Talk:Eötvös experiment

Clarification
Noether's theorem: Every continuous symmetry is coupled to a conserved observable; every conserved observable is coupled to a continuous symmetry - hence the symmetry-property table. No observable coupled to an internal (gauge) symmetry can first-order affect rotation or translation. Any Eötvös experiment opposing internal symmetries' observables (e.g., baryon number) must first-order fail (null, give no net ouput). Why bother doing it?

The only discontinuous external symmetry is parity. Parity is unconstrained by Noether's theorem. Opposing chemically identical opposite parity mass distributions, a parity Eötvös experiment, is the only really interesting Eötvös experiment.

An Eötvös experiment opposes test masses in a vertical torsion balance, http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/experiments/equivalencePrinciple/newWashPendulum.jpg Only the net difference of a shared property is active mass. Composition variables are a very small fraction of total mass at the start, hence that table. The difference of two small numbers is smaller still. Parity divergence arises in part from difference of the squares of the distances between a mass distribution and the best fit to corresponding points of its superposed mirror image reflected along all three axes, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/invert.gif Only considering atomic nuclei, 99.97% of opposite parity test masses is active mass. That is a 400X increase in signal over the best composition Eötvös experiments for the same loaded total mass. How does one locate and compare locations of all atomic nuclei in lumps of stuff? The relative positions of all nuclei are known in single crystals (in principle - grow quality crystals) given crystal structure data: Crystallographic space group; unit cell axis lengths a,b,c; unit cell angles α,β,γ; and unique atom fractional coordinates within the unit cell - e.g., a standard CIF file. Quantitative parity divergence of a mass distribution can be calculated using Petitjean's QCM software, J. Math. Phys. 40(9) 4587 (1999) and http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.freeware.html#QCM CHI=zero is achiral, CHI=1 is perfectly parity divergent. Petitjean and I calculated quartz with a powerful subset of QCM, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qzdense.png Sold single crystal α-quartz is a winner. So is cinnabar, http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/hgsdense.png A centimeter test mass is 10^7 angstroms or log(radius)=7. As you can see, 1-CHI rapidly deeply approaches zero, or CHI rapidly deeply approaches perfect CHI=one.

How's that, folks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.79.254 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is somewhat inconsistent - what does the Noether theorem have to do with Eotvos experiment? I see no point in putting information about symmetries etc. next to the history of the experiment.

If physics were moving along without problems, why make trouble? Physics has been in crisis since 1970 and non-classical gravitation. Nothing holds together, theoretical predictions versus observation. Things are getting much worse way down where they should be stable,

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-totally-mean-it-inflation-never.html

Physics is no fool about symmetries and rigorous derivations. Whatever is wrong is hidden in a postulate, perhaps as an unexpected (and unwanted) trace symmetry breaking. Euclid is rigorous, but Euclid cannot accurately plot deep sea navigation. The shortest distance between two points on the Earth's surface is a Great Circle. Great Circles are non-Euclidean geometry. As soon as folks did serious Atlantic and Pacific crossings, Euclid was toast. 300 years later, the toast popped (Bolyai). How could accepted theory be wrong, other than demonstrably not working?

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

This is a testable alternative to the exact Equivalence Principle, executed as geometric Eötvös experiments with observationally consistent side effects. It tests for a trace vacuum symmetry breaking of postulated exactly achiral isotropic space. Noethers' theorems then leak exact conservation, sourcing some of physics' nastiest problems - baryogenesis and the Tully-Fisher relation. Look. The worst it can do is succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:1101:F00:54C3:B10A:B8AE:2E5A (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The second half of the article is terrible
When the article begins to discuss Noether's theorem, it becomes incomprehensible to anyone who's unfamiliar with Noether's theorem. (And, I suspect, it doesn't make much sense even to a person familiar with Noether's theorem.) This part of the article needs extensive work. 71.219.236.253 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The second half of the article seems to be the work of a solidly crazy crackpot who runs a pseudoscience website at. Warning, plenty of racism for good measure as well. Since what's in this article is now nonsense, I'm removing the entire bad section. Vonspringer (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That website is one of the most gloriously nutty bits of scientifically literate gibberish I've ever read, its like timecube if written by someone who actually can speak math. My new favorite crazy person. 59.167.111.154 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Al Schwartz is an interesting combination of a genuinely bright and intelligent organic chemist, an intolerant bigot, and a wannabe physicist nutjob. He is an outstanding illustration of the fact that brilliance in one field does not preclude crackpottery in another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.199.232 (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Diagram
Could we get a picture or diagram for this article? Has anybody asked the author of the "One Hundred Years" reference? --W0lfie (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about trying a diagram for this article. Should I prioritize doing a diagram for the first of his experiments? Iomesus (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Added diagram for the first experiment as I understand it. I hope there are no factual mistakes. --Petteri Aimonen (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Centripetal?
Also, what is meant by "the centripetal force due to the rotation of the Earth"? From the definition in the linked article, the only centripetal force keeping us on the Earth is gravity, so that's a bit like saying "Two primary forces act on the balanced masses, gravity and gravity." Perhaps it's referring to the fictitious forces associated with a Rotating reference frame, which would make sense, since they are related to inertia, as this experiment is. But I didn't want to be presumptuous and change it. I know a lot of people get touchy with the whole centripetal/centrifugal thing. Maybe there's a better way to word that paragraph, but I'm not familiar enough with the experiment to do it right. --W0lfie (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

relativistic mass
Is this history meant to apply only to speeds so slow that inertial and rest masses are equal? It would be good to be clear about what has been verified, if anything, at speeds where that approximation cannot be made. RenedeRenede (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

For gravity, according to the weak equivalence principle, the gravitational mass mg is equal to the inertial relativistic mass mir, mg = mir. (1) According to the special relativity, mir = γ mi0, where γ is the Lorentz factor, mi0 is the inertial rest mass. Therefore, we have mg = mir = γ mi0. (2) Eq. (2) leads to a dilemma. Consider a hypothetic situation: an observer rest on a particle moving with a speed close to that of light above the surface of the Earth. To the observer, the Earth is moving with the same speed close to that of light in the opposite direction. If Eq. (2) holds, then the observer should feel a much stronger gravitational force due to the inertial relativistic mass of the Earth, but this is not the case. When the speed of particle/observer is changing, the observer would feel different gravitational forces, since the inertial relativistic mass of the Earth is changing. On the other hand, to my knowledge, the weak equivalent principle in terms of Eq. (2) has been tested only for mass either at rest or moving with low speed relative to each other. Hui PengPeng (talk) 10:12, 3 Nov. 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.93.100.38 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Eötvös experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070506224434/http://www.kfki.hu:80/eotvos/onehund.html to http://www.kfki.hu/eotvos/onehund.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Zeeman torsion balance experiment?
The "Table of measurements over time" states that Zeeman (presumably Pieter Zeeman?) performed a Torsion balance experiment in 1918. I can't find any references that support that, and that seems to undercut Eötvös' claim to fame on this experiment. Can anyone provide clarification / references for this? GreatEgret (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Dug a little deeper on this - seems to have been brought over by User:Zorro1024 from the Italian version in this diff . I still can't find any original sources for it.  I'm tending towards removing this... GreatEgret (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)