Mordred

If you count tests done on atoms as macroscale which it typically is considered then yes. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0006033.pdf Penning traps is one of the more common method used Its also been done with high precision spectrography.

Lol currently studying vacuums

I have to agree Migl. The chances of finding a CPT violation is extremely difficult without being a macro system. To get a rather large summary of the CPT and Lorentz invariant datatables one of my favorite look up references for various relations etc is here "Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation" https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 It's a 146 pages of sheer useful datatables lol. It's also been updated this year.

I can quarantee I won't solve baryogenesis. My research is simply studying where the research currently is on that issue. Lol too many people think the only job of a physicist is to invent new theories. Most of the work is research.

I love challenges, why do you think I enjoy physics so much ? It's challenging. One can accurately model any system or state using the mathematics of physics and subsequently test those theories. There are plenty of non textbook physics theories that attempt to counter well established theories. The difference is they still apply actual physics and mathematics You keep ignoring just how important testability is.

You might want to take another look at polarity and helicity relations of CPT with regards to that last statement.

Lmao, you can trust one thing. I will stick to my university degrees and the methods that those degrees professional trained me in. You can also trust images and descriptions will never solve any physics related topic. Just a side note virtual particles are never stable...they have insufficient mass/ energy to be stable. That can be mathematically proved using Breit Weigner cross section with regards to decay rate and mean lifetime.

They don't if anything a physicist would take one look and completely ignore it. Just as I did. So am I sounds like a good time to close the thread

No you specifically described stable virtual particles falling up with unstable particles falling down to two layered zones. Where is the misrepresentation when you clearly show that in the image with the statements on the LHS . Obviously the image gives errors you never intended.. Get the point you wouldn't get that with actual math

Let's see virtual particles falling back to consciousness hue . Incorrect that would describe a vector field not a scalar field regardless of what consciousness hue means. Cloud like layer where no layer walls would exist. Dark matter and dark energy in the same layers Nothing correctly described.

A good example if one were to plot the probability function for the quantum uncertainty principle. One wouldn't get a bunch of wavy sinusoidal lines. It would look more like a probability cloud around a vacuum potential baseline One of the most common mistakes is people trying to draw a particle wavefunction is to draw a symmetric sinusoidal waveform. That looks nothing like what a detector would show for a particles wavefunction. Another highly inaccurate visual representation is spacetime drawings. They are never accurate. Hence pictures are useless they are never accurate. Accuracy comes from making plots of test results. Not random drawings.

As I mentioned though you would need a better setup. One device used in testing for CPT is the J-PET detector. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811213984_0005 Using photons to detect CPT is tricky. As mentioned it would be tricky to separate normal photon interference from CPT effects.

You don't need to be a physicist to understand physics. Nor do you have to be a mathematician. The major formulas aren't that complex. We have plenty of members that have a solid understanding physics without knowing beyond the basic equations. Those equations however are essential when modelling. Diagrams and verbal descriptions is not modelling.

Diagrams are rather pointless, they don't do much good in physics. The exceptions being those directly related to mathematical representations, example Feymann diagrams this is all a diagram is good for. Concepts...... The mathematics is the steps needed to go from concept of imagination to testability with observational evidence. Mere concepts do not good. I always find the avoidance of the mathematics needed surprising in so many that try to do so. The very job of a physicist is to have the tools needed to make testable predictions of cause and effect. The mathematics performs that job. If you ever wish to truly develop your model, your going to need them. I recommend starting with the FLRW metric. Its a good stepping stone to modelling fields.

Your point of view doesn't really account for much. Baryogenesis relates to the question " why is there more positive matter than antimatter in our universe " that is the unsolved question. The issue is we still do not know the reason. Dark matter and dark energy are place holder terms. Regardless of the name both have been confirmed through a wide range of observational tests. This is why your opinion on that is irrelevant.. Observational evidence takes precedence. It is clear you don't understand the major theories with regards to cosmology. Instead of trying to reinvent physics in regards to quantum gravity. Perhaps your time would be better spent through study of GR QM and cosmology. Here this might help better understand cosmology without being too math heavy. http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model.

Sterile neutrinos = right hand =anti neutrinos. They are predicted by the standard model but we have yet to detect them. One of the reasons is they have a different cross section with the Higgs interaction via the seesaw mechanism it is predicted to be far more massive.

All the time but the difference is I can validate or invalidate any personal theory of mine with proven mathematical methods. Latest example is proving to myself sterile neutrinos would be insufficient to account for baryogenesis. All done mathematically. The mathematics I used are those in this thread involving to majorana mass terms for sterile neutrinos See the difference in methodology? I can validate or invalidate ant personal theory. I regularly do so.

Verbal declarations and descriptions through poorly used terminology doesn't explain anything. If you apply mathematics you would provide have a far more exacting answer

Doubtful that setup would allow detectability of cpt violation. Photons being symmetric bosons seldom self interfere. You would likely have a better chance with including parametric down conversion of monochromatic light with beam splitters. You will want a limited range of frequency modes.

You still need the mathematics they are essential claiming those equations are in your diagrams isn't proving that they are.

You need to mathematically show you can model the above with well tested physics. Not merely claim such....no relevant math to make testable predictions equals no theory. How would you mathematically define consciousness ?

Here is a few details to consider. The mathematics I provided above show the following. 1) spacetime field 2) spin 2 statistics derived via gravitational waves of the graviton 3) the propagator equation of the graviton field (aka virtual gravitons as virtual particles reside on the internal lines of a Feymann diagram just as does the field propogator.) 4)The GR related details provided is in the weak field limit of GR which may surprise you also work with the Schwartzchild metric. albiet QFT uses the field as an operator where all particles are field excitations whereas virtual particles are field fluctuations. So you have your wavefunctions included. The Langrangian equations include the uncertainty principle, the harmonic oscillator as well the probability functions for all possible paths. So in essence I provide all the essential details needed to describe accurately a graviton using QFT. (granted we don't have a cross section) to derive a mass term. What most people do not realize is physics already has an effective quantum gravity model. (numerous of them). However none of the effective quantum gravity models will function at all scales. They are only effective up to \(10^{19} \) GeV without divergences. This coincides with the singularity condition of a BH as well as the \(10^{-43} \) singularity limit of the BB model. This is often described as a problem with no- renormalization. However we can normalize gravity without divergences up to that point on one loop integrals. 2 loop integrals are still problematic, however its very rare for any field theory to be renormalizable beyond 2 loop in the first place. it is these reasons why quantum gravity is considered an effective field theory as opposed to a fundamental field theory. Unfortunately very few forum members have a chance to understand the equations involved in renormalization. So my posting them wouldn't help explain how the regulator operator is used for renormalization. No fault to any member, one has to have a solid understanding of Feymann integrals and QFT to have a hope in understanding the relevant equation. this is a very basic coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

Try getting any indication of a spacetime particle out of your thoughts... Then adopt the terminology spacetime field. Now it's clear your dealing with a mathematical field describing geometry. Keep all forms of particle fields separate and separate into individual fields. Mathematically you can then connect the other fields example christoffel connections. You can individually describe any particle in its own field ie its common to hear of photon field in your case perhaps graviton field.

Well your correct on needing the mathematics. When you do that you will better understand the coordinate aspects.

The spacetime fabric is nothing more than a useful analogy. There is no medium or corpuscular or particle composition to spacetime itself. It is not a rubber sheet or any other form of medium. Expansion is just a reduction in density over a larger volume of the standard model of particles. We simply use commoving coordinates as a convenience to maintain symmetry relations. Virtual particles are off shell particles that have insufficient mass to be a real particle of the specific type ie an offshell photon has less than a quanta of action. All particles add to the blackbody temperature both relativistic and non relativistic. This includes quasi and virtual particles (example zero point energy due to uncertainty principle) So your use of virtual particles would do the same more so if the are relativistic.