claim objectivity when they are no more objective than the Vatican in the time of Galileo?

Hi Johnny,

Galileo's case makes my point. Galileo was a genius, but arrogant and abrasive with his colleagues, especially those who had different views than his. In Galileo's time Experimental Philosophy" was cutting edge stuff and several other investigators were also jumping on the band wagon. Galileo, in no uncertain terms, pounded the Aristotelian Scholastics. There response was to bring out the thumb screws. They managed to get Robert Bellarmine S.J. to bring the powers of the "Holy Office" down on Galileo. You might recall that Bellarmine and Galileo were friends.

As I say science is part of the human scene. So is the Vatican!

Dr. R.

Are you not a member of the science community? Are you not a scientist?