So: I am not clear on where you are getting that from either. I don’t even recall discussing pure C symmetry in this thread.
In your post of 08:35, where you quoted someone saying there was evidence of charge violation, specifically neutrinos and antineutrinos having different masses, and said that if it was so, then CPT violation was broken. This is not actually true, because the P and T symmetries can be broken so as to exactly compensate. In fact this almost exactly happens in the weak force, where the C and P symmetries are separately almost-completely violated, but CP is almost a good symmetry. But all that is a separate point.
Neither C, P or T symmetry hold alone.
Ok, I’m glad we were finally able to agree on this, because that’s what I’ve been saying all along: The laws of physics are not in fact T-symmetric.
Hopefully you can imagine why I prefer to describe that in terms of simple T-symmetry.
No, in fact I can’t. You are confusing separate operators and introducing your own notation, and it has led to comments six deep because you refuse to distinguish T from CPT symmetry. Moreover, it leads to you contradicting yourself: In one paragraph you agree that T is not separately a good symmetry, and then in the next you say that you “prefer to describe [physics] in terms of simple T symmetry”. If the symmetry is one that doesn’t actually hold, then I suggest that it is not simple at all, and certainly not worth introducing nonstandard notation for.
You are confusing separate operators and introducing your own notation, and it has led to comments six deep because you refuse to distinguish T from CPT symmetry. Moreover, it leads to you contradicting yourself: In one paragraph you agree that T is not separately a good symmetry, and then in the next you say that you “prefer to describe [physics] in terms of simple T symmetry”.
Paragraph 1 was me trying to “phrase this in language you are more likely to understand”
Paragraph 2 was me using the language I would normally use.
So: that was not a case of me “contradicting” myself at all.
If you simply reverse T, and the whole universe starts to run backwards, then it makes an awful lot of sense to call the universe “T symmetric”, IMHO, conventional terminology or no. Then it is time to start saying “T”—instead of “CPT”—since the old “T” has turned out to be not a fundamental or interesting concept.
In your post of 08:35, where you quoted someone saying there was evidence of charge violation, specifically neutrinos and antineutrinos having different masses, and said that if it was so, then CPT violation was broken. This is not actually true, because the P and T symmetries can be broken so as to exactly compensate. In fact this almost exactly happens in the weak force, where the C and P symmetries are separately almost-completely violated, but CP is almost a good symmetry. But all that is a separate point.
Ok, I’m glad we were finally able to agree on this, because that’s what I’ve been saying all along: The laws of physics are not in fact T-symmetric.
No, in fact I can’t. You are confusing separate operators and introducing your own notation, and it has led to comments six deep because you refuse to distinguish T from CPT symmetry. Moreover, it leads to you contradicting yourself: In one paragraph you agree that T is not separately a good symmetry, and then in the next you say that you “prefer to describe [physics] in terms of simple T symmetry”. If the symmetry is one that doesn’t actually hold, then I suggest that it is not simple at all, and certainly not worth introducing nonstandard notation for.
Paragraph 1 was me trying to “phrase this in language you are more likely to understand”
Paragraph 2 was me using the language I would normally use.
So: that was not a case of me “contradicting” myself at all.
If you simply reverse T, and the whole universe starts to run backwards, then it makes an awful lot of sense to call the universe “T symmetric”, IMHO, conventional terminology or no. Then it is time to start saying “T”—instead of “CPT”—since the old “T” has turned out to be not a fundamental or interesting concept.
Anyway, I think a miscommunication.