Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

Thread: What happened to Pitt's Symmetric Time Hypothesis?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425

    What happened to Pitt's Symmetric Time Hypothesis?

    In This paper, from 1999 (I know! So last century!) Trevor Pitts presents a hypothesis of time symmetry. The paper is a casual presentation with some references to materials and concepts from Feynman, Stueckelberg, JJ Sakurai, Weyl, Einstein and others.

    The essence of the hypothesis is that antimatter is not simply shown in Feynman diagrams to move backward in time, but that it does move backwards in time. That concept is used to explain the baryonic matter problem as well as to say that our universe which we theorize to begin at T=0 and proceed to T>0 is merely half of the universe, and that the other half is similar (but not identical) and moves backwards from T=0 to T<0.

    I think Mr. Pitts makes a reasonable argument as far as it goes. Itís an interesting concept. He asks his readers to suspend their disbelief and to bear with him as he makes his argument. I suggest if you are skeptical, but curious enough to see what he says, just to read the first few paragraphs.

    I did some searching for related work, but beyond a highly technical work with lots of math here, I am unable to determine what to think of Mr. Pittsí paper.

    Iím not here to defend or promote this hypothesis. It appears like some of the ATM proposals Iíve seen on this site, but without any follow up Q&A, leaving the question, ďThen what?Ē

    What Iíd like is a discussion of what additional information the paper needs. There is no math. There arenít any proposed experimental tests. There isnít any discussion of the current explanation for baryon asymmetry, which, I think would have to be explained somehow. Thereís none of the back-and-forth we see here in ATM.

    I think the hypothesis demands some quality of matter which determines its arrow of time. I.e. what elementary characteristic (like spin, charm, color, etc.) says THIS particle moves one way through time and THAT particle moves the other? Itís not clear to me that Mr. Pitts brings up this as a requirement.

    I donít see the hypothesis as a replacement of the expansion theory. The reference to expansion merely states that expansion occurs on both sides of the T=0 line. The concept still demands a hot, dense point in time near T=0. As I interpret his paper, T=0 is the time when matter and antimatter are in equal proportions, T>0 is when normal matter dominates, and T<0 is when antimatter dominates. Both types of matter could be produced at any time.

    I suspect he runs into a problem with experiments that have retained antimatter for multiple seconds. That requires some explanation. Some CQ people will probably see other shortcomings.

    I think the defining experiment would be one which detects antimatter particles before they are created. Iím not sure about how this would be done. One could only imagine.

    Mr. Pitts refers to some unnamed NASA future (future in 1999) experiments. I did find https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html]this link[/URL] where NASAís Fermi space telescope detected positrons generated by thunderstorms. A reference to timing occurs in this paragraph:
    The beam continued past Fermi, reached a location, known as a mirror point, where its motion was reversed, and then hit the spacecraft a second time just 23 milliseconds later. Each time, positrons in the beam collided with electrons in the spacecraft. The particles annihilated each other, emitting gamma rays detected by Fermi's GBM.
    It seems like exactly the sort of experiment that might undermine Mr. Pitts hypothesis. The indication is that an initial burst of activity occurred followed by a reflection 23 milliseconds later, all of which I interpret to mean antimatter moves forward in time just like normal matter. If someone sees that differently, it would be nice to know.

    Note: Iíve also searched CQ for a previous discussion of the paper, and found none. If I missed it, please post a link to that discussion. Thanks.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    You don't have to look at thunderstorms to see antimatter moving forward in time, we have antimatter being created in accelerators all the time. For example, at CERN they have created and maintained for minutes atoms of antihydrogen, and they are studying using beams of antiprotons in medicine. So they must manipulate the particles normally in forward time to be able to do this. This doesn't mean the particles really are going forward in time, or backward in time for that matter, it means we relate to the particles in a completely normal way. A simple example of this is you can take two high energy photons, collide them, and they may turn into an electron and positron, and you will observe both the electron and positron zooming around your laboratory in forward time. But the idea that they are "really" going in forward time is much more difficult to assess-- it is essentially sociological, not physical. In other words, if you create a positron/electron pair in the laboratory, and they later annihilate (let's keep it simple and say they later annihilate with each other and turned back into two photons), you can always say that what "really happened" is you scattered a single photon that was moving forward in time and turned it into a photon that was moving backward in time (which we could regard as an antiphoton since photons are their own antiparticle, so you can't tell which direction time is "really going" for a photon). What the photon "scattered off" was an electron moving backward in time (which we call a positron), and it turned that positron into an electron moving forward in time, which later scattered off a single photon that was moving backward in time (so might be considered an antiphoton), turning that photon into a photon moving forward in time (and explaining the existence of the positron in the first place since that event is what scattered the photon backward in time "in the first place"). See? The Feynman diagrams tell a story of particles moving backward and forward in time throughout, but sociologically, we interact with all those particles in a completely normal way-- just as if they were all moving forward in time.

    So to summarize, here are some issues that Pitts would need to address (and I don't know if he does):

    1) some particles (like photons) are their own antiparticle, so there is no way to say if they are moving forward or backward in time. Hence, it would be silly to say that some really go forward and some really go backward, when we could never tell the difference. So it's dubious to claim that antiparticles always go backward in time as a result of some innate attribute they possess-- instead, we are just calling them antiparticles when the particle is going backward in time.

    2) the arrow of time has more to do with how we interact with our experiments than it does with the laws of physics themselves. Hence, we can write equations that work the same forward or backward in time, but that's not the way we do the experiments.

    3) the arrow of time has a lot to do with issues of cause and effect. Events in the past are causes of effects felt in the future. The routine use of antiparticles in accelerators does not change that-- when CERN talks about treating cancer with antiprotons, they are talking about treating a past cancer and making it go away in the future, they are not talking about making a future cancer vanish in the past! So even if the antiprotons can be thought of as protons going backward in time, we wouldn't use them that way.

    4) it is a kind of double negative to say that matter goes forward in time, and antimatter goes backward, if you say that protons are one kind of particle that goes forward in time and antiprotons are a different kind of particle that go backward. Instead, you either say protons and antiprotons are two different particles that have opposite charge but both go forward in time, or you say protons and antiprotons are the same particle but when they are going forward in time we call them protons and when they are going backward in time we call them antiprotons. Which direction the particle is going in time depends on its history, and that history is going to be regarded as cyclical if we allow time to go either way. This does violence with cause and effect, which is why we cannot manipulate the particles that way, we have to manipulate them in the normal way where time is always going forward. But we can choose to regard the "real situation" as different from how we manipulate it, for all the good it will do us.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-May-31 at 03:48 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Your four points all sound more philosophical than physical. But the developments around anti-hydrogen are a real problem for the hypothesis. The process for how anti-hydrogen could be maintained from creation to some future time when it was destroyed isn't simply reversible, so it requires an explanation. In other words, he couldn't simply claim that the experiment caused multiple anti-hydrogen atoms to come together out of the environment five minutes after it was created so it could move backwards through time to the point of creation. Instead, he would have had to argue that the backward flow of time could somehow be suspended. And without any math whatsoever in his paper, I don't see him doing that.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Your four points all sound more philosophical than physical.
    No, none of them are philosophical, they are all experimentally demonstrable. In fact, I mentioned no less than two experiments right there, in black and white. You want some more experiments also?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    In This paper, from 1999 (I know! So last century!) Trevor Pitts presents a hypothesis of time symmetry.
    Probably ignored because it has the hallmarks of a crank paper and only was a pre-print. One author, Trevor Pitts (Van Meter Corporation). No academic affiliation. No other pre-prints (1 possible conference paper by a T. Pitts n 2010). Submitted to Physics Essays but no sign of publication in 1999. No math. A few dubious references. Bit obsessive about Feynman.

    ETA: "According to the STH there should be galaxies, stars, etc. of antimatter distributed in space in a similar way to matter," was wrong in 1999. We already knew that galaxies collide. So the STH predicts colliding galaxies of matter and antimatter!
    What about antimatter stars in our galaxy interacting with parts of the ISM made of matter? etc.
    "A big problem with current Big Bang theory is the horizon problem." is wrong - solved by inflation in 1980 onwards.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jun-01 at 12:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Probably ignored because it has the hallmarks of a crank paper and only was a pre-print. One author, Trevor Pitts (Van Meter Corporation). No academic affiliation. No other pre-prints (1 possible conference paper by a T. Pitts n 2010). Submitted to Physics Essays but no sign of publication in 1999. No math. A few dubious references. Bit obsessive about Feynman.

    ETA: "According to the STH there should be galaxies, stars, etc. of antimatter distributed in space in a similar way to matter," was wrong in 1999. We already knew that galaxies collide. So the STH predicts colliding galaxies of matter and antimatter!
    What about antimatter stars in our galaxy interacting with parts of the ISM made of matter? etc.
    "A big problem with current Big Bang theory is the horizon problem." is wrong - solved by inflation in 1980 onwards.
    I think you misread what he proposed. All the anti-matter galaxies would be in our past, more than 14 billion years. They would exist only on the other side of T=0.

    I'm glad to know that any idea proposed by anyone outside academia must automatically be labelled "crank". That's helpful.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    The reference to expansion merely states that expansion occurs on both sides of the T=0 line.
    I'm trying to picture this. It makes no sense. It seems to me that "expansion" is a forward time phenomenon. As t goes to t+1, the universe becomes larger. But if time runs "backwards" on the other side of t=0, wouldn't the expansion have to start out large and get smaller?
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    I'm glad to know that any idea proposed by anyone outside academia must automatically be labelled "crank".
    Not automatic, but seriously questionable, as in, proceed with caution.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    I'm trying to picture this. It makes no sense. It seems to me that "expansion" is a forward time phenomenon. As t goes to t+1, the universe becomes larger. But if time runs "backwards" on the other side of t=0, wouldn't the expansion have to start out large and get smaller?
    As I read it, which means I could be reading it wrong, T=0 would not be a "beginning" as normally understood. Instead it would be a time when matter and anti-matter are in equal proportions. Then, in our "normal" universe, where T>0, normal matter dominates, because it moves forward in time. But anti-matter would proceed into our past and would dominate where T<0. Anti-matter in its own view proceeds forward in time from T=0 to T>0, and our universe would be the one which is backwards. At least that's what I gather. It's an interesting idea, but, as noted above, there are some experimental observations that seem to disprove it.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Not automatic, but seriously questionable, as in, proceed with caution.
    Or ignore, and hope it goes away, as appears to have happened.

    I wonder if Mr. Pitts didn't pursue this further because 1) he lacked the support, 2) he lacked the knowledge, or 3) he decided he was wrong.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Or ignore, and hope it goes away, as appears to have happened.
    Or inform themself of the currently available experimental data that shows the idea has zero merit, before going to all the trouble of writing a paper about it. Why didn't Pitts do that?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    Or inform themself of the currently available experimental data that shows the idea has zero merit, before going to all the trouble of writing a paper about it. Why didn't Pitts do that?
    Could be right. But I cannot confirm without some timeline of relevant experiments occurring before 1999. The ones referred to above were after 1999.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    Could be right. But I cannot confirm without some timeline of relevant experiments occurring before 1999. The ones referred to above were after 1999.
    Actually, I mentioned experiments done before 1999, because I mentioned electron/positron annihilation. CERN didn't always collide protons, in 1989 they started running the LEP, which stands for the "large electron/positron collider." If I were going to write a paper suggesting the fundamental nature of antimatter, I might, just might, look up the experiments that had been going on for a decade on antimatter at the most famous particle accelerator in the world. This is the issue with "cranks." It's not that they come from outside academia, it is because they are invariably spectacularly uninformed by what is going on inside academia!
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Jun-01 at 05:07 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    There's an unfortunate thread on another site that starts out talking about a CERN experiment which was delayed due to power problems. The experiment was supposed to detect whether antimatter did travel backwards in time. Or at least that's part of the experiment. I don't have details on the experiment itself. The thread was in 2008, and drifts all over the place. (Reminder to thank the moderators here!) The experiment was supposed to be picked up again a couple years later . . . still searching. It's curious that CERN would be conducting an experiment to test something that was already considered settled science almost 20 years earlier than that. That's not to support the paper. It's to say that sometimes additional confirmation is needed even by the best scientists.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    From 2008, well after that paper was published, a paper here discusses bounding antiprotons off normal matter, and seeing the results some time after the event. This is the sort of experiment that Mr. Pitts should have suggested in his paper.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    One thing to learn from this paper that might apply to the ATM section here. If there are applicable experiments in the past or near future, they should be addressed. The paper should resolve discrepancies with past experiments, and it should say what will support or break the concept with any future experiments. As I recall, the paper had a vague reference to some upcoming test, but didn't explicitly say what the test was, or what he hoped to see as a result. I'm not sure how difficult it was to find information in 1999, but it's certainly bot too difficult today.
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    From 2008, well after that paper was published, a paper here discusses bounding antiprotons off normal matter, and seeing the results some time after the event. This is the sort of experiment that Mr. Pitts should have suggested in his paper.
    Again, there would have been no need to "suggest" such an experiment, as it had been done with antimatter long before 2008, as I just said. Where comes this need to pretend Pitts is not simply completely uninformed? The key thing to realize about Pitts paper, which I know without even reading it, is that it doesn't suggest any new physics at all. It is merely a half-baked interpretation of his own superficial understanding of something he read from Feynman-- how is that new physics? Yes, we can regard antimatter as regular matter moving backward in time, and for some particles, that makes them seem to act strangely, and for others (like photons), it doesn't change anything they do at all. But when we do experiments on these particles, we will always do them forward in time, so we will never be able to test if anything is "really" going backward in time, it's not a sensible test.

    So as for an "experiment to see if antimatter goes backward in time," I think you had better get that idea from a better source than where you got it. I've never heard of any such experiment, and I suspect it's either complete baloney, or a pop-science rendition of something quite different in actual fact. They might have been trying to test time symmetry, which is about which equations in physics work the same forward and backward, and which don't work that way-- which is something quite different from "whether or not antimatter really goes backward in time." That would be a very hard thing to test, given that all our apparatuses operate forward in time!
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Jun-01 at 08:13 PM.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    I think you misread what he proposed. All the anti-matter galaxies would be in our past, more than 14 billion years. They would exist only on the other side of T=0.
    That is worse. Antimatter not existing today would not do what he claims - explain the "missing matter problem" that we observe today. No math means his "fix" is basically a fairy story about gravity from antimatter at T < 0 somehow appearing today at T > 0.

    You need to read what I wrote: His pre-print has the hallmarks (plural) of a crank paper + the pre-print has been ignored by the scientific community! The list of hallmarks is not only that he is nonacademic.

    ETA: His anti-universe is not only at T < 0, it needs special pleading for its distribution. Dark matter explaining galaxy rotation curves needs dark matter throughout our galaxies so essentially identical locations of identical galaxies in that anti-universe. For example there has to be an anti-Milky Way galaxy.
    What about colliding galaxy clusters that demonstrate that dark matter is non-baryonic? His anti-universe is at T < 0, is basically identical to ours and is not anti-baryonic matter as he claims.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2017-Jun-01 at 09:24 PM.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,023
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    From 2008, well after that paper was published, a paper here discusses bounding antiprotons off normal matter, and seeing the results some time after the event.
    Focus: Antimatter Bounces Off Matter is that this group looked at annihilation events in their experiment that saw that they fell into 2 groups
    1. "The main group represented antiprotons being captured and annihilated by gas molecules as the particles traveled along the cylinder. However, they could find no explanation for a second group of annihilations, which occurred slightly later in time."
    2. "Now, Bianconi and his team report that theyíve solved the mystery by modeling the presence of the back wall of the aluminum cylinder. Theyíve found that, instead of instantly annihilating when they hit the wall, about a quarter of the low energy antiprotons striking the wall reflect and travel straight back into the gas, where they later annihilate."

    Fast moving anti-protons in the experiment tend to hit nuclei in the gas, annihilate and be detected. If they get to the back wall they annihilate there and are not detected.
    Slow moving anti-protons in the experiment are less likely to hit nuclei in the gas, annihilate and be detected. If they get to the back wall then their speed means that they can "bounce" back into the gas because they are scattered back by the positive nucleus of the atoms (Rutherford scattering).

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,220
    This is a bit of a layperson's simple thought, but I think the argument is that somehow the big bang was like t=0, and all the particles created moved forward while the negative ones went backward into a negative time. If that is true, through, I would think that virtual particle creation would lead to an electron going forward and a positron going backward, so that we would never see the positron (or rather, we would detect it before the production but then would see it disappear). But we don't see that.
    As above, so below

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Actually, one could argue that every time you see an electron zoom by at a given instant, you can choose to interpret that situation as the creation of an electron going forward in time at that instant, and a positron going backward in time along what you would otherwise regard as the incoming track of the electron. That works because a positron going backward in time will generally act just like an electron going forward in time, so typical experiments will be consistent with either what I just said, or just a single electron zooming past, from the past into the future. Since the latter interpretation is much closer to how we normally interpret everything we see, and how we manipulate instruments and invoke the concepts of cause and effect, that is the usual interpretation we use. No one can say which is the one that's "really happening," as that question just doesn't make sense. There just isn't any such thing as something that is actually going either forward or backward in time, that language is all about how we are choosing to describe the situation.

    In the example of the Big Bang, you could certainly imagine having a universe that is going backward in time starting from T=0, and it could be either an antimatter universe going backward in time (which would look just like a normal universe going forward in time and contracting into a point), or it could be a regular matter universe going backward in time (which would look just like an antimatter universe going forward in time and contracting into a point), though that latter case is not what we mean by creation of matter/antimatter pairs (as has been said). The trick would be finding any kind of difference there that you could actually test, given that we only have access to observations on this side of T=0! Indeed, that first example is more normally described as a "cyclic" universe of normal matter. But my point is, none of this has anything to do with creating matter/antimatter pairs, or the need to have the same amount of matter and antimatter when you do that, because those are all concepts applied going forward in time and have nothing to so with our freedom to choose to regard antimatter as the same kind of matter going oppositely in time or an opposite type of matter going forward in time, either of which are generally acceptable in physics (and the differences would only be in terms of esoteric symmetry breaking issues like CPT symmetry and so on that can show up with the weak force).
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Jun-02 at 12:45 AM.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    The key thing to realize about Pitts paper, which I know without even reading it, is that it doesn't suggest any new physics at all. It is merely a half-baked interpretation of his own superficial understanding of something he read from Feynman-- how is that new physics?
    It's surprising how much someone can know about a paper they admit to never reading. What should he have done to ensure the paper was at least read, even if not accepted? The concept doesn't apply just to this paper. Suppose you were writing a paper about something you believed to be true and that contradicted popular science. What would you have done prior to publishing or as part of publishing to ensure the paper received some recognition?
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    ....that language is all about how we are choosing to describe the situation.
    Exactly. Go back to Feynman's original 'remark.' "Oh look, we can view this 'normally,' or we can view it like the positron is moving backward in time." [paraphrasing] The mathematics works. "What's really happening" is not the question.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    What would you have done prior to publishing or as part of publishing to ensure the paper received some recognition?
    Deliver results. Be right a lot. Gain trust.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    It's surprising how much someone can know about a paper they admit to never reading. What should he have done to ensure the paper was at least read, even if not accepted?
    These things:
    1) describe an experiment that comes out one way if his way of looking at things has an iota of scientific value, and a different way if the standard picture is the one to use.
    2) mention an even passing knowledge of the experimental data currently available when he opined his ideas, such that some known result can be viewed with new insight using his approach.
    3) use any kind of mathematical expression that might suggest the effects he is talking about are quantifiable in any way.a
    I'd take one of those.
    Suppose you were writing a paper about something you believed to be true and that contradicted popular science. What would you have done prior to publishing or as part of publishing to ensure the paper received some recognition?
    One, or more, of those.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,220
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    It's surprising how much someone can know about a paper they admit to never reading. What should he have done to ensure the paper was at least read, even if not accepted? The concept doesn't apply just to this paper. Suppose you were writing a paper about something you believed to be true and that contradicted popular science. What would you have done prior to publishing or as part of publishing to ensure the paper received some recognition?
    Not to be flippant, but I would say that what you really need to do is study the field you're interested in, enroll in a graduate program, and talk with your advisor and colleagues about it. If you can't convince them about it, then it's unlikely you'll be able to persuade a journal to take it seriously. You'll notice that nearly all scientific papers have multiple authors, because you have to go through a process of group work to ensure there isn't a flaw with the idea that you missed.
    As above, so below

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken G View Post
    (which we could regard as an antiphoton since photons are their own antiparticle, so you can't tell which direction time is "really going" for a photon).
    Actually, existing at the speed of light, photons don't experience time from their own perspective, period. Nor do they experience distance. Inside that perspective they are points connecting with no distance between them.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Quote Originally Posted by JCoyote View Post
    Actually, existing at the speed of light, photons don't experience time from their own perspective, period. Nor do they experience distance. Inside that perspective they are points connecting with no distance between them.
    When people talk about particles "going back in time," they are never referring to time for the particle itself. That's because any time is always, by definition, "forward" in the reference frame of any clock being used in the conventional way. So we are never talking about being in the frame of reference of the particle, we are talking about being in the frame of reference of the observer. In the frame of an observer using the normal conventions, it is sometimes said that antiparticles act like regular particles going backward in time from the perspective of the observer. To an observer, a finite time elapses over the motion of a photon, and a photon is also its own antiparticle, so someone claiming that antiparticles go backward in time as some kind of intrinsic property has a real problem there.

    We can tell that it is the frame of the observer that is being talked about because Pitts is looking at the Big Bang, and saying that antimatter moves in the direction T<0. Obviously the T in question is ours, not the antimatter's, because the antimatter would never regard T in its universe as negative, even if it moved subluminally-- it would say that we are the antimatter and our T is negative, not its T.

    What's more, there are particles which are their own antiparticle that have mass and don't move at c. The Z boson comes to mind, and some hypothetical particles that have not been shown to exist but are often contemplated. Hence, it is of no particular significance to the fact that photons are their own antiparticle that they move at c.

    To make it more clear what I mean about the "sociology" of the arrow of time, the idea that "time moves forward" is something that comes from how we apply the concept of a clock, not from the equations of physics themselves. This must be true because we see the concept of time going forward even when we use the common laws that are symmetric in time, like Newton's laws. Even the Schroedinger equation is insensitive to the arrow of time, because the overall sign of the i in that equation is of no physical consequence. In particular, a clock made of antimatter would still function for us like a completely normal clock, regardless of the fact that we can regard antimatter as normal matter going backward in time. It's in how we use the clock, not in what direction time is "actually going" for the clock. I can build a clock that ticks backward in time easily enough, it would only change the sign of my time coordinate, and my language about the "arrow of time", but not the way I use the scientific method to make predictions, and not the way I manipulate the concept of cause and effect.
    Last edited by Ken G; 2017-Jun-05 at 12:27 PM.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    1
    I am the author of the article. The main point was the symmetry of time on each side of the big bang, with 2 universe expanding in spacetime. They would appear to be full of antimatter to each other. The notion of backward in time motion was intended to be very close to the origin, where a very small probability, qua Feynman, of such motion crossing through the origin would result in an imbalance of matter and antimatter in the twin universes surviving annihilation. I was not clear about this. Anyway, the basic idea is now mainstream, though I got no credit for this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...37?via%3Dihub#!
    There is more detail in my blog with updates: https://fundamentalstudies.org/

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,467
    Ah, that is quite different-- you're not saying mundane antimatter we create in our laboratories is going backward in time, you are saying that across the Big Bang singularity it can appear to us that there is an entire universe of antimatter that is going in the other direction in time. In effect, the universe is a kind of explosion in both directions of time, as well as in all spatial directions. That's a very interesting perspective, thank you.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •