B CPT Symmetry: Proving the Theorem & Lorentz Transformation

fxdung
Messages
387
Reaction score
23
Some books prove CPT theorem basing on scalars,vectors, tensors building from 4-spinor of fermion and gamma matrices.Why can they do that?Because a general Lagrangian can contain bose scalar,bose vector,bose tensor fields and spinor fields.
The CPT theorem says CPT symmetry is a strictly correct.What about the PT symmetry,is it also strictly correct because it is Lorentz transformation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Weinberg, Quantum Theory of Fields, vol. 1 you find a proof for fields of arbitrary spin.

Then you should note that Lorentz invariance (or better Poincare) invariance refers to the continuous part of the Poincare group connected with the identity, i.e., the semidirect product of space-time translations with the proper orthochronous Lorentz group ##\mathrm{SO}(1,3)^{\uparrow}##. Poincare invariance just dictates invariance under this group due to the spacetime structure of special relativity. There's no need a priori that the theory should be invariant under any of the discrete transformations ##P##, ##T##, and ##C##. The ##CPT## theorem, however, tells you that any local relativistic QFT with a stable ground state (Hamiltonian bounded from below) is also automatically symmetric under ##CPT##. In the Standard Model all other combinations are violated by the weak interaction, and this is experimentelly checked for each of them, i.e., nature is not symmetric under each of the transformations ##P## (e.g., Wu experiment), ##CP## (neutral-kaon system, Cronin&Fitch), ##T## (I forgot who did the independent experimental proof on some B decays first; it was some recent LHC experiment).
 
  • Like
Likes RockyMarciano
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top