Comment on Quantum Physics, CERN and Hawking radiation

Sat, 18 Jun 2011 00:24:26 GMT

Do you have any actual reason for believing that theories with T-symmetry but not CPT-symmetry are simpler than theories with CPT-symmetry but not T-symmetry?

Well, I think so, but maybe not in a format suitable for a short blog post. There are numerous small, simple CA with the property of being symmetrical under T=-T. For example, the BBM. My impression is that other means of reversal are correlated with automaton complexity. Then there's the idea of charge as a pump. That is appealing on other grounds - and pumps tend to have moving parts - which would then reverse automatically if T=>-T . Also, the possibility of simulationverse ideas would seem to favour ease of reversal, to some extent.

IMO, you should really not be counting the CPT theorem as evidence on the issue - one way or the other.

I certainly don't think people should be telling me that the known laws of physics are not symmetrical under T=>-T. IMO, it is more probable that they are symmetrical that way than that they are not. The idea that CPT symmetry illustrates that they are not is simply a popular misconception, with no basis in the facts of the matter.

Discuss