## There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

**Moderators:** gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

### There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

So, finding a fundamental theory of physics isn't so hard... <--

I'm rather pleased with myself... the evidence is beautifully compact and elegant. (Spent a while chasing down blind alleys next door in the Mathematics forum).

The observation of CPT Symmetry alone is sufficient to fully determine the underlying structure of the universe.

CPT Symmetry is a collection of three partial symmetries that together create a total symmetry. Each partial symmetry has two possible states that it may occupy.

The sets of systems with this property are all equivalent. They all behave in the same way. A description of one is a description of all.

The requirements for this to be true are that:

i) Each partial symmetry is binary in nature – can only occupy one of two possible states.

ii) CPT symmetry applies to every particle interaction without exception.

Demonstration that all systems with these constraints are equivalent:

{b, b, b} where b is a binary object (object with two states).

Since all binary objects are equivalent, all sets {b, b, b} are also equivalent, regardless of ordering.

Given that C, P and T each have two possible states, they are binary objects. Given that they are collected in a symmetry set then {C, P, T} = {b, b, b}. Thus, CPT Symmetry alone specifies the model set of the universe.

*The system described here is a set of eight sub-systems. Each sub-system is a specific state for each of C, P and T. Our universe is one of these eight systems. Since Parity inversion and Time inversion lead to non-deterministic systems, only two candidate systems remain.

I'm rather pleased with myself... the evidence is beautifully compact and elegant. (Spent a while chasing down blind alleys next door in the Mathematics forum).

The observation of CPT Symmetry alone is sufficient to fully determine the underlying structure of the universe.

CPT Symmetry is a collection of three partial symmetries that together create a total symmetry. Each partial symmetry has two possible states that it may occupy.

The sets of systems with this property are all equivalent. They all behave in the same way. A description of one is a description of all.

The requirements for this to be true are that:

i) Each partial symmetry is binary in nature – can only occupy one of two possible states.

ii) CPT symmetry applies to every particle interaction without exception.

Demonstration that all systems with these constraints are equivalent:

{b, b, b} where b is a binary object (object with two states).

Since all binary objects are equivalent, all sets {b, b, b} are also equivalent, regardless of ordering.

Given that C, P and T each have two possible states, they are binary objects. Given that they are collected in a symmetry set then {C, P, T} = {b, b, b}. Thus, CPT Symmetry alone specifies the model set of the universe.

*The system described here is a set of eight sub-systems. Each sub-system is a specific state for each of C, P and T. Our universe is one of these eight systems. Since Parity inversion and Time inversion lead to non-deterministic systems, only two candidate systems remain.

Last edited by Treatid on Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

- Username4242
**Posts:**168**Joined:**Fri May 01, 2009 9:03 pm UTC**Location:**(Previously) Montana State University--Bozeman, Montana.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Here's a hint: if you start a post with 'finding a fundamental theory of physics isn't so hard', you probably went wrong somewhere.

Physics is far from my specialty, so I can't comment on the validity of however much theory is found here, but I think that it's a safe bet that you're out of the loop somewhere.

Physics is far from my specialty, so I can't comment on the validity of however much theory is found here, but I think that it's a safe bet that you're out of the loop somewhere.

- Schrollini
**Posts:**515**Joined:**Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Congratulations. When you have a prediction for the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, do let us know.

For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Username4242 wrote:Here's a hint: if you start a post with 'finding a fundamental theory of physics isn't so hard', you probably went wrong somewhere.

Physics is far from my specialty, so I can't comment on the validity of however much theory is found here, but I think that it's a safe bet that you're out of the loop somewhere.

Given that lots of very smart people have been looking for an extension or replacement for Quantum Mechanics for a while now, and there is no shortage of people who have a poor grasp of physics (or reality); it isn't a bad bet to dismiss a claim to something new in physics.

However, a "safe bet" is not a guarantee.

The evidence provided is easy to grasp even without much physics background - although a little Set Theory helps. So which of the following steps is wrong?

i) A binary object b is an object that has precisely two states. All binary objects are equivalent. (this can be taken as an axiom - although it can also be derived from set theory)

ii) The set {b, b, b} is equivalent to all other sets {b, b, b}

iii) C, P and T are each observed to have two possible states. Thus {C, P, T} is equivalent to {b, b, b}.

Schrollini wrote:Congratulations. When you have a prediction for the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, do let us know.

Ah - you know what the evidence of a new theory will look like? Anything else can't be evidence?

Derivation of any just-so constant in physics would also be interesting evidence. Explanation of the matter/anti-matter disparity might also be relevant*. However, this is the evidence I am presenting.

*{b, b, b} evidence is more accessible than matter/anti-matter explanation - one thing at a time.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

So, finding a fundamental theory of physics isn't so hard... <--

If you had actually discovered something of significance, you wouldn't be posting it anonymously on an online forum

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

It looks to me like you're basically just saying (Av~A), which is true, but not terribly enlightening.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

You guys are just jealous that you didn't think of it.

Treatid, your theory is absolutely brilliant. However, you were a fool for posting it anonymously on this forum! I have already sent it as a paper to several universities, claiming it as my own. I will go down in history as the person who finally lifted the veil of reality with this CPT whatsit, while you languish in obscurity, spending your remaining days futilely trying to convince anyone who will listen that it was your idea.

A question for all you science types... does the scientific community just automatically start sending me money, or do I have to sign up somewhere?

Treatid, your theory is absolutely brilliant. However, you were a fool for posting it anonymously on this forum! I have already sent it as a paper to several universities, claiming it as my own. I will go down in history as the person who finally lifted the veil of reality with this CPT whatsit, while you languish in obscurity, spending your remaining days futilely trying to convince anyone who will listen that it was your idea.

A question for all you science types... does the scientific community just automatically start sending me money, or do I have to sign up somewhere?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

cphite wrote:You guys are just jealous that you didn't think of it.

Treatid, your theory is absolutely brilliant. However, you were a fool for posting it anonymously on this forum! I have already sent it as a paper to several universities, claiming it as my own. I will go down in history as the person who finally lifted the veil of reality with this CPT whatsit, while you languish in obscurity, spending your remaining days futilely trying to convince anyone who will listen that it was your idea.

A question for all you science types... does the scientific community just automatically start sending me money, or do I have to sign up somewhere?

Unfortunately, the standard currency for science is ramen noodles, and the exchange rate to dollars is pretty terrible right now.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

I'm just extremely confused as to what is even being attempted here.

It sounds like treatid is saying "fundamental physics should be CPT symmetric," and I am thinking... maybe? But

1) CPT symmetry does not specify a unique model of physics at all. Not even close.

2) There is no reason to believe that quantum gravity is CPT symmetric. Same with Lorentz symmetry or any other other symmetry we have observed at the probed energy scales.

So because of 2 there is really no reason to grant you that fundamental physics is CPT invariant, and even if out of kind indulgence we were to grant that it were (it might, after all, who knows) then we have no idea which CPT invariant theory it would be.

It sounds like treatid is saying "fundamental physics should be CPT symmetric," and I am thinking... maybe? But

1) CPT symmetry does not specify a unique model of physics at all. Not even close.

2) There is no reason to believe that quantum gravity is CPT symmetric. Same with Lorentz symmetry or any other other symmetry we have observed at the probed energy scales.

So because of 2 there is really no reason to grant you that fundamental physics is CPT invariant, and even if out of kind indulgence we were to grant that it were (it might, after all, who knows) then we have no idea which CPT invariant theory it would be.

LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:I'm just extremely confused as to what is even being attempted here.

It sounds like treatid is saying "fundamental physics should be CPT symmetric," and I am thinking... maybe? But

Have a look at the CPT Symmetry Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry.

CPT Symmetry is an observation of fundamental physics. It is standard physics. And it says exactly that the universe is symmetric under the triple transformation of Charge, Parity and Time inversion. Your 2) is irrelevant - the symmetry has been tested and exists. Other theories/models must be consistent with CPT Symmetry.

Charge can have two states: Matter and Anti-Matter

Parity can have two states: original and reflected

Time can have two states: normal (entropy increase) and reversed.

The previous {b, b, b} equivalence shows that any set of three binary elements is equivalent. CPT Symmetry is a set of three binary elements. Therefore any model that describes an instance of {b, b, b} is a model of the universe. (There are infinitely many possible descriptions - but only one model). Once we have got past this proof we can then look at an instance of the model.

In other words - I could not disagree with your 1) more - and I have shown how/why CPT Symmetry specifies one particular model.

Dopefish wrote:It looks to me like you're basically just saying (Av~A), which is true, but not terribly enlightening.

The binary object b equivalence and {b, b, b} equivalence are trivial/obvious mathematics. To that extent they are unremarkable.

The remarkable bit is that CPT Symmetry is a set of 3 binary objects such that {C, P, T} = {b, b, b}.

The ramifications of this are that with just CPT Symmetry we can narrow down the possible models for the universe to 1 (set of 8 symmetries).

This is an easy/obvious proof. So much so that it is hard to understand how it hasn't been noticed previously. So - to the extent that it is obvious you are right. However, since it gives us a hefty pointer to the structure of the universe... it is somewhat enlightening.

- PolakoVoador
**Posts:**1028**Joined:**Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC**Location:**Brazil

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Have you, I don't know, sent this to someone at some university who might have some experience and knowledge in the pertinent field to get some feedback? And maybe publish it?

- Zamfir
- I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
**Posts:**7427**Joined:**Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC**Location:**Nederland

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

The ramifications of this are that with just CPT Symmetry we can narrow down the possible models for the universe to 1 (set of 8 symmetries).

Uhm, what aspect of the universe is modelled by this one model? Apparently, not the magnetic dipole of the electron. But then, what does it model?

As far as I can tell, your model makes one prediction: namely that other physical laws will be CPT-symmetric. I find that a somewhat underwhelming outcome for an argument that assumes as starting point that physical laws are CPT symmetric?

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Please do not refer me to wikipedia.

CPT can be proven rigorously to be a symmetry of nature within the context of the Wightman axioms for a quantum field theory, the original proof. It has been extended to certain quantum field theories in curved space as well.

But, there is no reason to believe that quantum gravity is a quantum field theory. As quantum field theories presuppose a smooth spacetime manifold, it is fairly dubious, and certainly not obvious.

And yeah, what Zamfir said. The only conclusion you have is CPT symmetry, which is, conveniently, also the premise.

CPT can be proven rigorously to be a symmetry of nature within the context of the Wightman axioms for a quantum field theory, the original proof. It has been extended to certain quantum field theories in curved space as well.

But, there is no reason to believe that quantum gravity is a quantum field theory. As quantum field theories presuppose a smooth spacetime manifold, it is fairly dubious, and certainly not obvious.

And yeah, what Zamfir said. The only conclusion you have is CPT symmetry, which is, conveniently, also the premise.

LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid wrote:CPT Symmetry is an observation of fundamental physics. It is standard physics. And it says exactly that the universe is symmetric under the triple transformation of Charge, Parity and Time inversion.

We haven't found an examples of CPT symmetry being violated. That does not necessarily imply that CPT symmetry must always hold. Quantum theories with certain properties--Lorentz invariance, for example--necessarily have CPT symmetry, but theories without those properties will not necessarily have CPT symmetry. There are, in fact, theories of quantum gravity that predict CPT symmetry breaking at very high energy scales. This can't simply be asserted as fact--indeed, really nothing in the standard model can be asserted definitively as fact because we know that the standard model is incomplete. What we know is whatever the right answer is, it must reduce to what we have observed so far at the appropriate energy scales. But that doesn't imply that we can extrapolate in the opposite direction--indeed, a lot of things that we've previously believed to hold at lower energies have in fact broken down above certain thresholds.

The previous {b, b, b} equivalence shows that any set of three binary elements is equivalent. CPT Symmetry is a set of three binary elements. Therefore any model that describes an instance of {b, b, b} is a model of the universe. (There are infinitely many possible descriptions - but only one model). Once we have got past this proof we can then look at an instance of the model.

I'm not sure I understand how your proof shows that the {b,b,b} equivalence is sufficient to describe a model for the universe.

- Copper Bezel
**Posts:**2419**Joined:**Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC**Location:**Web exclusive!

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Yeah, I don't know the physics, but I kept thinking that this looked like a tautology.

Treatid, what are you saying is the real implication here? What models does this allow us to disprove?

Treatid, what are you saying is the real implication here? What models does this allow us to disprove?

So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

she / her / her

- Schrollini
**Posts:**515**Joined:**Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid wrote:Schrollini wrote:Congratulations. When you have a prediction for the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron, do let us know.

Ah - you know what the evidence of a new theory will look like?

In fact, I do. A new theory must reduce to the previous ones in the appropriate limits. To wit:

- Special relativity reduces to Galilean invariance in the limit of speed much less than c.
- General relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak fields.
- Quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics in the limit ħ→0.
- Quantum electrodynamics reduces to Maxwell's equations in the limit ħ→0.

Of course as others have pointed out, you don't actually have a theory; at best you have a criterion for a theory to satisfy (namely, CPT invariance). And apparently the only reason you have behind this criterion is that the existing theories respect this symmetry. But from my examples above, you can see that new theories do not necessarily respect the symmetries of the existing theories. For instance, Newtonian mechanics is Galilean invariant, which special relativity is Lorentz invariant.

For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Thank you, LaserGuy, for the quote.

So - the current situation is that CPT Symmetry has been predicted and observed. There are no known exceptions to CPT Symmetry.

There are speculations (unproven theories) that CPT Symmetry might not hold under all circumstances.

Any future theories must be consistent with what has already been observed. (I accept that future observations may violate CPT Symmetry. In this event I am proven wrong. The breaking of CPT Symmetry is a dis-proof.)

None of that should be controversial.

I am assuming the current situation: that CPT Symmetry is observed and no exceptions have been observed.

I also assume that C, P and T each have 2 possible states.

So CPT Symmetry may be expressed as a set of 3 objects each of which has two possible states: {C, P, T} or {b, b, b}

All sets {b, b, b} are equivalent. A description of one instance is a description of all instances.

While CPT Symmetry holds there is only one possible model for the universe.

Having found a specific model consistent with {b, b, b}, that model must be the model of the universe.

Every aspect of the universe. The model is a complete description of the universe. That includes the magnetic dipole of the electron. However, the majority of the aspects of the universe you are familiar with are emergent properties. As you might expect of a system composed of 3 binary elements it is extremely simple. More complex behaviours emerge from primitive interactions.

...

The equivalence of {b, b, b} is trivial.

That C, P and T have two possible states is the current observation.

Currently CPT Symmetry leads to one specific model.

This is very simple reasoning. It also doesn't sit well with experience and intuition.

The counter argument is that C, P and T can have more than 2 states, or that there are circumstances where CPT Symmetry doesn't hold.

However, the current argument that CPT Symmetry doesn't (may not) hold is based on theories that are themselves entirely unproven.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause offence.

While you are correct that a new theory must be consistent with previous theories - that does not imply that the only possible evidence is to be consistent with previous theories.

That is - being consistent with previous theories is necessary but does not preclude other evidence.

Actually I do. We can get to that once the implications of CPT Symmetry have been accepted/realised.

The requirement is a set of three binary objects. The invariance/symmetry is relevant to the forming a set but not an assumption. As it happens {b, b, b} systems are symmetric. An interesting result.

So - the current situation is that CPT Symmetry has been predicted and observed. There are no known exceptions to CPT Symmetry.

There are speculations (unproven theories) that CPT Symmetry might not hold under all circumstances.

Any future theories must be consistent with what has already been observed. (I accept that future observations may violate CPT Symmetry. In this event I am proven wrong. The breaking of CPT Symmetry is a dis-proof.)

None of that should be controversial.

I am assuming the current situation: that CPT Symmetry is observed and no exceptions have been observed.

I also assume that C, P and T each have 2 possible states.

So CPT Symmetry may be expressed as a set of 3 objects each of which has two possible states: {C, P, T} or {b, b, b}

All sets {b, b, b} are equivalent. A description of one instance is a description of all instances.

While CPT Symmetry holds there is only one possible model for the universe.

Having found a specific model consistent with {b, b, b}, that model must be the model of the universe.

Zamfir wrote:Uhm, what aspect of the universe is modelled by this one model? Apparently, not the magnetic dipole of the electron. But then, what does it model?

Every aspect of the universe. The model is a complete description of the universe. That includes the magnetic dipole of the electron. However, the majority of the aspects of the universe you are familiar with are emergent properties. As you might expect of a system composed of 3 binary elements it is extremely simple. More complex behaviours emerge from primitive interactions.

...

The equivalence of {b, b, b} is trivial.

That C, P and T have two possible states is the current observation.

Currently CPT Symmetry leads to one specific model.

This is very simple reasoning. It also doesn't sit well with experience and intuition.

The counter argument is that C, P and T can have more than 2 states, or that there are circumstances where CPT Symmetry doesn't hold.

However, the current argument that CPT Symmetry doesn't (may not) hold is based on theories that are themselves entirely unproven.

doogly wrote:Please do not refer me to wikipedia.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cause offence.

Schrollini wrote:In fact, I do. A new theory must reduce to the previous ones in the appropriate limits. To wit:

While you are correct that a new theory must be consistent with previous theories - that does not imply that the only possible evidence is to be consistent with previous theories.

That is - being consistent with previous theories is necessary but does not preclude other evidence.

Of course as others have pointed out, you don't actually have a theory;

Actually I do. We can get to that once the implications of CPT Symmetry have been accepted/realised.

at best you have a criterion for a theory to satisfy (namely, CPT invariance).

The requirement is a set of three binary objects. The invariance/symmetry is relevant to the forming a set but not an assumption. As it happens {b, b, b} systems are symmetric. An interesting result.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

I think you are using set theory where physics is trying to do something with much, much more structure.

CPT do not have states. They are *operators.* They operate on states. There's no way to pick up a particle and measure it's parity, for example.

CPT do not have states. They are *operators.* They operate on states. There's no way to pick up a particle and measure it's parity, for example.

LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

But does your model correctly predict sphere packing?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid wrote:Having found a specific model consistent with {b, b, b}, that model must be the model of the universe.

So it would be a problem for your theory then, if, for example, I was able to generate a universal model A that has CPT invariance and makes a specific prediction that property a is true, and doogly is able to generate a model B that also has CPT invariance but makes the prediction that a is false? Is that correct? You're arguing that all models with CPT invariance must necessarily be equivalent?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:I think you are using set theory where physics is trying to do something with much, much more structure.

CPT do not have states. They are *operators.* They operate on states. There's no way to pick up a particle and measure it's parity, for example.

An object that has two states is a binary object irrespective of how those states might be perceived. A bit (binary digit) in a computer is equivalent to any other bit within the computer until context is taken into account. A bit may represent (part of) a character, a number, a pixel, a program instruction...

The very fact that C, P and T can only occupy two states is indication that there is less structure in physics than is apparent. Or rather - the apparent structure is emergent rather than a priori.

Arguing that physics has more structure is similar to arguing that it is more constrained than set theory; that physics a subset of set theory (which is almost certainly the case). As such, a general result in set theory will apply just as well to any subset of set theory.

(when talking about C, P and T, I am referring to the binary object that is capable of being in 2 possible states. It could be confusing that C, P and T in this universe are each a specific state of C, P and T... The specific state in this universe has an appearance based on context (structure)).

LaserGuy wrote:So it would be a problem for your theory then, if, for example, I was able to generate a universal model A that has CPT invariance and makes a specific prediction that property a is true, and doogly is able to generate a model B that also has CPT invariance but makes the prediction that a is false? Is that correct? You're arguing that all models with CPT invariance must necessarily be equivalent?

Yes, that is precisely right.

Last edited by Treatid on Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:21 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

A theory with a photon that has a mass of a GeV is CPT invariant.

Are we done here then?

Are we done here then?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:A theory with a photon that has a mass of a GeV is CPT invariant.

Are we done here then?

Yes. Because in order to have a photon you require something in which that photon moves (no stationary photons). That is, a photon and CPT invariance can only be constructed by constructing everything else that goes along with CPT invariance.

Or the other way - your theory is incomplete. When you complete it you will have arrived at the same place. All CPT invariant systems are equal.

(if you were to try to construct a system based on euclidean space through which an object moves at a fixed velocity you would have all the symmetries inherent in Euclidean space... which aren't CPT invariant).

It doesn't matter how many objects you have in the system. The CPT Symmetry alone defines the system.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

It is absolutely false that all CPT invariant systems are equal.

I can attempt to explain this if you like. How much math and physics have you studied?

I can attempt to explain this if you like. How much math and physics have you studied?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:It is absolutely false that all CPT invariant systems are equal.

I can attempt to explain this if you like. How much math and physics have you studied?

I have demonstrated that CPT Symmetry (invariant) systems are all equal. A refresher:

CPT may be represented as {b, b, b}. All {b, b, b} are equivalent.

If you are right there is a flaw in the above statement. So point to it.

I shall do my best to keep up with your dis-proof by other means.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

ok, CPT may not be represented as {b, b, b}.

C, P and T are not values, they are operators. Charge is either + or -. C, the charge operator, is a mapping.

C, P and T are not values, they are operators. Charge is either + or -. C, the charge operator, is a mapping.

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

- PolakoVoador
**Posts:**1028**Joined:**Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC**Location:**Brazil

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

vbkid wrote:But does your model correctly predict sphere packing?

I don't know you, but I already like you

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:ok, CPT may not be represented as {b, b, b}.

C, P and T are not values, they are operators. Charge is either + or -. C, the charge operator, is a mapping.

Given a 2 state object there are an infinite number of ways of describing that object (an infinite number of ways of implementing that object). However, a two state object has a fixed set of behaviours.

A two state object may be in state b

^{1}.

A two state object may be in state b

^{-1}.

A two state object may (notionally) switch states.

There is no choice of other states to switch to. b

^{1}can switch to b

^{-1}and b

^{-1}can switch to b

^{1}.

The quality of each state makes no difference to these behaviours.

Every binary object has this set of behaviours and only this set. If the behaviour is identical then the objects are equivalent.

The labelling of states is irrelevant. Whether they are called 'values' or 'operators' makes no difference; that is purely an artefact of description (implementation).

(I am consistently talking about C, P and T as being the binary objects that contain the two possible states. The instances of c, p and t in this universe are specific states for this universe - C contains c

^{1}and c

^{-1}).

Last edited by Treatid on Thu Aug 08, 2013 9:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

A) you have no idea what you are talking about

B) ok, let's pretend you do know what you're talking about. can you predict anything?

B) ok, let's pretend you do know what you're talking about. can you predict anything?

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

- WibblyWobbly
- Can't Get No
**Posts:**506**Joined:**Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid wrote:The labelling of states is irrelevant. Whether they are called 'values' or 'operators' makes no difference; that is purely an artefact of description (implementation).

Yeah, I'm not half the physicist doogly is, but this seems like kind of a clincher to me. Kind of a "go directly to drawing board, do not pass Go, do not collect Nobel Prize" moment.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

like, if a function takes a real number as input and gives you a real number as output, does that mean a function is a real number?

nooooo

but it's even WORSE, because a quantum state isn't a binary object.

really, the logic that went from "C^2 = identity operator" to "C = +1 or -1" is just no good.

nooooo

but it's even WORSE, because a quantum state isn't a binary object.

really, the logic that went from "C^2 = identity operator" to "C = +1 or -1" is just no good.

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

- Username4242
**Posts:**168**Joined:**Fri May 01, 2009 9:03 pm UTC**Location:**(Previously) Montana State University--Bozeman, Montana.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

If nothing else (and I hope I'm proven wrong by an acknowledgement of your critique), this thread serves as an interesting example of the origins of crackpottery.

- Cleverbeans
**Posts:**1378**Joined:**Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Username4242 wrote:If nothing else (and I hope I'm proven wrong by an acknowledgement of your critique), this thread serves as an interesting example of the origins of crackpottery.

What you call crackpottery I know to be mental illness, either a form of schizophrenia or a delusional disorder. Delusions are often grandiose (look at my amazing discovery) and persecutory (those scientists just don't like that I'm right), of course the persecution is often real when they attempt to make the world understand their "theory" when in fact, they've just lost their mind. In these cases, it can often be very harmful to actually *be* persecuted, which is extremely common in the scientific community because it's very annoying to try and reason with someone who's not fully in control of their mind. I try to have a compassionate response, since schizophrenia is already deeply stigmatized and one of the most debilitating illnesses you can have.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

- Username4242
**Posts:**168**Joined:**Fri May 01, 2009 9:03 pm UTC**Location:**(Previously) Montana State University--Bozeman, Montana.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

I suppose supposing a null of mental illness is the safest route... but I hardly think that somebody who acts this way is necessarily schizophrenic or delusional.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Username4242 wrote:I suppose supposing a null of mental illness is the safest route... but I hardly think that somebody who acts this way is necessarily schizophrenic or delusional.

Indeed, I would prefer an assumption of sanity. Being mistaken and being stubborn may be flaws, but I would argue that they aren't mental illness per-se.

"So, finding a fundamental theory of physics isn't so hard..." was a mistake. Humour/sarcasm is often not obvious in text - especially when the person is unknown.

The magnitude of human brilliance that has been poured into physics over the last century is astounding.

As such, the suggestion (claim) that I have found a profound result that can be expressed in just a few lines is fairly absurd.

On the other hand, sudden insights that are relatively obvious in hindsight are a feature of science.

So, an extra-ordinary claim does deserve significant scepticism. And having seen some of the other extra-ordinary claims floating around claiming to be physics, I can understand the impulse to dismiss an idea based on the claim alone - and the suspicion regarding the claimant's mental health.

doogly wrote:like, if a function takes a real number as input and gives you a real number as output, does that mean a function is a real number?

Hmm... you think that by saying "a state is just a state irrespective of expression" that I am saying that a function and a value are identical. Yes - I can see how that would stick in your craw. No - that is not what I am saying.

So, exploring what a 'state' is in more detail.

A binary object b has a set of states {b

_{1}, b

_{2}}

Each state b

_{1}and b

_{2}must be indivisible. If they could be divided and/or rearranged then a new state could be constructed using the components of the existing states. A state might have multiple components but they must be inextricably connected such that they cannot be rearranged or separated into additional states.

So, any previous statement that I made regarding a state being 'anything' might be misleading. A state can be expressed in any way provided that expression is indivisible.

A Binary Digit (bit) in a computer is a binary object. The appearance of a bit can vary depending on context. As noted previously, a bit may be part of a pixel on screen, a character in a string, a numeric value in an integer or float, an instruction for a processor or any of the other possible contexts within a computer. A bit never appears by itself, it is always in a context that gives the bit an appearance. The appearance varies according to context.

C, P and T do not each appear to be the same thing as a bit. We know that C, P and T exist within a context. We know that context is a significant aspect of the appearance of an object. Bits tell us that a binary object can be part of a value or part of a function (a processor instruction). So 'value' vs 'operator' is not sufficient evidence to show that an object isn't composed, in part or in full, of binary objects.

C, P and T can notionally be in one of two states. Those states appear quite distinct for each of C, P and T. That appearance is only relevant if it shows that there are additional possible states for any of C, P and T.

but it's even WORSE, because a quantum state isn't a binary object.

A quantum state is not c

_{1}, c

_{2}, P

_{1}, p

_{2}, t

_{1}or t

_{2}. (a quantum state may be composed of a number of these states).

Nor am I claiming that any of c

_{1}, c

_{2}, p

_{1}, p

_{2}, t

_{1}or t

_{2}is a binary object. They are each a state within the binary objects C, P and T.

To be clear:

the collection object C can be in two possible states c

_{1}(matter) and c

_{2}(anti-matter)

the collection object P can be in two possible states p

_{1}(normal) and p

_{2}(reflected)

the collection object T can be in two possible states t

_{1}(increasing entropy) and t

_{2}(decreasing entropy)

It is the collection objects C, P and T that are binary objects. The actual states are not binary objects.

I assume you still dislike the idea that c

_{1}and c

_{2}correspond the the labels '0' and '1' of a bit?

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

The charge can be the zero or one of a bit. C is the charge reversal operator, and it cannot.

Also note that C doesn't map matter -> antimatter, it just changes charge. CP is the symmetry for matter/antimatter.

Also note that C doesn't map matter -> antimatter, it just changes charge. CP is the symmetry for matter/antimatter.

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

doogly wrote:The charge can be the zero or one of a bit. C is the charge reversal operator, and it cannot.

Okay. So C is the function/map that changes state from c

_{1}to c

_{2}or vice versa?

I therefore propose an object C

^{1}that contains the function C and the two states c

_{1}and c

_{2}.

It is then C

^{1}that is the binary object. There is a similar P

^{1}and T

^{1}for the operators P and T and the states p

_{1}, p

_{2}, t

_{1}, t

_{2}.

All binary objects have a notional ability to switch between states (although a binary object does not contain any information about when that operator might apply). The operator for all binary objects switches state to the other state.

So, I accept that C, P and T are operators and not binary objects. I submit that C, P and T are aspects of the binary objects C

^{1}, P

^{1}and T

^{1}.

Also note that C doesn't map matter -> antimatter, it just changes charge. CP is the symmetry for matter/antimatter.

Oops. That is a mis-apprehension I've had for a while. Thank you for pointing it out.

- doogly
- Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
**Posts:**5393**Joined:**Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC**Location:**Somerville, MA-
**Contact:**

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

When I say it changes a state, I mean a quantum state. A ray in Hilbert space.

Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.

Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid wrote:doogly wrote:The charge can be the zero or one of a bit. C is the charge reversal operator, and it cannot.

Okay. So C is the function/map that changes state from c_{1}to c_{2}or vice versa?

The word state has a very specific, well-defined meaning in quantum mechanics. You are using the term to mean something different (I think). You need to be specific in the meanings of your terms, or you will be, at best, not understood. At worst, people will assume you know nothing about the field and have no idea what you are talking about. It's like trying to explain to someone a better way to drive a car when you don't know the difference between the gas pedal and the steering wheel.

It's important to understand here that the operators have different effects on different functions. For example, in classical physics, the parity operator makes the transformation Pf(x) = f(-x). If f(x) is an eigenfunction of P (namely, an even or odd function), then Pf(x) = +/-f(x), where +1 and -1 are the eigenvalues of the parity operator. But that means that it is possible that Pf(x) = f(x). The parity operator isn't changing the "state" (in the sense you're talking about) at all. Parity conservation doesn't mean that all quantum states necessarily have odd (Pf(x) = -f(x)) parity.

Note that not all functions conserve parity. For example, take f(x) = x, g(x) = x^2, and h(x) = x^2 + x. Pf(x) = -x = - f(x). Pg(x) = (-x)^2 = x^2 = g(x). Ph(x) = (-x)^2 - x = x^2 - x. f(x) has odd parity; g(x) has even parity; h(x) has neither.

I therefore propose an object C^{1}that contains the function C and the two states c_{1}and c_{2}.

It is then C^{1}that is the binary object.

No it isn't. It contains three elements.

[edit]I hope you will appreciate that it is hard to take you seriously when the vocabulary you're using would indicate that you don't have even an elementary understanding of the concepts that you are talking about. Operators, eigenvectors and eigenvalues are probably going to be discussed somewhere around chapter 1 of any introductory quantum mechanics textbook.

### Re: There is only one* model consistent with CPT Symmetry

Treatid- even given your premise you have a problem- describing the CPT numbers of a particle isn't enough to fully describe it. In addition to CPT (essentially Lorentz symmetry) there are others (strong, weak/electro).

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests