Does antimatter go back in time?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lmoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Antimatter Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of antimatter and its relationship to time, specifically whether antimatter can be interpreted as positive matter traveling backwards in time. Participants explore various theoretical interpretations, including Feynman diagrams and the implications of relativity, while questioning the validity and implications of such interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that antimatter can be viewed as positive matter traveling backwards in time, referencing mainstream interpretations.
  • Others argue that this description cannot be correct, citing historical developments in physics since 1964.
  • One participant highlights the need to define what "going back in time" means, distinguishing between coordinate time and proper time in relativity.
  • Feynman diagrams are mentioned as a representation where antiparticles appear to move back in time, though this is contested by others who claim the arrows serve as mnemonics rather than literal representations.
  • Another participant notes that antimatter has been created and held in suspension without showing any tendency to move backward in time, questioning the validity of the backward time interpretation.
  • Discussion includes references to CP-violation and its implications for time symmetry in nature, suggesting that the notion of particles moving backwards in time is not well-defined.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of antimatter and its relation to time, with no consensus reached on the validity of the backward time concept or its implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity in defining "going back in time," the reliance on specific interpretations of diagrams, and the unresolved nature of the implications of CP-violation on time symmetry.

lmoh
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Is it true that antimatter is positive matter traveling backwards in time? I have recently heard some say that it is and is part of the mainstream interpretation, but others say that it shouldn't be taken too literally, but I myself am not sure. What is the general consensus on the matter if there is any?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It has been known since at least 1964 that this cannot be the correct description of nature.
 
Vanadium, could you say a little more about what happened in 1964?
 
lmoh said:
Is it true that antimatter is positive matter traveling backwards in time? I have recently heard some say that it is and is part of the mainstream interpretation, but others say that it shouldn't be taken too literally, but I myself am not sure. What is the general consensus on the matter if there is any?

First of all, you have to define what "going back in time" means. In Relativity there are two concepts of time:
- coordinate time is measured by a clock at rest in frame of the observer
- proper time of an object is measured by a clock co-moving with the object

AFAIK the "antimatter going back in time" idea refers to proper time. I'm not sure how useful the idea is, but here some points:

In Feynman Diagrams the anti particles are shown to be moving back in time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram#Electron-positron_annihilation_example

220px-Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg.png


There are also the Epstein diagrams which contrary to Minkowski diagrams don't use coordinate time, but rather proper time on the time axis. In this diagrams the length contraction from movement can be derived from the projection of the object roated in space-time onto the spatial dimensions:

Raum = space
Eigenzeit = proper time

Object at rest in space moving only through time, therefore advancing vertically in space-time (only along the proper time dimension):

C4_2.jpg


Object is now also moving in space, therefore advancing obliquely in space-time, therefore rotated in space-time, therefore contracted spatially:

C4_3.jpg


Now, what would happen if the proper-time component of that space-time-advancement vector would become negative, so the arrow points down?

27y8pp4.png


Obviously the spatial projection would not only be contracted but mirrored. And anti-matter shows properties which are mirrored compared to matter. So it might make sense to interpret matter and anti-matter as advancing in opposite directions along a proper-time dimension.

Note that "forward" & "backward in time" become arbitrary. An alien made of anti-matter would claim that we are moving backwards in proper-time.
 
Last edited:
Well, we've created antimatter, and held it in suspension for as long as 16 minutes. It showed no tendency to move backward in time. Otherwise, it would have vanished as soon as it was created.
 
A.T. said:
In Feynman Diagrams the anti particles are shown to be moving back in time

No, no, no. That's not what the arrows mean. The arrows are mnemonics, nothing more, nothing less. They tell you whether you need a u, a v, a ubar or a vbar (depending on incoming or outgoing).
 
A.T. said:
First of all, you have to define what "going back in time" means.


I'm sorry, but I cannot help you there, due to my lack of knowledge on the subject, but I am only repeating claims by other people, but Feynman's interpretation is relevant if that helps.
 
Khashishi said:
Vanadium, could you say a little more about what happened in 1964?

The discovery of CP-violation by Jim Christenson et al. That demonstrated that the laws of nature were not time-symmetric. That is enough to tell you that "moving backwards in time" is not a well-defined statement. And since it's not a well-defined statement, suggesting that particles do it is not meaningful.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K