Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,alt.consciousness,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!news.crd.ge.com!lurch!trey
From: trey@lurch.BRS.Com (Trey Jones)
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Message-ID: <1994Nov9.234413.20875@lurch.BRS.Com>
Organization: sufficient to get the job done
References: <1994Aug26.013919.8528@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> <39m79d$7pd@archive.ny.jpmorgan.com> <39o9bg$hfl@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 23:44:13 GMT
Lines: 71
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:99797 sci.philosophy.meta:14658 comp.ai.philosophy:21918

*Snipping some relevant bits of this thread:*

In article <39o9bg$hfl@netnews.upenn.edu> sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner) writes:
>elapinsk@jpmorgan.com (Emery Lapinski writes:
>
>In article <39m79d$7pd@archive.ny.jpmorgan.com>, elapinsk@jpmorgan.com (Emery Lapinski) writes:
>> In article <1994Aug26.013919.8528@vax1.mankato.msus.edu>,
>> Feeding on the minds of man, from their souls within <cosmic@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> wrote:
>> >In article <McGowan_J_JAMES-2508941046040001@jmcgowan.aom.bt.co.uk>, McGowan_J_JAMES@bt-web.bt.co.uk (James McGowan) writes:
>> [stuff]
>> >> 
>> >> Mathematically (at least) positrons can be described as electrons moving
>> >> backwards in time.
>> >> No mechanism has been envisaged which might allow any information to be
>> >> got from this.
>> >> 
>> >James, from what I have heard you are correct.  Mathmatically there
>> >are paritcles that could possibly move back in time but I believe
>> >they are called tachions (sp??)   
>>
>> There are supposedly particles called "tachyons" which have a velocity
>> greater than that of light.  These would appear to be moving backwards in
>> time.
>> 
>If it were true that there is just one electron going forward and backward
>in time (and this was *not* Feynman's suggestion), then there would be an
>equal number of electrons and positrons in the universe.  This does not
>appear to be the case.
>
>The reason for the preponderance of matter over antimatter is unknown.

The idea that positrons are electrons moving backwards in time has some
nifty consequences. For instance, in "empty" space, electron-positron
pairs occasionally spontaneously appear and then crash back into each
other, anihilating themselves. One way to view this is as an electron
spinning in a circle  in time.. it goes forward, turns around, becomes a
positron, goes backward, turns around, and goes forward again.

Sometimes these pairs don't crash into each other. Instead, the positron
may crash into a different electron. These three particles can be viewed
as a single electron that goes for a short spin in reverse(time)..

time					the big problem is what makes
^					the electron decide to turn
|   e-					around? At the end of time
|    e-    e+e-				perhaps God is waiting to
|     e-  e+  e-			send the little sucker back for
|      e-e+    e-			another run.. but in the middle,
|               e-			why would it bother?..
---------------------->space (1D, alas)

As for the preponderance of matter over antimatter, it is logically
possible (though totally unsubstantiated) that there are pockets of
matter and pockets of antimatter throughout the universe. It makes sense
that this should be so.. there are not many antiparticles around here
because as soon as they bump into something *BOOM*, they are gone.. 

As for tachyons, they are on the other side of the light-speed barrier,
and we won't be seeing any of them soon. I imagine that the first
discussion of tachyons went something like this:

"hey, perhaps there are particles that can only go FASTER than light!"
"yeah, cool, then they could never go slower, and we could never go
	faster.. and we'd never.. see.. them.."
"oops."
"oh well.."

Anyway, haven't we crossed into the realm of
alt.philosophy.crashes.headlong.into.physics here?

-Trey 
