Pursuing the Limits of Failed Symmetry by Alan M. Schwartz

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.

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/pdf/schlamminger08.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/lowfrontier2.pdf

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/publications/pdf/Denver2009.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.Attachment #1: actvmass.png

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.

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.

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.Attachment #1: 66chir2a.png

"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;

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

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

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 is a perfect architecture of spheres ...

The rotations of these quantum entangled spheres are specifics ,coded .

The spheres probably are specifics and directly correlated with our cosmological spheres .

Like an Universal constant and link ,of course the mass ,the velocity ,the rotations of these spheres imply too spherical waves and the gravity .

The numbers of these spheres is probably the same in the two senses .

The evolution point of vue in my opinion is essential to encircle the real rules of our quantum and cosmological spheres thus the lattices ,the spaces thus must be considered with pragmatism and rationality too .

The rotating spheres are fundamenatls I think .Many coherences exists .

But the symmetry is specific and must be physical and real .

In fact our quantum spheres and their rotations are like a code of our future Universal Sphere and its spheres .They continue to build and to polarize towards this beautiful harmony between mass system .

You say "Gravitation and quantum mechanics are separately accurately predictive to the limits of observation but together are utterly incompatible"

All is linked by coherences ,invariances ,constants .....you think really what they are incompatible ?

Sincerely

Steve

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 appear (solar axion telescope), protons do not decay (Super-Kamiokande). Supergravity, lattice and loop quantum gravity, and above all string and M-theory predict nothing.

Physics is drunk with symmetry - Noether's theorems, Newton and Green's function. Covariance with respect to reflection in space and time is not required by the Poincaré group of Special Relativity or the Einstein group of General Relativity. Quantum field theories (QFT) with hermitian hamiltonians are invariant under the Poincaré group containing spatial reflections. Parity is a spatial reflection and parity is not a QFT symmetry! QFT are invariant under the identity component of the Poincaré group - the subgroup consisting of elements that can be continuous path joined to the Poincaré group identity; only an orthochronous Poincaré group representation. This subgroup excludes parity and time reversal. Supersymmetric (SUSY, gauge symmetry plus spacetime symmetry) grand unified theories relating fermions and bosons to each other contain allowances for symmetry breaking (inserted soft breaking terms into the Lagrangian where they maintain the cancellation of quadratic divergences).

Noether's theorems demand continuous symmetries or at least approximation by a Taylor series. Noether fails for parity. Quantum gravitation theories supplement Einstein-Hilbert action with an odd-parity Chern-Simons term. Physics cannot abide parity, adding symmetry breakings to make theory consistent with observation. An axiomatic system is no stronger than its weakest axiom. Empirical reality is parity divergent for all but the strongest interactions. CERN will be a massive disappointment. Physical theory is fundamentally wrong for postulating intrinsic parity symmetry. That is physics' self-imposed limit, that is why it fails.

My work as an EE led me to the suspicion that a lot of putative mirror symmetry has to do with Russell's denial of causality, unjustified assumption of closed systems, careless interpretation of DEQs and complex calculus, brutally enforced finiteness of infinity, etc. May I ask you for pointing me to mistakes of mine?

What about ZFC and the like, I wrote that Cantor's naive mistake has been maintained by successfully hiding it somewhere between the axioms of extension and infinity.

I would appreciate you dealing with the reasons why e.g. Wigner's conjecture of general symmetry is wrong.

Sincerely,

Eckard

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

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