Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update

Posted by Pasti on Jun 17, 2003 at 00:34
(64.10.121.48)

Re: Parity Eotvos Experiment update (Uncle Al)

"Oh Pasti, you are being purposely obtuse and obfuscative. "

Sure I am.And this is nothing compared to what it will be like after making your proposal public (i.e.publish in some serious review), and if anyone takes you seriously.

"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."

OK,let's get to mathematical logic.
Proposition A:SEP is valid
Proposition B:WEP is valid
Inter-relation:A implies B.
(but be careful, B does not imply A!,SEP is a generalization of WEP, i.e.WEP is a particular case of the SEP)
Now, non(A) implies non(B), but if non(B) is valid, this does not mean non(A) is also valid.

This is one puny reason why in principle,if you infirm the WEP, this does not mean that you infirmed the SEP.
The second reason is that EinsteinEP=WEP+(Local Lorentz invariance)+(local position invariance).
Now, the last two have also been confirmed experimentally,and with much better accuracy than the WEP.
So maybe now you understand why "nitpicking" becomes important when it comes to the EP.

As I said,less advertising and more focus.The lagrangean/action?

"What possible argument exists against trying something qualitative and new against repeating SOP failure? YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH GRAVITAITON THEORY IS CORRECT."

Actually, QFT in Minkowski spacetime and curved spacetimes works pretty well (renormalization excluded if you don't like regularization procedures).So I would say I might have a pretty good idea of what actually works.
And I can give you an argument.There are several other effects that might contributre to the invalidity of the EP (like, say, an alien passing wind somewhere in alpha Centauri) but they are rather insignificant.

As much as experimental physics goes, one needs a theoretical basis for an experiment (like it or not).So if GR is wrong, it means that you should be able to show theoretically (i.e. "with pen and paper") that if you include chirality in GR, the Eotvos tests yield a different result than what has been obtained up to now.

So you need to do this theoretical work to convince experimentalists (and theorists for that matter) that you mean and actually know business.Otherwise,you will have difficulties in being taken seriously.
Damn it, in 3 years I personally have read about a dozen "proposals" from different "enthusiasts" claiming to have discovered new theories of whatever crosses your mind:a more "fundamental" level for the H atom, about 8 new cosmological theories ranging from 2 to infinite dimensions,and at least a couple of new theories of gravitation.Needless to say,none of them had any value whatsoever.
So you are moving in a "very tough" environment.

And up to this moment, I haven't seen the theory, the actual lagrangean/action/hamiltonian whatever in which if chirality is included, contradicts the WEP.
So again, let's get to it.What is the lagrangean you consider?

"You do have one simple observation to pass judgement on them all - yet you say observation "is a long way from any experiment."

There are more than "one observations, direct and indirect, and you know that.

Moreover,at this moment(according to your statements)there are no future prospects for someone/you to actually do the experiment. And I suspect that you will have quite a difficult time to convince Eric to do your experiment,if you want to use his equipment.So yes,I would say that you are a long way from any experiment, and again, you know it.

You should better do anything you can sciencewise to improve your chances, if you want some advice.

"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."

In theory, you might be right.But somehow I find it very difficult to believe you will find someone ready to totally commit resources and people just because you think the experiment is interesting.Unfortunately, it doesn't work like this.You have to convince them that it is worth doing the experiment, i.e. YOU MUST SHOW THEM, BASED ON A THEORETICAL MODEL,WHAT THE EXPECTED RESULT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. And calculating the chirality of the test masses is only a detail, like it or not.

"You don't know which gravitation is theory is correct."

The one developed by Einstein works pretty well, as I said.And you need much more than ads like the above to convince someone,since along the same lines,quantum mechanics might not be correct,QED might not be correct since renormalization is just an artificial "trick" to remove divergencies, same for QCD.But they work pretty much very well.And in time, they will (hopefully) be improved.

"One possible way to find out is to challenge the EP with a newly quantified physical variable."

I agree,provided you can show that your new variable has a significant importance in the outcome of the experiment.

"The worst possible outcome is the SOP expectation. Nobody can promise to deliver more."

Well, it is not quite so.Using a theoretical model(and a good theoretical model for that matter) you can estimate/calculate the outcome of your experiment.This is the best incentive(if the outcome is different from standard, of course) for an experimentalist, believe me.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]