I have a question that has bothered me for a long time: My
understanding of quantum mechanics stops at the beginning of high
energy physics. I am only superficially aware of gluons, quarks, and
the strong or electroweak interactions.

What I want to know is the degree to which quantum mechanics at this
level is able to deal with the metric.

I know the gravitational field distorts the metric near the
singularity of a "point mass". Is there any reason not to assume that
intense fields of all types distort the metric at the very small
spatial dimensions?

Guy <guy.vandegrift@valpo.edu> wrote:

[...]
I have a question that has bothered me for a long time: My
understanding of quantum mechanics stops at the beginning of high
energy physics. I am only superficially aware of gluons, quarks, and
the strong or electroweak interactions.

What I want to know is the degree to which quantum mechanics at this
level is able to deal with the metric.

I know the gravitational field distorts the metric near the
singularity of a "point mass". Is there any reason not to assume that
intense fields of all types distort the metric at the very small
spatial dimensions?

The reason gravity can be described as a distortion of spacetime is that
it is "universal" -- every form of matter responds in the same way to a
gravitational field. This is not the case for other interactions, and
that pretty much rules out a metric description.

Consider electromagnetism, for example. Would a positively charge object
distort the metric in a way that causes other objects to move toward it,
or away from it? Neither answer works, since other positive charges are
repelled, negative charges are attracted, and neutral objects aren't
affected.

On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

GR's singular attribute is the long reach of its mathematical
simplicity (as these things go). Einstein-Cartan theory is a right
proper pisser to calculate and it must always give the exact same
answers... except it properly handles spin-orbit coupling and predicts
a substantial net signal from a parity calorimetry experiment.
Somebody should look.

This is a claim that you have made numerous times. Could you supply me
with
a reference to a peer-reviewed publication that demonstrates your
claimed
coupling between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and geometric parity mass
distribution? References to your web publications and/or to your
poster session
don't count.

Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:

This is a claim that you have made numerous times. Could you
supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed publication that
demonstrates your claimed coupling between Einstein-Cartan
gravitation and geometric parity mass distribution? References
to your web publications and/or to your poster session don't
count.

Could you supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed
publication that demonstrates General Reltivity can handle
spin-orbit coupling? It cannot - from the symmetry of its maths.
General Relativity is wrong.

General Relativity cannot describe spin-orbit coupling given
Riemannian geometry upon which GR is based. The Ricci curvature
tensor R_ab must be symmetric in a and b (R_ab = R_ba). The Einstein
curvature tensor G_ab = R_ab - (1/2)Rg_ab must be symmetric. The
Einstein curvature tensor models local gravitational forces. It is
equal (up to a gravitational constant) to the energy-momentum tensor
T_ab. Einstein curvature tensor symmetry forces the momentum tensor
to be symmetric. During spin-orbital angular momentum exchange the
momentum tensor is anti-symmetric given the general equation of
conservation of angular momentum,

(divergence of spin current) - (1/2)(T_ab - T_ba) = 0

General Relativity cannot be correct as formulated. All treatments
that allow for spin-orbit coupling also allow a chiral pseudoscalar
vacuum background. It is not subtle thing.

Could you supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed publication
that demonstrates theoretical coupling between ANY observable in ANY
Equivalence Principle test since Galileo in the 16th century and a
theory of gravitation? NO theory of gravitation contains a
composition coupling.

Credible classical or quantized theories of gravitation are pure
geometries. Why were so many EP experiments performed with zero
theoretical basis?

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm#b21

Adelberger is the best in the business. Adelberger is committed
to repeating the same unproductive experiments and will not
innovate. Fellas, if there is nothing to be seen in theory and
in practice then looking harder will still find nothing,

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrincipl...

You self-righteously argue that a fast and inexpensive observation
not be made because it cannot possibly result in an unanticipated
result given accepted theory. Otto Stern measured the proton's
magnetic moment though Pauli could calculate it more accurately
from the electron's magnetic moment. The Stern-Gerlach experiment
did not observe an undifferentiated continum of smear at its far
end. Yang and Lee completely overturned established theory.
Which of those experiments were not based in angular momentum?

Gravitation theories are disjoint in matters of angular momentum,
includingh GR adn Einstein-Cartan theory, string theory embracing
the BRST formalism. Quantitative geometric parity divergence,
CHI, is tightly coupled to moments of inertia of 100% of its rest
mass,

CHI = (d)[Min_{P,R,t}D^2]/4T
J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)

CHI is globally minimum for all rotations "R" and translations
"t" for all correspondences "P" permitted by the colors and/or
graph. "d" is the Euclidean dimension, "D^2" is the sum of the
"N" squared-distances between the set and its parity inversion
for a fixed pairwise correspondence with coincident centers of
mass, and "T" is the geometric inertia of the set. Gravitation
is blind to all physical properties with units. There are no
colors. There is only the graph of mass distribution.

The only untried EP challenge is geometric. The only EP test
that has an EP violation consistent with orthodox theory is
geometric. The only allowed EP violation of a measurable
amplitude consistent with prior observation is EP parity
violation by chemically identical opposite geometric parity
test masses. The smallest emergent scale upon which opposite
parity mass distributions may be built is atomic positions
within a periodic crystal lattice.

You express mortal dread of the parity calorimetry experiment
and the parity Eotvos experiment, and well that you should.

Two days in an analytical chemistry lab could falsify ALL of
physics, mechanics to string theory and QFT too, without any
contradiction of prior observation in any venue at any scale.
Either the parity experiments null SOP or you all exposed as
being stubborn fools. The former result is no big deal and the
latter is too delicious to ignore.

A Thiele-Dennis tube is growing large perfect benzil crystals,

http://www.sciencekit.com/images/250/62/S6240900.JPGhttp://wardsci.com/images/100/172141webM.JPG
glassware
J. Appl. Cryst. 4 333 (1971)

Be afraid, be very afraid.

On Feb 18, 3:54 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

GR's singular attribute is the long reach of its mathematical
simplicity (as these things go). Einstein-Cartan theory is a right
proper pisser to calculate and it must always give the exact same
answers... except it properly handles spin-orbit coupling and predicts
a substantial net signal from a parity calorimetry experiment.
Somebody should look.

This is a claim that you have made numerous times. Could you supply me
with
a reference to a peer-reviewed publication that demonstrates your
claimed
coupling between Einstein-Cartan gravitation and geometric parity mass
distribution? References to your web publications and/or to your
poster session
don't count.

Thanks,
Jerry

On Feb 22, 11:25 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:

This is a claim that you have made numerous times. Could you
supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed publication that
demonstrates your claimed coupling between Einstein-Cartan
gravitation and geometric parity mass distribution? References
to your web publications and/or to your poster session don't
count.

Could you supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed
publication that demonstrates General Reltivity can handle
spin-orbit coupling? It cannot - from the symmetry of its maths.
General Relativity is wrong.

That is not the point in dispute. You are attempting to change the
subject.

My point is, I can -easily- find multiple peer-reviewed references
on Einstein-Cartan, affine, teleparallel and other alternative
theories of gravitation which mathematically predict a coupling
between gravitation and angular momentum, whether it be in the
form of physical rotation, or of spin. These same publications
provide plausible estimates of the magnitude of said coupling,
such that the feasibility of experimental detection may be
evaluated.

On the other hand, there are -zero- peer-reviewed references
that predict differential coupling between these alternative
theories of gravitation and opposite geometric parity masses.

Opposite geometric parity masses do not exhibit opposite angular
momenta. There is no basis for your claim that differential
coupling should exist.

Could you supply me with a reference to a peer-reviewed publication
that demonstrates theoretical coupling between ANY observable in ANY
Equivalence Principle test since Galileo in the 16th century and a
theory of gravitation? NO theory of gravitation contains a
composition coupling.

That is a manifestly false statement. Extra-dimensional models,
starting with Kaluza-Klein as the simplest case and including such
models as superstring theory, in general predict non-metric
couplings with matter. These couplings would be the result of
scalar partners to the graviton (dilatons, moduli), which couple
differentially with different matter fields. For example,
dilatonic fields couple with gauge bosons but not other forms
of mass-energy. Since different atoms exhibit different amounts
of binding energy, dilatonic coupling would predict that differing
compositions of matter should fall differently.

Your proposed test using opposite geometric parity test masses
has none. Indeed, for your experiment to work, several basic
conservation laws must be violated. Local conservation of energy
is a fairly difficult conservation law to argue against.

have theoretical slope -2 exactly, with intercept being modeled with
only the screw axis angle.

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

"alpha" is the smallest vertex angle in the helix.

Uncle Al wrote:

have theoretical slope -2 exactly, with intercept being modeled with
only the screw axis angle.

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

"alpha" is the smallest vertex angle in the helix.

For equation clarity:
Necessarily, 'CHI' & 'radius' are unitless numbers.
This is not self-evident with 'radius'
Is 'radius' an expression of some type of unitless ratio?

Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:

My point is, I can -easily- find multiple peer-reviewed references
on Einstein-Cartan, affine, teleparallel and other alternative
theories of gravitation which mathematically predict a coupling
between gravitation and angular momentum, whether it be in the
form of physical rotation, or of spin. These same publications
provide plausible estimates of the magnitude of said coupling,
such that the feasibility of experimental detection may be
evaluated.

On the other hand, there are -zero- peer-reviewed references
that predict differential coupling between these alternative
theories of gravitation and opposite geometric parity masses.

Opposite geometric parity masses do not exhibit opposite angular
momenta. There is no basis for your claim that differential
coupling should exist.

Normalized quantitative geometric parity divergence, CHI, is directly
calculable from a chiral test mass' three inertial moments given the
maximal case of CHI->1/DSI=0/COR=1, below. Moments of inertia are
angular momentum.

if you wish to dispute this, provide a case in which non-zero
angular momentum occurs without moments of inertia.

As gravitation does not quantize, make that a classical case.
Uncle Al is targetting classical gravitation theories.

Gravitational physics is blind to interdisciplinary input. Its
maths cannot be so isolated. Load the grinder, turn the handle,
see what fills the sausage casing:

Orthodox theories of gravitation with parity-odd mathematical
symmetry that support EP divergence vs. angular momentum must
diastereotopically act upon parity-divergent mass distributions
- a left foot being fit by left and right shoes.

The form of the maths cannot be evaded. Chiral (circularly
polarized) light is not affected because geometic chirality
requires a minimum of four points in rigid configuration 3-space.
Sense of helicity is strictly point of view. A chiral mass
distribution need not be parity-divergent: 2(1), 4(2), and 6(3)
screw axes in Sohncke crystallographic space groups. A parity
divergent mass distribution in general need not be maximally
parity divergent,

http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.download.qcm.readme
bottom; cases of DSI>0, COR>1. The [6.6]chiralane 27-carbon skeleton
is exactly CHI=1/DSI=0/COR=1 but the C27H28 molecule is
CHI=0.982423/DSI=0/COR=1

Quantitative geometric parity diverence of a mass distribution is
intimately coupled to its moments of inertia,

J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999)

J. Math. Phys. 43( 4147 (2002)http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.htmlhttp://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdfhttp://www.cim.mcgill.ca/~damian/644B_project/
Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. (Paris), serie IIc, 4(5) 331 (2001)
J. Math. Chem. 22(2-4) 185 (1997)
J. Math. Chem. 23 429 (1998)
Cr. Acad. Sci. II C 2(1) 25 (1999)
Comput Math. Appl. 34(11) 105 (1997)
J. Math. Chem. 17(2-3) 185 (1995)
Can. J. Chem. 78(1) 41 (2000)

It is shown by rigorous QCM calculation that chiral periodic crystal
lattices examined *rapidly* asymptote with increasing radius
(certainly by a hundred included atoms) to either CHI=1 or CHI=0.
There is nothing in-between. Cases with CHI->1/DSI=0/COR=1 are
maximally parity divergent. In this specific case CHI is directly
calculable from the test masses' three inertial moments. QCM will
calculate ~1100 points in 8-12 CPU-hours. Given QCM
CHI->1/DSI=0/COR=1, BigCHI will do 30 million points/CPU-second and
CHIpir will do ~40 million points/(processor CPU-second) in an Opteron
cluster. The results,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.pnghttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/bzdense.pnghttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/tedense.png

have theoretical slope -2 exactly, with intercept being modeled with
only the screw axis angle.

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

"alpha" is the smallest vertex angle in the helix. The distorted
tetrahedral O-Si-O helix angle is 110.56 degrees vs. arccos(-1/3)
undistorted. It slightly varies across x-ray and neutron
diffraction structure determinations, suggesting the model applied
to a perfect lattice is very accurate indeed.

That is *not* noise. That is true CHI fluctuation with radius as
the moments of inertia of the included solid sphere of crystal
lattice fluctuate. Zooming in with denser sampling does not
flatten it,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/comborad.png
Same samping incrementshttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/combofm1.png
Sampling increment scaled to give equal fluctuation frequencieshttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/combofm2.png
The fitted radial increment vs. fluctuation frequency model

We've looked at about 18 chiral crystal lattices. One of three
observations obtained:

1) CHI -> 0
1) CHI -> 1, the model works accurate within about 10%, or
2) the assigned crystal structure was wrong and later revised
(three examples)

Richard Saam wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:

have theoretical slope -2 exactly, with intercept being modeled with
only the screw axis angle.

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

"alpha" is the smallest vertex angle in the helix.

For equation clarity:
Necessarily, 'CHI' & 'radius' are unitless numbers.
This is not self-evident with 'radius'
Is 'radius' an expression of some type of unitless ratio?

You can count atoms if you like,

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

Computer output is vs. radius. A overmuch giant composite unit cell
is grown and then overtrimmed to the sample radius. It makes no sense
in executing code to run 18+ decimal significant figures more than is
necessary (exact atom count).

http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
But considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matt. vii. 3-5 ...

Chemically identical maximal opposite parity mass distributions either
obey or violate the Equivalence Principle thereby validating isotropic
or chiral pseudoscalar anistropic vacuum backgrounds, respectively.
Unless you can propose a different and conflicting ab initio
quantitative measure of mass distribution chirality you are naught but
a critic troll.

70-year old theory will support either empirical result: metric
gravitation and string theory demand the EP. Affine, teleparallel,
and non-commutative gravitations ignore the EP. Tell us why somebody
should not look at physical reality and thereafter cast one pile of
scrawl into the waste crock.

It is trivially demonstrable that CHI cannot be a proper metric for
quantifying the degree of chirality of a test mass for the purpose
of your experiment.

1) At suitably large aggregate scales, CHI is an intensive property,
not an extensive property. The CHI of a 1 gram tellurium test mass
is equal to the CHI computed for a 10 gram tellurium test mass
equals 1 to many decimal places. Are you claiming that the
anomalous force acting upon a 10 gram tellurium test mass must be
identical to the force acting upon a 1 gram mass?

2) A CHI computation does not recognize chiral density. CHI for
a 1 gram tellurium test mass equals the CHI computed for a 1 gram
quartz test mass equals the CHI computed for 1 gram crystal of
hemoglobin equals 1 to many decimal places. Are you saying that
the anomalous force acting on a 1 gram tellurium test mass must
be equal to the anomalous force acting upon a 1 gram quartz test
mass equals the anomalous force acting upon a 1 gram hemoglobin
crystal, despite the obviously large difference in chiral density
exhibited by these masses?

3) As a scalar variable, CHI has no room for the introduction of
spatial anisotropy. Benzil crystals are highly elongated. Are you
absolutely sure that a benzil needle dropped vertically through a
chiral gravitational field will fall identically with a needle
dropped horizontally? Why or why not?

4) In sum, Pettijohn's CHI is a hopelessly inadequate for
quantifying the chirality of test masses in your experiment. You
have spent years and many thousands of CPU hours in wasted effort.
Other measures of chiral density exist which would be far more
suitable for your purposes than CHI.

Richard Saam wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:


have theoretical slope -2 exactly, with intercept being modeled with
only the screw axis angle.

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

"alpha" is the smallest vertex angle in the helix.

For equation clarity:
Necessarily, 'CHI' & 'radius' are unitless numbers.
This is not self-evident with 'radius'
Is 'radius' an expression of some type of unitless ratio?


You can count atoms if you like,

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

Computer output is vs. radius. A overmuch giant composite unit cell
is grown and then overtrimmed to the sample radius. It makes no sense
in executing code to run 18+ decimal significant figures more than is
necessary (exact atom count).

http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htm
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
But considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
Matt. vii. 3-5 ...

The beam is extremely large,

On Feb 28, 3:23 pm, Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net wrote:

4) In sum, Pettijohn's CHI is a hopelessly inadequate for
quantifying the chirality of test masses in your experiment. You
have spent years and many thousands of CPU hours in wasted effort.
Other measures of chiral density exist which would be far more
suitable for your purposes than CHI.

Another issue is that CHI doesn't recognize right-handed vs. left-
handed chiral crystals. CHI=1 in both cases.

Schwartz asserts that the EP violation is largest for RH vs. LH
crystals. I don't know what functional form for the masses inputs 1
for RH and 1 for LH and comes up with different answers for each.