6
$\begingroup$

I have a question about my Physics Stack Exchange post: If antiparticles are particles moving back in time, would messages from the future be possible?

It was marked a duplicate of Is anti-matter going backwards in time?

At first glance, these questions are obviously not the same. I'm asking if future-to-past/present messages are possible, if Feynman's interpretation of antiparticles is true. I'm not asking whether or not it is true, that would ultimately (at least for now) be a philosophical question. Instead, my question asks about whether or not something else would be possible, if the Feynman interpretation is true.

But just because our questions are different, it doesn't mean that I can't find an answer to my question in those provided to the other one. So, I looked through them. Perhaps I'm too illiterate in physics, but I don't see how the answers to that question answer my question. And don't say "it's obvious that messages could be sent from the future to the past/present if this interpretation is true, as this interpretation, by definition, allows retrocausality". Just because retrocausality is possible, doesn't mean "retrocausal communication" is. It seems obvious that faster-than-light communication is made possible by quantum entanglement, but it isn't. I didn't know that until I was told. So, applying the same principle of ignorance here, I need to be told by those that actually have expertise, whether Feynman's interpretation of anti-particles actually allows for future-to-past/present communication.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2
$\begingroup$

When asking a controversial question, like, if messages from the future would be possible, it is recommended to tie it to the academic discussion, e.g. mentioning Feynman's interpretation. I edited and reopened the question.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. Is the question controversial because of Feynman's interpretation being controversial, or because it's asking about some maybe speculative implications of that interpretation/something else inherent to the question? If the former, I'm a bit surprised. I didn't think Feynman's interpretation was controversial, since as far as I can tell, few physicist believe in it, and thus it may not be sufficiently popular to create enough disagreement to count as controversial. Though, maybe it has sparked a lot of disagreement? $\endgroup$
    – user404
    Commented Jan 2, 2022 at 22:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .