Experimental fact of CP and T invariance violation has long been discovered and recognized in particle physics (Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 165, 2015). However, in optics the situation is quite different. Whole army of orthodoxies exists here, which till now believe that “all known laws of physics are invariant under time reversal”. They do not want to know any new unknown physical laws. This is the essence of positivism: a physical phenomenon is described by suitable mathematical model and physical explanation does not need. You can say several dispensable words about potential barriers or about interference of something with anything. Without any proofs. It is enough.
But today we have great number of direct and indirect experimental evidences of inequality of forward and reversed processes in quantum physics. As a fact, this is a real physical base of whole nonlinear optics. The most beautiful example here is the phenomenon of the Bloch oscillations of cold atoms in vertical optical lattice. This effect quite directly demonstrate high spatial asymmetry of light scattering (the amplitude of the oscillations is determined by the recoil energy of two photons and is not directly related to the period of the optical lattice). Similar situation we can expect in the motion of levitated nanoparticles in laser field (optical tweezer). There are number of beautiful experiments in this region, but till now nobody carry out here directed experimental study of spatial asymmetry of light scattering by microparticles in laser fields (see attach file).
So, who first will carry out directed experimental study of spatial asymmetry of light scattering in laser fields by levitated microparticles?
Vladimir, I looked into your correspondence with quite a few people (Letters.pdf), and realized it is a year or more old. Were there any replies to your letters? Have you tried to publish any comments in the journals where the main papers you've mentioned were published? Have you tried to collect all your arguments in one paper and try to publish it in say PRL?
Dear Mohamed.
I am not sure that I well understand your comment.
The theorists many years intensively discuss the problem of physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, the problems of the arrow of time, thermodynamics, non-Markovianity in quantum physics. The main obstacle here is that we have insufficient physical base for choice of correct variant of the discussed mathematical models. My question is connected with simple and concrete experimental facts. I think that such old and new experimental results will increase a physical base for understanding a physical nature of quantum physics.
Dear Alexander.
The recipients of this letters are silent as a fish.
I many years write the e-prints of such subject (now this window is closed). This is the comments. Any journal (like as PRL) do not want to publish such texts. Without any arguments. I point out on the simple facts and experiments. They lie on a surface and are simple for understanding. However, our scientists can not or do not want to understand and recognized it.
Now this is not a physical, but mainly a social problem. Very stupid people practically absent in a science. But there are many people, which are zombied on the level of a gregarious instinct. Other side is that most scientists do not try to find a truth, but they try to make money for living. This is two very different goals. If you detach from a crowd, become a “white crow” – this is a very bad choice for living (Mohamed, probably, keeps in mind about such situation).
So, we need in a big authority person (like as I. Prigogine), who can push the situation from the dead point. Unfortunately, now the people of such level, perhaps, are absent in physics.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Quantum Physics