5 ms·

Whoa whoa, when you say: "the production of an anti-particle in a particle accelerator (e.g a positron) is really just a particle (electron) travelling back in

Whoa whoa, when you say: "the production of an anti-particle in a particle accelerator (e.g a positron) is really just a particle (electron) travelling back in time to the production point." Do you mean the particle actually traveled back in time, or that you are able to create a model with bi-directional time, and the model's calculations work with the observed results in the accelerator, or is this the type of question I'm not allowed to ask?

lmkg 17y ago
According to some philosophies of physics, there isn't a difference between the two things you just said. Traveling backwards through time is a valid, experimentally consistent, and self-consistent interpretation of a physical phenomenon. If you're not satisfied that means that it's "really" happening, then I think you'll need to be more specific about what you think "truth" means. Spoiler: physics makes your brain hurt. For example, I hear that that are small enough time/distance scales where causality because mathematically ill-defined.
retube 17y ago
sure you can ask it! and it's a good question, and similar to many which cause heated debate in QM (essentially - the model works beautifully, but what does it _mean_?). Basically I don't have the answer. All I can say is that when an anti-particle is created, that is IDENTICAL to - per our model - a particle travelling back in time and being destroyed at the production point. Now we know the model works extremely well. It describes the system to a very high degree of accuracy, and can be used to make predictions about how that system evolves. So - if the model is correct (let's assume it is), and anti-particle production -> moving forward in time == particle moving backwards -> destruction, which is it that we are observing? Basically, I think most physicists would say these two scenarios are the same thing, just expressed (or observed) in two different ways. Edit: actually this highlights an important distinction between the quantum and macro-worlds. Things can only happen in one direction in the macro-world thanks to entropy (everything -> disorder). Whereas in the quantum world there's no such restriction, and things can happen in either direction.

lmkg 17y ago

According to some philosophies of physics, there isn't a difference between the two things you just said. Traveling backwards through time is a valid, experimentally consistent, and self-consistent interpretation of a physical phenomenon. If you're not satisfied that means that it's "really" happening, then I think you'll need to be more specific about what you think "truth" means. Spoiler: physics makes your brain hurt. For example, I hear that that are small enough time/distance scales where causality because mathematically ill-defined.

retube 17y ago

sure you can ask it! and it's a good question, and similar to many which cause heated debate in QM (essentially - the model works beautifully, but what does it _mean_?). Basically I don't have the answer. All I can say is that when an anti-particle is created, that is IDENTICAL to - per our model - a particle travelling back in time and being destroyed at the production point. Now we know the model works extremely well. It describes the system to a very high degree of accuracy, and can be used to make predictions about how that system evolves. So - if the model is correct (let's assume it is), and anti-particle production -> moving forward in time == particle moving backwards -> destruction, which is it that we are observing? Basically, I think most physicists would say these two scenarios are the same thing, just expressed (or observed) in two different ways. Edit: actually this highlights an important distinction between the quantum and macro-worlds. Things can only happen in one direction in the macro-world thanks to entropy (everything -> disorder). Whereas in the quantum world there's no such restriction, and things can happen in either direction.