While physics is believed to be CPT symmetric in equations, this symmetry is clearly violated in solution we live in, e.g. by entropy growth.

I would like to ask about different asymmetry in solution: that circulating electron loses energy due to synchrotron radiation, but in CPT perspective it is also circulating charge - now gaining energy.

Can we say that this asymmetry comes from that there are more absorbers in our future than emitters in our past?

1 hour ago, Duda Jarek said:

While physics is believed to be CPT symmetric in equations, this symmetry is clearly violated in solution we live in, e.g. by entropy growth.

I would like to ask about different asymmetry in solution: that circulating electron loses energy due to synchrotron radiation, but in CPT perspective it is also circulating charge - now gaining energy.

Can we say that this asymmetry comes from that there are more absorbers in our future than emitters in our past?

What makes you think it should be gaining energy, when obviously (experimentally) it is losing energy. Surely it would only do that if time were to run backwards?

Electrons circling due to magnetic field, in CPT perspective become positrons circling in the opposite direction.

But CPT symmetry says that both are governed by the same equations - so why the former loses energy, but applying symmetry it gains energy instead?

I am not neglecting this obviously observed asymmetry, but ask where it comes from?

If time flowed backward instead of forward, everything would flow backward, e.g., a star would gain mass-energy (an aging star has less mass than the gas cloud from which it was formed (ignoring incidents such as the intrusion of some object) )..

12 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

But CPT symmetry says that both are governed by the same equations - so why the former loses energy, but applying symmetry it gains energy instead?

If one equation has a + sign and the other has a - sign, then they are not the same.

Yes, they are not the same - against CPT symmetry, the question is: why?

I think because there is now more absorbers than emitters - do you agree, or have a different answer?

47 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Electrons circling due to magnetic field, in CPT perspective become positrons circling in the opposite direction.

But CPT symmetry says that both are governed by the same equations - so why the former loses energy, but applying symmetry it gains energy instead?

I am not neglecting this obviously observed asymmetry, but ask where it comes from?

If you look at the system with time reversal, the electron would be absorbing photons.

But the overall process is one that represents an increase in entropy, which is not subject to CPT symmetry, an issue you continue to ignore. The only topic for discussion is your misunderstanding of when CPT applies.

28 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

do you agree, or have a different answer?

I find this thread completely baffling because it is ill posed.

What are you talking about ?

Are you talking about quantum explanation for electrons circulating in the field of the nucleus or are you talking about the classical requirement for accelerating charge to loose energy by radiation ?

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you look at the system with time reversal, the electron would be absorbing photons.

Yes, it is called synchrotron self-absorption ... but the question is why emission is dominating in our perspective, but in CPT perspective absorption is dominating?

Is it because of more absorbers than emitters?

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you talking about quantum explanation for electrons circulating in the field of the nucleus or are you talking about the classical requirement for accelerating charge to loose energy by radiation ?

No, I am asking why against CPT symmetry: in our perspective circulating electron loses energy, but applying this symmetry it gains energy instead?

1 minute ago, Duda Jarek said:

Yes, it is called synchrotron self-absorption ... but the question is why emission is dominating in our perspective, but in CPT perspective absorption is dominating?

Is it because of more absorbers than emitters?

Because that’s how entropy works in this case. It’s dissipative, with the emission of photons.

CPT isn’t a good symmetry for the process so why would you expect it would apply?

CPT symmetry is supposed to be in equations governing physics, so its violations need to be in solution.

Indeed like entropy asymmetry ... but how would you like to conclude this emission asymmetry from it?

I don't see how to do, looks like a different type of asymmetry - literally presence of more absorbers than emitters, reversed in CPT perspective.

25 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

CPT symmetry is supposed to be in equations governing physics, so its violations need to be in solution.

No, it’s in certain equations in certain parts of physics. Most people don’t expect a cup of coffee at room temperature to spontaneously heat up, and that’s an analogous process to what you described. A hot object emits photons. Run it in reverse and it would absorb.

As I pointed out several weeks ago, when you only offered part of the wikipedia entry on the topic, it says

“The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a HermitianHamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.“

You keep invoking CPT in scenarios that do not conform to this.

Indeed like entropy asymmetry ... but how would you like to conclude this emission asymmetry from it?

I don't see how to do, looks like a different type of asymmetry - literally presence of more absorbers than emitters, reversed in CPT perspective.

The number of absorbers and emitters points to entropy being involved. CPT applies to individual processes, as described above. Once the configuration enters into it, you’re probably outside of a process where it’s a good symmetry.

CPT symmetry says it doesn't matter if you look at circling charge forward or backward in time ... but it clearly depends in solution we live in.

There is clear asymmetry we should understand ... and it seems essentially different than entropy asymmetry.

38 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

CPT symmetry says it doesn't matter if you look at circling charge forward or backward in time ... but it clearly depends in solution we live in.

There is clear asymmetry we should understand ... and it seems essentially different than entropy asymmetry.

And the CPT theorem says that CPT isn’t a good symmetry in that situation, so applying it is wrong. (feel free to show how it fits the parameters given earlier, if you disagree)

Yes, “we” should understand this, and it’s clear that you don’t. Even though the answer has been presented to you, you stubbornly refuse to incorporate it into your thinking.

But as you have quoted “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena" ...

So do you say "circulating charge" is outside of "all physical phenomena"? Or propose some understanding (I haven't seen in your posts)?

I have proposed one: because there is more absorbers than emitters - do you agree, disagree (why?), or have a different understanding?

25 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

But as you have quoted “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena" ...

So do you say "circulating charge" is outside of "all physical phenomena"? Or propose some understanding (I haven't seen in your posts)?

I have proposed one: because there is more absorbers than emitters - do you agree, disagree (why?), or have a different understanding?

Excuse me if I am being a bit dim here, but doesn’t CPT symmetry mean you invert all 3 parameters together? So your inversion would mean a positron, circulating in the opposite sense and going backwards in time, wouldn’t it?

So it’s only gaining energy if time runs backwards. That seems sensible enough, surely?

So you are saying that while circulating electron loses energy, circulating positron gains it?

I think both are losing in our perspective, and both are gaining from CPT perspective.

It can gain energy by synchrotron self-absorption, but it would need emitters in the past - which are rare now ... in contrast to absorbers in our future.

In CPT perspective it is the opposite: more emitters than absorbers.

35 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

But as you have quoted “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena" ...

So do you say "circulating charge" is outside of "all physical phenomena"? Or propose some understanding (I haven't seen in your posts)?

I have proposed one: because there is more absorbers than emitters - do you agree, disagree (why?), or have a different understanding?

You cut off the list of criteria that describes the conditions. That doesn’t make them go away.

Absorbers and emitters aren’t physical phenomena. Absorption and emission (individually) are. Once you expand your view to systems, it’s likely you won’t be able to apply CPT

5 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

So you are saying that while circulating electron loses energy, circulating positron gains it?

CPT doesn’t apply, so this is moot

8 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

In CPT perspective it is the opposite: more emitters than absorbers.

And this focus on incorrect physics is why I previously locked these threads. You’re violating rule 2.8 (and possibly 2.5)