timtyler 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: 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 :-(

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 20 June 2011 09:13:26PM 0 points [-]

To convince you that you are wrong about CPT violation and T violation. Why are you posting?

Once more. Start with a left-handed antineutrino. T-reverse under your assumption that this also reverses CP. You now have a right-handed neutrino. Because of CP violation, it does not have the same physical properties that it started with. Therefore, T symmetry is broken. Which part of this argument do you disagree with?

Comment author: timtyler 20 June 2011 09:44:31PM 0 points [-]

The "Therefore". Reverse the universe, and a left-handed antineutrino turns into a right-handed neutrino travelling in the opposite direction. Everyone agrees about that. Its different properties don't prevent the universe from retracing its steps - rather they are essential for that to happen correctly.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 21 June 2011 01:59:58AM 0 points [-]

No; wrong. Its different properties will, precisely, cause the universe not to retrace its steps exactly. The rate for X\to e^+ \nue is different from that for e^- \bar\nue \to X; this is what CP violation means. Therefore, when you have reversed time, the antineutrino will not precisely retrace the steps the neutrino took.

Comment author: timtyler 21 June 2011 08:35:49AM *  0 points [-]

Do you realise that what you are claiming is pretty unconventional? Here is the conventional view:

The implication of CPT symmetry is that a "mirror-image" of our universe — with all objects having their positions reflected by an imaginary plane (corresponding to a parity inversion), all momenta reversed (corresponding to a time inversion) and with all matter replaced by antimatter (corresponding to a charge inversion)— would evolve under exactly our physical laws. The CPT transformation turns our universe into its "mirror image" and vice versa. CPT symmetry is recognized to be a fundamental property of physical laws.

Investingating to see if I could see what you are talking about found some claims that the symmetry between neutrinos and antineutrinos is violated:

Several experimental searches of such violations have been performed during the last few years and recently there has been some strong evidence for a violation of charge symmetry in that antineutrinos seem to have a different mass than neutrinos.

In the highly unlikely case of any such asymmetry being confirmed, that would break CPT symmetry - and serious revisions of fundamental physics would be needed.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 21 June 2011 06:25:51PM 1 point [-]

Do you realise that what you are claiming is pretty unconventional?

No. I am giving you the conventional view, which you do not understand.

I do not wish to appeal to authority, but since we are now arguing in terms of what is the conventional view, perhaps I can legitimately mention that I have a PhD in experimental particle physics. True, I'm not a theorist, but I do feel I have a reasonable grounding in these matters.

In the highly unlikely case of any such asymmetry being confirmed,

Which part of "CP symmetry is broken" is unclear to you? If antineutrinos and neutrinos have different masses, that breaks C symmetry and its discoverer will certainly get a trip to Stockholm. But this is not required for the argument I gave above to be correct. The breaking of CP symmetry is already known, and has been known since the sixties. It has exactly the same consequences as if neutrino and antineutrino masses are different, it's just a bit more difficult to visualise.