Is time reversal logically consistent?

[kmarinas86]

If you have three observers A, B, and C, if A is running backwards in time according to B, and B is running backwards in time according to C, does this mean that A must in run in the same direction in time as C, according to C (and/or vice versa)? Or does special relativity allow A to run backward in time according to C (and/or vice versa)?

 

[Dale]

Time never runs backwards. I don't know where you got that from.

 

[kmarinas86]

Time never runs backwards. I don't know where you got that from.

https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=2878677

 

[Dale]

Which of those do you believe is related to your question in any substantive way? I.e. Which of those supports your premise that there exists some observer B for whom A's clock is running backwards?

 

[kmarinas86]

Which of those do you believe is related to your question in any substantive way?

Ok, I just changed the post after you replied. Here's the new link:

https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=2878677

 

[kmarinas86]

It looks like the search results aren't specific enough. So I will simply ask you a few simple questions that rely on less unstated context.

Would, according to SR, time reverse for particles traveling faster than light? Then, if faster than light particles were observed, would observers sharing their frame of reference be consistent in the manner suggested at the beginning of the OP?

If you have three observers A, B, and C, if A is running backwards in time according to B, and B is running backwards in time according to C, does this mean that A must in run in the same direction in time as C, according to C (and/or vice versa)?

Or not?

Or does special relativity allow A to run backward in time according to C (and/or vice versa)?

 

[kmarinas86]

Also, note in another thread, I had received the following response:

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=3521551

It requires backwards time travel in some frames of reference but not in all frames of reference.

That the scientists at CERN have measured a positive velocity in their own rest frame wouldn't mean that the velocity is positive in every frame of reference.

It appears that he is suggesting that there can be such a thing as a super-luminal Lorentz boost. This has actually been suggested in scholarly papers:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q="superluminal+lorentz"

But additionally, he seems to imply that whether an object appears to be super-luminal or not can depend on the frame of reference, though this was off a tangent where my main focus was about an observer in the laboratory frame of the recent CERN neutrino experiment.

 

[Dale]

Special relativity does not allow any reference frame's time to run backwards according to any other reference frame. Special relativity also does not allow any frame to travel faster than light wrt any other frame.

The symmetry group of SR is the restricted Lorentz group.

 

[kmarinas86]

A: Time reversal is not logically consistent with SR.

Special relativity does not allow any reference frame's time to run backwards according to any other reference frame. Special relativity also does not allow any frame to travel faster than light wrt any other frame.

The symmetry group of SR is the restricted Lorentz group.

Emphasis: "restricted Lorentz group."

Got it. Thank you.