The destiny of an antiparticle

  • Thread starter El Hombre Invisible
  • Start date
  • Tags
    destiny
In summary: Let me try again. 1) You start with an electron and a photon. 2) The photon produces an electron-positron pair. 3) The positron annihilates with the original electron producing a new photon, leaving the (as I said) SEEMINGLY new electron.In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of antiparticles in the context of QED and how they are thought to be normal particles moving backwards in time. The experiments showing photons splitting into electron-positron pairs and the subsequent annihilation of the positron and electron to produce a new photon is discussed. The idea that all antiparticles are predestined to annihilate with a particle due to their origin in the future is also brought
  • #1
El Hombre Invisible
692
0
I'm pretty much a newby to the ins and outs of QED and have a question about antiparticles. First: stop me if I'm wrong... Antiparticles can be thought of as (or simple are?) normal particles moving backwards in time. Experiments have shown photons splitting into electron-positron pairs followed by the positron annihilating with an electron to reproduce a photon leaving only the seemingly brand-spanking new electron.

QED says what's really going on is an electron is emitting a photon, moving backwards in time, emitting another photon (that itself travels backwards in time) and moving forwards in time again. This view surely necessitates that every antiparticle in the universe is predestined to annihilate with a particle, because traveling backwards in time that annihilation is the very origin of that antiparticle. Is this right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
El Hombre Invisible said:
I'm pretty much a newby to the ins and outs of QED and have a question about antiparticles. First: stop me if I'm wrong... Antiparticles can be thought of as (or simple are?) normal particles moving backwards in time. Experiments have shown photons splitting into electron-positron pairs followed by the positron annihilating with an electron to reproduce a photon leaving only the seemingly brand-spanking new electron.

Whoa! Aren't you having a bit of an accounting issue here?

1. You have a photon

2. Photon turns into electron-positron

3. electron and positron anhilate to produce photon

4. You are then left with a "brand-spanking new electron"?

Zz.
 
  • #3
ZapperZ said:
Whoa! Aren't you having a bit of an accounting issue here?

1. You have a photon

2. Photon turns into electron-positron

3. electron and positron anhilate to produce photon

4. You are then left with a "brand-spanking new electron"?

Zz.

No, he didn't say that. Notice that you had to have at least one electron initially to anhilate the electron. In 2 an electron and positron are created, in 3 an electron and positron are anhilated (and you get back the photon you lost in 2). The bookkeeping works. It was Feynman who popularized this idea (although I believe it was not original with him)- if we think of a positron as an electron "moving back in time", then we have no problem with the bookkeeping between 2 and 3. That also explains why all electrons are identical- there's really only one electron in the universe, whizzing back and forth in time!
 
  • #4
HallsofIvy said:
No, he didn't say that. Notice that you had to have at least one electron initially to anhilate the electron.

Err... I must be dense. You need an electron to anhilate another electron?

In 2 an electron and positron are created, in 3 an electron and positron are anhilated (and you get back the photon you lost in 2). The bookkeeping works. It was Feynman who popularized this idea (although I believe it was not original with him)- if we think of a positron as an electron "moving back in time", then we have no problem with the bookkeeping between 2 and 3. That also explains why all electrons are identical- there's really only one electron in the universe, whizzing back and forth in time!

Unless I misread something (entirely possible), you are saying that an electron anhilate with itself? I can see how an electron moving forward in time anhilate with ANOTHER electron moving backwards in time. This is no different than a particle with positive energy anhilate with its mirror image that has a negative energy. After all, if you look at Dirac equation, you can put the negative sign on the energy quantity also. But these are two different entities that are anhilating each other, not the same entity.

Zz.
 
  • #5
I think that the first two paragraphs of the OP are laying out different scenarios, so that's where the disagreement is coming from. But the scenario in his first paragraph does appear to have an accounting issue.
 
  • #6
Zz: Not an accounting issue - an ambiguity issue. I said "followed by the positron annihilating with an electron"... AN electron, not the same one produced in the pair. Sorry, I didn't break this down clearly.

Let me try again. 1) You start with an electron and a photon. 2) The photon produces an electron-positron pair. 3) The positron annihilates with the original electron producing a new photon, leaving the (as I said) SEEMINGLY new electron.

From my understanding, what QED says is that the two electrons and the positron are actually the same particle - the original electron - as it A) moves forwards in time; B) produces a photon and moves backwards in time; C) absorbs a new photon and moves forwards in time. (To keep things simple, I have now assumed all photons are moving forwards in time as the photon is its own antiparticle.) With this approach, the positron only existed at 2) above because the electron emitted a photon at B) some time later. This suggests that all positrons are doomed to annihilate, as its origin is in the future. Is this right?

As for an electron annihilating with itself - no, this is not right. You have to be consistent. If you are observing that the positron is really the electron moving backwards in time, you have to realize that no annihilation is occurring - the electron is simply emitting photons and changing direction in time. Looking in both directions in time, no annihilation is occurring.
 
  • #7
El Hombre Invisible said:
Zz: Not an accounting issue - an ambiguity issue. I said "followed by the positron annihilating with an electron"... AN electron, not the same one produced in the pair. Sorry, I didn't break this down clearly.

Let me try again. 1) You start with an electron and a photon. 2) The photon produces an electron-positron pair. 3) The positron annihilates with the original electron producing a new photon, leaving the (as I said) SEEMINGLY new electron.

1. Why would you need the first electron?

2. How would you know the anhilation occurred with which electron? Why would this make any difference which electron was anhilated?

In quantum statistics of indistinguishibility, you in fact, have no ability to distinguish between one and the other.

From my understanding, what QED says is that the two electrons and the positron are actually the same particle - the original electron - as it A) moves forwards in time; B) produces a photon and moves backwards in time; C) absorbs a new photon and moves forwards in time. (To keep things simple, I have now assumed all photons are moving forwards in time as the photon is its own antiparticle.) With this approach, the positron only existed at 2) above because the electron emitted a photon at B) some time later. This suggests that all positrons are doomed to annihilate, as its origin is in the future. Is this right?

This is VERY confusing. Would it help if you learn about electron and holes in a conductor? At T=0, the ground state of a Fermi sea of electron (the vacuum state) is full. Upon excitation, an electron can jump above that sea to create an electron in the excited state, but it also leaves behind a hole in the fermi sea. That hole, when compare to the rest of the sea of electrons, has a positive charge. So you have used the energy of excitation to create an electron-hole pair. This is no different than the creation of a electron-positron pair. The positive hole is the antiparticle of that electron in this system. The only difference being that in this case, I tag the "-" sign to the energy of the hole, whereas in the electron-positron pair, I tag the "-" sign to the time factor.

You should not confuse yourself between the mathematical formulation and physical meaning. As useful as the Feynman diagrams, you cannot lose sight that it is a representation of the mathematics, especially a representation of higher order perturbation.

Zz.
 
  • #8
El Hombre Invisible said:
This view surely necessitates that every antiparticle in the universe is predestined to annihilate with a particle, because traveling backwards in time that annihilation is the very origin of that antiparticle. Is this right?

No, not really. Nothing stops you from having an electron moving backward in time all the way, from T=+infty to T=-infty. That's a free positron.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #9
A tangent to the original question: can we assume that any observed positron must eventually annihilate, regardless of our conceptual reasoning?
 
  • #10
Zz: apologies, I am not explaining myself clearly. I am reiterating a phenomenon I have read about that is apparently very real and the (or a) QED explanation describing it. There is no question of me 'needing' the original electron - this is the phenomenon I am asking about (otherwise it would be a different question, one that you may have answered).

The ins and outs of measuring which, what and where can be left aside. My question is specific to the theory in QED that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time, and this change in direction of t coincides with the emission (or, backwards in t, absorption) of a photon. Even if this is bull, within the constraints of this theory, does this necessitate that every positron must eventually annihilate (i.e. does every positron originate from an electron in the future)?

Patrick: thanks for response. I was unprepared for your answer, as it kind of leads straight into the fate of the universe as a whole. I take it T=-infty refers to the relativistic notion that, if you could travel towards the big bang, you'd never get there. I didn't mean to end up in cosmology, but let's take the big bang as t=0. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, so let's assume no big crunch. At t=0 we have a kind of boundary for matter, with (to us) antiparticles heading straight towards the big bang, going "arrrghhh, it's too hot, it's too hot" and turning around again (I would). I can't really get my head around what happens at the other end, if there is no other end ! Where do these backwards-moving electrons come from?
 
  • #11
Chi Meson said:
A tangent to the original question: can we assume that any observed positron must eventually annihilate, regardless of our conceptual reasoning?
That's the thing - there's no physical reason why a positron, that I am aware of, must annihilate in a universe whose expansion is accelerating. I'm tempted to say balls to Feynman and stick with Zz's explanation of antimatter as the only one. If this ain't the end of the universe, armaged- no, sorry that's just s---.
 
  • #12
El Hombre Invisible said:
My question is specific to the theory in QED that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time, and this change in direction of t coincides with the emission (or, backwards in t, absorption) of a photon. Even if this is bull, within the constraints of this theory, does this necessitate that every positron must eventually annihilate (i.e. does every positron originate from an electron in the future)?

OK, so now I'm confused.

Are you saying that you have an electron, and then this electron later on travels back in time and transformed itself to a positron? That is what I gather from your description of an electron changing "in direction". I want to reiterate that if you look at the feynman diagram of a pair anhilation, for example, that you have TWO separate entities being zapped together: an electron moving forward in time, and a positron moving forward in time.

On a related but SEPARATE issue, if you look at the dynamics of the positron and you do a time-reversal symmetry operation, and you play around with where the minus sign should be tagged to, you can get a mirror description of it as an electron moving backwards in time. Whether this is a physical solution or have any physical meaning, I cannot say (it certainly has implications to symmetry operations). I'm just thinking that you are looking into this way too much, much more than what is implied physically.

Zz.
 
  • #13
ZapperZ said:
On a related but SEPARATE issue, if you look at the dynamics of the positron and you do a time-reversal symmetry operation, and you play around with where the minus sign should be tagged to, you can get a mirror description of it as an electron moving backwards in time. Whether this is a physical solution or have any physical meaning, I cannot say (it certainly has implications to symmetry operations).

Zz.
This isn't a separate issue; it's the crux of my question, but now I see why we have our wires crossed. Let me back up. Your description of antimatter is the one I am used to. I am not disputing it, and I am supposing nothing of my own invention. I had heard about the 'positron appears identical to an electron moving backwards in time' thing before - specifically in relation to virtual pair creation which is much like an electron moving in a kind of time-loop, emitting and absorbing photons on the way. Never gave it much thought.

Now, I'm just an undergraduate and will probably only skim the surface of QED in my degree and won't get into this properly until postgrad studies so I like to skip ahead a lot and I read Feynman's lectures on QED for undergrads like myself. When describing the phenomenon in my OP, Feynman did not say 'it looks just like...' he states it IS a single electron moving forwards and backwards in time. Now this is old material and even Einstein got poo-pooed about some things, so if it's balls then fair enough, but if this theory is true, does this necessitate positron annihilation? Treating positrons as separate, forward-moving particles, there is no reason why they must ever annihilate with anything. They were created in the past and their fate is unknown. Taking Feynman's viewpoint, though, the positron was created in the future (by 'created', I mean it ceased to look like an electron and started to look like a positron) which, Patrick's suggestion aside, sounds like every antiparticle in the universe is going to annihilate. With the big bang behind us, the positron's future (our past) is also set in stone.

I do get what you mean about not taking Feynman diagrams at face value, but this was a written statement and was fairly unambiguous. I wish I had the book here now but I don't.
 
  • #14
El Hombre Invisible said:
Patrick: thanks for response. I was unprepared for your answer, as it kind of leads straight into the fate of the universe as a whole. I take it T=-infty refers to the relativistic notion that, if you could travel towards the big bang, you'd never get there. I didn't mean to end up in cosmology, but let's take the big bang as t=0. The expansion of the universe is accelerating, so let's assume no big crunch. At t=0 we have a kind of boundary for matter, with (to us) antiparticles heading straight towards the big bang, going "arrrghhh, it's too hot, it's too hot" and turning around again (I would). I can't really get my head around what happens at the other end, if there is no other end ! Where do these backwards-moving electrons come from?

I think you read too much in QED :-) Let's not forget that QED is *special relativity* (flat spacetime) and quantum fields, and that (at least the unitary part) of the theory is completely time-symmetric. So, cosmology is not incorporated in QED.
Your question is: because positrons are electrons going backward in time, do they have to come from an electron going forward in time and then interacting (meaning, an annihilation in the future), right ?
My answer is that, given the settings of QED (flat Minkowski spacetime, time symmetric theory), there is nothing more mysterious with one single electron going backward in time "all the way" (as a free particle), than it is mysterious, or not, to have a free electron going forward in time "all the way" (as a free particle). It is a symmetry of the theory, that to every particle going "forward in time" there is also a situation of the same particle, going "backward in time". That's why to each particle, there is an antiparticle. It is just dictated by that symmetry. It's even more funny: that same symmetry tells you that you are free to choose which particle is the "anti-particle". So your happy electron going forward in time can be considered as a positron going backward in time ! And now you don't have a conceptual problem anymore with positrons, but you now wonder whether each ELECTRON needs to be annihilated in the future: after all, it is a positron that was bounced back in time...

The message is: don't take that "forward in time" and "backward in time" too literally. Do as everyone else: consider all particles as going forward in time, and say that there are 2 of them: particles, and anti-particles.
It is just a nice way of remembering that the fact that to each particle, belongs also an anti-particle, is originally due to the time-symmetry of special relativity.

cheers,
patrick.
 
  • #15
vanesch said:
I think you read too much in QED :-)
I don't doubt it mate, but once riled I just can't let these things lie. All of my quantum theory conversations end with someone saying STOP ASKING SO MANY DAMN QUESTIONS!
vanesch said:
My answer is that, given the settings of QED (flat Minkowski spacetime, time symmetric theory), there is nothing more mysterious with one single electron going backward in time "all the way" (as a free particle), than it is mysterious, or not, to have a free electron going forward in time "all the way" (as a free particle). It is a symmetry of the theory, that to every particle going "forward in time" there is also a situation of the same particle, going "backward in time". That's why to each particle, there is an antiparticle. It is just dictated by that symmetry. It's even more funny: that same symmetry tells you that you are free to choose which particle is the "anti-particle".
Oh yes, I get the arbitrari...ness (?) of my assumptions but, as it works both ways, so does my question. I think, though, this is just another way of asking "what happens to all the stuff?!?" I dunno... maybe we'll all end up in black holes and then I'll have an answer. I'm just having difficulty figuring out where in the future a backwards-travelling electron is sourced. The big bang offers a nice, simple boundary by which any backwards-travellers must turn... forward, or from a more sensible point of view, from which matter-antimatter pairs can be created. The heat death of eternity doesn't seem to offer one, or perhaps (like the big bang) there is an end to time but nothing can ever get there. Yeah, that'll do. I'm going to post a different question now... one that won't send me insane.
 
  • #16
El Hombre Invisible said:
I'm just having difficulty figuring out where in the future a backwards-travelling electron is sourced.

Yes, and I wanted to make you see that you can also see normal electrons as backwards-travelling positrons, so where in the future are these backwards-travelling positrons sourced (which we observe as normal electrons)?

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #17
Yeah, I get you, and the inconsistency of my thinking. My choice of electrons 'going the right way' was based on the prevalence of matter over antimatter. It is not possible for every electron to annihilate in the future (and not reproduce) because there are so many more of them. However it is possible for every positron to annihilate in the future. This pushes me to think that one is going towards the future and the other is heading back. If the high energies of the big bang to provide (or are consequence of) a barrier, it is easy to think of positrons as electrons heading towards it, turning back and becoming electrons as we see them with a high probability of going on forever, hence more electrons (which don't turn back) than positrons (which will in the past). But I see that this is the wrong route - many thanks for altering my mind. I pay my dealer good money to do that. ;o)

How linked in this respect are energy and time? The way I see it, pair creation and annihilation could be seen either way as a particle emitting more EM energy than it has in one direction in time and, in compensation, heading off itself in the other. If the photon it emitted is done so backwards in time, this would appear to be pair creation. If forwards, it would appear to be annihilation.
 
  • #18
El Hombre Invisible said:
How linked in this respect are energy and time? The way I see it, pair creation and annihilation could be seen either way as a particle emitting more EM energy than it has in one direction in time and, in compensation, heading off itself in the other. If the photon it emitted is done so backwards in time, this would appear to be pair creation. If forwards, it would appear to be annihilation.

Draw the feynman diagram for this. The way you described it, it could be intepreted in a dozen ways, besides the fact that I don't quite get what you are trying to say.

Zz.
 
  • #19
Or upside down... either way.
 

Attachments

  • feynman1.bmp
    22.5 KB · Views: 467
  • #20
El Hombre Invisible said:
Or upside down... either way.

See, this is where I will utter the words you probably will not like: "it just doesn't matter!"

I can look at your feynman diagram and say a particle and its antiparticle partner anhilate to produce a photon.

Or, I can say that a particle moving forward in time meets the same particle but moving backwards in time and they anhilate each other to produce a photon

Or, I can say a particle moving forward in time "disappears" and becomes that particle moving backwards in time. When it does this, a photon is emited.

Or, I can say an antiparticle moving forward in time "disappears" and becomes that antiparticle moving backwards in time. When it does this, a photon is emitted.

My question to this is: so what's the big deal? The reason why when you look at such a sketch that most people do not bother to label it with arrows, etc. is that such a thing is "redundant" because one description is idential to the other. All 4 of what I've said is a description of the IDENTICAL mathematics!

I will repeat what I had said earlier that the feynman diagram representing this dynamics is a representation of the MATHEMATICAL operation! We cannot lose sight of that fact. Just because you are seeing different parts of the limbs, it is STILL the same animal.

Zz.
 
  • #21
Whenever a positron is created in the real world, whether from pair production or beta+ decay etc, it is accelerated toward one of the sea of electrons through which it is traveling. The result is three fold: 1. immediate (E-17 seconds)annihilation (80%) into two 0.511 photons that are expelled in opposite directions; 2. the e+e- pair decide to dance a "docy-do" and while in the process, each moves in a spiral fashion toward annihilation in two different ways dependent on the spin-magnetic orientation (the Pauli requirement has been satisfied by the electrostatic difference of the pair); when the magnetic north poles point in the same direction (triplet-positronium) the collapse of the pair is impeded thus resulting in a measurable time increment that is 1000-fold larger than that in the case; 3. (singlet-positronium) where the north poles point in opposite directions, thus accelerating the collapse. Triplet-Ps occurs 15-% of the population and singlet-Ps happens 5-%. Some early thinkers proposed that the triplet-Ps sometimes annihilated into three photons with at least one 0.511 MeV photon. Cheers, Jim
 
Last edited:
  • #22
ZapperZ said:
All 4 of what I've said is a description of the IDENTICAL mathematics!

I will repeat what I had said earlier that the feynman diagram representing this dynamics is a representation of the MATHEMATICAL operation! We cannot lose sight of that fact. Just because you are seeing different parts of the limbs, it is STILL the same animal.

Zz.
What you don't seem to get is that I don't give a toss about the mathematical equivilence - I'm interested in the meaning. In the normal forwards-only view of time, while the ins and outs of pair creation and annihilation are lectures ahead of me, the basic concept is something I am used to. I have no questions about the meaning of emission, absorption, production and annihilation (well, I do, but not directly related to this). The time-symmetrical approach, while mathematically equivilent, raises questions about the meaning. Why? Well, for one thing a photon is its own antiparticle, therefore one said to be traveling forwards in time is indistinguishable from one traveling backwards. So if particles can be said to be traveling in either direction in time, it raises a question of whether a photon is being emitted backwards in time or absorbed forwards in time (or vice versa). In a forwards-only viewpoint, these questions simply do not exist - a photon leaving an atom forwards in time is called emission and a photon entering an atom forwards in time is called absorption. Pair production essentially ends a photon's existence and begins a pair's. The cause is always in the past of the effect. I'm asking about cause in the future. Can a photon's existence in the present be down to a change in a particle's trajectory in the future? Mathematical equivilence is not the be all and end all of philosophy.
 
  • #23
El Hombre Invisible said:
What you don't seem to get is that I don't give a toss about the mathematical equivilence - I'm interested in the meaning.

And this is where you make your mistake. The mathematical formulation came FIRST. This is true for QM, and it is true for QED. I have described at length why people can disagree on the "meaning" of a formalism, yet, they all agree on the actual formalism itself. Now isn't it more rational to start with understanding the formalism and THEN look at the meaning? This is because what it "means" need not be "human prejudice independent". You are trying to put words and description to something that may not have any physical relevance. For all you know, you're trying to put meanings into something completely unphysical. Want an example? Try putting meanings into the solution inside a conductor from an image charge problem! The solution inside the conductor is completely unphysical, even though you get the identical answer simply by replacing the conductor with an image charge.

When you reach the point where you can read a mathematical expression the same way a musician read musical notes on a paper, you have become a physicist. When that happens, you will never utter such phrase as "I don't give a toss about the mathematical equivilence"[/QUOTE]

Zz.
 
  • #24
I don't give a toss about the mathematical equivilence in this topic because I'm not questioning it. If you can explain mathematically why one physical interpretation holds over another, fine. Then they're not mathematically equivilent. If they are, and both physical interpretations hold, but a phenomenon mathematically equivilent in each has two different physical meanings - i.e. ambiguity - then to tell someone they shouldn't question an aspect of one because they are mathematically equivilent is dogmatic and close-minded. If you don't want to or cannot answer the question I asked, groovy, neither can I, maybe no-one can, but don't tell me not to ask it.

"You are trying to put words and description to something that may not have any physical relevance. For all you know, you're trying to put meanings into something completely unphysical."

Maybe, and if so, then that's the answer I'm looking for. I'd be happy with that. Doesn't mean I shouldn't ask the question. Okay, it doesn't mean it to me. It might mean it to you, but as long as those meanings are mathematically equivilent...
 
  • #25
ZapperZ, I think you are being entirely too hard on El Hombre. He is quite accurately setting forth Feynman's conjecture about the relationship between electrons and positrons, and more generally between particles and anti-particles, and the idea does have some currency in the scientific community as a sometimes useful way of interpreting Feynman diagrams.

Also, I don't think that the distinction is merely philosophical. The place where the issue comes up is in causality issues in the EPR quantum entanglement experiments.

If one quantum at point A, can instantly have an effect on another quantum at point B, normally one would say, whoa, we are seeing superluminal communication of information, which must happen through some medium, which brings us to the brink of special relativity/speed of light issues.

But, if a causal chain can go backwards and forwards in time, as El Hombre explains that the Feynman interpretation suggests in his simple example where what looks like three leptons is really just one moving backwards and forwards in time on a single worldline, then the EPR experiments aren't superluminal after all. You have information going from point A back in time at a subluminal rate to the point of entanglement along the first quantum's worldline, and then from there up the worldline of the second quantum at a subluminal rate to point B, causing an effect.

An interpretation where both quanta move forward in time from the point of entanglement to points A and B is far more awkward in terms of causality and information transfer. The information that A is transmitting to B is something that we normally don't think about existing until A's wavefunction is collapsed at some point in the future and experimentally we know that wavefunction collapse to be a perfectly random process. So, it is much more intuitive to think about the information coming into existence when the first quantum reaches point A and moving first backwards and then forwards in time until hat information reaches point B, than it is to think about the scenario in the traditional non-Feynman manner.

Different ways of thinking about causality is an important concept for physicists because while generally, the laws of physics are time independent, there are arrows of time, such as the physical laws relating to entropy, and CP violations, whose connection to "what time is" and "causality" are not well understood. It could very well be that a Feynman interpretation could give you better intuition about how the Second Law of Thermodynamics would apply in an anti-matter dominanted context, or what is going on in a CP violation situation, than the conventional intepretation, just as the intuition from it may be useful in developing intuition about how non-local phenomena, like quantum entanglement behave.

Similarly, Feynman's interpretation may be useful in developing a sense of how to reconcile general relativity concepts of space-time with the merely special relativistic notion of time generally used in quantum physics against a Minkowski background. For example, it could be that there is more than one possible generalization of quantum physics to a general relativistic context, and that a Feynman intepretation could make one approach seem more plausible as a means of generalizing QM than another.

The two approaches are mathematically equivalent (as far as I can tell, given what we know so far). So, to insist on one rather than another interpretation of a mathematically equivalent set of interpretations is mere dogma, and there is no reason not to use an interpretation that is intuitively helpful when it produces the right answer.

I also think that the Feynman interpretation can be used to suggest an answer to two of the big questions physics leaves unanswered, which is "why do we live an a matter dominated universe" and "what happened before the Big Bang". If you think about anti-matter as particles that are moving backwards in time, and matter as particles that are moving forward in time, and you assume that most matter in the universe was created near the Big Bang, then, it follows, that the anti-matter in the universe rushed backward from the big bang, while the matter in the universe rushed foward from the Big Bang. The two would have naturally separated out. New anti-matter created after the Big Bang, and new matter created before the big bang, in each case from energy, would create a massive annilliation en route to the Big Bang as anti-matter rushes into the matter moving forward in time away from the Big Bang (and visa versa). Thus, you can use the Feyman interpretation to do something that the conventional interpretation does not.

Now, neither of these intepretrations are going to change experiments or the equations. But, an answer to the what came before the Big Bang question motivated by the Feynman interpretation (which is 100% consistent with proven physics) has a lot to recommend it over, for example, Smolin's cosmic natural selection theory that uses a far more speculative approach to conclude the the Big Bang was the compliment of a Black Hole in some other universe in a multiverse where black holes change the laws of physics. And, an interpretation of quantum entanglement that retains some sense of causality (and shows us what non-local effects aren't possible for quanta that have not been entangled, due to speed of light issues and the lack of a medium) are easier to apply than the confusion and paradox that arises when we look at quantum entanglement conventionally.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
El Hombre Invisible said:
I don't give a toss about the mathematical equivilence in this topic because I'm not questioning it. If you can explain mathematically why one physical interpretation holds over another, fine. Then they're not mathematically equivilent. If they are, and both physical interpretations hold, but a phenomenon mathematically equivilent in each has two different physical meanings - i.e. ambiguity - then to tell someone they shouldn't question an aspect of one because they are mathematically equivilent is dogmatic and close-minded. If you don't want to or cannot answer the question I asked, groovy, neither can I, maybe no-one can, but don't tell me not to ask it.

"You are trying to put words and description to something that may not have any physical relevance. For all you know, you're trying to put meanings into something completely unphysical."

Maybe, and if so, then that's the answer I'm looking for. I'd be happy with that. Doesn't mean I shouldn't ask the question. Okay, it doesn't mean it to me. It might mean it to you, but as long as those meanings are mathematically equivilent...

I didn't tell you that you shouldn't be asking it. I asked you why would it matter?!

You yourself indicated that mathematically, all the 4 scenarios I described are identical. Thus, I want to know why would this matter? We ARE looking at the same paintings. Why would what you interpret what the painting means matter with what I interpret what the paintings means? If this is art appreciation, sure, because that is the whole point of that subject. But it isn't. The physics is accurately described by the mathematical formulation. The interpretation is dependent on your TASTES! I cannot argue with your taste anymore than I can argue about your favorite color.

That is why I asked, why does it matter which scenario you chose. There are MANY other things to worry about in QED. I'm very surprised this is the one among the top of your list.

Zz.
 
  • #27
ohwilleke said:
ZapperZ, I think you are being entirely too hard on El Hombre. He is quite accurately setting forth Feynman's conjecture about the relationship between electrons and positrons, and more generally between particles and anti-particles, and the idea does have some currency in the scientific community as a sometimes useful way of interpreting Feynman diagrams.

Also, I don't think that the distinction is merely philosophical. The place where the issue comes up is in causality issues in the EPR quantum entanglement experiments.

I'm sorry, but this IS "merely philosphical". The existence of entanglement is verified by experiments. Many of them. However, you are now bringing in philosophical discussion of "causality", which is a whole can of worms in itself. I've seen enough of such discussion on here that I do not need a sypnopsis of what is involved.

If one quantum at point A, can instantly have an effect on another quantum at point B, normally one would say, whoa, we are seeing superluminal communication of information, which must happen through some medium, which brings us to the brink of special relativity/speed of light issues.

Now, don't you find it rather strange that in NONE of the entanglement experiment that are reported (you DID read the original papers, no?), was there ANY mention of violation of special relativity postulates? I have never heard Zeilinger claiming that he has proven SR wrong.

I will put it to you that only those who have not understood what is involved in quantum entanglement, how such a system is set up, and what is being measured, are the only ones raising up such issues. Experts in this field, ranging from Zeilinger, to Mermin, to Gisin, have not claimed such violations.

But, if a causal chain can go backwards and forwards in time, as El Hombre explains that the Feynman interpretation suggests in his simple example where what looks like three leptons is really just one moving backwards and forwards in time on a single worldline, then the EPR experiments aren't superluminal after all. You have information going from point A back in time at a subluminal rate to the point of entanglement along the first quantum's worldline, and then from there up the worldline of the second quantum at a subluminal rate to point B, causing an effect.

An interpretation where both quanta move forward in time from the point of entanglement to points A and B is far more awkward in terms of causality and information transfer. The information that A is transmitting to B is something that we normally don't think about existing until A's wavefunction is collapsed at some point in the future and experimentally we know that wavefunction collapse to be a perfectly random process. So, it is much more intuitive to think about the information coming into existence when the first quantum reaches point A and moving first backwards and then forwards in time until hat information reaches point B, than it is to think about the scenario in the traditional non-Feynman manner.

The two approaches are mathematically equivalent (as far as I can tell). So, to insist on one rather than another interpretation of a mathematically equivalent set of interpretations is mere dogma, and there is no reason not to use an interpretation that is intuitively helpful when it produces the right answer.

As I've said in the previous postings, if this makes you happy, use it. Why would this be a problem? I cannot argue with your tastes, nor your favorite color.

I also think that the Feynman interpretation can be used to suggest an answer to two of the big questions physics leaves unanswered, which is "why do we live an a matter dominated universe" and "what happened before the Big Bang".

This has nothing to do with what is being asked. Why haven't people paid any attention to the CP-violating events and how it has a greater possibility of being the origin of the matter-antimatter imbalance?

This has gotten WAY beyond simple pair production and really now has ventured into philosophy. Obviously the point I have been trying to make isn't getting through. Before it really get bogged down as a philosophical discussion, I will jump ship.

Zz.
 
  • #28
Phew. And I'm not even trying to favor an interpretation; I just want to understand an element of it. Thank you, ohwilleke, for your support. Your stated Feynman interpretation of the big bang sounds in line with my question earlier. I was going to post a question about its consistency with black hole bouncing, but I've got two open threads already and I can't keep up to date fast enough so... you know... keep your eyes open. I may need you.

So do you mind if I ask you about whether and what Feynman's interpretation says about the relationship between the energy emitted/absorbed and the particles change in the time direction? Feynman, in the example in my OP, stated that A) an electron could emit a photon, B) travel backwards in time, C) absorb another photon, D) travel forwards in time. This would look like pair creation followed by annihilation. It is the emission/absorption that I'm interested in as A) a photon is its own antiparticle and so could be said to be traveling in either direction in time and B) unlike the alternative interpretation championed by Zz, it requires a particle (I believe - correct me if I'm wrong) to emit or absorb a photon of greater energy than it itself possesses. This interests me because it would suggest some link between the energy of the emitted/absorbed photon and the direction in time of the particle. It would seem a particle may emit a photon with energy greater than the particle's own if the particle travels in the opposite direction in time to the photon... a mechanism for such a change in direction. I am also interested in whether a range of photon energies could be emitted as long as the relativistic energy of the resultant positron and original electron add up. This would be equivilent to matter-antimatter pairs of differing speeds annihilating. I assume this is allowed?
 
  • #29
All the conservation laws apply. You still have to have E=Mc^2 in the conventional view and energy conservation and matter conservations seperately, to the extent that there is no conversion from one to another, at every point.

But, the Feynman interpretation is basically saying that the Einstein's equations tell you the energy impact of doing a 180 degree turn in the time direction.

Put another way, while Feynman's interpretation conserves matter-energy locally, it does not place a bound on how often matter can appear at a single point in time, so long as it is appearing in different points in space. The Feynman's interpretation embraces the identity between time and space that our non-relativistic intuitions are prone to segregate.
 
  • #30
ZapperZ said:
This has nothing to do with what is being asked. Why haven't people paid any attention to the CP-violating events and how it has a greater possibility of being the origin of the matter-antimatter imbalance?

This has gotten WAY beyond simple pair production and really now has ventured into philosophy. Obviously the point I have been trying to make isn't getting through. Before it really get bogged down as a philosophical discussion, I will jump ship.

Zz.
On the contrary, Zz, the prevalence of matter over antimatter and the big bang are both subtopics I have been discussing on this thread as both are of import to my original question. And this thread has also been banging around QED, cosmology and philosophy back and forth from the beginning. And I did try to tell you the maths was not the issue, and was not the be all and end all of philosophy. I hope this initial clash of perspectives does not effect other dialogue between us in the future, as you clearly have a wealth of knowledge I will no doubt want to pick at in future... if I can pin you down to the topic of interest to me that is. ;o)
 
  • #31
ohwilleke said:
But, the Feynman interpretation is basically saying that the Einstein's equations tell you the energy impact of doing a 180 degree turn in the time direction.
Do you mean a particle of given velocity will always produce the same energy photon when it changes direction? I was thinking that as long as the velocity of the antiparticle was, say, less than that of the particle, a smaller photon than twice the energy of the particle may be produced. And likewise if the antiparticle travels faster than the particle, a larger photon may be produced.

Put another way, must annihilating pairs have the same energy? I would have thought not, in which case the photon emitted by the particle determines the antiparticle's velocity.

Thanks again.
 
  • #32
Good question. Certainly, not all anti-matter is automatically toxic to all matter. If it were, mesons wouldn't exist, as all of them have a quark and an anti-quark. Indeed, the eta-c meson, for example, is composed of a charm and anti-charm quark and opposite color charges, although an eta-c can produce an annihillation. See here: http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/all_decay.html

I've never heard of a particle annihilating with anything other than its exact anti-particle.

Indeed, if true, that would provide some circumstantial motivation for the Feynman interpretation. (By the way, while the examples of quantum tunnelling and Big Bang were inspired by Feynman's interpretation, I made those up myself).

A pretty deep discussion of the issues of quantum entanglement, special relativity and causality can be found here: http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html and illustrates the kind of discussion that ZapperZ says that scientists aren't having about the topic.

This explains how quantum entanglement goes to another important and partially philosophical in character debate in quantum mechanics over the Copenhagen interpretation: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/

This person takes the popular view that no information is transmitted, even though like results occur, which make the key philosophical distinction of information transmitted between observers and information transmitted between particles (without being very upfront about it): http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node73.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Cool. Will check those out right away. BTW, I wasn't talking about a particle annihilating with anything other than its own antiparticle - I was just asking for clarification that the speeds of annihilating pairs are allowed to be unequal, or to put it the Feynman way, that when an electron backs up and becomes a positron, there is no reason why that positron would have the same speed as the electron, therefore no reason why the emitted photon need be exactly twice the energy of the original electron. It's a question of whether or not the resultant photon's energy is predictable prior to emission without looking at the other particle in the annihilation.

Your Big Bang example is along similar lines to something I talked about earlier, with some major differences. If pair creation occurred shortly after the big bang from photons, it may well be as true to say that electrons traveling towards the bang created those photons (which traveled backwards also), then turned and traveled away from it. In this interpretation, the big bang is a barrier by which all backwards-travelling electrons must turn back. It's a funny way of looking at it, to say the energy was not so much a consequence of the bang itself but of the matter that came later, but I find it strangely more intuitive than spontaneous pair creation. The prevalence of matter over antimatter could still be pure coincidence. There is no reason why each particle in every pair created after the big bang need travel forward very far in time and, likewise, there is no need for every particle now traveling forward to turn back and make it this far back in time. Theoretically, the matter to antimatter ratio need not be fixed.

I'm afraid quantum tunnelling is something I've heard the name of, but know nothing about. Is that related to entanglement? I thought your entanglement example was very interesting, and could not determine why Zz said it would break SR. If the medium by which the information was transferred was a photon, then our view of such a phenomenon would be only the coincidence of both particles absorbing photons at the same time, with each even more coincidentally having the opposite effect. I'm not as learned as Zz, but I have never heard of anything in SR that bans coincidence.
 
  • #34
Zz said it would not break SR and was making the point (basically along the line of the last link) arguing that informed people never thought that it would.

Quantum tunnelling is an entirely different ball of wax. It basically says that there is a probability that particles can do seemingly impossible thing and that the less far from possible those things are, the more likely it is that they will happen. (Very crude non-technical language there). Every transistor relies on tunnelling to work.

There is, call it a "folk theorem" which says that information can't travel faster than the speed of light either. The questions include (1) whether there is information transfer in entanglement situations, and (2) whether you can properly call a resolution of an entanglement a coincidence.
 
  • #35
ohwilleke said:
A pretty deep discussion of the issues of quantum entanglement, special relativity and causality can be found here: http://fergusmurray.members.beeb.net/Causality.html and illustrates the kind of discussion that ZapperZ says that scientists aren't having about the topic.

I'd like to point out that, although the discussion is quite good in that link, it misses (as usual :-) an essential part, which is the relative state view on EPR experiments, and resolves the locality issues.
There seems to be a hypothesis which is never mentionned when one talks about the joint probabilities of events at Alice and at Bob, and that is: one seems to take for granted that Alice made, at a certain event, a definite observation (which has a certain probability of occurring), and that Bob also made a certain observation (which has a certain probability of occurring).
However, that is somehow taking for granted the projection postulate in quantum theory, a postulate which is obviously non-local, and not even Lorentz-invariant.
So one shouldn't be surprised to find, in that view, non-local probability distributions. The miracle resides in fact not in the non-locality, but in the fact that this non-locality is inexploitable to build a faster-than-light telephone. Or so it seems.
In a relative-state (or MWI) view on quantum theory, one sticks however to the unitary evolution (and its associated lorentz invariance). This denies then any objective outcome at Alice's and at Bob's: it just states that Alice interacted with her measuring apparatus (and now her body appears in entangled states), and the same for Bob). The observer associated with Alice however, has to choose to be associated to one of her factorized body states (according to the Born rule) and thus "chooses a branch" which makes Alice-observer get the impression that random things occur. In that branch, whenever she travels to Bob's place, she will interact with a body state of Bob which was entangled with a certain state of HIS measurement apparatus. After this interaction with Bob, she will entangle her bodystates with his (mmm:-) and again the observer associated with Alice's body will have to make a choice. As such, locally, the observer associated with Alice will learn about the result that THAT BODYSTATE "observed". So Alice-observer will then deduce (erroneously) that Bob's body DID OBSERVE that result when he was doing that measurement, back then. Only, all results which were possible to Bob, did occur, and it was Alice's observer herself, by choosing one of the bodystates of Alice, which introduced the particular choice of outcome at Bob's (namely the outcome associated with Bob's bodystate which is in a product state with the chosen Alice body state).

So there WAS NO joint probability of outcomes, but of course for Alice, everything happened AS IF there was such a probability, when she projects back in time what Bob did. However, this is entirely due to two things which are completely local: there are the LOCAL interactions of bodies with measurement apparatus and with the system under study, which just lead to entangled bodystates with the state of the system at hand, and the LOCAL interactions of Alice and Bob when they meet to compare notes. And there is, each time, as a consequence of such an interaction and entanglement, a LOCAL choice that the observer associated with a body must make, according to a probabilistic rule, called the Born rule.

As such, this is also an explanation for the "mysterious conspiration against faster-than-light telephones" that seems to occur in Copenhagen quantum theory: indeed, there is no non-local mechanism at all, so there cannot be any non-local communication. We only erroneously deduce probabilities of space-like separated "measurement outcomes" which weren't outcomes, but just evolving systems, which we seemed to force into an outcome when we interacted locally with them (and hence made us choose again one of our entangled bodystates).

This view resolves all locality issues. The price to pay is a difference between the objective ontology and the subjective experiences, the latter being a single random path of an observer (according to the Born rule) through the objective reality which contains all possibilities, making random choices upon each interaction with "the rest of the world".

One can, or cannot be in favor of this explanation (I am, you guessed it). However, one cannot deny its existence when treating locality issues in EPR. I am of the opinion that it resolves by far in the most elegant way the issue, and this by sticking strictly to as well the formalism of SR as the (unitary) formalism of quantum theory.

This person takes the popular view that no information is transmitted, even though like results occur, which make the key philosophical distinction of information transmitted between observers and information transmitted between particles (without being very upfront about it): http://www.mtnmath.com/whatrh/node73.html

Well, in the MWI view, the information that is transmitted is through the (slower than light) OBSERVER himself, because the "measurement" of Bob wasn't resolved until Alice (her body) contacted him (interacted with his bodystate) and had to make a choice herself (the Alice observer).

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
600
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
955
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top