Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update

Posted by Pasti on Jun 16, 2003 at 02:27
(64.10.126.105)

Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update (Uncle Al)

"Weak Strong, and Very Strong Equivalence Principles. Each successive generation is a generalization of the preceding one. If the WEP falls, they all fall.
Counterdemonstrating any of the three kills each of the three. One need only counterdemonstrate the WEP. Unless you have a cooperative black hole nearby or can embrace cosmic volumes for an experiment, the Equivalence Principle is the Weak Equivalence Principle experimentally."

As I said, they are not exactly equivalent.But let's suppose for brevity that you are right.Otherwise,we won't make any progress.But keep this in the back of your mind as a potential problem.

"So don't confuse a symmetry with a conserved charge. There is a fundamental difference between the two."

"Have we come full circle from Noetherian concerns? The point is to couple a symmetry (e.g. parity) with a quantitative physical observable, and vice versa.Conserved linear momentum is Notherian contingent upon the homogeneity of space and translation."

There is no full circle.In your particular case you are looking at a symmetry that has no charge associated with it, for the reasons discussed before.So from this viewpoint any ref to Noether theorem is pretty much useless in this context. You can find a conserved quantity that incorporates your symmetry invariance, but not based on Noether.
Moreover, your previous argument was referring to the conservation of the symmetry generators, which in your case do not exist in the sense you wrote it down. You only have a parity operator,which eventually is conserved in time.

"Second, no theory of gravitation recognizes test mass composition (test mass existence disappears entirely - acceleration)."

And there is a good reason for that too.Couple a mass to pure graviattion and you will see why.

"Gravitation is geometry."

This is rather incorrect.Have no clue where you read it, but I doubt anyone would write it that way, if he knew anything.
GR, as Einstein developed it relates the geometry of the spacetime to the energy existing in that spacetime. Or in modern terms,it relates energy to the geometry of the spacetime compatible with its distribution.This does not mean it is a geometric theory, but that it includes geometry.
This is a very important aspect you must(and should) understand about GR.

"The test mass subtends a spacetime volume. It is this volume that is acted upon by gravitation, hence my contention that test mass geometry is a natural test of spacetime geometry."

First of all, unless you are careful the spacetime volume is not Lorentz-invariant.Second of all, the geometry of the test mass is "embedded"(not in the math sense, but I could find no better term) geometry,in the weak coupling regime (which is what QFT does).You assume a background metric (minkowskian) and your test mass lives in the this background metric, same as in the euclidean 3D space.

"I propose the microscopic mass distribution (atomic lattice) of parity pair test masses (single crystal to be self-similar) has bearing on their differential gravitational interaction. We can now calculate parity divergence instantly from the crystal structure."

This means you have to couple GR to quantum mechanics in a certain way,and here the problems start.That's why I asked you fotr the action of the systems under consideration.

"How many distinct classes of gravitation theories are there? Metric and affine, loop quantum theory, brane/string/M-theory, Lorentzian lattice quantum gravity..."

Al,what you wrote above is pretty much irrelevant,since you will only use a perturbative metric approach (experimentally, that is).So let's forget about branes,knot-theory etc., and focus on what is important.So again, what is you action,hamiltonian, lagrangean,whatever that you consider?

"To look at minutia is to gain nothing but Least Publishable Units."

In your particular case it is the difference between publishing and wastebasket.I gather you haven't published very much in theoretical physics.Because if you did, you would have known that if you confuse a symmetry with a conserved charge as you did previously, chances are that the referees will direct your draft to the wastebasket.
Or, you will end up like Pons and Fleishmann, the guys with the cold fusion(i.e. this will be the last paper you will publish on the topic).

"Parity Eotvos in alpha-quartz does not cost more than composition Eotvos. There are no possible arguments against its being performed. If the parity Eotvos experiment is run and gives results inexplicable within any extant theoretical framework, tough on theory - and prior analysis would have been futile. If it gives a null result, what the heck - so has everything else. Somebody should look."

OK, we have already established that, so don't waste your time to write it every time you post.
The only reason against this experiment is a bad theoretical framework. I.e. you must make sure that your theory is correct, if you want anyone to take you seriously, and eventually perfrm the experiment.
So let's focus on that.Up to now there has been only talking about the assumed results of your experiment.I haven't seen any theoretical framework yet.So again, let's start with some lagrangean,some action functional,something.

"Do you think Galileo explored the metaphysical ramifications of possibly seeing Jupiter's moons orbiting Jupiter rather than the Earth as the One True Church demanded?"

You might find it surprising, but yes, he did.At the time physics was methaphysics.Remember "Eppur si muove..."?

"Experiment drives theory without apology or excuses."

We agree here,but you are a long way from any experiment.So let's first see the theory behind your experiment, and see what it's predictions are for your test configuration.