Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update

Posted by Uncle Al on Jun 16, 2003 at 16:45
(68.5.243.16)

Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update (Pasti)

Oh Pasti, you are being purposely obtuse and obfuscative. You are once again drowning in the minutia of straw men and tar babies. Referees wanted larger than a 15,000 atom model. Fine. I have 1015 atoms explcitly calculated, and 10^26 atoms fit if they want it. The answer hasn't changed, and we have more exmaples.

Spare me the EP bullshit. If the Weak EP is falsified, the Strong and very Strong EP are falsified without exception. If either of the Strong and very Strong EP are falsified, then the Weak EP could conceivably stand on its own (though it probably goes down, too). What is your problem, boy? The Weak EP is the only experimentally important EP re falsification.

FACT: Parity divergence of a lattice can be calculated ab initio for coordinates alone. It has deep ties to solid geometry. This is beyond dispute. My two mathematicians are engaged in an orgy of dialog which will no doubt lead to some very hot publication for the math alone.

FACT: Single crystals are self-similar constructs from cubic meters if need be to fractional cubic nanometers - a 27 decade span of scale. This is true by the definition of a single crystal.

FACT: Nobody has tested the Equivalence Principle with calculated parity pair test masses. Self-evident. Quantitative theory did not exist until 1998. Large lattices could not be calculated until 2002. As of June 2003, any qualifying crystal structure can be calculated to any macroscopic scale in under 20 seconds.

FACT: If a parity Eotvos experiment opposing space group P3121 versus P3221 test masses has null output, it is no better or worse than 400+ years of preceding EP tests. That's the way things are. All composition EP tests over 400+ years of looking have exactly nulled.

FACT: If a parity Eotvos experiment opposing space group P3121 versus P3221 test masses has a repeatable non-null output (and by extension other calcaualted parity pair test masses), General Relativity loses a founding postulate, and spacetime curvature that derives from it is falsified. This is big stuff.

FACT: Somebody should look. There is no possible result that is less successful than the existing gold standard of prior experimentation. If there is output, it contradicts no prior observation yet brings down all metric theories of gravitation.

The cost of running a parity Eotvos experiment in quartz is no greater than that of currently running composition Eotvos experiments that are guaranteed to fail.

What possible argument exists against trying something qualitative and new against repeating SOP failure? YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH GRAVITAITON THEORY IS CORRECT. You do have one simple observation to pass judgement on them all - yet you say observation "is a long way from any experiment." Bullshit. Test masses could be fabricated and the parity Eotvos experiment assembled and started by the book within 30 (grad students) to 60 (commercial workers) days.

You don't know which gravitation is theory is correct. One possible way to find out is to challenge the EP with a newly quantified physical variable. The worst possible outcome is the SOP expectation. Nobody can promise to deliver more.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]