RolfAndreassen comments on Quantum Physics, CERN and Hawking radiation - Less Wrong

1 Post author: MatthewBaker 16 June 2011 08:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (66)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 17 June 2011 05:43:18PM 1 point [-]

that CPT symmetry is an immediate consequence of T symmetry

If so, then how can T symmetry hold? You seem to be saying that T symmetry implies CPT symmetry. But we know from experiment that CP symmetry is broken. If T symmetry holds, and CP symmetry does not hold, then CPT symmetry cannot hold.

Really, this looks pretty straightforward. The theory you quote has A->B. Experiment !B. Consequently, either !A or !(A->B).

Charge and Parity are likely to be implemented using internal rotation or sequences

Why do you think so?

We don't have to manually reverse particle momenta or spin if we are running things backwards.

Particle momenta, no; spin, yes. Although spin is angular momentum, it does not come about because particles are rotating about an internal axis, as you seem to have in mind. (To the best of anyone's knowledge, of course.) Consequently parity does not auto-reverse under time-reversal.

Comment author: timtyler 17 June 2011 08:05:36PM *  0 points [-]

that CPT symmetry is an immediate consequence of T symmetry

If so, then how can T symmetry hold? You seem to be saying that T symmetry implies CPT symmetry. But we know from experiment that CP symmetry is broken. If T symmetry holds, and CP symmetry does not hold, then CPT symmetry cannot hold.

Really, this looks pretty straightforward. The theory you quote has A->B. Experiment !B. Consequently, either !A or !(A->B).

OK - so, you don't understand the idea. There is a much more detailed description of the associated model written by someone else here.

The punchline at the bottom reads:

There is a wonderful consequence of what we have just described. This DM model has T symmetry. However the T symmetry in this DM model is exactly equivalent to CPT symmetry in ordinary physics. If a model like this were to reflect the physics of the real world, then T symmetry would be restored to physics as consistent with all the laws of physics and all experimental evidence!

Please let me know if that fails to sort you out - and you are still interested.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 18 June 2011 03:10:16AM 0 points [-]

First, the theory rests on the airy assertion that reversing T automatically causes the reversal of spin and other quantum numbers as well. I found the argument given for this unconvincing. Second, and more importantly, you do not seem to have grasped that you cannot possibly have both T symmetry and CPT symmetry, because CP symmetry is experimentally excluded. It does not matter if you invent a special form of T symmetry that is 'equivalent' to CPT symmetry.

Take a physical system that exhibits CP violation; assume it is described by the kind of theory outlined in your link. Now reverse time. By the argument in your link, this also reverses CP. Because the system is not symmetric under CP, it exhibits different behaviour. Bing, T symmetry has been broken: There is a measurement I can make that tells me which way time is flowing.

Comment author: timtyler 18 June 2011 08:30:11AM *  0 points [-]

Well, I don't have a watertight argument for the first point. I think it is more likely than not, but if your intuition is the other way around, I won't argue too much. What I object to is the idea that T-symmetry is wrong. In fact, T-symmetry is pretty plausible, IMO.

From your second point, (from my perspective) you still don't get the logic of the whole idea - and you have exhausted most of my resources on the subject, so I am not sure what more to do with you.

Assuming that charge and parity quanta involve moving parts internally, then they would both reverse automatically if time is reversed - producing what appears to be CPT symmetry as a result. That would be consistent with all known experiments, and physics would then by time symmetric.

You said: "Because the system is not symmetric under CP, it exhibits different behaviour." No, because you have also reversed time, (you just said so yourself) - and if C,P and T are all reversed, then symmetry is restored. So, then there is no measurement you can make that tells you which way time is flowing.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 18 June 2011 08:22:36PM 2 points [-]

Assuming that charge and parity quanta involve moving parts internally, then they would both reverse automatically if time is reversed - producing what appears to be CPT symmetry as a result.

No. Start with a left-handed neutrino. Reverse T under your assumption. It is now a right-handed antineutrino going the other way; reverse space as well to restore the original direction, if you like, although the argument does not depend on this. Because CP is broken, right-handed antineutrinos do not behave exactly as left-handed neutrinos do. Therefore you can tell how many times T has been reversed. You don't get the full symmetry back except by applying CP another time.

Comment author: timtyler 18 June 2011 11:15:35PM *  0 points [-]

Assuming that charge and parity quanta involve moving parts internally, then they would both reverse automatically if time is reversed - producing what appears to be CPT symmetry as a result.

No. Start with a left-handed neutrino. Reverse T under your assumption. It is now a right-handed antineutrino going the other way;

Yes.

reverse space as well to restore the original direction, if you like, although the argument does not depend on this.

A parity flip, I presume you mean.

Because CP is broken, right-handed antineutrinos do not behave exactly as left-handed neutrinos do.

That is indeed true.

Therefore you can tell how many times T has been reversed.

Well you only said you reversed it once - and then you flipped P, but not C, leaving things in a bit of a mess - and then you tried to make out the mess was something to do with me.

Reversing T an odd number of times changes everything. Reversing it an even number of times changes nothing. You can't distinguish between reversing T different numbers of times beyond that - under the hypothesis that reversing T automatically reverses C and P.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 19 June 2011 08:45:52PM 0 points [-]

Ok, leave the parity flip out of it. If this is true:

Reversing T an odd number of times changes everything.

then you do not have T symmetry. Done.

Comment author: timtyler 19 June 2011 09:13:26PM *  0 points [-]

It makes time run backwards. Those in charge may not think that this is such a null-op.

If you pressed the "rewind" button, you would normally expect to see some changes!

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 19 June 2011 09:55:23PM 1 point [-]

Ok, there's your problem: You don't understand what is meant by 'symmetry'.

Comment author: timtyler 19 June 2011 11:31:21PM -1 points [-]

At this stage, I don't really see why you are continuing to comment :-(