Mordred

All particles have pointlike characteristics as well as wavelike that is what specifically is described by wave particle duality. In thermal equilibrium however all particles are indistinct from one another. In essence they all would have identical wavefunctions as well as pointlike properties. So you could have gravitons as well as the SM particles however you wouldn't be able to tell them apart. Keep in mind though it's feasible we still have no evidence of a graviton. Gravity is well described without it however via spacetime curvature.

Might help to understand the BB theory starts at \(10^{-43} \) seconds. The theory describes how the Universe expands from that time forward. The theory does not state what created the universe. That is a common misconception. Expansion itself simply follows the thermodynamic laws. So there is nothing unusual there.

Not even close. Not possible,the BB singularity if you run expansion backwards you would hit a volume roughly one Planck length at 10^-43 seconds. At this volume even curvature has no meaning nor does a GW wave. For that matter as there is no curvature term due to the miniscule volume you wouldn't even have gravity.

with water droplets the light enters and leaves the droplet so refraction does apply https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/College_Physics/Book%3A_College_Physics_1e_(OpenStax)/25%3A_Geometric_Optics/25.05%3A_Dispersion_-_Rainbows_and_Prisms here obviously some light will simply reflect but you get refraction due to light entering and exiting the water droplets. Seriously if a water droplet were a perfect mirror then you would have 100 percent reflection. However a water droplet is semi transparent so naturally refraction will be involved. Anytime light enters a medium you apply refraction. With reflection its simply the surface or internal reflections in both cases Snell's law covers both. Angle of incident= outgoing angle for the reflected case \[\theta_i=\theta_O\] . with refraction obviously you have a much wider range. Quite frankly I can't think of any reason for color separation via reflection as opposed to refraction. I'm fairly positive your well aware of this though Studiot lol. Its still good info for other readers

Snells law of refraction n1sinθ1=n2sinθ2 n_1 is the incident index, n_2 the refracted index, θ1 the incident angle, θ2 the refracted angle. you can get further details here https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg232/lab2-dispersion.pdf the article covers the phase velocities and how differences in phase velocities will change the index of refraction however some examples for visible light apply this to red, yellow, violet in regards to a prism such as here https://www.vedantu.com/question-answer/dispersive-power-of-the-prism-and-its-si-class-12-physics-cbse-60d1f94e2f7a4d284fd9ce4a largely just a simplification. also its often referred to as the angular dispersion with regards to the prism

all particles have an antiparticle. Though in some cases some particles are their own antiparticle. photon for example its antiparticle is the antiphoton. The difference is the helicity as the photon doesn't have a charge.

Then you missed the details of Snells law with chromatic dispersion and the subsequent changes of index due to changes in phase velocity of Light through a medium. Are you claiming the following doesn't occur https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_relation Obviously some materials are non dispersive, however a prism or water vapours are. The properties of the material and its sometimes dependency of frequency to index of refraction is the determining factor. Some materials are also birefringent though they depend on the polarization. (calcite for example).

I mentioned earlier that the tests for CPT and Lorentz invariance are extensive as well as to high precision. To give a better idea here is a collective of the relevant datatables. Tables D15 and D16 apply to photons. These tables are a bit tricky as there is 44 total parameters 20 for CPT related. These additional parameters involve extensions to describe mathematically the relevant violation. https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 Changing the photon direction is not the same thing as time reversal symmetry involved in the photon/antiphoton symmetry relations. Stimulated emissions involve momentum transfer. Yes you should have Lorentz symmetry in the momentum transfer however the time symmetry in Lorentz has distinctions from CPT symmetry which involve the Dirac equations. Lets do a simple thought experiment take a photon/antiphoton pair. The only difference is the polarity relations and the photon is its own antiparticle. Left hand, right polarizations. They both have the same energy/momentum so the transfer of momentum should be the same when interacting with an atom. We should be clear which time reversal symmetry are we testing for

No the article specifies super conductivity at room temperature under high pressure

My meaning by applying Snells law is to demonstrate in the maths as to how it applies we both agree it does.

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.

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

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.

Lol your last statement shows you have little knowledge on how a particle physicists conducts his tests to determine particle properties.

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.

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.

With that last response to Swansont you have proven to me at least. We are not accomplishing anything here.

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.

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.

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.

Would also be useful to numerous readers to include Snells law.

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

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.

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.

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.