Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Posts

    8728
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by Mordred

  1. For photon beams you would want the current densities of the polarity related wavefunctions for both both quantum and macroscale regimes. LOL you also need these relations for your readouts on your test equipment truth be told. We do push the umbrella at looking for CPT at respectable energy levels and are always pushing for test methodologies at higher. In point of detail its also looked for in our highest energy level test equipment such as our particle accelerators. Lots of ongoing research is still looking for new methods to test for it of course.
  2. While I still feel its highly unlikely to get any CPT violations with the device. Its a nice change to discuss some serious physics. A couple of details to consider. CPT of photons tie into U(1) gauge symmetry. However it also ties in rather closely to Lorentz invariants. In answer to the question "has macroscopic tests been performed for CPT violations" then the answer in light of Lorentz symmetry and its connections with CPT would become Yes we have. This article is an example of tests performed on the International space station utilizing atomic clocks. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0306190 this is the reference 14 of the above paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0306190.pdf I chose this one simply due to its uniqueness. More commonly known methods involve synchrotrons, Penning traps, etc Here for example is the Zeus detector results. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.12750.pdf A synchrotron test https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.4346 You will likely find the information handy if anything it may grant some further ideas on how to modify your planned detector. As you can now include Lorentz invariants. Mathematically these papers use SME which which is the standard model extension to include violating terms. this article has a decent listing of the Langrangian for the major ones https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0506054.pdf hope this helps, if anything its informative to other readers as well. Granted that also opens a few doors in what to look for with your experiment. This article will help get a handle on polarizations which you will need with your setup https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/schwartz/files/lecture14-polarization.pdf As it is informative I will add some mathematical relations that you may or may not choose to use but are of use. Useful relations Parity Many textbooks describe this as a mirror reflection its not quite accurate but its a useful analogy. Its more useful to use an inversion of coordinates for parity difference described below reflection of the x-y plane \[(x,y,z)\longrightarrow(z,-y,z)\] inversion (combines the reflection with a 180 degree rotation) the reason this is easier to work with is you don't need to choose a mirror plane. \[(x,y,z)\longrightarrow (-x,-y,-z)\] \(\mathbb{P}:(t,x,y,z)\longrightarrow(t,-x-y-z)\Rightarrow \mathbb{P}(\vec{V}=-\vec{V}\) gives \[\mathbb{P}((\vec{V})\cdot(\vec{W})=\mathbb{P}(\vec{V})\cdot(\vec{W})=(-\vec{V})-\cdot(\vec{W})=\vec{V}\cdot\vec{W})\] \[\mathbb{P}((\vec{V})\times(\vec{W})=\mathbb{P}(\vec{V})\times(\vec{W})=(-\vec{V})\times(\vec{W})=\vec{V}\times\vec{W})\] above denotes changes from left to right hand coordinate systems. note two types of vectors those that reverse signs under parity (vector V and those that don't pseudovector A gives \(\mathbb{P}:\vec{V}\times\vec{A}=-\vec{V}\times\vec{A}=-\vec{V}\times\vec{A}=\) a vector \(\mathbb{P}:\vec{V}\cdot\vec{A}=-\vec{V}\cdot\vec{A}=-\vec{V}\cdot\vec{A}=\) a pseudovector with twice applied parity \(\mathbb{P}^2=\mathbb(I)\) eugenvalues of parity plus or minus 1. scalars and pseodovectors have eugenvalue +1, while pseudoscalars and vectors have eugenvalue -1. with GR parity has the sign convention (+1,-1,-1,-1) \[(\Lambda_\mathbb{P})^\mu_\nu=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&0\\0&-1&0&0\\0&0&-1&0\\0&0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}\] under Lorentz transformation \[g_{\alpha\beta}(\Lambda_\mathbb{P})^\alpha_\nu (\Lambda_\mathbb{P})^\beta_\mu=g_{\mu\nu}\] by examining the photon in a hydrogen atom we can find the parity of a photon. this is too lengthy so you can get the gist here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_harmonics of course QED rules further include the above. The photon for energy conversation has parity -1
  3. Is the optical isolator you have there applying the Faraday rotator ? If so your going to need to account for the 45 degree polarity shift.
  4. Lol your last statement shows you have little knowledge on how a particle physicists conducts his tests to determine particle properties.
  5. What makes you believe only Einstein concluded c is invariant to all observers ? No physics work goes unchallenged that never happens. Every physics theory gets examined and tested by others. That is an essential part of the scientific methodology.
  6. Really you might try using Google yourself. Try googling invariant mass, variant mass, electromagnetic mass, rest mass and inertial mass. (The last two were replaced by the first two) No I No I am referring to the nature of your responses.
  7. With that last response to Swansont you have proven to me at least. We are not accomplishing anything here.
  8. I have to ask this. Did you even bother looking at the link provided by Studiot ? There is a very important detail you missed with regards to \(\mu_O\). I won't tell you what it is, not yet anyways. I want to see if you can find that important detail yourself.
  9. So you keep claiming over and over again. Your claims do not change 100 years of experimental research and precision tests. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. However you keep ignoring or denying it. Guess what your opinion won't change the evidence. BS pure and simple You obviously don't understand physics well enough to determine anything regarding the rules of physics.
  10. I think the difficulty you might be having is that All measurements are frame dependent. However the difference is with invariant quantities regardless of the chosen frame or multiple frames every observer will measure the same value. Variant quantities will vary between different observers. It is the latter we often term frame dependent.
  11. Would also be useful to numerous readers to include Snells law.
  12. I can't recall which recent thread in speculation I had posted this. However for precision tests on Lorentz invariance which includes constancy of c. The highest precision test I'm aware of is \(0.707×10^{-11}\) for the upper bound on any deviation for Lorentz invariance. This value is an overall tally of numerous related test methods
  13. Thanks Studiot I like the variation of one of the more common tests for the permittivity and permeability relations. It's handy that the equipment is readily accessible to an average student.
  14. encountered the following paper while doing research on Big Bang nucleosynthesis. I was looking at how the PMNS mixing matrix was developed when I came across the following this article seems to imply that leptogenesis and subsequently Baryogenesis can be explained via the Higgs seesaw via the Right hand neutrino mixing angles. I question the accuracy of this claim so will be examining it further but felt posting here may interest other members as well.
  15. Building the full Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix from six independent Majorana-type phases https://cds.cern.ch/record/1127373/files/GetPDFServlet.pdf further examining the following from the article \(\frac{N_b}{N_\gamma}=(6.1^{+0.3}_{-0.2})*10^{-10}\) hrrm this seems to imply this Cern paper considers right hand neutrinos accounting for leptogenesis.
  16. excuse me a car moving at 70 km/hour certainly delivers a force when it hits a brick wall
  17. Yes I have read it, and I am telling you time dilation does not have any dependency on what type of clock or measurement device is used.
  18. An object at constant velocity can also deliver a force so your assumption isn't valid. F=ma is the amount of force needed to change the velocity aka acceleration
  19. This doesn't make any sense. You are correct on one detail. I will always describe any physics related topic with the proper physics terminology, subsequently that terminology further applies to the mathematics. The mathematics is essential in any physics topic
  20. Have you ever considered that this is where the importance of invariant quantities comes into play. In particular all observers regardless of measurement devices used will get the same resultant on a given measurement on an invariant quantity. It is these quantities that are of primary importance with time it's the "proper time". Of course physics follows Occams razor. However Occams Razor does not state as simple as possible while at the same time become less accurate. In point of detail Occams Razor will favor the easier to calculate theory that provides the same degree of accuracy. This is precisely where factors such as dimensional reduction, to good approximation comes into play. I recall you arguing exactness with f=ma yet that would unnecessarily complicate everyday calculations hence we have the Newtonian approximation to simplify the calculations without losing accuracy by any significant amount. Higher order calculations will certainly give more accurate answers however often are unnecessary to get the needed accuracy. It is so common that physics has a very specific terminology for this. First, second, third etc order's of approximation. Truthfully I lost count on the number of times I've seen people try to rewrite physics so it makes sense to them much like what you are doing. It literally amounts to a waste of time. Time that could have instead been used to study those physics theories so that they can come to correctly understand it.
  21. Format is just one stage of the review process. The link provided if you read through it look beyond simply the format. It also states a process to follow, as well as the factors directly related to content. Note at no point point does it state the theory needs to be correct. It describes its process to follow as well as its standards.
  22. Your goal is to write a paper that would be acceptable to arxiv am I not correct on that ? They care to meet their standards. You cannot argue equivalence if your applying the wrong quantity involved in a math statement
  23. You really need to work on that, force equals mass times acceleration. Acceleration isn't the speed of an object. the speed of an object is just a scalar quantity of distance divided by time. Where as an objects velocity which directly relates to the laws of inertia is a vector quantity. has magnitude and direction. It is this quantity that the Newton laws of inertia directly applies to. The acceleration is any change in that velocity vector that can be a change in the magnitude or the direction. It is this quantity that directly applies to the force and mass relation. mass is resistance to inertia change or acceleration Inertia under the laws is defined as the resistance of any physical object to a change in its velocity. well that's likely part of the problem, for arxiv you really do need to apply the correct terminology. As defined by physics for any physics related paper. your far better off stating the correct definition for each term then addressing the relation you wish to discuss. Trying to argue the logic behind a math statement without using the correct terminology simply tells the reader you do not correctly understand the relations of a given formula correctly. In simple terms if you use incorrect terminology the assumption is you do not properly understand the terms in the equation so how can you accurately state its logic is wrong ?
  24. No divergences has very strict mathematical meaning that often directly relate to conservation laws and invariance. The one article I linked specifically mentions that detail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.