jcYoon's Physics Forum Index jcYoon's Physics
Newsgroup and Email Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CPT Tests

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    jcYoon's Physics Forum Index -> Professor Hitoshi Murayama
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:02 pm    Post subject: CPT Tests Reply with quote

murayama@lbl.gov
Sat 2004-10-02 7:41 AM

Dear Professor Murayama,

Recently, I have read your paper on CPT tests (PLB 597, 73, 2004).
In this paper, it is said that CPT theorem states that a particle and its antiparticle
must have the same mass and lifetime with a reference of Steater and Wightman.
However, I donít quite understand the connection between CPT symmetry and
mass and lifetime equality especially when C is violation.

I would like to appreciate if let me know your explanation on this.

I sincerely apologize for your time and effort if you find it unworthy of your attention.

Thanks,
J.C. Yoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hitoshi Murayama



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: CPT Tests Reply with quote

Mon 2004-10-11 1:06 PM

You are right that C is violated. The point is that, even though C is
violated, CPT is enough to tell you that a particle and its
anti-particle should have the same mass and lifetime.

Hitoshi

Hitoshi Murayama
Professor of Physics
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720

Faculty Senior Staff
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
MS 50A-5104
Berkeley, CA 94720
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:05 pm    Post subject: RE: CPT Tests Reply with quote

murayama@hitoshi.berkeley.edu
Tue 2004-10-26 5:45 AM


Dear Professor Hitosh Murayama,

I am sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner and
I appreciate your response and time.

But, it looks like I was not clear about the question and please allow me to
rephrase it again.

How do you mathematically verify that "even though C is violated, CPT is
enough to tell you that a particle and its anti-particle should have the same
mass and lifetime"?

Thanks,
J.C. Yoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hitoshi Murayama



Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:06 pm    Post subject: Re: CPT Tests Reply with quote

Fri 2004-11-05 5:05 PM

It is simply that

H |particle> = m |particle>
H |anti-particle> = (CPT) H (CPT)^-1 |anti-particle>
= (CPT) H |particle> = (CPT) m |particle> = m (CPT) |particle> = m
|anti-particle>

Hitoshi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jcyoon



Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm    Post subject: RE: CPT Tests Reply with quote

Sat 2004-11-06 3:22 AM

Dear Professor Hitosh Murayama,
Thanks for your response and time.

It looks like it is the same argument in T.D. Lee's book.
Or do you have any other reference of published papers?

I am afraid that this proof is flawed.
(CPT)^-1|anti-particle> = |particle> contradicts with the definition
of charge conjugate, which is supposed to be particle and antiparticle symmetry.
By stating this, it claims that CPT not C is particle and antiparticle symmetry
and this is quite stronger claim than just saying CPT guarantees mass and lifetime
equality. If it is true that antiparticle is CPT operated particle, than we should be able
to derive Dirac equations from Lagrangian based on this definition of particle and
antiparticle besides satisfying the invariance of Lagrangian under CPT. However,
unless we follow the definition of C as particle and antiparticle symmetry, we are not
able to derive Dirac equations for particle and antiparticle from the Lagrangian and,
as matter of fact, we inconsistently use this previous definition of C in this derivation.
Therefore, the proof here is inconsistent with this derivation and flawed since we are
not able to derive Dirac equation successfully with (CPT)^-1|anti-particle> = |particle>.

I would like to appreciate your opinion on this.

Thanks,
J.C. Yoon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    jcYoon's Physics Forum Index -> Professor Hitoshi Murayama All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group