Equinox challenge to Newton's law
Zeeya Merali
31 March 2007
IF, FOR some reason, you managed to make an egg stand on its end during the
recent equinox, experimental physicists could do with your help. An
exquisitely sensitive experiment that can only be performed during equinoxes
could test some of the theories that offer an alternative to dark matter.
Stars on the outskirts of galaxies are moving much faster than can be
explained by the gravity of visible matter. To account for the extra
gravity, astronomers have proposed the existence of dark matter. In the
1980s, Mordechai Milgrom, then at Princeton University, suggested that the
observations could also be explained by tweaking Newton's law of gravity.
Milgrom's theory of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) has since evolved
into two forms: gravitational MOND, which modifies the inverse-square law of
gravity, and inertial MOND, which modifies Newton's second law of motion.
In both cases, when objects are moving with an acceleration above a certain
threshold, a0, the well-known laws hold true. When the acceleration falls
below a0, the laws are modified slightly to explain, for example, the speed
of stars at the edges of galaxies. The value of a0 is about a billionth of
the acceleration due to Earth's gravity, so the effects of MOND cannot
ordinarily be seen on Earth. This means astronomers have had to rely on
observations of galaxies and galaxy clusters to test MOND. Now, Alex
Ignatiev, at the Theoretical Physics Research Institute in Melbourne,
Australia, is proposing a way to test inertial MOND on Earth.
The key is to find a time and place when the acceleration felt by a test
object would be zero. Not an easy task, since besides Earth's gravity, our
planet's rotation and its motion around the sun also set up forces that
accelerate objects beyond the MOND limit. However, Ignatiev's calculations
show that along latitudes of about 80° north or south, passing through
northern Greenland and Antarctica, at two precise times of year, these
forces cancel each other out.
The window of opportunity to do any tests is extremely narrow, though. The
forces only negate each other for about a millisecond on two days close to
the vernal and autumnal equinoxes. At those precise times and places, if
Newton's second law of motion is correct at all accelerations, a mass should
feel no force. But if inertial MOND is correct, Ignatiev's calculations show
that there will be a slight residual force, causing the mass to jerk by
about 10-12 metres (Physical Review Letters, vol 98, p 101101).
Picking up such a small movement seems daunting, but Ignatiev points out
that experimentalists have already constructed gravitational-wave detectors
that can measure even smaller movements. He suggests using a similar
detector for the experiment. "It won't be simple," says Ignatiev, "but it
can be feasible."
"A positive result would have such tremendous implications for dark matter,"
says HongSheng Zhao, an astronomer at the University of St Andrews in the
UK, who works on MOND. "We should do this experiment in the near future."
A negative result would rule out inertial MOND, but would still leave open
the possibility that gravitational MOND is correct. To test this, Zhao says,
similar experiments should be carried out on a spacecraft at a point between
the Earth and the moon where the gravitational pull of each is equal.
While theoretical physicists such as Ignatiev and Zhao are enthusiastic
about the test, Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington in Seattle,
who works on high-precision tests of gravity, is less convinced. "The idea
is great in theory, but in practice it will be tough," he says. "It'll be
difficult to persuade anyone to hike around Greenland to measure it."
From issue 2597 of New Scientist magazine, 31 March 2007, page 15
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19325974.300?DCMP=NLC-nletter
&nsref=mg19325974.300
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Eric Gisse - 30 Mar 2007 02:05 GMT
On Mar 29, 4:55 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
[...]
The obvious consequence is that the effect will mimic gravitational
shielding for a brief moment - something folks have been trying to
find for years but never quite found. The turd that is the Allias
effect just got a new paint job and a marginal degree of credibility.
> While theoretical physicists such as Ignatiev and Zhao are enthusiastic
> about the test, Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington in Seattle,
> who works on high-precision tests of gravity, is less convinced. "The idea
> is great in theory, but in practice it will be tough," he says. "It'll be
> difficult to persuade anyone to hike around Greenland to measure it."
I'm getting the impression that Adelberger doesn't like new ideas.
> From issue 2597 of New Scientist magazine, 31 March 2007, page 15http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19325974.300?DCMP=...
>
> Posted by
> Robert Karl Stonjek
Uncle Al - 30 Mar 2007 16:41 GMT
> On Mar 29, 4:55 pm, "Robert Karl Stonjek" <ston...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I'm getting the impression that Adelberger doesn't like new ideas.
If one reads Adelberger's projected Equivalence Principle research,
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/epFuture.html>
one sees Adelberger is wholly content to repeat measuring zero to
another decimal place. He is adamant about new experiments - zero
innovation. I talked with the man, face to face, in 1994. After 420+
years of exactly measuring differential zero in every and all EP
tests, he will not risk not measuring zero by contrasting left- and
right-handed quartz test masses.
Organikers have "umpolung" ("reversal of poles"). When a synthetic
transformation persistently craps out we yell "umpolung!" and try the
opposite (conditions, strategy, tactics). It can't do any worse, it
works with surprising regularity, and we do not wait 420 years to try
it.
About Adelberger's Be/Ti composition dipole: Correcting for isotopic
abundance and respective nuclear binding energies, difference/average
nuclear binding energy divergence...
J.H. Gundlach, New J. Phys. 7 205 (2005)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/
R. Newman, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 2407 (2001)
http://www.physics.uci.edu/gravity/
p =938.271998 MeV
n =939.565330 Me
Be= 6.462844 MeV/baryon weighted average binding energy
Mg= 8.265129 MeV/baryon weighted average binding energy
Ti= 8.714634 MeV/baryon weighted average binding energy
[Ti-Be]/[(30.9300n+26p)/56.9300]=0.002398 of mass is divergent
[Mg-Be]/[(17.3202n+16p)/33.3202]=0.001919 of mass is divergent
http://t2.lanl.gov/data/astro/molnix96/massd.html
Mass distribution parity divergence of atomic nuclei for benzil is
0.999713 of total mass (electrons ignored). That is a factor of 417
better than Adelberger and 520 better than Newman. A 10^(-13)
sensitivity composition Eötvös experiment is a 10^(-18) sensitivity
calorimetry parity experiment for improved signal amplitude and
greater fraction of active mass. Is a factor of 33,000 or 41,000
overall a significant improvement? It is real world better than
MiniSTEP's best extrapolation, and does not cost $130 million or need
a rocket.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
A parity calorimetry experiment is the *only* large amplitude
Equivalence Principle violation that can give a multiple-sigma
differential output and still be consistent with all prior observation
plus be modeled by orthodox theory (Einstein-Cartan;
affine,teleparallel, noncommutative gravitations).
For all its acknowledged expertise and justly deserved reputation, the
Eot-Wash group is remarkably boring every time it loads the
apparatus. My grannies would each call that a "shande," and my
Russkie grannie would add "nekulturny."

Signature
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse - 30 Mar 2007 20:48 GMT
[...]
How's your Benzil run going?
Uncle Al - 30 Mar 2007 22:40 GMT
> [...]
>
> How's your Benzil run going?
Analytical fellas are not the most facile crystal growers from
solvent. It must not be done near the melting point or plastic
deformation obtains. He pledged Summer 2007. I'm thinking
Christmas. After almost eight years, what's the rush?
It's a one-shot if it has a null output. Perfection and optimization
are important. Physical reality is patient.

Signature
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Eric Gisse - 31 Mar 2007 08:54 GMT
> EricGissewrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> deformation obtains. He pledged Summer 2007. I'm thinking
> Christmas. After almost eight years, what's the rush?
Now I know what *I* want for Christmas :D
> It's a one-shot if it has a null output. Perfection and optimization
> are important. Physical reality is patient.
>
> --
> Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th - 30 Mar 2007 02:34 GMT
> Equinox challenge to Newton's law
> Zeeya Merali
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia, is proposing a way to test
> inertial MOND on Earth.
How does MOND explain the Bullet cluster gravitational lensing?
Klazmon.
Eric Gisse - 30 Mar 2007 04:49 GMT
On Mar 29, 5:34 pm, Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
<Klaz...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote:
[...]
> How does MOND explain the Bullet cluster gravitational lensing?
It can't and doesn't.
> Klazmon.
Sam Wormley - 30 Mar 2007 05:05 GMT
> Equinox challenge to Newton's law
> Zeeya Merali
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> into two forms: gravitational MOND, which modifies the inverse-square law of
> gravity, and inertial MOND, which modifies Newton's second law of motion.
Counter-example to MOND
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News
21 Aug 2006 - NASA announced updated information about the "bullet
cluster" 1E0657-56 today. Two clusters of galaxies have recently
collided in this X-ray source. This cluster is filled with hot gas
so X-ray observations by the Chandra X-ray Observatory show where
the ordinary matter is located. 90% of the ordinary matter (the
"baryonic" matter) is hot gas.
The new results [Clowe et al., Bradac et al.] use gravitational
lensing of background galaxies to show where the sources of gravity
are located. The sources of gravity in the cluster are not located
where the ordinary matter is located, so this cluster is a
counter-example to MOND. All of this was known in 2003 but with
less precision. Sean Carroll has a nice post about this at Cosmic
Variance.
The Matter of the Bullet Cluster
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060824.html
Explanation: The matter in galaxy cluster 1E 0657-56, fondly known
as the "bullet cluster", is shown in this composite image. A mere
3.4 billion light-years away, the bullet cluster's individual
galaxies are seen in the optical image data, but their total mass
adds up to far less than the mass of the cluster's two clouds of
hot x-ray emitting gas shown in red. Representing even more mass
than the optical galaxies and x-ray gas combined, the blue hues
show the distribution of dark matter in the cluster. Otherwise
invisible to telescopic views, the dark matter was mapped by
observations of gravitational lensing of background galaxies.
In a text book example of a shock front, the bullet-shaped cloud of
gas at the right was distorted during the titanic collision between
two galaxy clusters that created the larger bullet cluster itself.
But the dark matter present has not interacted with the cluster gas
except by gravity. The clear separation of dark matter and gas
clouds is considered direct evidence that dark matter exists.
Uncle Al - 30 Mar 2007 16:00 GMT
[snip]
> The window of opportunity to do any tests is extremely narrow, though. The
> forces only negate each other for about a millisecond on two days close to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that there will be a slight residual force, causing the mass to jerk by
> about 10-12 metres (Physical Review Letters, vol 98, p 101101).
[snip]
> While theoretical physicists such as Ignatiev and Zhao are enthusiastic
> about the test, Eric Adelberger of the University of Washington in Seattle,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> From issue 2597 of New Scientist magazine, 31 March 2007, page 15
> http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19325974.300?DCMP=NLC-nletter
&nsref=mg19325974.300
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7134/full/446357a.html>
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0612159
Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 101101
Read the literature. "New Scientist" is sensationalist noise.
MOND is a fitted theory. It does not scale.
1) The geographic sweet spots could be 100 cm in diameter.
2) The anomaly's two antipodal locations are controlled by all
local major masses - sun, moon; planets and asteroids/near Earth
objects for fine tuning.
3) The published expected anomalous displacement - read it, chump -
is 2x10^(-17) m or ~1/50 proton diameter "over a period of 0.5
millisecond."
Thermal vibration is typically 1-3% of chemical bond length. A
plausible detector would then be some kind of extremely isolated very
long pathlength ultracryogenic multiple-pass interferometer with
quantum-entangled mirrors whose bleeding edge technolgical sensitivity
might give you a sigma of signal over noise. The active mirror must
be exactly in the sweet spot - whose longitude massively wanders
equinox to equinox. Optimized LIGO would be iffy even if one mirror
could be exactly located and placed. Not f.cking Likely.
Best quote from Ignatiev's *scholarly* article: "If we again ignore
the lunar and planetary effects"

Signature
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2