| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Sam Wormley" |
| Date: |
08 Jul 2005 09:09:16 AM |
| Object: |
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
THE QUESTIONS
The Top 25
Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the next
quarter-century.
What Is the Universe Made Of?
What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?
Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
What Controls Organ Regeneration?
How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?
How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?
How Does Earth's Interior Work?
Are We Alone in the Universe?
How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
What Determines Species Diversity?
What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?
How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?
How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?
How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?
What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?
Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?
Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?
Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible? ( Cure ?! ; how did HIV originate ?
-CB)
How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?
Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?
Is ours the only universe?
A number of quantum theorists and cosmologists are trying to figure out
whether our universe is part of a bigger "multiverse." But others suspect
that this hard-to-test idea may be a question for philosophers.
What drove cosmic inflation?
In the first moments after the big bang, the universe blew up at an
incredible rate. But what did the blowing? Measurements of the cosmic
microwave background and other astrophysical observations are narrowing the
possibilities.
When and how did the first stars and galaxies form?
The broad brush strokes are visible, but the fine details aren't. Data from
satellites and ground-based telescopes may soon help pinpoint, among other
particulars, when the first generation of stars burned off the hydrogen
"fog" that filled the universe.
Where do ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from?
Above a certain energy, cosmic rays don't travel very far before being
destroyed. So why are cosmic-ray hunters spotting such rays with no obvious
source within our galaxy?
What powers quasars?
The mightiest energy fountains in the universe probably get their power from
matter plunging into whirling supermassive black holes. But the details of
what drives their jets remain anybody's guess.
What is the nature of black holes?
Relativistic mass crammed into a quantum-sized object? It's a recipe for
disaster--and scientists are still trying to figure out the ingredients.
Why is there more matter than antimatter?
To a particle physicist, matter and antimatter are almost the same. Some
subtle difference must explain why matter is common and antimatter rare.
Does the proton decay?
In a theory of everything, quarks (which make up protons) should somehow be
convertible to leptons (such as electrons)--so catching a proton decaying
into something else might reveal new laws of particle physics.
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contain ned a whole can of worms.
Why is time different from other dimensions?
It took millennia for scientists to realize that time is a dimension, like
the three spatial dimensions, and that time and space are inextricably
linked. The equations make sense, but they don't satisfy those who ask why
we perceive a "now" or why time seems to flow the way it does.
Are there smaller building blocks than quarks?
Atoms were "uncuttable." Then scientists discovered protons, neutrons, and
other subatomic particles--which were, in turn, shown to be made up of
quarks and gluons. Is there something more fundamental still?
Are neutrinos their own antiparticles?
Nobody knows this basic fact about neutrinos, although a number of
underground experiments are under way. Answering this question may be a
crucial step to understanding the origin of matter in the universe.
Is there a unified theory explaining all correlated electron systems?
High-temperature superconductors and materials with giant and colossal
magnetoresistance are all governed by the collective rather than individual
behavior of electrons. There is currently no common framework for
understanding them.
What is the most powerful laser researchers can build?
Theorists say an intense enough laser field would rip photons into
electron-positron pairs, dousing the beam. But no one knows whether it's
possible to reach that point.
Can researchers make a perfect optical lens?
They've done it with microwaves but never with visible light.
Is it possible to create magnetic semiconductors that work at room
temperature?
Such devices have been demonstrated at low temperatures but not yet in a
range warm enough for spintronics applications.
What is the pairing mechanism behind high-temperature superconductivity?
Electrons in superconductors surf together in pairs. After 2 decades of
intense study, no one knows what holds them together in the complex,
high-temperature materials.
Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of turbulent flows and the
motion of granular materials?
So far, such "nonequilibrium systems" defy the tool kit of statistical
mechanics, and the failure leaves a gaping hole in physics.
Are there stable high-atomic-number elements?
A superheavy element with 184 neutrons and 114 protons should be relatively
stable, if physicists can create it.
Is superfluidity possible in a solid? If so, how?
Despite hints in solid helium, nobody is sure whether a crystalline material
can flow without resistance. If new types of experiments show that such
outlandish behavior is possible, theorists would have to explain how.
What is the structure of water?
Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes
with its nearest neighbors.
What is the nature of the glassy state?
Molecules in a glass are arranged much like those in liquids but are more
tightly packed. Where and why does liquid end and glass begin?
Are there limits to rational chemical synthesis?
The larger synthetic molecules get, the harder it is to control their shapes
and make enough copies of them to be useful. Chemists will need new tools to
keep their creations growing.
What is the ultimate efficiency of photovoltaic cells?
Conventional solar cells top out at converting 32% of the energy in sunlight
to electricity. Can researchers break through the barrier?
Will fusion always be the energy source of the future?
It's been 35 years away for about 50 years, and unless the international
community gets its act together, it'll be 35 years away for many decades to
come.
What drives the solar magnetic cycle?
Scientists believe differing rates of rotation from place to place on the
sun underlie its 22-year sunspot cycle. They just can't make it work in
their simulations. Either a detail is askew, or it's back to the drawing
board.
How do planets form?
How bits of dust and ice and gobs of gas came together to form the planets
without the sun devouring them all is still unclear. Planetary systems
around other stars should provide clues.
What causes ice ages?
Something about the way the planet tilts, wobbles, and careens around the
sun presumably brings on ice ages every 100,000 years or so, but reams of
climate records haven't explained exactly how.
What causes reversals in Earth's magnetic field?
Computer models and laboratory experiments are generating new data on how
Earth's magnetic poles might flip-flop. The trick will be matching
simulations to enough aspects of the magnetic field beyond the inaccessible
core to build a convincing case.
Are there earthquake precursors that can lead to useful predictions?
Prospects for finding signs of an imminent quake have been waning since the
1970s. Understanding faults will progress, but routine prediction would
require an as-yet-unimagined breakthrough.
Is there--or was there--life elsewhere in the solar system?
The search for life--past or present--on other planetary bodies now drives
NASA's planetary exploration program, which focuses on Mars, where water
abounded when life might have first arisen.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
Can we predict how proteins will fold?
Out of a near infinitude of possible ways to fold, a protein picks one in
just tens of microseconds. The same task takes 30 years of computer time.
How many proteins are there in humans?
It has been hard enough counting genes. Proteins can be spliced in different
ways and decorated with numerous functional groups, all of which makes
counting their numbers impossible for now.
How do proteins find their partners?
Protein-protein interactions are at the heart of life. To understand how
partners come together in precise orientations in seconds, researchers need
to know more about the cell's biochemistry and structural organization.
How many forms of cell death are there?
In the 1970s, apoptosis was finally recognized as distinct from necrosis.
Some biologists now argue that the cell death story is even more
complicated. Identifying new ways cells die could lead to better treatments
for cancer and degenerative diseases.
What keeps intracellular traffic running smoothly?
Membranes inside cells transport key nutrients around, and through, various
cell compartments without sticking to each other or losing their way.
Insights into how membranes stay on track could help conquer diseases, such
as cystic fibrosis.
What enables cellular components to copy themselves independent of DNA?
Centrosomes, which help pull apart paired chromosomes, and other organelles
replicate on their own time, without DNA's guidance. This independence still
defies explanation.
What roles do different forms of RNA play in genome function?
RNA is turning out to play a dizzying assortment of roles, from potentially
passing genetic information to offspring to muting gene expression.
Scientists are scrambling to decipher this versatile molecule.
What role do telomeres and centromeres play in genome function?
These chromosome features will remain mysteries until new technologies can
sequence them.
Why are some genomes really big and others quite compact?
The puffer fish genome is 400 million bases; one lungfish's is 133 billion
bases long. Repetitive and duplicated DNA don't explain why this and other
size differences exist.
What is all that "junk" doing in our genomes?
DNA between genes is proving important for genome function and the evolution
of new species. Comparative sequencing, microarray studies, and lab work are
helping genomicists find a multitude of genetic gems amid the junk.
How much will new technologies lower the cost of sequencing?
New tools and conceptual breakthroughs are driving the cost of DNA
sequencing down by orders of magnitude. The reductions are enabling research
from personalized medicine to evolutionary biology to thrive.
How do organs and whole organisms know when to stop growing?
A person's right and left legs almost always end up the same length, and the
hearts of mice and elephants each fit the proper rib cage. How genes set
limits on cell size and number continues to mystify.
How can genome changes other than mutations be inherited?
Researchers are finding ever more examples of this process, called
epigenetics, but they can't explain what causes and preserves the changes.
How is asymmetry determined in the embryo?
Whirling cilia help an embryo tell its left from its right, but scientists
are still looking for the first factors that give a relatively uniform ball
of cells a head, tail, front, and back.
How do limbs, fins, and faces develop and evolve?
The genes that determine the length of a nose or the breadth of a wing are
subject to natural and sexual selection. Understanding how selection works
could lead to new ideas about the mechanics of evolution with respect to
development.
What triggers puberty?
Nutrition--including that received in utero--seems to help set this
mysterious biological clock, but no one knows exactly what forces childhood
to end.
Are stem cells at the heart of all cancers?
The most aggressive cancer cells look a lot like stem cells. If cancers are
caused by stem cells gone awry, studies of a cell's "stemness" may lead to
tools that could catch tumors sooner and destroy them more effectively.
Is cancer susceptible to immune control?
Although our immune responses can suppress tumor growth, tumor cells can
combat those responses with counter-measures. This defense can stymie
researchers hoping to develop immune therapies against cancer.
Can cancers be controlled rather than cured?
Drugs that cut off a tumor's fuel supplies--say, by stopping blood-vessel
growth--can safely check or even reverse tumor growth. But how long the
drugs remain effective is still unknown.
Is inflammation a major factor in all chronic diseases?
It's a driver of arthritis, but cancer and heart disease? More and more, the
answer seems to be yes, and the question remains why and how.
How do prion diseases work?
Even if one accepts that prions are just misfolded proteins, many mysteries
remain. How can they go from the gut to the brain, and how do they kill
cells once there, for example.
How much do vertebrates depend on the innate immune system to fight
infection?
This system predates the vertebrate adaptive immune response. Its relative
importance is unclear, but immunologists are working to find out.
Does immunologic memory require chronic exposure to antigens?
Yes, say a few prominent thinkers, but experiments with mice now challenge
the theory. Putting the debate to rest would require proving that something
is not there, so the question likely will not go away.
Why doesn't a pregnant woman reject her fetus?
Recent evidence suggests that the mother's immune system doesn't "realize"
that the fetus is foreign even though it gets half its genes from the
father. Yet just as Nobelist Peter Medawar said when he first raised this
question in 1952, "the verdict has yet to be returned."
What synchronizes an organism's circadian clocks?
Circadian clock genes have popped up in all types of creatures and in many
parts of the body. Now the challenge is figuring out how all the gears fit
together and what keeps the clocks set to the same time.
How do migrating organisms find their way?
Birds, butterflies, and whales make annual journeys of thousands of
kilometers. They rely on cues such as stars and magnetic fields, but the
details remain unclear.
Why do we sleep?
A sound slumber may refresh muscles and organs or keep animals safe from
dangers lurking in the dark. But the real secret of sleep probably resides
in the brain, which is anything but still while we're snoring away.
Why do we dream?
Freud thought dreaming provides an outlet for our unconscious desires. Now,
neuroscientists suspect that brain activity during REM sleep--when dreams
occur--is crucial for learning. Is the experience of dreaming just a side
effect?
Why are there critical periods for language learning?
Monitoring brain activity in young children--including infants--may shed
light on why children pick up languages with ease while adults often
struggle to learn train station basics in a foreign tongue.
Do pheromones influence human behavior?
Many animals use airborne chemicals to communicate, particularly when
mating. Controversial studies have hinted that humans too use pheromones.
Identifying them will be key to assessing their sway on our social lives.
How do general anesthetics work?
Scientists are chipping away at the drugs' effects on individual neurons,
but understanding how they render us unconscious will be a tougher nut to
crack.
What causes schizophrenia?
Researchers are trying to track down genes involved in this disorder. Clues
may also come from research on traits schizophrenics share with normal
people.
What causes autism?
Many genes probably contribute to this baffling disorder, as well as unknown
environmental factors. A biomarker for early diagnosis would help improve
existing therapy, but a cure is a distant hope.
To what extent can we stave off Alzheimer's?
A 5- to 10-year delay in this late-onset disease would improve old age for
millions. Researchers are determining whether treatments with hormones or
antioxidants, or mental and physical exercise, will help.
What is the biological basis of addiction?
Addiction involves the disruption of the brain's reward circuitry. But
personality traits such as impulsivity and sensation-seeking also play a
part in this complex behavior.
Is morality hardwired into the brain?
That question has long puzzled philosophers; now some neuroscientists think
brain imaging will reveal circuits involved in reasoning.
What are the limits of learning by machines?
Computers can already beat the world's best chess players, and they have a
wealth of information on the Web to draw on. But abstract reasoning is still
beyond any machine.
How much of personality is genetic?
Aspects of personality are influenced by genes; environment modifies the
genetic effects. The relative contributions remain under debate.
What is the biological root of sexual orientation?
Much of the "environmental" contribution to homosexuality may occur before
birth in the form of prenatal hormones, so answering this question will
require more than just the hunt for "gay genes."
Will there ever be a tree of life that systematists can agree on?
Despite better morphological, molecular, and statistical methods,
researchers' trees don't agree. Expect greater, but not complete, consensus.
How many species are there on Earth?
Count all the stars in the sky? Impossible. Count all the species on Earth?
Ditto. But the biodiversity crisis demands that we try.
What is a species?
A "simple" concept that's been muddied by evolutionary data; a clear
definition may be a long time in coming.
Why does lateral transfer occur in so many species and how?
Once considered rare, gene swapping, particularly among microbes, is proving
quite common. But why and how genes are so mobile--and the effect on
fitness--remains to be determined.
Who was LUCA (the last universal common ancestor)?
Ideas about the origin of the 1.5-billion-year-old "mother" of all complex
organisms abound. The continued discovery of primitive microbes, along with
comparative genomics, should help resolve life's deep past.
How did flowers evolve?
Darwin called this question an "abominable mystery." Flowers arose in the
cycads and conifers, but the details of their evolution remain obscure.
How do plants make cell walls?
Cellulose and pectin walls surround cells, keeping water in and supporting
tall trees. The biochemistry holds the secrets to turning its biomass into
fuel.
How is plant growth controlled?
Redwoods grow to be hundreds of meters tall, Arctic willows barely 10
centimeters. Understanding the difference could lead to higher-yielding
crops.
Why aren't all plants immune to all diseases?
Plants can mount a general immune response, but they also maintain molecular
snipers that take out specific pathogens. Plant pathologists are asking why
different species, even closely related ones, have different sets of
defenders. The answer could result in hardier crops.
What is the basis of variation in stress tolerance in plants?
We need crops that better withstand drought, cold, and other stresses. But
there are so many genes involved, in complex interactions, that no one has
yet figured out which ones work how.
What caused mass extinctions?
A huge impact did in the dinosaurs, but the search for other catastrophic
triggers of extinction has had no luck so far. If more subtle or stealthy
culprits are to blame, they will take considerably longer to find.
Can we prevent extinction? ( Key to preventing human extinction is to
overcome capitalism - CB)
Finding cost-effective and politically feasible ways to save many endangered
species requires creative thinking.
Why were some dinosaurs so large?
Dinosaurs reached almost unimaginable sizes, some in less than 20 years.
But how did the long-necked sauropods, for instance, eat enough to pack on
up to 100 tons without denuding their world?
How will ecosystems respond to global warming?
To anticipate the effects of the intensifying greenhouse, climate modelers
will have to focus on regional changes and ecologists on the right
combination of environmental changes.
How many kinds of humans coexisted in the recent past, and how did they
relate?
The new dwarf human species fossil from Indonesia suggests that at least
four kinds of humans thrived in the past 100,000 years. Better dates and
additional material will help confirm or revise this picture.
What gave rise to modern human behavior?
Did Homo sapiens acquire abstract thought, language, and art gradually or in
a cultural "big bang," which in Europe occurred about 40,000 years ago? (
Current best science puts this in Africa, not Europe - CB)
Data from Africa, where our species arose, may hold the key to the answer.
What are the roots of human culture?
No animal comes close to having humans' ability to build on previous
discoveries and pass the improvements on. What determines those differences
could help us understand how human culture evolved.
What are the evolutionary roots of language and music?
Neuroscientists exploring how we speak and make music are just beginning to
find clues as to how these prized abilities arose.
What are human races, and how did they develop? ( For biologists, this is an
obsolete questions; for social scientists, this is not an unanswered
question) - CB
Why do some countries grow and others stagnate?
What impact do large government deficits have on a country's interest rates
and economic growth rate?
Are political and economic freedom closely tied?
China may provide one answer. ( This is not a scientific question -CB)
Why has poverty increased and life expectancy declined in sub-Saharan
Africa?
Almost all efforts to reduce poverty in sub-Saharan Africa have failed.
Figuring out what will work is crucial to alleviating massive human
suffering.
The following six mathematics questions are drawn from a list of seven
outstanding problems selected by the Clay Mathematics Institute. (The
seventh problem is discussed on p. 96.) For more details, go to
www.claymath.org/millennium.
Is there a simple test for determining whether an elliptic curve has an
infinite number of rational solutions?
Can a Hodge cycle be written as a sum of algebraic cycles?
Will mathematicians unleash the power of the Navier-Stokes equations?
Does Poincaré's test identify spheres in four-dimensional space?
Do mathematically interesting zero-value solutions of the Riemann zeta
function all have the form a bi?
Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid mathematical
foundations?
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 08:56:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:09:16 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
THE QUESTIONS
The Top 25
Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science
over the next quarter-century.
Ones that can be answered...
What Is the Universe Made Of?
Aether...
What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?
neurons
Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?
We don't need more :)
To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health
Linked?
Who cares :)
Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
Yes, but not by brain-dead modernist :) It will take a
paradigm shift in the mindset is required.
How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?
Do we really want to?
What Controls Organ Regeneration?
Genetics...
How Does Earth's Interior Work?
Very well, thank you very much :) A poorly constructed
question.
Are We Alone in the Universe?
No...
How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?
Unanswerable by science.
How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?
Random chance...
Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and
Nonlocality?
Simply processes underlie these.
How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?
How hot do we want to make it?
What drove cosmic inflation?
Nothing...
What is the nature of black holes?
Figments of overfertile imaginations...
Does the proton decay?
No...
What is the nature of gravity?
Geometry, of course :) NOT! See LeSage Theory
Why is time different from other dimensions?
The same reason mass is...
Are neutrinos their own antiparticles?
Yes...
Can we develop a general theory of the dynamics of
turbulent flows and the
When we do, we'll have the foundation for the
unification of all of physics.
Does the Standard Model of particle physics rest on solid
mathematical foundations?
The lack of the Higgs should tell you someting...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 10:36:08 AM |
|
|
"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:5ujvc11jd25ek5asahpb1qblaho47g4nvb@4ax.com...
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?
[Paul Stowe]
Yes, but not by brain-dead modernist :)
It will take a paradigm shift in the mindset is required.
[hanson]
Right. So, very first you have to get "them"out of their
addiction/compulsion/fanaticism of **overselling** relativity.
But that is like asking fundamentalist Jews to become
devoted Wahabi Muslims.... ahahaha... or visa versa.
Don't hold your breath, Paul.
Meanwhile, all this NG-cajoling here is great fun.
So, let'em sing!.... All of'em.... it's a beautiful choir!
Real physics is hard skullduggery like any other job.
AHAHAHA... ahahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
08 Jul 2005 11:40:20 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 12:00:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:40:20 -0700
<42CEAC73.D223D491@hate.spam.net>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
T minus 23 days and counting. :-) I for one hope we can understand
the results.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 02:45:37 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:40:20 -0700
<42CEAC73.D223D491@hate.spam.net>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
T minus 23 days and counting. :-) I for one hope we can understand
the results.
Reset your clock. The full parity Eotvos experiment Officially
started in mid-June to complete in mid-September. The inital 30+
days... never happened.
We have an unopened fifth of Lagavulin in the pantry.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 10:00:04 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:37 -0700
<42D02961.338AB901@hate.spam.net>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:40:20 -0700
<42CEAC73.D223D491@hate.spam.net>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's
apple contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
T minus 23 days and counting. :-) I for one hope we can understand
the results.
Reset your clock. The full parity Eotvos experiment Officially
started in mid-June to complete in mid-September. The inital 30+
days... never happened.
We have an unopened fifth of Lagavulin in the pantry.
Oh. I was under the misapprehension you'd have something by
August 1st. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and scientists
and all that... :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 11:18:51 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:37 -0700
<42D02961.338AB901@hate.spam.net>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:40:20 -0700
<42CEAC73.D223D491@hate.spam.net>:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's
apple contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
T minus 23 days and counting. :-) I for one hope we can understand
the results.
Reset your clock. The full parity Eotvos experiment Officially
started in mid-June to complete in mid-September. The inital 30+
days... never happened.
We have an unopened fifth of Lagavulin in the pantry.
Oh. I was under the misapprehension you'd have something by
August 1st. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and scientists
and all that... :-)
01 August was the original target date. Mid-September is the Official
target date. The academics are taking this **very** seriously. An
unstill baseline is cause for alarm not averaging over time. Nothing
is being left to chance or a spec of dirt.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 03:00:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:18:51 -0700
<42D14A6B.73DC14C7@hate.spam.net>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:45:37 -0700
<42D02961.338AB901@hate.spam.net>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip]
T minus 23 days and counting. :-) I for one hope we can understand
the results.
Reset your clock. The full parity Eotvos experiment Officially
started in mid-June to complete in mid-September. The inital 30+
days... never happened.
We have an unopened fifth of Lagavulin in the pantry.
Oh. I was under the misapprehension you'd have something by
August 1st. Ah well, the best laid plans of mice and scientists
and all that... :-)
01 August was the original target date. Mid-September is the Official
target date. The academics are taking this **very** seriously. An
unstill baseline is cause for alarm not averaging over time. Nothing
is being left to chance or a spec of dirt.
Very well, mid-September it is, then. :-) Good luck.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 07:10:16 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
<snip>
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
It's a pity that the possible parity variation is so small.
We're not comparing apples and oranges, but Bramley apples 10cm apart
along the branch.
Hmm.
Etevos-vegetable!
Nobodies tried that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
08 Jul 2005 11:48:46 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
:-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 07:21:20 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
The second question is simply one of symmetry breaking: possibly aided
by an incomplete symmetry if it turns out one set of enantionmers was
marginally more stable because of incomplete mirror-symmetry -- which
we already have, with or without a chiral component to gravity -- but
no mystery regardless: unless every time we flip a coin the outcome is
an unfathomable mystery. We don't know the details, but that doesn't
mystify us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 01:08:22 AM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1120911680.449043.98660@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
Uncle Al wrote:
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
[Edward Green]
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
The second question is simply one of symmetry breaking: possibly aided
by an incomplete symmetry if it turns out one set of enantionmers was
marginally more stable because of incomplete mirror-symmetry -- which
we already have, with or without a chiral component to gravity -- but
no mystery regardless: unless every time we flip a coin the outcome is
an unfathomable mystery. We don't know the details, but that doesn't
mystify us.
[hanson]
Correction: one detail was provided recently by uncle Al himself
in his news:42CC8382.F4FEAD72@hate.spam.net... stating:
Al: " I looked to sci.physics as a resource to massage
Al: heterodox but empirically allowable ideas. .... I have no
Al: imaginable use for the toolbox past mid-September.
..... yeah, right!... "but THAT detail doesn't mystify us"... ahahahaha....
AHAHAHA....ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 11:39:10 AM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
You are terrifically wrong. Both Newton and Einstein's metric
gravitation are parity-even maths (tensors). Weitzenböck/Weitzenboeck
affine gravitation can be parity even (General Relativity as the
special case of the Equivalence Principle) or parity-odd
(pseudotensors). If the parity Eotvos experiment is not null output
within experimental error
1) General Relativity is then founded upon a falsified postulate.
GR is empirically wrong.
2) If space is chiral then Lorentz Invariance is falsified. Space
is empirically anisotropic. Quantum mechanics loses a founding
postulate. QM is wrong.
3) If space is demonstrably anisotropic then Noether's theorem does
not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Even mechanics is wrong
for parity masses.
4) Only heterotic string theory survives in M-theory.
As with Newton vs. Einstein, real world corrections would be very
small under modest circumstances. The Golden Gate Bridge will not
suddenly collapse, but all of physics theory must be rewritten to
correspond to observation. What we have now is demoted to heuristics.
Physics is at an impasse not because we don't know something, but
because we know something that really isn't true.
What is the chance of a parity Eotvos experiment non-null output?
50:50 straight up. There is no prior observational bias in any venue
at any scale in either direction at the experiment's sensitivity.
However,
1) No more than 0.2% of a composition Eotvos experiment test mass
can be active mass. For spin-polarized masses it is ppm at most.
Parity test masses are 100% active mass. The potential output
amplitude in the latter case is 500X that of any prior effort. Parity
is the only non-Noetherian, non-Poincare symmetry. It's a
fantastically good experiment.
2) Almost without exception, weak forces (and, of course, the Weak
Interaction) show parity violation. Gravitation is the weakest force
by far.
3) Biology is homochiral. All chiral protein amino acids are
left-handed; all chiral sugars are right-handed. Folks need a reason
for the selectivity. What they have now is execrable,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)
Chem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)
The second question is simply one of symmetry breaking: possibly aided
by an incomplete symmetry if it turns out one set of enantionmers was
marginally more stable because of incomplete mirror-symmetry -- which
we already have, with or without a chiral component to gravity -- but
no mystery regardless: unless every time we flip a coin the outcome is
an unfathomable mystery. We don't know the details, but that doesn't
mystify us.
You had better read some of the above vs. your analysis. The real
world numbers are damning.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 03:46:15 PM |
|
|
Al
It is not Isaac vs Albert for Albert is an irritating extension of
Isaac's original framehopping.
The reason these two guys can be isolated is not for the substance of
their work but the choices they give their followers,Isaac got rid of
the pesky heliocentrists and Albert extended it to all disciplines and
happy are the mathematicians forever.
So Al,after giving yourself the ultimate choice of never having to be
restrained with intuitive balances or self correction and one idea just
as good as the next you arrive like a beggar at the door of peer review
who will ask you can you give them more choices than relativity.If you
answer that relativity is already homocentric they will shut the door
in your face.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 05:37:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Al
It is not Isaac vs Albert for Albert is an irritating extension of
Isaac's original framehopping.
The reason these two guys can be isolated is not for the substance of
their work but the choices they give their followers,Isaac got rid of
the pesky heliocentrists and Albert extended it to all disciplines and
happy are the mathematicians forever.
So Al,after giving yourself the ultimate choice of never having to be
restrained with intuitive balances or self correction and one idea just
as good as the next you arrive like a beggar at the door of peer review
who will ask you can you give them more choices than relativity.If you
answer that relativity is already homocentric they will shut the door
in your face.
The full parity Eotvos experiment is running. The universe doesn't
care if you don't like the results. Theory goes where experiment
tells it to go. Your proffered gibberish is inconsequential.
Given the past 420 years of documented Equivalence Principle testing,
Ciufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995) pp. 117-119
the first hemiparity Eotvos experiment met the gold standard of
measured output. The full parity Eotvos experiment is guaranteed to
at least equal that performance. Bear in mind that Uncle Al is an
insubordinate overachiever.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 01:22:53 PM |
|
|
I can't help liking you Al and I have made a special effort to direct
you to more productive avenues just as I suggested to Dirk that
differential rotation in the mantle is a great avenue to bring the
Equatorial bulge into the realm of geology where it belongs.
Quasicrystal growth is nature ways of demonstrating optimum effeciency
for it is a facet of an enormous field of study based on the geometry
of Phi whether it is expressed as a non periodic decimal 1.618.. or a
logarythmic growth such as a seashell ,a galaxy,supernova rings,packing
problems or anywhere natural effeciency is displayed.
The antecedent of quasicrystals are those four angles 36 ,72,108 and
144 degrees.
All are arranged as a subset of 432 degrees representing a balance
between pentagonal and hexagonal geometry for when you divide 432
degrees by Pi you get the golden angle value of 137.50 degrees just as
dividing 360 degrees by Phi generates the same value.
Go ahead and try it and you will see the outline of something exciting
in what remains of this post-homocentric era.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 11:13:42 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[snip]
Quasicrystal growth is nature ways of demonstrating optimum effeciency
for it is a facet of an enormous field of study based on the geometry
of Phi whether it is expressed as a non periodic decimal 1.618.. or a
logarythmic growth such as a seashell ,a galaxy,supernova rings,packing
problems or anywhere natural effeciency is displayed.
[snip]
Quasicrystals and icosahedral alloys are 3-D projections of 5- or 6-D
geometries. Look it up before you spew.
http://www.jcrystal.com/steffenweber/qc.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v56/i8/p861_1
Go ahead and try it and you will see the outline of something exciting
in what remains of this post-homocentric era.
Buncha crap. Iscosahedral space groups are not periodic lattices nor
are any of them chiral. They are irrelevant to Equivalence Principle
testing.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
11 Jul 2005 09:01:25 AM |
|
|
Well this is something new.
Thanks for the reference website but you are going in the wrong
direction with Icosahedral symmetry,the geometry of quasicrystals and
their antecedent non periodic tiling reflect a single 'Prime' dimension
rather than a blizzard of dimensions above 3 dimensions.
That Prime dimension is reflected by 432 degrees because it is where
the non periodic tiling becomes periodic ,look -
432 deg
/
/
/
/
/
/
324 deg ////////////////////// 108 deg
/ / /
/ / / 36 deg
/ / /
/ / /
288 deg / 72 deg / 144 deg
/
216 deg
Don't worry Al,even John Conway had trouble with this one and I don't
blame you for returning to the cozy vocabulary of equivalence
principles ect. but I have much better material to work with and direct
to avenues you people would'nt believe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 06:50:00 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
geraldkelleher@hotmail.com wrote:
Al
It is not Isaac vs Albert for Albert is an irritating extension of
Isaac's original framehopping.
The reason these two guys can be isolated is not for the substance of
their work but the choices they give their followers,Isaac got rid of
the pesky heliocentrists and Albert extended it to all disciplines and
happy are the mathematicians forever.
So Al,after giving yourself the ultimate choice of never having to be
restrained with intuitive balances or self correction and one idea just
as good as the next you arrive like a beggar at the door of peer review
who will ask you can you give them more choices than relativity.If you
answer that relativity is already homocentric they will shut the door
in your face.
The full parity Eotvos experiment is running. The universe doesn't
care if you don't like the results. Theory goes where experiment
tells it to go. Your proffered gibberish is inconsequential.
Given the past 420 years of documented Equivalence Principle testing,
Ciufolini & Wheeler, "Gravitation and Inertia" (Princeton University
Press: Princeton, 1995) pp. 117-119
Excellent reference--3.4.1. Gravitational Deflection of
Electromagnetic Waves.
the first hemiparity Eotvos experiment met the gold standard of
measured output. The full parity Eotvos experiment is guaranteed to
at least equal that performance. Bear in mind that Uncle Al is an
insubordinate overachiever.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 08:46:06 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:39:10 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
You are terrifically wrong. Both Newton and Einstein's metric
gravitation are parity-even maths (tensors). Weitzenböck/Weitzenboeck
affine gravitation can be parity even (General Relativity as the
special case of the Equivalence Principle) or parity-odd
(pseudotensors). If the parity Eotvos experiment is not null output
within experimental error
1) General Relativity is then founded upon a falsified postulate.
GR is empirically wrong.
2) If space is chiral then Lorentz Invariance is falsified. Space
is empirically anisotropic. Quantum mechanics loses a founding
postulate. QM is wrong.
I'm a bit puzzled by this claim. Seems to me the whole model of
space-time as an infinitely differentiable 4 dimension pseudo
manifold could be only approximate while the bulk of QM still
remain correct.
3) If space is demonstrably anisotropic then Noether's theorem does
not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Even mechanics is wrong
for parity masses.
I don't view Noether's theorem and particularly deep. Its usefulness
is wrapped up with canonical quantization which itself is some form
of fudge to extract a useful QM description from a classical limit.
4) Only heterotic string theory survives in M-theory.
A shame you can't whack all strings with one fell swoop.
As with Newton vs. Einstein, real world corrections would be very
small under modest circumstances. The Golden Gate Bridge will not
suddenly collapse, but all of physics theory must be rewritten to
correspond to observation. What we have now is demoted to heuristics.
Physics is at an impasse not because we don't know something, but
because we know something that really isn't true.
What is the chance of a parity Eotvos experiment non-null output?
50:50 straight up. There is no prior observational bias in any venue
at any scale in either direction at the experiment's sensitivity.
However,
1) No more than 0.2% of a composition Eotvos experiment test mass
can be active mass. For spin-polarized masses it is ppm at most.
Parity test masses are 100% active mass. The potential output
amplitude in the latter case is 500X that of any prior effort. Parity
is the only non-Noetherian, non-Poincare symmetry. It's a
fantastically good experiment.
2) Almost without exception, weak forces (and, of course, the Weak
Interaction) show parity violation. Gravitation is the weakest force
by far.
3) Biology is homochiral. All chiral protein amino acids are
left-handed; all chiral sugars are right-handed. Folks need a reason
for the selectivity. What they have now is execrable,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)
Chem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)
The second question is simply one of symmetry breaking: possibly aided
by an incomplete symmetry if it turns out one set of enantionmers was
marginally more stable because of incomplete mirror-symmetry -- which
we already have, with or without a chiral component to gravity -- but
no mystery regardless: unless every time we flip a coin the outcome is
an unfathomable mystery. We don't know the details, but that doesn't
mystify us.
You had better read some of the above vs. your analysis. The real
world numbers are damning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 11:26:29 AM |
|
|
"J. Horta" wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:39:10 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
You are terrifically wrong. Both Newton and Einstein's metric
gravitation are parity-even maths (tensors). Weitzenböck/Weitzenboeck
affine gravitation can be parity even (General Relativity as the
special case of the Equivalence Principle) or parity-odd
(pseudotensors). If the parity Eotvos experiment is not null output
within experimental error
1) General Relativity is then founded upon a falsified postulate.
GR is empirically wrong.
2) If space is chiral then Lorentz Invariance is falsified. Space
is empirically anisotropic. Quantum mechanics loses a founding
postulate. QM is wrong.
I'm a bit puzzled by this claim. Seems to me the whole model of
space-time as an infinitely differentiable 4 dimension pseudo
manifold could be only approximate while the bulk of QM still
remain correct.
Thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity
First we get the full parity Eotvos experiment results. Then we
either validate the Equivalence Principle, again, or let other do the
fancy tap dancing. Physical theory can predict almost ANYTHING -
directly, by perturbation theory, or with Yukawa fringing. We are
woefully short on disjoint experiments because... they might fail.
Who would fund failure?
3) If space is demonstrably anisotropic then Noether's theorem does
not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Even mechanics is wrong
for parity masses.
I don't view Noether's theorem and particularly deep. Its usefulness
is wrapped up with canonical quantization which itself is some form
of fudge to extract a useful QM description from a classical limit.
I suspect that is not a popular opinion. Either way, parity is not a
Notherian or Poincare group symmetry. It's a really good disjoint
experiment. If it nulls, WTF, so has everythinge else. It is the
only observable that might succeeed.
4) Only heterotic string theory survives in M-theory.
A shame you can't whack all strings with one fell swoop.
M-theory is not wrong, it's merely sloppy. Needs empirical pruning.
Since M-theory has no predictions, we go after its postulates.
Postulates cannot be defended or they would not be postulates.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "J. Horta" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 12:19:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 09:26:29 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
"J. Horta" wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:39:10 -0700, Uncle Al wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/
[snip]
What is the nature of gravity?
It clashes with quantum theory. It doesn't fit in the Standard Model.
Nobody has spotted the particle that is responsible for it. Newton's apple
contained a whole can of worms.
What is the origin of homochirality in nature?
Most biomolecules can be synthesized in mirror-image shapes. Yet in
organisms, amino acids are always left-handed, and sugars are always
right-handed. The origins of this preference remain a mystery.
It might be 123 questions by mid-September. The full parity Eotvos
experiment is running.
Best of luck to you, Al, but I don't see how any positive or negative
result to your experiment is going to answer either of those questions.
The first is ridiculously vague, while the second is silly.
We already knew something about the "nature of gravity" after Newton,
considerably more after Einstein, and in the future presumably more
still. Your experiment may be provocative and even potentially
startling, but will not light up a bulb which says "Aha! Now we know
the nature of gravity".
You are terrifically wrong. Both Newton and Einstein's metric
gravitation are parity-even maths (tensors). Weitzenböck/Weitzenboeck
affine gravitation can be parity even (General Relativity as the
special case of the Equivalence Principle) or parity-odd
(pseudotensors). If the parity Eotvos experiment is not null output
within experimental error
1) General Relativity is then founded upon a falsified postulate.
GR is empirically wrong.
2) If space is chiral then Lorentz Invariance is falsified. Space
is empirically anisotropic. Quantum mechanics loses a founding
postulate. QM is wrong.
I'm a bit puzzled by this claim. Seems to me the whole model of
space-time as an infinitely differentiable 4 dimension pseudo
manifold could be only approximate while the bulk of QM still
remain correct.
Thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity
First we get the full parity Eotvos experiment results. Then we
either validate the Equivalence Principle, again, or let other do the
fancy tap dancing. Physical theory can predict almost ANYTHING -
directly, by perturbation theory, or with Yukawa fringing. We are
woefully short on disjoint experiments because... they might fail.
Who would fund failure?
One has to examine the underpinnings of such a equation. At its root
is the assumption that one may one-to-one map operator distributions
onto a manifold at every level of precision. This assertion may simply
be false. Your experiment is just that, an experiment which adds to
our knowledge. All I'm saying is the part of theory which may be broken
is not QM but rather the model of space-time.
3) If space is demonstrably anisotropic then Noether's theorem does
not enforce conservation of angular momentum. Even mechanics is wrong
for parity masses.
I don't view Noether's theorem and particularly deep. Its usefulness
is wrapped up with canonical quantization which itself is some form
of fudge to extract a useful QM description from a classical limit.
I suspect that is not a popular opinion. Either way, parity is not a
Notherian or Poincare group symmetry. It's a really good disjoint
experiment. If it nulls, WTF, so has everythinge else. It is the
only observable that might succeeed.
Popular or not its very likely accurate. QM was developed as an
incremental step from classical physics. Sometimes canonical
quantization works, sometimes it doesn't. There are many aspects
of current theory which are vestiges of classical thinking and
bias. Using manifolds as the starting point for theories (this
includes all M-theory and string theory variants) may simply
not be the correct starting point. It is like constructing a theory
from its limit.
4) Only heterotic string theory survives in M-theory.
A shame you can't whack all strings with one fell swoop.
M-theory is not wrong, it's merely sloppy. Needs empirical pruning.
Since M-theory has no predictions, we go after its postulates.
Postulates cannot be defended or they would not be postulates.
I'd rather see us go after more facts. This is what your experiment
is about. All the rest is to justify it for the masses.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
11 Jul 2005 02:06:58 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
M-theory is not wrong, it's merely sloppy. Needs empirical pruning.
Since M-theory has no predictions, we go after its postulates.
Postulates cannot be defended or they would not be postulates.
M-theory is the presumed quantization of 11-D supergravity. The
significance of 11-D is that this is the smallest number of dimensions
capable of supporting SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) in a Kaluza-Klein setting
(1-D for U(1), 2-D at minimum for SU(2), 4-D at minimum for SU(3)); but
also the largest number of dimensions for a supergravity before spin
5/2,3,7/2,... stuff starts coming in -- which nobody believes is
consistent.
The Dirac spinor psi has 32 components in 10-D and 11-D. Look
familiar?
Hint:
left & right electron
left & right neutrino
left & right positron
left & right anti-neutrino
left & right red up quark & red down quark
left & right green up quark & green down quark
left & right blue up quark & blue down quark
left & right cyan anti-up & cyan anti-down
left & right amber anti-up & amber anti-down
left & right magneta anti-up & magneta anti-down
That's 32 (32, that is, for each generation).
That's only if there's a right neutrino and left anti-neutrino -- which
means the neutrino would be a (parity-symmetric) Dirac spinor, not a
(massive parity non-symmetric) Majorana or (massless, parity
non-symmetric) Weyl spinor.
They line up real nice and neat, too
Y = Hypercharge, scaled to -1 for right electron
G = (Baryon - Lepton)/2
I3 = Weak isospin (scaled to +1/2 for left neutrino)
L3, L8 = The two components of the SU(3) charge (scaled to (cos(n pi/3)
sin(n pi/3)) divided by 3^{1/2} for the quarks)
Y-G I3 I^2 States
+1/2 0 0 Right neutrino/up; left positron/anti-down
-1/2 0 0 Right electron/down; left anti-neutrino/anti-up
0 +1/2 3/4 Left neutrino/up; right positron/anti-down
0 -1/2 3/4 Left electron/down; right anti-neutrino/anti-up
(I^2 = I1^2 + I2^2 + I3^2)
I^2 + 3(Y-G)^2 = 3/4
G L3 L8 L^2 States
1/2 0 0 0 "White" (positron/anti-neutrino)
1/6 1/2 sqrt(1/12) 4/3 Red quarks
1/6 0 -sqrt(1/3) 4/3 Green quarks
1/6 -1/2 sqrt(1/12) 4/3 Blue quarks
-1/6 1/2 -sqrt(1/12) 4/3 Amber quarks
-1/6 0 sqrt(1/3) 4/3 Magneta quarks
-1/6 -1/2 -sqrt(1/12) 4/3 Cyan quarks
-1/2 0 0 4/3 "Black" (electron/neutrino)
(L^2 = L1^2 + ... + L8^2)
L^2 + 6 G^2 = 3/2
The punchline is that the 32 is captured by 11-D supergravity, but the
regularity might not be :)
(The extra "charge" corresponding ot G is unseen and if it existed
would mean an extra U(1) in SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), which would probably
require a dimension #12).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
09 Jul 2005 08:15:17 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
You are terrifically wrong.
Possibly. I will not insist. Let's elaborate my second point, your
3...
3) Biology is homochiral. All chiral protein amino acids are
left-handed; all chiral sugars are right-handed.
Just tell me what you mean by "left handed" and "right handed" here.
The direction of rotation of polarized light? Or something else? (I
seem to remember it was startling news to some chemists a few years ago
that these phrases didn't mean all that much, beyond possibly the
direction of rotation of the plane of polarized light -- so please
don't give me the "you dolt" response).
Folks need a reason for the selectivity.
If indeed whole families of molecules rotate light in the same way,
indeed some explanation seems possible and necessary, since rolling a
die the same way 20 or even 10 times is certainly statistically
significant. The likely form such an explanation would take would be
correlating the rotation with some persistent optically active moity of
the molecules, and considering the likely evolutionary history of the
molecules: they form classes for a reason -- they are modifications of
an ancestral form, and hence correlated in structure.
On the other hand, if you want an "explanation" of why biochemistry is
the way it is and not its mirror image, then I persist in saying no
such explanation is necessary beyond chance. If there is a significant
thermodynamic advantage to the observed system vs. the unobserved
system because of chirality of space or elementary interactions, great:
if not, it's still no more mystery than a coin flip. Given any
chemistry of life which employs chiral molecules -- which seems
inevitable given that almost all molecules of sufficient complexity are
bound to have chiral centers -- then we know mirror images of any of
the chiral parts might as well be completely unrelated compounds: they
just don't fit. But why, given the theoretical ability to flip the
entire system and make a working mirror model, isn't this observed?
That would simply go back to the millions of monkeys on millions of
typewriters who "designed" the first self-perpetuating bits: the first
self-sustaining chance combination won the race, that's all.
Symmetry breaking need no particular "explanation" for which way the
pencil fell.
<...>
You had better read some of the above vs. your analysis. The real
world numbers are damning.
In what sense? That there is no energetic advantage to the observed
system? No problem: see above. Or there is an energetic advantage?
The only thing I could see which would be really disturbing would be
for a significant calculated advantage, given current theory, in the
wrong direction.
By the way, I'm going to cheat, and respond to one part of your first
response though I said I wouldn't: chirality of space would mean
anisotropy? Is that true? We'd have to resort to some technical
definitions, no doubt, but off-hand that doesn't sound right: every
direction in space could be perfectly equivalent, simply with the same
twist. Or are you claiming that chirality of space would imply a
preferred axis, much as space filled with plane polarized light has a
preferred axis: the beam axis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 11:16:28 AM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
You are terrifically wrong.
Possibly. I will not insist. Let's elaborate my second point, your
3...
3) Biology is homochiral. All chiral protein amino acids are
left-handed; all chiral sugars are right-handed.
Just tell me what you mean by "left handed" and "right handed" here.
The direction of rotation of polarized light? Or something else? (I
seem to remember it was startling news to some chemists a few years ago
that these phrases didn't mean all that much, beyond possibly the
direction of rotation of the plane of polarized light -- so please
don't give me the "you dolt" response).
Configuration of the chiral center alpha-carbon in either one.
Standard definition. Protein amino acid optical rotation can be
concentration, pH, and temperature dependent. Sugars have multiple
chiral centers and can be optically meso overall.
Folks need a reason for the selectivity.
If indeed whole families of molecules rotate light in the same way,
indeed some explanation seems possible and necessary, since rolling a
die the same way 20 or even 10 times is certainly statistically
significant. The likely form such an explanation would take would be
correlating the rotation with some persistent optically active moity of
the molecules, and considering the likely evolutionary history of the
molecules: they form classes for a reason -- they are modifications of
an ancestral form, and hence correlated in structure.
Optical rotation is not 1:1 coupled to chiral center configuration.
Epitaxially grown sodium chlorate and bromate have opposite optical
rotations despite being isomorphous. Plus the preceding about temp,
conc. and pH. Also metal chelation. ORD depends on wavelength,
including anomalous dispersion.
Summation of ORD over the entire EM spectrum comes to zero: f-sum
rule, Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn sum rule, Kramers-Kronig relationship. The
sum over (n-1), n being refractive index, across the electromagnetic
spectrum is zero. The difference between two (n) for orthogonal
polarizations sums to zero overall.
On the other hand, if you want an "explanation" of why biochemistry is
the way it is and not its mirror image, then I persist in saying no
such explanation is necessary beyond chance. If there is a significant
thermodynamic advantage to the observed system vs. the unobserved
system because of chirality of space or elementary interactions, great:
if not, it's still no more mystery than a coin flip. Given any
chemistry of life which employs chiral molecules -- which seems
inevitable given that almost all molecules of sufficient complexity are
bound to have chiral centers -- then we know mirror images of any of
the chiral parts might as well be completely unrelated compounds: they
just don't fit. But why, given the theoretical ability to flip the
entire system and make a working mirror model, isn't this observed?
That would simply go back to the millions of monkeys on millions of
typewriters who "designed" the first self-perpetuating bits: the first
self-sustaining chance combination won the race, that's all.
Symmetry breaking need no particular "explanation" for which way the
pencil fell.
No. There would be a tremendous evolutionary advantage for an
autotroph to be of no nutritive value to a heterotroph. One expects
to see mirror image life.
<...>
You had better read some of the above vs. your analysis. The real
world numbers are damning.
In what sense? That there is no energetic advantage to the observed
system? No problem: see above. Or there is an energetic advantage?
The only thing I could see which would be really disturbing would be
for a significant calculated advantage, given current theory, in the
wrong direction.
Compare Weak Interaction /_\/_\H to kT. Read the cited references.
The rationalizations for chiral amplification are appalling.
By the way, I'm going to cheat, and respond to one part of your first
response though I said I wouldn't: chirality of space would mean
anisotropy? Is that true? We'd have to resort to some technical
definitions, no doubt, but off-hand that doesn't sound right: every
direction in space could be perfectly equivalent, simply with the same
twist. Or are you claiming that chirality of space would imply a
preferred axis, much as space filled with plane polarized light has a
preferred axis: the beam axis.
If local parity test masses in vacuum fall differently, the obvious
explanation is a diasteromeric interaction with space - chiral space.
I don't know how to build an isotropic chiral lattice or space - do
you? Furnish an example. Uncle Al is not a mathematician. It might
be a trivial exercise.
Whatever you create, linearly polarized photons must propagate without
rotation of their plane of polarization,
http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/aniso/
One might then expect a coupling to teh Higgs mechanism only.
If P3(1)21 vs, P3(2)21 single crystal quartz test amsses give null
output in the parity Eotvos experiment, it is all moot. If there is a
reproducible statistically significant net output, a very large cadre
of professionals will provide answers. The observation will then be
"trivial." Let's hope it racks up a few thousand citations before
that occurs.
Remember, we're talking estimated parts-per-trillion
difference/average. Preceding theory would fall; preceding
measurements are not affected.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Mag's top 125 unanswered questions |
10 Jul 2005 11:39:44 PM |
| | | | | | |
