Why is the anti-neutrino going against time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul Dirac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutrinos Time
Paul Dirac
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
310px-Beta_Negative_Decay.svg.png


The arrow for the electron antineutrino is pointing down which is against time, why is that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The math gives us the right answers in some problems (and this is one of them) if we treat an anti-particle as a regular particle moving backwards in time. That doesn't mean that an anti-particle is "really" a regular particle moving back in time.

Be aware that Feynman diagrams such as this one are easily misunderstood - they are not picctures of what the particles are really doing, they're a way of organizing the calculations to find the probability of various interactions.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Paul Dirac said:
The arrow for the electron antineutrino is pointing down which is against time, why is that?
Purely a convention.
 
so why does the math permit the arrow pointing downwards? which equation implies that? so do all anti-particles by convention point downwards? Thanks!
 
Paul Dirac said:
so why does the math permit the arrow pointing downwards?

Its simply a logical consequence of the math. Logical consequences may have a deeper meaning, or not. Experience in this case has shown its helps sometimes, but can lead to issues if pushed too far. For example one can view an electron as a positron going backwards in time. So which is it? Is it the electron going backwards in time or is it the positron? The theory is silent about that.

Before asking questions like that you need to understand the underlying theory, including the math. And the math of QFT is no walk in the park by a long shot.

Thanks
Bill
 
Nothing is going backwards in time. The arrows are a convention for writing down the mathematics. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top