I think it’s monstrously implausible because it requires charged particles to have intricate internal structure of a very curious sort, a thing for which we have no evidence whatever. (Assuming you actually mean a pump, rather than (e.g.) “a source of some substance that can flow”, in which case I see no reason whatever for thinking it should be T-symmetric.)
Your justification seems to be that “charged particles contain pumps” would somehow explain the inverse square law, but I don’t see that at all. The idea that they are sources/sinks of some substance that spreads out geometrically might (though I don’t know how you’re going to make that work in the quantum context) but what you’re suggesting is both more specific (pumps as such are not required for an inverse square law) and less specific (pumps as such do not imply an inverse square law).
I think it’s monstrously implausible because it requires charged particles to have intricate internal structure of a very curious sort, a thing for which we have no evidence whatever.
So: charged particles are very tiny, we have limited knowledge about how they do what they do. To reverse under T=>-T you need something that rotates, or something that cycles through more than two states, or something like that—it need not be particularly intricate. Sources could reverse their operation under T=>-T too—it depends on the details of how they are constructed. It doesn’t take very much to reverse under T=>-T. Rotating is enough to do it, for example.
Sources make slightly more sense for gravity than electromagnetism, IMO. With electromagnetism you typically need sources and sinks—and a pump does both of those jobs pretty neatly.
I am entirely unable to understand how you can say “a pump does both of those jobs pretty neatly” without actually having at your disposal anything remotely resembling a theory that does any sort of job of matching observation in which charged particles are pumps.
You might as well point to some property of elementary particles and say “a billiard ball does this pretty neatly”. Except that we do at least have models of some of physics in which particles are a bit like billiard balls, which appears to put that proposal ahead of explaining electric charge via pumps.
Actual working models trump handwaving, for me, because the problem with handwaving is that without working out the details you have nothing remotely resembling an upper bound on the actual complexity of the theory—if any even exists—that the handwaving might be gesturing towards.
I am entirely unable to understand how you can say “a pump does both of those jobs pretty neatly” without actually having at your disposal anything remotely resembling a theory that does any sort of job of matching observation in which charged particles are pumps.
I just meant that a pump can act as a source—or a sink—depending on which way around you use it.
A specific model would probably not help much. My position is that there are a whole class of models which are isomorphic to conventional physics and exhibit T symmetry. We don’t yet know which of those models are correct, or indeed if any of them are.
I think it’s monstrously implausible because it requires charged particles to have intricate internal structure of a very curious sort, a thing for which we have no evidence whatever. (Assuming you actually mean a pump, rather than (e.g.) “a source of some substance that can flow”, in which case I see no reason whatever for thinking it should be T-symmetric.)
Your justification seems to be that “charged particles contain pumps” would somehow explain the inverse square law, but I don’t see that at all. The idea that they are sources/sinks of some substance that spreads out geometrically might (though I don’t know how you’re going to make that work in the quantum context) but what you’re suggesting is both more specific (pumps as such are not required for an inverse square law) and less specific (pumps as such do not imply an inverse square law).
So: charged particles are very tiny, we have limited knowledge about how they do what they do. To reverse under T=>-T you need something that rotates, or something that cycles through more than two states, or something like that—it need not be particularly intricate. Sources could reverse their operation under T=>-T too—it depends on the details of how they are constructed. It doesn’t take very much to reverse under T=>-T. Rotating is enough to do it, for example.
Sources make slightly more sense for gravity than electromagnetism, IMO. With electromagnetism you typically need sources and sinks—and a pump does both of those jobs pretty neatly.
I am entirely unable to understand how you can say “a pump does both of those jobs pretty neatly” without actually having at your disposal anything remotely resembling a theory that does any sort of job of matching observation in which charged particles are pumps.
You might as well point to some property of elementary particles and say “a billiard ball does this pretty neatly”. Except that we do at least have models of some of physics in which particles are a bit like billiard balls, which appears to put that proposal ahead of explaining electric charge via pumps.
Actual working models trump handwaving, for me, because the problem with handwaving is that without working out the details you have nothing remotely resembling an upper bound on the actual complexity of the theory—if any even exists—that the handwaving might be gesturing towards.
I just meant that a pump can act as a source—or a sink—depending on which way around you use it.
A specific model would probably not help much. My position is that there are a whole class of models which are isomorphic to conventional physics and exhibit T symmetry. We don’t yet know which of those models are correct, or indeed if any of them are.
The Wheeler–Feynman Time-Symmetric theory appears to be one such idea.