Why is an electron a positron going backwards in time?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Superposed_Cat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electron Positron Time
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of antiparticles, particularly the idea that an electron can be viewed as a positron moving backwards in time. Participants explore the theoretical implications of this perspective, referencing Wheeler's conclusions and various interpretations within quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of viewing antiparticles as particles moving backwards in time, suggesting it may be a mathematical convenience rather than a reflection of reality.
  • One participant describes a visual model using a zig-zag diagram to illustrate the creation and annihilation of electron-positron pairs, proposing that positrons can be seen as electrons moving back in time.
  • Another participant asserts that the reality of physics is tied to the correspondence of mathematical models with observations, suggesting that if a model works, it is valid regardless of its interpretation.
  • There is a discussion about the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation and the implications of CPT symmetry, with some participants expressing curiosity about its potential applications in particle physics.
  • Some participants emphasize the distinction between the mathematical treatment of particles moving backwards in time and the actual propagation of information, noting that causality remains intact.
  • Questions arise regarding the definitions of information and causality in the context of time reversal and CPT transformations, with participants exploring the implications of these concepts.
  • There is a technical inquiry into the mathematics behind stimulated emission and its potential CPT analogue, with participants expressing uncertainty about the feasibility of such constructs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the interpretation of antiparticles and their relationship to time. There is no consensus on whether the notion of particles moving backwards in time is a valid representation of reality, with some arguing it is merely a mathematical construct while others defend its legitimacy within theoretical frameworks.

Contextual Notes

Discussions include references to various interpretations of quantum mechanics, the role of mathematical models, and the implications of CPT symmetry. Participants acknowledge the complexity and nuances involved in these topics, highlighting the ongoing exploration of these concepts in theoretical physics.

Superposed_Cat
Messages
388
Reaction score
5
Hi all, I was wondering how wheeler came to the conclusion that an anti-particle is a particle going backwards through time?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm pretty sure that's just a neat math solution that is not really believed to represent reality. In other words, it's like epicycles ... it will give you a good answer to calculations but it isn't real.
 
One way to see it is this: Draw a simple "one space dimension, one time dimension" diagram with "time" on the vertical axis, x on the horizontal axis. Draw a zig-zag line with arrow heads on each leg pointing upwards (the future). If you now cover that with a card with a thin horizontal slit (representing "now") you will see the legs as individual dots. As you move the slit upward, crossing a lower vertex of the zig-zag, you will see two dots suddenly appear- the creation of an "elecron-positron pair". They will move away from each other but other legs of the zig-zag will appear as other dots, until until your slit crosses an upper vertex when two dots merge and disappear- the annihilation of an electron and a positron.

But removing that "mask", seeing all "time" at once, you see the entire zig-zag. The "dots" that you saw moving to the right are the legs going up and to the right- electrons- while the "dots" you saw moving to the left are legs going up and to the left- positrons, which we can see now are those same electrons, still moving to the right but now going down- back in time.

I not absolutely sure I would agree with phinds that "it isn't real". To many "mathematical fictions" have been shown to correspond to reality. In fact, I'm not all that clear on what "reality" is in physics anymore!
 
It is as real as anything else in physics. Physics is always done by matching a mathematical model to observations. If the model matches than it is a good model and that's all there is to it. In the Path integral interpretation of QM particles can move backwards in time.
 
dauto said:
It is as real as anything else in physics. Physics is always done by matching a mathematical model to observations. If the model matches than it is a good model and that's all there is to it. In the Path integral interpretation of QM particles can move backwards in time.

What is interpreted as "time" here? Is it coordinate time, proper time or some other concept? What does the time arrow in Feymann diagrams represent?
 
CPT symmetry is the key. At the moment, it is believed that the combination of the 3 operations: charge conjugation, parity transformation and time reversal will cause no change to any system which you apply these operations to. To quote wikipedia: CPT theorem says that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a Hermitian Hamiltonian must have a CPT symmetry. Also, in 2002 Oscar Greenberg proved that CPT violation implies the breaking of Lorentz symmetry. So CPT violation is a very serious offense indeed! :)

edit: whoops, I now realize that I have not answered the OP, which was about Wheeler's research specifically. Sorry about that.
 
phinds said:
I'm pretty sure that's just a neat math solution that is not really believed to represent reality. In other words, it's like epicycles ... it will give you a good answer to calculations but it isn't real.

You just described most of QM. All of it is just meant to be a math solution which gives you the right answer, but doesn't describe actual reality. Unless you think Hilbert space and operators are a real thing.
 
  • #10
phinds said:
I'm pretty sure that's just a neat math solution that is not really believed to represent reality. In other words, it's like epicycles ... it will give you a good answer to calculations but it isn't real.
I wouldn't put it that way. As somebody mentioned, you can say this about whole of QM, and it's true to an extent, but more importantly, all we have for descriptions at these levels are the models. And the particular model, RQFT, implies that time-reversed particle and anti-particle are equivalent.

What you should keep in mind is that propagation of particles backwards in time is very different than propagation of information backwards in time. Think of this as phase velocity vs group velocity. So the time component of the wave 4-vector points in opposite direction in time, but the "group" propagation is forward for particles and anti-particles, so the information is always carried forward without violations in causality.

Once you are comfortable with this distinction, it shouldn't bother you that anti-particles are traveling backwards in time.
 
  • #11
That's an interesting point too. What is the definition of information and causality in this context? If we define causality to go in the direction of positive time (for timelike separated events), then when we do a CPT transform, this 'causality' direction would also swap, since the direction of positive time has also swapped. Sound about right?
 
  • #12
BruceW said:
That's an interesting point too. What is the definition of information and causality in this context? If we define causality to go in the direction of positive time (for timelike separated events), then when we do a CPT transform, this 'causality' direction would also swap, since the direction of positive time has also swapped. Sound about right?
The particle is just its 1D trajectory in 3+1 dimensional spacetime - there is no point in saying that it propagates forward or backward.
However, indeed we can ask about the cause - e.g if photon production was caused by past or future event.
We know how to cause it by a past event: e.g. by stimulated emission in laser.
The question is if we can make CPT analogue of such stimulated emission (what seems simple for free electron laser below), getting stimulated absorption?
While stimulated emission causes excitation of the target, shouldn't stimulated absorption cause its deexcitation (target needs to be excited to the corresponding energy)?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12405967/freeelectron.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #13
What math did they derive this from?
 
  • #14
If it was a question for me: exactly the same math as behind stimulated emission, but transformed through CPT symmetry.
 
  • #15
I get the intuition of population inversion Einstein coefficients ect. but I don't know stimulated emission math.
 
  • #16
Indeed, I have also a problem to imagine CPT analogue of a standard laser (population inversion after CPT transformation is the same population inversion) ... but for free electron laser it seems quite simple ...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K