Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 8/14/11 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote http://www.riverrock.org/~howard/QuantumTime13.pdf

Tommaniladiva: on 3/8/11 at 7:47am UTC, wrote ìîäíûå ïðè÷åñêè ñìîòðåòü ñêà÷èâàòü...

abattidgelext: on 3/4/11 at 3:14am UTC, wrote recommend P.S. Sorry for choosing your site to leave a message about

abattidgelext: on 3/2/11 at 17:58pm UTC, wrote also P.S. Sorry for choosing your site to leave a message about

Anonymous: on 2/13/11 at 7:17am UTC, wrote Did u drop a letter in a bottle 20 years ago

Jack SARFATTI: on 4/7/10 at 22:53pm UTC, wrote Does this Alan M Schwartz also use the email & ...

Alan Schwartz: on 11/10/09 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote C60 is not volatile. A hot molecular beam avoids deposition. Physics...

Florin Moldoveanu: on 11/9/09 at 19:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Alan, About your essay, you state: "vacuum isotropy and the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, re. your ""one huge mistake"- they are describing non-existent..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "They are proud, because they have solved some problems, which are..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, I do have an interest in the history, but not as much as I used..." in First Things First: The...

Georgina Woodward: "The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Roger Granet: "Well put! Physics is hard, but biochemistry (my area), other sciences..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Steve Dufourny: "lol Zeeya it is well thought this algorythm selective when names are put in..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "is it just due to a problem when we utilise names of persons?" in Mass–Energy Equivalence...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 18, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Pursuing the Limits of Failed Symmetry by Alan M. Schwartz [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Jul. 17, 2009 @ 08:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

Gravitation and quantum mechanics are separately accurately predictive to the limits of observation but together are utterly incompatible. No contemporary quantum gravitation theory offers testable predictions. It is shown that two founding postulates - vacuum isotropy and the Equivalence Principle - can be empirically falsified without contradicting prior observations in any venue at any scale, revealing more fertile pursuits of quantum gravitation theory.

Author Bio

Alan M. Schwartz is a consulting organic chemist. He shatters roadblocks with novel solutions in bointerfaces, hydrogels, human implantables; and conjures industrial functional materials. Physics jealously hoards gravitation in its equations. Ha! Always test Official Truth in labware and never fear the waste crock. Mediocrity is a vice of the doomed.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Doug Huffman wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 11:21 GMT
Mr. Schwartz, thank you for understanding the value of falsifiability. At first blush, yours is the only essay with this commitment to reality. You clearly specify how your assertion can be falsified and the consequences. Thank you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 25, 2009 @ 07:54 GMT
Your essay exposes an interesting claim. Insofar as it should be indeed well elaborated and well thought-out (for which i am not the right person to evaluate this), it should be worth and also necessary to test your assertions experimentally in some laboratory around the world. I would be very curious about the possible results of such a test(s) and hope - if your expositions are well-founded - that some lab around the world will do that.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 19:20 GMT
"Guys and Dolls" finishes with people singing "Sit Down You're Rockin' the Boat" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7kzsZreG0o This essay's author cheers voters who will not sit down,

For professors all said, "Beware!
You're on a gravity trip."
The profs all said, "Beware!
Keep your hands off scholarship."
And a chemist will drag you under
By the fancy shoes on his wicked feet.
Sit down, sit down, sit down,
Sit down you're rockin' the boat.
Stand up, rock the boat! Make the parity Eötvös experiment happen. Somebody should look.


Bookmark and Share



Doug Huffman wrote on Jul. 29, 2009 @ 11:39 GMT
I am watching the number of public ratings growing, now twelve, while the value has remained constant at 8.8 since about four public ratings. I wonder what is the algorithm used that behaves so. And I note that the 'community' does not rate the essays despite the apparent option to do so.

Rock on Eötvös soxers! Let's drop some Benzil crystal in our DSC.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Linda Wine wrote on Aug. 2, 2009 @ 22:48 GMT
I may not understand Physics, but I know what I like!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nelson Thompson wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 01:22 GMT
Alan's prose is dense and requires a lot of thought. But his is a REAL scientific proposal, with a falsifiable theory. I look forward to someone actually performing the experiment. Great job.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Nelson A Thompson wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 01:37 GMT
I'm rather upset at FQXi. I lhave spent an hour trying to find out how to give a grade (0-10) to this essay. I can't find ANY information on how to vote. WTF?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Doug Huffman wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 20:06 GMT
At the top of this URL http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/467 that contains the abstract to Al's essay, and the URL of the PDF to the essay, is a colored band with "would you like to rate this essay?" as a Java script. Might you have scripts blocked as I do by default?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Kinross-Kennedy wrote on Aug. 8, 2009 @ 23:45 GMT
Alan Schwartz has opened Pandora's box one last time - letting out hope that Big Bang theories can be reconciled. Chirality is the key.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tia wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 19:51 GMT
What is the estimated amount of money required to carry out proposed Eötvös experiment?Grant funding(tax payer extracted) or private philanthropy?Perhaps Alan should set up a paypal account and have all the curious and wallet generous public financially contribute to see the result of such endeavor.With,of course, full transparency (no,not Washington speak) of amount received,name of donor and what was the money spent on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Doug Huffman wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 23:52 GMT
Why pursue the parity Eötvös experiment when the parity calorimetry experiment is orders of magnitude more sensitive (if I recall correctly) and orders of magnitude less expensive? Digital Scanning Calorimeters are standard chemistry laboratory equipment. Eötvös torsion balances might come one to a First World Nation. Eöt-Wash Group at University of Washington has one.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Aug. 10, 2009 @ 18:42 GMT
The singular Eötvös group Committed to zero innovation (pdf)

Apparatus, 6 cm diameter, never done with quartz

Required chemical purity (ppm), dryness (Grade A), and order (low etch pit density) obtain by Sawyer Research's X-plate process (electronic quartz is Grade C Z-plate). Quoted $20-30K and 12-18 months in a hydrothermal autoclave.

Benzil two-stage solvent grows 2-cm diameter crystals in a silanized jelly jar over three days. Crystal chirality is confirmed by x-ray diffraction/Flack parameter. The parity calorimetry experiment partially ran in a volunteered commercial lab last Christmas. Heavily used equipment degrades. The two DSCs ideally are identical and new, about $70K each. Or, do many runs plus statistics (e.g., undergrad project). Physics disdains chemistry.

Bookmark and Share



Sudipta wrote on Aug. 15, 2009 @ 08:45 GMT
Although I didn't understand most of the thing he wrote but he's trustworthy! Rated 10.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dr. Gururaj M. Shivashimpi wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 17:57 GMT
Being organic chemist, I am not deep into physics.But as friend of him I rated 10 for his essay.

Good Luck Dr. Alan M. Schwartz

Regards

Gururaj

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 21:57 GMT
Every "10" voted is another shout to perform the experiments. Shout it loud! Theory predicts what observation tells it to predict. Minds have the power not merely to grasp the world, but also to change it. Somebody should look.

attachments: boat.png

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Aug. 30, 2009 @ 18:11 GMT
Leshan's analysis is shallow, insular, and explicitly wrong. All contemporary theories of gravitation, classical and quantized, *assume* even-parity models. As stated, Einstein, Cartan, and Weitzenböck formulated teleparallel gravitation with parity-odd gravitation and parity violation of conservation of angular momentum.. An odd-parity Chern-Simons term must be added to even-parity Einstein-Hilbert action in quantized gravitations. Take the hint - somebody should look.

"2. Does Alan’s essay contain the new physical ideas? Does Allan’s essay have any scientific value?"

Equivalence Principle parity violation, conservation of angular momentum parity violation, plus a two-day extraordinarily sensitive calorimetric test sum to "scientific value." On New Year's Day 1957 Yang and Lee announced Weak interaction parity violation. They were Nobel Laureates December 1957. Demonstrating parity violation of General Relativity (Equivalence Principle postulated), parity violation of string theory (BRST invariance postulated), and parity violation of conservation of angular momentum (isotropic vacuum postulated, then Noether's theorems) in an undergraduate laboratory in two days would be observations of like "scientific value."

Of all the essays in this competition, only my essay allows its assertions to be tested atop a lab bench in existing apparatus using commercial materials. It is supported by 78 year-old theory that defaults to General Relativity if the parity violation does not obtain. If Leshan can cite even one quantized gravitation theory published as refereed literature that defaults to General Relativity, he is welcome to post that citation and receive an apology. Otherwise, he is voicing the fear that all physics oozes: Contemporary theory elegantly derived from deep symmetries (string theory and quantized gravitations overall, SUGRA; SUSY) real world tested without ambiguity will be falsified as surely as protons do not decay (Super-Kamiokande).

Vote "10" to vote for the experiments. Theory predicts what observation tells it to predict. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Naughty Girl aka Nisha wrote on Aug. 31, 2009 @ 17:46 GMT
Uncle Al, first of all wish you all the best! I know as you said "theories are like whore, they predict what they are compelled to predict". "Theories boast promiscuity empiricists provide the child support". And also Richard Feynman's " No matter how smart your theory is , how smart you are if it doesn't agree with experiment it's wrong"

Go for experiment. I rated you a big fat 10.

I appreciate your unfathomable and genuine knowledge in science, math, sociology, politics, arts etc. You are my role model.

Don't forget to come in various chemistry communities in internet. We need you, we love you.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian wrote on Sep. 1, 2009 @ 21:34 GMT
Al You always spice up any newsgroup you monitor with comments on other people's posts which are truly brilliant, pointed and devoid of obsequiousness. The world needs people like you to sort the chaff from the dross. And anything of an original nature which you contribute - such as this essay - has an air of brilliance even if it is way over my poor little head. Don't ever change!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 01:03 GMT
Greetings Alan. How do you see the following unification of electromagnetism/light and gravity in relation to quantum mechanics?

Are your essay ideas compatible with this unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light? Do you see any similarities with vacuum isotropy and the Equivalence Principle in the following:

What follows in this post has tremendous and undeniable...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 01:45 GMT
"If you cannot explain it with a cocktail napkin and a swizzle stick, you do not know it either."

Folks with their own essay have until 02 October to submit it, by posted FQXi rules. This comments section is an inappropriate venue - for how would you accumulate votes? A physical theory incorporating mind faces a long hard slog against psychology, psychiatry, and the US Department of Education as empirical denials of needed understanding.

Vote Uncle Al a 10! The more physics twitches in theoretical counterpoint the sharper the experimental stick must truly be. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 2, 2009 @ 21:59 GMT
"What is Ultimately Possible in Physics", not, "What should we do about it."

The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster is ultimately possible in physics. DON'T LOOK! Doug Huffman, the very first comment, knew posseurs and poltroons would squeal and why.

Know a man by his fears. Physics invested more than 400 years looking for an Equivalence Principle violation from composition (the attachment). Uncle Al offers the first quantitative EP tests based upon geometry, the mechanism of all classical gravitation theories... and don't look?

Somebody should look. Vote a 10 to force physics' hand.

attachments: eptests.png

Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 14:53 GMT
Alan, I do not have the intention to offence you. Please understand that it is a CRITIQUE. There are a lot of false theories and proposals for experiments and we need a critique to find the truth. Otherwise the false theories will grab all the world.

I posted the text above because I do not believe that you'll use the FQXi prize for the experiment. "Vote "10" to vote for the experiments" is not true.

Vote Uncle Al a 10! It is a more real proposition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 15:37 GMT
Ignorance wins by imposing its dogma *and* by inculcating its methods. Inverse square testing is irrelevant. Gravitation theory is a geometry of mass distribution blind to chemical composition. All prior EP tests are composition-based, past (first pdf) future (second pdf) and peripheral contingencies (third pdf). They cannot possibly succeed,

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/p
df/schlamminger08.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfr
ontier2.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/Denve
r2009.pdf

The relevant probe of spacetime geometry is test mass geometry: the parity Eötvös experiment with alpha-quartz or gamma-glycine, the parity calorimetry experiment with benzil. All composition EP tests' sensitivities are constrained by the net difference (epsilon) between trace properties (epsilon) that must violate theory (epsilon). [(signal)(epsilon)^3] = zero detection. A geometric parity test is 100% divergence between 99.97 wt-% active masses (attachment) consistent with theory (teleparallelism) that defaults to General Relativity otherwise. It could detectably happen.

Somebody should *look* at the limits of physics. Vote 10 for parity EP experiments. Consign diversity to early intervention, counseling, mentoring, experiences, feelings, social activism... willful ignorance dripping snit.

attachments: actvmass.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 15:40 GMT
The Login does not hold. The two "Anononymous" preceding posts are obviously written by the essay's author.

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Talk is cheap and taudry. Let us calculate J.H. Gundlach, New J. Phys. 7 205 (2005) and R. Newman, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 2407 (2001) versus a parity calorimetry Eötvös experiment. View the attachment netmass.png

Mass distribution parity divergence of atomic nuclei for benzil is 0.999713 net active mass. That is 417 times better than Adelberger and 520 times better than Newman. A 10^(-13) sensitivity composition Eötvös experiment is a 3x10^(-18) sensitivity calorimetry parity experiment for larger active mass and signal amplitude. Factors of 33,000 and 41,000 improvement vs. Adelberger and Newman are significant.

Somebody should look. Vote a 10 for empirical reality. Theory clothes emperors - but only theorists see that magnificent haberdashery. The emperor is naked.

attachments: netmass.png

Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
If you have a very important and fundamental experiment, you must publish its description in the journals. After that the world laboratories will check this experiment for free, if the experiment is true important. However, your experiment is rejected by journals and laboratories because it is not important in general.

Tell about your experiment to Eot-Wash Group. If the experiment is true important and new, they'll check it for free!

Thus, your 'experiment' is neither important nor correct, therefore they all ignore you. In my view, this 'experiment' is your 'hobby' only.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Doug Huffman wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 22:03 GMT
Is it physics if it is not falsifiable? Sir Karl Popper said that not falsifiable is not 'scientific' and, thus, not physics.

Is 'What's Ultimately Possible in Physics' falsifiable or not; is it science or not?

Dreamers waving their hands around mathematics and surfing moonbeams may be metaphysics but it isn't science. I imagine Sir Karl would agree.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 23:40 GMT
Leshan wrote on Sep. 3, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT "If you have a very important and fundamental experiment, you must publish its description in the journals."

"Gravitation Symmetry Test" 9 pages, 37 footnotes, includes quantitative parity divergence calculations for quartz and benzil crystal lattices not in teh essay. Received: 09 Apr 2009 ; Accepted: 30 May 2009; passed all Referees. To be published first quarter 2010. It is preceeded by a dual-authored paper using the same methods to create a discretesmall molecule five of whose stereocenters cannot be formally named under existing rules. ACS, CAS, IUPAC, and a well respected European journal were outraged. There is no apparent additional rule that would do it, either. Absolutely unnamable yet *perfectly* parity divergent by explicit calculation as well as by examination.

See the attachment for a [6.6]chiralane stereogram. The molecule is point group T (not Th or Td). The core carbon and the four carbons to which it is bonded possess no point, planes, or higher improper axes of rotation. Imagine an undistorted tetrahedral chiral carbon atom bearing four rigorously identical substituents. It is geometric chirality without a composition origin.

There is a hole in science arising from quantitative mass distribution parity divergence. It can be calculated, it can be modeled, it can be reduced to practice, and it threatens vast swaths of theory with a falsifying footnote. Vote Uncle Al a 10! Somebody should look at the gravitational case.

attachments: 66chir2a.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Leshan wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 05:56 GMT
"Received: 09 Apr 2009 To be published first quarter 2010" - I do not believe it; your attachment prove nothing, it is the figure from organic chemistry. Your 'experiment' exist since 2005 already and 5 years all the world ignore your experiment. (Despite the fact that your experiment is in region of mainstream physics, not alternative physics. Usually journals pursue the alternative physics only);

Besides if your experiment will be published, don't worry; the laboratories can check it for free. And you don't need the FQXi for two reasons:

1. The FQXi prize is very small and you cannot use it to test EP better than Eot-Wash Group without a laboratory and a special physics education. It is a extremely complex problem and I do not believe that an organic chemist can test EP better than Eot-Wash Group. You need a prize for personal use only, but not for the experiments.

2. The essay should be about, "What is Ultimately What is Possible in Physics", but not, "What should we do about it". FQXi do not colect the proposals for the experiments;

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 4, 2009 @ 16:47 GMT
Sour whine from sour grapes. Go ahead Leshan, assign chirality labeling to [6.6]chiralane's core carbon and the four carbons to which it is bonded. SHOW us how smart you are. Uncle Al awards you the attachment, CIP-labeled 12 other chiral centers in its enantiomer, two stereoviews. Giggle. You are all mouth and no mind.

http://www.igf.fuw.edu.pl/KB/HKM/PDF/HKM_027_s.pdf

pdf pp. 25-27, calculation of the chiral case. Do left and right shoes fall identically in a medium? NO! "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard Feynman

Vote a 10! Somebody should look at the gravitation case.

attachments: 6grav3rr.png

Bookmark and Share



Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Alan M. Schwartz,

Though the ‘limits of failed symmetry’ is in analogy with the supersymmetry of nature, in most of the times a perfect symmetry is possible only in infinity and the supersymmetry with perturbation solutions may provides only with more précised symmetry solutions and not with absolute solutions. As the absolute precision of symmetry is often failed in systems, this ‘limits of failed symmetry’ is much appropriate to be included in systems for completeness.



With Best wishes

Jayakar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 7, 2009 @ 19:36 GMT
Euclidean geometry proves the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees exactly - neither more nor less, ever. Take a globe of the Earth. Consider a segment of Equator bounded on each side by a line of longitude. These two lines meet at tht North Pole. Lines of longitude intersect a line of latitude (the Equator) at exactly 90 degrees. You cannot draw a triangle on the surface of the Earth with as few as 180 degrees as the sum of its interior angles. A 540 degree sum is possible. Euclid is incomplete. Euclid is wrong.

Classical gravitation, string theory, quantum field theory, the Standard Model, SUSY, SUGRA... are no better than Euclid. Each fears a single reproducible counterexample arising from a failed founding postulate. IN VITRO VERITAS. Vote a 10, push for the experiment. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Sep. 23, 2009 @ 02:04 GMT
Physics is limited by the cowardice of its practitioners and the ex cathedra infallibility of its adminstrators. Philosophy says "DON'T LOOK!" Theory says "DON'T LOOK!" Comments above are appalling, "DON'T LOOK!" Gods are historically incapable of writing a calendar, furnishing a credible pi, or disclosing novocaine. Test of faith!

Science is empirical. Our first duty as scientists is to look. Theory predicts what it is told to predict, or it is wrong. Read the comments, click the attachment link below, make your own decision... and vote. Question authority with reality.

attachments: look.png

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 14:07 GMT
Hello dear Mr Schwartz,

Finally I see who is Uncle Al ,hihihi

NIce to know you thus Uncle Al.

A well begining your rates .

Good luck for the contest

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 17:55 GMT
Dear Uncle Al ,

What do you think about the London Interactions ?Just curious

An about this idea.

In the quantum architecture which is an entanglement of specific spheres in rotations implying mass for me

thus in the benzyl ,I was always fascinated by these architectures like aromatics .

The architecture is a perfect sphere with its spheres .Thus Methyl-C6-H5...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 23:07 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

In the Potter thread 530 you wrote:

Fundamental symmetries elaborated by pure mathematics into physical theory is a disaster given empirical observation (e.g., Yang and Lee, 1957). The SI standard of mass is a physical artifact, Newton's G cannot be calculated. The Standard Model arrives massless, the Higgs boson is faery dust. Supersymmetry's partners refuse to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 00:19 GMT
Hi Steve! A tetrahedral bond is arccosine(-1/3). In nuclear magnetic resonance, magic angle spinning is [(arccos)^2](1/3). Is there something special about 1/3? Nah. Uncle Al, being an organic chemist at the bench, does not respect theory unless it proves itself (multinuclear supercon FT-NMR works). In vitro veritas! Physics walks 2(pi) steradians in the opposite direction with string theory and SUSY, respectable because they do NOT work. Uncle Al throws down an empirical gauntlet to physics. It is not overmuch expensive, it runs in existing apparatus using commercial materials over 90 days, it is overseen by academic staff working by the book. All physics can be subtlely wrong. General Relativity and quantum mechanics are irreconcilable and both wrong. Every triangle drawn on a globe of the Earth will enclose more than 180 degrees. Euclid is insufficient. It required 2000 years for somebody to take a meaningful look.

Hi Eckard! I do not wish to philosophize nor do I claim prescience. Organikers can barely do arithmetic. "8^>) I wish to test good theory, on a lab bench, consistent with equally good though unfashionable theory. Theorists can then debate observation. Economics plied that trade for centuries and has yet to accurately predict tomorrow's Dow-Jones close. Physics exercises much higher standards, albeit absent the past 30 years.

Vote a 10, do the parity gravitation experiments! Physics screams "heteroskedasticity!" (or equally good, "heteroscedasticity!" - a wry comment itself) when confronted with chirality. Then it rewrites. Theory falsified by observation is wrong. Somebody should look.

Of all the many essays posted to date, how many allow their assertions to be tested as just another lab experiment? Only mine. Reality is not a peer vote. Reality is an observation. (Spinzoa killed god, but he had a day job grinding lenses to cover room and board. Me too.)

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Hi Uncle Al ,

My english is not perfect but I understand .

The Fundamentals were ,are and shall be.

The economic system is the sister of the lack of pragamatibility under the looks of the reals and their hopes .

Some things are dedicated to disappear in the time and space ,Borders ,weapons ,monney ,differences .....and too the inutiles ideas .

The strings ,the extradimensions,the multiverse too are dedicated ....on the other side the fundamenatls shall rest .

You say

"Physical theory is fundamentally wrong for postulating intrinsic parity symmetry. That is physics' self-imposed limit, that is why it fails."

Some words are interestings but could you develop ,this kind of words need a development .

For me the entanglement is specific like the spheres thus the symmetry indeed need improvement like the lattices .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve D. wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 11:26 GMT
What do you think about the angle for the methan and this link with H20.............. cos(2a) = 2cos²(a)-1 = 6/9 -1 = -1/3 ? thus

109°28'16.39...

Sincerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 11:36 GMT
The curve with the 104.5 degrees is interesting....and what about the moment 1.8 Debye = 6.1 10-30 coulomb.m ???

Just curious about your ideas .

If spheres are inserted the spherical fields and thus correlated evidently?

Sometimes I am fascinated by these H2O too CH4 OR NH3 ....?and their properties stil misunderstood.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 11:47 GMT
Why for you the glycine is different ,smaller and no chiral ?

This effect has a cause ....

What do you think about the 20 others amino acides ?

In the vegetal world I see too an relevant link with chlorophyl and the caroten like in the lipidi liaison ,the hydrophobs and hydrophyl poles are very relevant with spheres and their specific rotations implying mass and rules by polarisations .

Our protiens are really fascinantings ,what do you think Uncle Al ?

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

Thank you for responding. I almost entirely agree: Reality is something that can be observed. If someone has a job that demands high skill in performing observation and does not tolerate wrong interpretation then it he is perhaps more qualified than any priest or theoretician. Spinoza defined infinity as something that cannot be increased. He still understood that a line does not consist of as many points as you like.

Read at least the introduction of my essay :

Physics is subject to some general fundamentals that deserve absolute priority:

At first, theory has to obey reality, not the other way round. ... Accordingly the traditional concept of causality is indispensable. ... Unfortunately, such attitude is at odds with ... general symmetry conjectured by Wigner.

and two headlines

1) Mutually contradicting claimed impossibilities: Common sense has won

3) How to cope with what is behind Cantor's paradise?

I am convinced that not just your finding but also the main claims of my essay can and will be further tested by experiments and in practice. Maybe, your experiment as well as the expensive use of LHC will contribute.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 19:03 GMT
The parity Eotvos experiment requires enantiomorphic atomic mass distributions. Composition is irrelevant, proven by prior Equivalence Principle tests. Dense atomic packing has small internuclear gaps. Lighter atoms and smaller unit cells allow more repetitions/loaded mass, ~30 grams total, limited by suspensory filament tensile strength, Attachment #1. Test masses cannot be volatile in...

view entire post


attachments: erotor1.jpg, qzdense.png

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 19:36 GMT
I agree, Eckard, that theory cannot be empirically falsified and survive (except as a facile heuristic - Newton is good). I have no objection to theory proposing outrageous contingencies *if they are testable*. One cannot easily embrace the EPR paradox or the magnetic and electric Aharonov–Bohm effects, yet they perform at will. Hund's paradox is equally outrageous but untested. I predict that it will fail (make excuses) given a small rigid resolved chiral molecule like norbornenone.

As you say, even philosophy ultimately and fundamentally arises from postulated symmetries. Philosophy is not easily falsified, god being a particularly slippery (and empirically bloody) concept. Physics begins with the most extreme symmetries and visibly fails in its derivation. Physics is riddled with chiral exceptions and routinely embarrassed by initially denied then accepted empirical examples. So assaulting philosophy might best wait for seeing how physics fares, for a failure will be beyond debate.

My mortal sin is putting the whole of physics at risk with trivially performed experiments arising from chemistry, a lesser science unworthy of regard. Physics does not fear obtaining one more net null output. Physics desperately fears obtaining its first net nonzero output. Everybody would be selectively wrong, falling to an organic chemist. Nasty.

If observed reality is fundamentally left-handed, philosophy has missed something big. One imagines Islam will be particulary chagrined. Somebody should look. The first black swan is the important swan.

Bookmark and Share



Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 20:04 GMT
Dear Alan-

I partly agree with the abstract of your essay, where you say:

Gravitation and quantum mechanics are separately accurately predictive to the limits of observation but together are utterly incompatible. No contemporary quantum gravitation theory offers testable predictions.

I think there is potential solution for those issues. QM is a local theory whereas GR is a global theory. According to de Broglie's work, an electron exhibits and oscillation [1]. This is experimentally confirmed [2]. GR also allows oscillating solutions, making it temporarily local. To my mind, the oscillation allowed by GR is way too large. When you accept that an electron performs some kind of local oscillation then quantum and relativistic behavior become unified. My essay covers some details. Please also consult the comments on the essay, which offer important clarifications.

References

1. L. de Broglie. Non-linear wave-mechanics – A causal interpretation.

2. M. Gouanere, M. Spighel, N. Cue, M.J. Gaillard, R. Genre, R. Kirsch, J.C. Poizat, J.

Remillieux, P. Catillon, L. Rourrel. Experimental observation compatible with the particle

internal clock. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-301/aflb301m416.pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Ben,

Did you already ponder about the local/global issue in signal processing? STFT is localized by means of an arbitrary window. My method to calculate a spectrum by means of elementary cosine transforms is globally comprehensive even if this is not easily comprehensible.

I would appreciate if you could confirm that my M290 is readable to you. I do not imagine electrons like circulating points. Wouldn't such point need a velocity in excess of c as to compensate the electrostatic force?

Dear Uncle Al,

Experimental falsification as well as confirmation can be wrong. I gave examples in my essay.

Isn't any contingency not at all exactly testable in principle if we allow for the non-existence of closed systems in reality? Shannon: Future is unknown, in principle, but we can influence it.

I didn't say that science arose from postulated symmetries. On the contrary, I found out that claimed mirror symmetry of signals tends to be the result of lost realism. Since you are a chemist, you have possibly more often to do with Emmy Noether's conservation than with the opposite: irreversible processes, which I consider one-sided in reality while arbitrarily scalable and even reversible after abstraction. You will hopefully agree that ideal symmetry tends to be rare in reality. Ideal symmetry often rather indicates mathematical artifacts.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 22:29 GMT
Dear Alan (I'm sorry I have to post a corrected version) -

I partly agree with the abstract of your essay, where you say:

Gravitation and quantum mechanics are separately accurately predictive to the limits of observation but together are utterly incompatible. No contemporary quantum gravitation theory offers testable predictions.

There is a potential solution for those issues. QM becomes a somewhat realistic local theory when the paradoxical results from interference experiments are ignored.* Elements of this local theory were developed by de Broglie, without relying on abstract QM postulates [1]. According to de Broglie, an electron exhibits an oscillating behavior. This behavior has been experimentally confirmed [2]. On the other hand, GR is a rather global theory. It has oscillating (big bang - big crunch) solutions, which suggest temporarily local relativistic behavior. To my mind, the spatial oscillation allowed by GR is way too large. When an electron performs a local oscillation, then it unifies quantum and relativistic behavior in a single process. My essay covers some details. Please also consult the comments on the essay, which offer important additions and clarifications.

* Traditional QM does not say anything about photons and therefore, strictly, cannot say anything about photon interference. The 'non-local behavior' that supposedly occurs in (photons and massive particle) interference experiment requires an instantaneous (faster-than-light / non-physical) collapse of the wave function. This phenomenon remains to be explained in a different 'realistic' fashion.

References

1. L. de Broglie. Non-linear wave-mechanics – A causal interpretation.

2. M. Gouanere, M. Spighel, N. Cue, M.J. Gaillard, R. Genre, R. Kirsch, J.C. Poizat, J.

Remillieux, P. Catillon, L. Rourrel. Experimental observation compatible with the particle

internal clock. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-301/aflb301m416.pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Dear Eckard-

I plan to read your essay and already took a quick look at it. I assume that you mean a Fourier transform.

In my view, the notions of electrostatic force and charge are long-range notions. So, they cannot be applied to extremely short ranges when non-linear weak interaction comes into play. Current theory mixes the short- and long-range perspective and then ends up with fractional charges. In my essay, I try to explain this (with shortcuts, but see ref in essay).

In QFM, particles are dynamic entities created by the attractive interaction between two different fundamental fields, which have different mobilities. Because the protofields have different mobilities and they are attracted to one another, any moving protfield perturbation must also rotate (spin). At any 'distance' from the dynamically created space point, the perturbation moves at the speed-of-light, but gets twisted ('entangled') like water flowing down a drain.

The electrons are not circulating points. Electrons are dynamic oscillating protofield perturbations which, as part of their reduction-expansion behavior caused by protofield attraction, dynamically create space points at the rate of their oscillation frequency,. Calculation gives an oscillation frequency of 10^20 Hz, which is backed by [1].

Reference

1. M. Gouanere, M. Spighel, N. Cue, M.J. Gaillard, R. Genre, R. Kirsch, J.C. Poizat, J. Remillieux, P. Catillon, L. Rourrel. Experimental observation compatible with the particle internal clock. http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-301/aflb301m416.pdf.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 09:45 GMT
Very interesting all that .

Don't stop dear friends .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steev Dufourny wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 16:17 GMT
Interesting point of vue .

You say "the two-fold rotation axis being irrelevant to chirality"

Could you develop it's interesting and new for me like the Noether's ?theorems,I am going to learn more .

But why this irrelevance ?Please develop a little .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 08:55 GMT
Many things are interestings but some ONES are bizare in your essay?

About the HH fusion could you develop and why a density of 0.007869 nm3/atom ?

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 17:39 GMT
Geometric chirality is the non-superposability of an array of points and its mirror image (one coordinate axis reversed in sign) in space by translation and rotation only. Find the three principle moments of inertia. Their mutual intersection is the center. Superpose the two centers, original and mirror-image, then use quaternions or Euler angles. Globally minimize the sum of squared distances between corresponding points, set and mirror-image set. Zero sum (achiral) or non-zero sum (chiral) obtains. Parity is a stronger limit in 3-space - sign inversion of all three coordinate axes.

If you have e.g. a tetrahedron with four differently colored vertices, you cannot superpose the same colors, tetrahedron and mirror-tetrahedron. Gravitation is empirically blind to all measurable test mass properties including composition (color chirality). All test mass atoms are identical, anonymous, unit mass points. Nobody knows if left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically.

A chiral array of points in 3-space will NOT possess Sn improper (rotation-reflection) axes: mirror plane(s) S1, inversion point, S2, or higher Sn axes (e.g, S4, a baseball seam). Invert a left glove to get a right glove. Cn pure rotation axes are irrelevant. You cannot rotate a left shoe to superpose upon a right shoe.

Optical rotation does not detect or measure geometric chirality or parity divergence. Silver thiogallate, AgGaS2 with non-polar achiral tetragonal space group I-42d has 522°/millimeter optical rotation along [100] at 497.4 nm. 2-Norbornanone has [alpha]D = 29.8° cm^3/g-dm. 2-Norbornenone has [a]D = 1146.° cm^3/g-dm. Their respecitve atoms are essentially superposable except for olefinic hydrogens. Attached stereogram norone.png

Those who value theory to the exclusion of experiment are cowards. The only reality is empirical reality. Theory predicts what it is told to predict by observation. Nobody knows if left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically. Somebody should look.

Maximum qualitative self-similar, periodic atomic mass distribution chirality is acheived by three enantiomorphic crystallographic space groups of 230 possible space groups overall. Maximum quantitative parity divergence is ab inito explicitly calcualable with Petitjean's QCM software. A parity Eotvos experiment opposing space groups P3(1)12 and P3(2)21 quartz is guaranteed to output at least the gold standard of 420+ years of Equivalence Principle testing - zero net output.

Dirac scolded Stern (of Stern-Gerlach) that proton magnetic moment (a terrifically difficult observation at the time) could be calculated far better than it could be measured. Otto Stern got the Nobel Prize/Physics 1946. Theory gave the wrong answer.

The proper test of spacetime geometry is maximally nonsuperposable atomic mass distribution geometry. Ignorance is not a form of knowing things, theory is impotent. Somebody should look.

attachments: norone.png

Bookmark and Share



GAL wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 01:53 GMT
Uncle Al - you are a legend.

I have very little schooling in these matters though I am adressing that issue now. I only have the one thought on all this, if you will indulge a student...

Chiral molecules are not symmetrical, but...

Say you have your left shoe, and your right shoe, and you break these down into atoms within a spherical vacuum. The vacuum is given poles at each dimension (not polarity)so as to ascertain geometry within the sphere. Could you assign these atoms to their respective positions 3 dimensionally on the opposite pole and come up with the same shoes, only the left is now the right (albeit upside down) and vice versa?

Wouldn't this denote symmetry, if it works?

If it doesn't work, why?

Never let your legend get in the way of your potential.

Keep up the good work.

GAL.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 19:35 GMT
Parity gravitation tests arise from orthodox physical theory (e.g., teleparallel gravitation), are rigorously derived, reduce to practice, and can falsify broad swaths of contemporary physics without contradicting any prior observation. You see how this outrages theorists and their untestable unorthodox extensions of theory. Somebody should look.

Paul, 1178 words? $25K grows quartz in both hands: chemical purity (no lascas' aluminum), dryness (Grade A), and low dislocation density (etch pits/cm^2). I've talked with academic groups. Senior faculty grant funding wants zero-risk, zero-innovation, PERT-charted productivity. A third class of gravitation experiment that accepts a parity test is being constructed by better people. Years to go.

The Eot-Wash group "vision" is zero-risk, zero-innovation, http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfr
ontier2.pdf

It disavows a parity Eotvos experiment opposing spacetime geometry with test mass geometry. 420+ years of perfect failure does not justify a different approach. My paper will be published in a *mathematics* journal, early 2010. Referees passed it. They will not be embarrassed if it works to spec.

Gal - it is not about molecules or compartmentalization. The Coupe du Roi cancels chirality by pairing homochiral entities. The entire mass distribution is considered. A countable number of anonymous unit mass points with overall three finite moments of inertia comprise the test mass (metaphoric " shoe"). Create the inverted set and quantitatively compare. Inversion occurs in many ways. An exact method is required. Turning a shoe inside-out reverses it, as does an odd number of mirror reflections along axes or mixed axes, relative to the origin or to an external point of view.

In 3-space, find the three principle moments of inertia. Their axes intersect at the center of mass as (0,0,0). Build Cartesian (x,y,z) and locate each point (+/- x,+/- y,+/- z). The parity-inverted set is (-/+ x,-/+ y,-/+ z). Fast, easy, exact. A candidate test mass snugs QCM-calculated CHI = 1, perfect normalized parity divergence, by a few angstroms radius from any contained coordinate - and sustaines. A qualifying test mass also QCM calculates COR =1 (the identity element, from graph theory) and DSI = 0 (direct symmetry index - a set's similarity to itself). DSI is… complicated. http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.paper.JMP.1999.petitje
an.pdf

Summary: Nobody knows if maximally divergent left and right shoes falsify vacuum isotropy in the massed sector. Said shoes are rigorously defined, reduce to practice, and insert into existing apparatus. Go ahead folks, dump in 1000 "1" votes. You cannot answer the question, I can, and all physics depends on its outcome. The limit to physics is the politics of fear having replaced endeavor, process (management) not product (experiment).

Bookmark and Share



GAL wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT
Thanks Al

I appreciate the time you took to answer my question. I understand now I think... the shoes once transposed on opposite poles would still be chiral. As they are chiral their functions will differ so symmetry of eye does not denote true symmetry. The transposition does nothing to alter the chiral nature of the shoes.

These chiral molecules fascinate me and make me wonder how many of our drugs are counterproductive chiral molecules, this will explain a lot of contraindications and why one mans cure is anothers poison. I guess with you being an organic chemist this is very old news to you.

I'm doing my first biochemistry module now. So far so good.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve D wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 18:07 GMT
Somebody has look !

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
Alan, or should that be "Nathan",

Some points I hope you appreciate.

1. I always enjoy your writings despite their repetitiveness, the need for which I appreciate. you are the master of "Can do !, Can Do !"

2. Luck ain't no lady.

3. Perhaps (see my essay) your approval of others who endorse your view is unstinted because "Your ayes are the ayes of an author in love" ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 18:04 GMT
Terry, I don't vote here. I'd be biased as a synthetic chemist who believes in experiment, maximizes yield, and has a waste crock. "UMPOLUNG!" When nothing works by the book, try the opposite. The universe is not unfriendly, merely selective with whom it shares a hug. Books get rewritten.

420+ years of Equivalence Principle testing sum to a perfect net zero output. Either the EP is true or its falsification does not reside in composition. No gravitation theory contains composition. Gravity is geometry. A pistol fires any kind of bullet, lead ball to Glazer, but caliber matters. So perhaps gravitation in kind.

I propose an unremarkable experiment in existing apparatus using off-the-shelf materials; performed by the book by skilled and skeptical personnel. Amorphous fused silica is the versus quartz control - versus left, versus right, and versus itself to verify a true null output baseline. Applied mathematical analysis of geometric parity divergence is sufficiently well wrought to be published in a refereed mathematics journal (galley proofs ho!).

A non-null output would rework physics: gravitation through EP falsification, conservation of angular momentum then QFT through vacuum anisotropy. No prior observation would be contradicted, for physics ignores metaphoric shoes. The past is abject failure. As for the future… somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Ray B Munroe wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 19:19 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

I'm also applying some symmetry ideas from Physical Chemistry towards an SM/ GR/ boson/ fermion TOE. The primary difference is that you seem more intently focused on 3-D crystallography, whereas I'm playing with multiple dimensions. You should understand my geometries better than many of the other contestants. I would appreciate a critique.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

p.s. - I've heard you called a "super-villain". You need better alliances...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 21:40 GMT
Hi all ,Uncle al and dr Cosmic Ray ,

Her is my point of vue about crystals .

The crystalography is young ,very very young ,it's the time which builds these crystals with the polarisations of evolution .

But let's be serious ,these crystals are youngs like our brain ,thus of course these systems are still far of the ultim system .

Furthermore these crystals are there for something but it's not a foto of our Universe these crystals .The crystallographyn is a tool and that's all .

I invite people to become horticultor ,there the physicality sings and shows us the symphonty of fundamenatsl .

I see in the fly of the bee ,which dances with its flower and etamins ,a tremolo of serenity ,under the human nature and its dark side .Alone on the tree ,alone in the ocean ,alone in my mind ,lost in the requiem of humans but the solitude don't exist ,it's a mirror ,a sad mirror ....and this truth ....

I laugh and still laugh ,as a monkey of the economy .I eat and drink its sighs ,oh sad system ,o perpetual stupidity ,mediocrity ,They live the humans ,they live ,uniques and precious ,all without exeption .

And their hearts in the sky .Dream and create my friends ,live and think ,dream and create even in the dark sides of the society .

Sorry for my english .

Best Regards

Steve

The humanity is like a rainbow ,a diversity of colors united in the light

It's difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop ,nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean .....

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 23:14 GMT
Alan

What I really wanted was a musical reply from "The most happy fella".

At FQXI I am interested in opinions from intelligent scientifically literate people, not votes.

I have listed 10 points on which I claim basic science is wrong. Not one comment on the points. No one has refuted any of them ! I think you recognise that syndrome.

I queried the idea of authors voting with the boys in the back-room. I think i have worked out why the process is the way t is.

Like you, I am on a mission - different faith - so the essay is really another trip to the pulpit.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 02:22 GMT
You say, "I have listed 10 points on which I claim basic science is wrong."

You are not granted that privilege. If you wish to contest science, present a reproducible falsifying observation. Have 20 years of string theory, SUSY, Higgs boson, MOND taught you nothing? Theory without empirical anchor is a skinned balloon. Given ore, deal in the values not with the dross.

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

The worst the parity Eotvos experiment can do is give zero net output. That is the gold standard of 420+ years of Equivalence Principle testing. The only risk is success. Success contradicts no prior observation in any venue at any scale. It is a new way for physics to fail. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 18:54 GMT
Gal: Sepracor made $billions by taking commercial racemic pharma, isolating the biologically active optical isomer by chiral chromatography, then repatenting as the resolved enantiomer. Pharma takes 10 years or more of a 20-year patent to pass clinical, costing $500-800 million. Sepracor was immediately FDA cleared for marketing the same pharma "without impurities."

Terry: Absent falsifying tests you only have argument. When a supercon multinuclear FT-NMR runs, the whole of physics short of relativity is engaged. Add GPS and particle accelerators. *Demonstrate* a contention is defective. Propose richer theory with testable novel consequences.

NOBODY knows if left and right shoes vacuum free fall identically. If so, all physics has an exception. Eotvos balances are in use. Opposed test masses are maximally parity divergent atomic mass distributions by Equivalence Principle rules: All properties are inert, only pure geometry is active. All atoms are gravitationally anonymous indistinguishable unit masses; chemical bonding is invisible, charge and spin are irrelevant, optical rotation is arbitrary, etc. Observables are not diagnostic of geometry, optical rotation in chiral almost congruent structures and achiral silver thiogallate.

Crystallography is in qualitative agreement with calculated maximum parity divergence. Pettitjean's QCM-calculated extremal CHI=1, COR=1, DSI=0 includes quartz. Anybody with a dissenting calculation is invited to post - if including a better candidate. Triangulanes, helicenes, twistane; chiral fullerenes and carbon nanotubes, Avnir's tungsten chelate, Aldrich Cat. No. 497460, Ni3(dpa)4Cl2… and certainly DNA are not better.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 00:31 GMT
Alan

1. I leave the empirical issues to others, including you - but i am kept waiting for your data because your approach to experiment causes needless delay.

I am focused on fixing the formalism, the maths and the logic, as my essay makes clear, so that all empirical data can be explained rationally. My experimental data is already available. I specify what it is in my essay - see references to Foucault, Baez, and Lisi. I also have data sources here (Norman Cook) and in Chemistry, Biology, and Cognitive Science texts.

2. An essay is a "polite" form of argument. The adjective explains your ratings, and why despite your ranting for 10 years or more - NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO YOU - even though many, including me, agree with you. You could have had the free trip to Stockholm years ago - if only you took notice of Dale Carnegie.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 03:51 GMT
This essay that i have still to read in full, seems to have brought strong reactions from the community members. Trying to be an outsider, i see this as a clash between egos, physicists and chemists, mathematicians, theorists and experimentalists. Such 'clashes' to me appear not truly academic, as the use of strong words do not reflect humility which all great scientists show towards lesser beings. i have personally experienced such truths while just a graduate student in USA, i happen to have a Nobel Leureate shaving in an adjoining washbasin in a hostel's large bath,meant for delegates attending an International Conferernce. He literally compelled me and released from hesitency to come out with details of what i was doing and praised the same immensely with some humbly made suggestions, when i myself knew it was not deserving the same. From that momnet onwards, i learnt the lesson how to behave with colleagues/students in order to enhance the objectives of science, rather than bother about personalities/status etc.

I am an experimentalist who has dabbled little in theory but did attempt lot of empirical studies in the absence of adequate labs. Today i feel happy that i have a few patents,linkages with industry that are giving me professional activities well into my retirement from University service. The breadth of my exposure has provided me the richness and boldness to enter unexplored areas.

We all need to encourage and enrich all our colleagues and students, in order to get the best out of them for the good of sciences. There is no need to score points or competition ratings or any return from what one does. it should come naturally, uninfluenced. i regret my advisory posture if it hurts anyone here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath ,

Your wisdom is super ,it's a pleasure to read this wisdom .It's impossible to make undrstanding about truths to a person who don't understand the truth .

in my opinion .It's the life and the human nature but we evolve fortunaly .

Take care

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 22:27 GMT
I asked whether the Equivalence Principle is falsified by left and right hands in 1999. I've been patient, I've been polite, I've been explicative until letters faded off a keyboard (a,s,n go first). I've configured a class of organic molecules whose chirality cannot be named, exposed an error in esoteric mathematics, and calculated parity divergence of test masses to 4.4410^17 atoms because a physicist was too stupid to comprehend periodic crystals are self-similar. After 10 years I see nothing but 10 years of composition Eotovs experiments that perfectly nulled. Waiting is ended. Physics gets it rammed down its craw, in public.

The emperor can be clothed or naked without contradiction either way. I will thereafter be contrite in defeat or gracious in victory - but I will not be silent or accommodating in process. I have had my fill of crap eructated by people comfortable in their ignorance and nurtured by the status quo. Contemporary physical theory - string, SUSY, Higgs, dark matter - is obscene. That it is untestable in its predictions is no protection against falsfication of its founding postulates. If it requires the lesser science of chemistry to do it, so be it. Walk it off.

Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 22:33 GMT
Terry Padden asserts his rights to be recognised as the author of the above work attributed to "Anonymous".

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 13, 2009 @ 20:49 GMT
BigCHI is running glycine gamma-polymorph, enantiomorphic space group P3(2), in an AMD FX-55 booted with Knoppix Live! DvD. Quits March 2010 at large radius, time/point growing as (radius)^2. Day #1 did 38,050 radius increments summing to 5000 A, 66.5 billion atoms. Log(1 - CHI) vs. radius y = mx + b theoretical slope is -2 exactly, found -1.99993. Least squares graphic intercept of 0.480191 (smaller is larger CHI/radius). Quartz, the previous best, gave 0.534246.

Petitjean's QCM gave CHI -> 1, COR = 1, DSI = 0. CHI is then a connection among eigenvalues, special functions, their representation theory with solid angles, and exponentials of fractions of pi at a characteristic scale. The three consecutive atom angle is 180 - [60(intercept + pi)/pi], or 110.83 degrees. Acta Cryst. B 36 115 (1980) for HOOC - CH2 - NH2 (zwitterion). Crystal structure C-C-N angle of 111.15 degrees, giving an intercept of 0.46338, thus 96.5% agreement. Pearson correlation of -0.9854 for 38,050 points.

Physics *should* be afraid of the parity Eotvos experiment. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share



Paul N. Butler wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 11:40 GMT
Al,

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, many things came up lately that hindered me.

Sometimes I just get carried away and don’t notice how big it is getting. Sometimes it is just to try to explain things simply and clearly and that can require more words to cover the topic more fully giving history and details, etc. to get the point across without ambiguity. If you get the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 20:46 GMT
1023 words, Paul. Write, then discard at least 1/3 the words, leaving content. Cheap 1 TB HDs and 16 MB flash drives debase discourse. Efficiency, content/size, matters.

A parity Eotvos experiment requires eight test masses: $25-30K Sawyer Research x-plate process, 12-18 months to grow quartz in both hands. Shape, balance, gild; $15K. Then academic apparatus and lease of the Department and its research group. No academic wants an outsider overthrowing his discipline with a scut experiment. Call it ~$250K overall. Grant funding must be shamed into supporting a novel experiment. No professional manager champions a risk of success over guaranteed failure. He is rewarded for process not product.

The two papers are embargoed until released. Preliminary glycine gamma-polymorph parity divergence output, glydense.png, and qzdense.png below. Note difference in scales. A Canadian box will serial crunch another 80,000 points at small radii coming week. My AMD FX-55 does five months of serial crunching at larger radii. Anybody with a slack cluster or server farm is invited to play - parallel execution code is in hand. 10,000 CPU-hrs is a boost. At larger radii atoms added/radial increment grows too fast to be densely sampled vs. CPU time that rises/point as (radius)^2.

The only reality is empirical reality. Somebody should look.

attachments: glydense.png, 1_qzdense.png

Bookmark and Share



Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 20:49 GMT
All the world is execution errors,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 05:59 GMT
Al,

When I checked it on my word processor it came to exactly 1024 words or one binary K. I thought there might be some extremely important universal significance to that so I didn’t dare to change it. Isn’t that a good excuse? A little more seriously, I think I have the idea now. You want the information presented, but you want it to be in a concise form. Let me try one. Here goes.

(view enclosed file attachment now then come back here)



Somebody should look.

How is that?

12–18 months is a long time to wait to get the crystals. Unless you already have that part taken care of. Too bad structured field technology hasn’t been developed here yet. If I was an academic I wouldn’t want some outsider overthrowing my discipline with an experiment about rabbit or deer tails (scut) either. You might have to go higher up than the local manager. There actually are some owners with vision, probably not many though. Try high tech firms, but you need to give them a reason if possible. If your experiment proves current theories wrong, do you have a better theory to replace them and can you think of any new practical applications that will be derived from it. The shame game can work as long as you are right, but if you are wrong once it can come back on and limit you for a long time. You are right. It is one of man’s weaknesses to like to continue in familiar patterns of behavior rather than try new things.

When will the papers be released? Today’s computers are really slow aren’t they and the AMD FX-55 isn’t the fastest of them either. I use an I7 - 920 for local work here, but it would still take a long time with it too, so I couldn’t be of a lot of help there. You could use a 8 or 16k parallel processor array system, but most of them are already being heavily used, so getting time on one would likely be difficult.

File Attachment:

attachments: Al_picture.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 18:22 GMT
Quartz must be pure (grown from cultured quartz discards not lascas), dry (Grade A not commercial Grade C), and have minimum dislocations (etch pits/cm^2). 12-18 months in an autoclave, Sawyer Research x-plate process. Commercial z-plate is insufficient. The best Brazilian natural quartz wasn't nearly good enough by the 1940s.

Quartz' calculation was hosted by Silicon Valley companies, a slack piece of CERN, a European server farm... I got output, they located defective CPUs. BigCHI or CHIpir, CPU usage is 99% continuous plus the OS, only in RAM. Billions of atoms are fast, quadrillions are slow. Beowulf clusters or server farm slack work, graphics processors ganged in parallel are exciting. Anybody with hardware running anyway but doing nothing can host the parallel computation. NASA and its supercomputer "Columbia" have a multi-layer consideration process taking longer than a single processor run. I don't have a volunteer who can honcho Solaris in offered server farm slack.

NOBODY knows if left and right shoes together falsify the Equivalence Principle. Orthodox physical theory equally supports both outcomes. Geometric parity divergence is rigorously quantified by explicit calculation. Apparatus and its loading are off the shelf. FQXi voting is infatuation with untestable theory over empirical experiment. The limit to physics is not imagination, it is professional management forever pursuing the sure path of business plans. PowerPoint is success, not Accounts Receivable. How is that working out elsewhere?

Somebody should look

Bookmark and Share



Paul N. Butler wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 05:53 GMT
Al,

I read your paper and I noticed a couple of concepts that I have seen many places that are somewhat in error. Since I have seen these concepts displayed in many places, I believe you may have just picked them up from somewhere else and not really checked them out in detail. We all do that at times. There is just so much information out there that it is not possible to check it all...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 22:27 GMT
When contrasted single crystal test masses of space group P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz evince a net non-zero output in a parity Eotvos experiment: the Equivalence Principle is empirically untrue, Einstein's elevator has a massed exception, Noether's theorem does not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Physics may textually encode those ineluctable consequences any way it likes.

Paul wrote, "The problem with drawing a triangle on a sphere is that: 1. The lines are no longer straight because they bend into the third dimension and are, therefore, curved and" A 2-sphere, the surface of a 3-D ball, is strictly 2-D (n-sphere, only latitude and longitude are required to uniquely locate a contained point). The sides of its triangles are geodesics (great circles). There is no shorter path between two points.

My essay is traceably, factually correct. A parity Eotvos experiment net non-zero output contradicts no observation in any venue at any scale. That the essay is testable in unremarkable apparatus using commercial materials outrages those whose vocation and reputation are learned eructation not physical reality. Somebody should look.

Calculated log(1 - CHI) vs. radius for glycine gamma-polymorph passed 20,000 A radius and 4.2 trillion atoms 19 October 2009. Glycine asymptotes to CHI = 1 at 1.11 times quartz' rate, has 1.6 times the atoms/volume, and enantiomorphic space groups P3(1) / P3(2) possess lower symmetry than quartz in P3(1)21 / P3(2)21. Nice.

Bookmark and Share



Steve D. wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 17:23 GMT
On this link on n sphere ,I saw the stereographic projection .

Very interesting to insert in my model ,for the orbitals it's relevant .

For the real number ,it's of course behind the perceptible lat and long systems of coordonnates ,where the system is different in its stereographic projection due to the complexification towards the planck scales,logic because each entangled rotating spheres are specifics .The perception of surface is our perception in fact .The polarity is well made ,fortunaly .Simple and complex in fact this polarity system .

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 18:28 GMT
Al,

The angular (instantaneous direction) component of motion is not always conserved in reality. When a positron and electron interact, their angular components (generated by their fifth vector motions) are canceled out when their fifth vector motions (which are traveling in the opposite directions in the fifth vector) are forced back into the fourth vector. The total amount of motion is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 22:10 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

Being left-handed myself, I nonetheless did not yet entirely understand your interpretation of dominance of the negative right-hand rule in chemistry. Are you inspired by those who put the equivalence between inert and heavy mass into question? If so, is this the only explanation?

Some nuts are pretty hard. At 527 you will find a case, which is likewise unresolved while successfully denied by PRL.

Good luck,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 19:42 GMT
Paul, you confabulate curved coordinates with curved spaces. They are independent entities.

Parity Eotvos and parity calorimetry experiments could falsify vacuum isotropy at will. Classical and quantized gravitation theories, quantum mechanics, conservation of angular momentum could all be falsified at the founding postulate level for failing to include a chemical footnote. PHYSICS COULD BE WRONG without contradiction of any prior observation. Somebody should look.

Observation tests theory. Given points' relative coordinates Petitjean's (pdf) QCM calculates normalized geometric parity divergence CHI (0 to 1, fractional, achiral to perfect parity divergence), graph theory correspondences COR (1 to very large, as integers), and self-similarity DSI (0 to 1, fractional). With CHI asymptotic to one with COR = 1 and DSI = 0, CHI is a function of the eigenvalues of the inertia matrix; a connection among eigenvalues, special functions, their representation theory with solid angles, and exponentials of fractions of pi at a characteristic scale. Thence for glycine3.png attached,

log(1-CHI) = -2[log(radius)] + [(180-alpha)(pi)/60] - (pi)

We calculated (attached glydense.png) glycine gamma-polymorph with every radial increment that includes more atoms, over a significant radius range ultimately containing 66.5 billion atoms. Extreme density calculation is in process to 35,000 A radius, 22.8 trillion atoms. Theory predicts 0.463385 intercept from 111.15 degrees chirality emergence angle (neutron crystallography). The maximally dense graph shown has 0.463609 intercept, good to 0.048% relative. The analysis is empirically valid. Observed reality is the only reality. Somebody should look.

attachments: 1_glydense.png, 1_glycine3.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 15:41 GMT
My post of Oct 12 got response from other the author of this essay. may be author has encouraged me on my essay but did not like to respond to me on his own essay.

I am poor in Organic chemistry that i use to dislike when in school. I just hated the long structural formula that i never could memorise. Later i did learn the logic behind but it was late as i chose Physics. Lately, i started to see that all branches of science are challenging if one likes to take the challenges. Author is determined in this respect. I suggest that he need to take the challenge of Leshan in his comments made in early Sept. Later, in a different way, Paul Butler paused a few points for author's consideration. It seems these challenges may be accepted by an enthusiastic author that we have . Besides he made useful comments on many other essays too. With this fraternity to back, he can certainly get his experimental plan executed. if it has not yet been covered, as claimed by some on this post that the matter has been settled as far as experiments are concerned.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul N. Butler wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 05:45 GMT
Al,

You are right that I do connect coordinates with space in a familiar way because coordinates are used by man to show relationships between motion entities that exist in space. They are used to show position, distance, direction, and change of position, etc. of such entities individually and in relation to each other as appropriate. In general space does not come equipped with such...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 21:03 GMT
Do opposite shoes falsify the Equivalence Principle?

Prior observation allows either result.

Geometric parity divergence is quantitative (Petitjean).

Enantiomorphic quartz single crystals are commercial.

A parity Eotvos experiment runs SOP.

Somebody should look.

33 words. Eveverything else (pdf) is excuses.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 09:54 GMT
Al,

A group in Vienna just demonstrated interference with C60 Buckyballs. I was just wondering if your left hand and right hand crystals would interfere with themselves differently in an experiment like this.

Just a thought.

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Nov. 8, 2009 @ 23:10 GMT
http://www.jfreire.com/c60/c60.htm, Nature 401 680 (1999), Phys. Rev. Lett 91 90408 (2003), http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/research/matterwave/TPPC60F48/in
dex.html

Enantiomorphic crystals would have no differential effect on C60 in point group Ih. A sock, C_60, cannot detect the difference between left and right feet. There are at least six extreme parity divergent fullerenes: C_42, C_52, C_92, and C100 each in point group T (not Th or Td); C_140, C_160 each in point group I (not Ih). Each of the six wholly lacks mirror planes, an inversion point, and all other improper (rotation-reflection, e.g., S_4 of a baseball seam) symmetry elements. Each of them calculates through Petitejan's QCM as CHI=1, COR=1, DSI = 0.

I've talked with the matterwave group about molecular beam diffraction experiments of two kinds. First, diffract resolved twistane, C_10H_16 . Does it racemize by passage through the slits? Mechanism there would be recombination of mirrored wavefunctions after passage. Does it racemize via Hund's Paradox? Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 023202 (2009), Z. Phys. D 37 333 (1996). Their opinion is "no racemization," though they haven't looked.

Second, supersonically expand into hard vacuum helium seeded with semibullvalene, C_8H_8. Make the slits alternating CVD Peltier heater/coolers. The cryogenic molecular beam diffracts with paired wavefunctions at two different temperatures. How will they recombine given rate of degenerate rearrangement is exponentially dependent upon absolute temperature?

The group would like to diffract a virus small enough to be sprayed or desorbed into a molecular beam. Hund's paradox is locked out by molecular complexity. Racemization by mirror wavefuction recombination is a very remote possibility. Small simple molecules like twistane, cold semibullvalene, or hot bullvalene are better probes for these unlikely but intensely interesting outcomes.

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti (www.zenophysics.com) wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 06:01 GMT
Al,

1. Thanks, that was very informative about matter wave experiments. From what I could gather, there is interest in chiral particles but no interference experiments have been done to date. I think I got that right?

2. How come they do not use a lower velocity? If they used 20 m/s instead of 200 m/s the wavelength would be 10 times longer and the grating not so hard to fab. I have an interest in slow speed particles and was thinking that you just may know why.

3. Chiral-ity is basic, and you have reminded us that grand theories must account for it. I like the spice you have added to this forum.

Thanks again,

Don L.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Nov. 9, 2009 @ 19:29 GMT
Dear Alan,

About your essay, you state: "vacuum isotropy and the Equivalence Principle - can be empirically falsified without contradicting prior observations in any venue at any scale". Is this right? Suppose I am weighting an apple and a banana. Put them next to each other so they form the letter L. Now swap their position and create the mirror image of L. The parity is now reversed, but still they weight the same amount (at least in my grocery store). So here is a trivial counter-example to your “in any venue at any scale” statement. Everyone already looked. The only thing one can do is to now improve the accuracy of the experiments. But the same argument applies to all experimental physics.

Florin

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Author Alan M. Schwartz wrote on Nov. 10, 2009 @ 16:51 GMT
C60 is not volatile. A hot molecular beam avoids deposition.

Physics postulates reality and its mirror image are identical in outcome; extrinsic and emergent properties are not fundamental. Only strong interactions are observed to behave. Torque, right hand rules, parity conservation violation (Weak interaction), teleparallel gravitation… are not mirror-symmetric.

Physics demands cubes describe parallelepipeds. V = a^3 requires patching if V = (abc)sqrt[(1 - cos^2(alpha) - cos^2(beta) - cos^2(gamma) - 2cos(alpha)cos(beta)cos(gamma)]. Unlike all other essays, my entry offers two calculated experiments in existing apparatus challenging two founding postulates of the entire discipline. Physics academics are white-hot with rage (and blind to chemistry). 420+ years of Equivalence Principle testing obtained perfect nulls. Academics fear the first success. As for voting... Uncle Al is a Mensan, 100,000 people of high intelligence worldwide. Word gets around for the modest ramp up, then smell the fear.

Benzil enthalpy of fusion - secondary standard for calibrating calorimeters - must be consistent outside parity test circumstances, allowing less than 10^(-12) EP divergence. An L (properly a scalene triangle) is 3D achiral. Configure 27 ball bearings for perfect parity divergence, stereogram. At scales smaller than four adjacent balls obtain zero chirality. Use single atoms not ball bearings, thus the parity Eotvos experiment in quartz or gamma-glycine and the parity calorimetry experiment in benzil. No smaller chiral emergence scale self-similarly repeated to centimeter dimensions is possible. Somebody should look.

Florin said, "Everyone already looked. The only thing one can do is to now improve the accuracy of the experiments." *Nobody* has performed a calculated geometric parity EP test. 5x10^(-14) difference/average Eotvos balance sensitivity is entirely adequate.

attachments: 1_look.png

Bookmark and Share



Jack SARFATTI wrote on Apr. 7, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
Does this Alan M Schwartz also use the email



&

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

Just wondering.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 07:17 GMT
Did u drop a letter in a bottle 20 years ago

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


abattidgelext wrote on Mar. 2, 2011 @ 17:58 GMT
also

P.S. Sorry for choosing your site to leave a message about

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


abattidgelext wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 03:14 GMT
recommend

P.S. Sorry for choosing your site to leave a message about

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tommaniladiva wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 07:47 GMT
ìîäíûå ïðè÷åñêè ñìîòðåòü ñêà÷èâàòü [url=http://pri4esok2011.narod2.ru/]ìîäíûå ïðè÷åñêè 2010 2011 ãîäà[/url]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 16:44 GMT
http://www.riverrock.org/~howard/QuantumTime13.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.