Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

A symmetry the universe “must never violate”?

Spread the love

CPT Symmetry:

1.Charge conjugation (C): this symmetry involves replacing every particle in your system with its antimatter counterpart. It’s called charge conjucation because every charged particle has an opposite charge (such as electric or color charge) for its corresponding antiparticle.

2.Parity (P): this symmetry involves replacing every particle, interaction, and decay with its mirror-image counterpart.

3. Time-reversal symmetry (T): this symmetry mandates that the laws of physics affecting the interactions of particles behave the exact same ways whether you run the clock forwards or backwards in time…

On the experimental front, particle physics experiments have been operating for decades to search for violations of CPT symmetry. To significantly better precisions than 1-part-in-a-billion, CPT is observed to be a good symmetry in meson (quark-antiquark), baryon (proton-antiproton), and lepton (electron-positron) systems. Not a single experiment has ever observed an inconsistency with CPT symmetry, and that’s a good thing for the Standard Model. Ethan Siegel, “This Is The One Symmetry That The Universe Must Never Violate” at Forbes

Sounds like a designed system all right. Too bad that’s a problem for many physicists.


Most of the crackpot cosmology is developed by people who have a problem with the idea that the universe shows evidence of design, whether their bitch is the Big Bang or fine-tuning. Those people can be loads of fun as long as no one is required to take them seriously.

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

One Reply to “A symmetry the universe “must never violate”?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to these comments from the article:

    This Is The One Symmetry That The Universe Must Never Violate – Ethan Siegel – March 25, 2020
    Excerpt: Another consequence is that if the combination of CPT holds, then every violation of one of them (C, P, or T) must correspond to an equivalent violation of the other two combined (PT, CT, or CP, respectively) in order to conserve the combination of CPT. It’s why we knew that T-violation needed to occur in certain systems decades before we were capable of measuring it directly, because CP violation demanded it be so.,,,
    But the most profound consequence of the CPT theorem is also a very deep connection between relativity and quantum physics: Lorentz invariance. If the CPT symmetry is a good symmetry, then the Lorentz symmetry — which states that the laws of physics stay the same for observers in all inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames — must also be a good symmetry. If you violate the CPT symmetry, then the Lorentz symmetry is also broken.
    Breaking Lorentz symmetry might be fashionable in certain areas of theoretical physics, particularly in certain quantum gravity approaches, but the experimental constraints on this are extraordinarily strong. There have been many experimental searches for violations of Lorentz invariance for over 100 years, and the results are overwhelmingly negative and robust. If the laws of physics are the same for all observers, then CPT must be a good symmetry.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/25/the-one-symmetry-that-the-universe-forbids-us-from-violating/

    But why should CPT symmetry even care that “the laws of physics stay the same for observers in all inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames?”

    Lorentz invariance and you – Sean Carroll – October 26, 2005
    Excerpt: When Einstein put together special relativity on the basis of Lorentz invariance, he was arguing that there was no absolute space nor absolute time in the sense of Sir Isaac Newton. If two physicists traveling freely through empty space passed by each other at a high relative velocity, we couldn’t tell in any universal sense which one was stationary and which was moving — it’s all relative, if you like.,,,
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/lorentz-invariance-and-you

    Lorentz invariance, and therefore CPT symmetry, simply makes no sense under atheistic materialism. More specifically, it makes no sense under the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Copernican principle
    Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1]
    Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’s argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

    Carl Sagan coined the term ‘principle of mediocrity’ to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity’s situation
    https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false

    If the Copernican principle, and/or mediocrity principle, were actually true then there simply should never be any special consideration that is ever given to observers in the universe. But that is not what we find. Again, “If the CPT symmetry is a good symmetry, then the Lorentz symmetry — which states that the laws of physics stay the same for observers in all inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames — must also be a good symmetry. If you violate the CPT symmetry, then the Lorentz symmetry is also broken.

    I hold this, i.e. the correspondence between CPT symmetry and Lorentz symmetry, to be yet more confirming evidence that the Copernican principle is a false assumption:

    November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855

Leave a Reply