it is for the positron
>>16811402Elaborate
>>16811391Depends on your foundational model of knowledge
>>16811404antiparticles travel back in time in feymann diagrams
>>16811476There is zero proof antimatter travels back in time.
>>16811483there's lots of mathematical proof. if it didn't, currents wouldn't get conserved
>>16811491Those aren't proofs, they are interpretations. There is zero experimental evidence.
>>16811391Every time a neutron decays into a proton, it is because of an anti neutrino traveling backwards in time hitting it.
>>16811391Newcomb's problem proves that from a decision theoretic standpoint, yes. This is probably a different sense of causality that what physicists talk about (from a third person perspective, there's no need to bring retrocausality to Newcomb's problem) but arguably "if i'll decide to do this, then this happens" (or in Newcomb's problem's case, if I'll decide to do this then this *happened*) is the original and most basic sense of causality there is.
>>16811495>>16811498>>16811511So is it real? I see contradictory information
>>16811495So an experiment might start with the question, what does it look like when a retrocausal effect and a causal effect interact? When two causal effects interact, they sort of merge into the same causal chain and the two subchains terminate differently than they would have had they not interacted. Shouldn't we be seeing causal chains act in ways we wouldn't expect if they were being interacted with retrocausally?
>>16811655only things that move faster than light can go backwards in time antimatter moves slower than light
>>16811391No[edit from the future]Yes
