Can Photons Travel Backwards in Time According to Feynman's Path Integral Interpretation?

[Olias]

Photons are deemed to have their own anti-matter mirror particles (they ARE their own anti-mirror particles), does this mean that single photons do not exist? or is it that the E-M part of a photon is really the 'other' photon?

Are there such a thing as Double Photon-Wavefunctions?

 

[sol2]

Photons are deemed to have their own anti-matter mirror particles (they ARE their own anti-mirror particles), does this mean that single photons do not exist? or is it that the E-M part of a photon is really the 'other' photon?

Are there such a thing as Double Photon-Wavefunctions?

To e+ or not to e-, this is the question? That ole Shakespearean Quandry again.

The interactive nature of photon generation is of course steep in em considerations. So how would we not consider this interactive function in relation to red shifting and blue shifting as signatories of something else, as well?? A "means" to describe the functionability of coordinated references?

 

[Olias]

If someone was to ask me: how many wavefunctions of the Universe are there?, I would reply Three!

Why?..Think about it Sol..to be continued, .

 

[sol2]

If someone was to ask me: how many wavefunctions of the Universe are there?, I would reply Three!

Why?..Think about it Sol..to be continued, .

Holographically, Supposition of States(specifically GHZ entanglement)?

 

[krab]

Photons are deemed to have their own anti-matter mirror particles (they ARE their own anti-mirror particles), does this mean that single photons do not exist? or is it that the E-M part of a photon is really the 'other' photon?

Are there such a thing as Double Photon-Wavefunctions?

No, and no. The word "have" in your first sentence is inappropriate. Turn a photon into its anti-particle and it is still the same identical particle.

 

[Olias]

Yes Krab, my use of "have" is inappropriate.

Would you say that a photon has the same frequency/wavefunction after the transformation by anti-particle-particle interactions?

 

[Olias]

Is the photon's anti-particle (anti-photon), the sum energy of Negative Light, or responsible for DarkEnergy due to a negative "Refractive Index" in certain models:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0308/0308349.pdf

For instance have produced some neat experimental data, Anti-Photons are Left-Handed, in a Left Handed Medium?..and produce some though provoking results.

It may be that Anti-Photons can be thought of as Negative Energy in 2-D cetain fields, which may be the 'invisible-Dark-Energy' in Polarized Vacuum Medium of Deep Space?..they cannot be observed just as 'Yesterday' cannot be observed.

Just for reference:http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Richard-Feynman-QED.htm

 

[selfAdjoint]

What Richard Feynman said, from the site you linked to:

And what about photons? Photons look exactly the same in all respects when they travel backwards in time, so they are their own anti-particles

 

[chroot]

Please do not post personal theories in any section of the site other than the Theory Development subforum. Thank you.

- Warren

 

[Olias]

What Richard Feynman said, from the site you linked to:

Agreed!

Are they then "observable"?..I do not want ot touch upon Feynmans Path integrals, what I am real interested is this Feynma statement:Photons look exactly the same in all respects when they travel backwards in time.

Emphasis is on "when they travel backwards in time", do they physically travel backwards in time, or is this just a fact of Feynmans Path Integral intepretation?

Should not this be an 'observable' factor?