Actually no, it isn't. This is another example of your ignorance and willingness to misrepresent science you know nothing about.It is absolutely consistent to view, mathematically, that an anti-particle is just a particle moving backwards in time. That's how mathematics fools the physics community into believing this time symmetry nonsense.
The mathematical formulation of things like quantum field theory allow us to explore similar but not identical constructs. For example, we can construct a quantum field theory where T symmetry doesn't exist. We can then see what difference this makes to predictions and then we can go do experiments which probe those differences. It's how we found out that C and P symmetries aren't obeyed by all physical phenomena via chirality in the weak force. The maths was a guide for what physics to examine and test.
But you aren't interested in that, you just want to make up your own version of things to delude yourself.
Actually, it does. Causal structure is something which pre-occupies a great many people working general relativity.The mathematics doesn't speak to the issue of causality. That comes from common sense and wisdom.
Where did I say that? You're just showing you don't know what quantum field theory actually says about anti-particles. This is one of your problems, you don't know the details of what physicists say so you just assume. For example, if I said "tachyons are particles which go faster than light and the Higgs mechanism is tachyonic" you might conclude I'm saying the Higgs particle goes faster than light or back in time. Nope, that isn't what the Higgs mechanism involves. This is because there's many subtleties in the model which you're unaware of and which actually conspire to prevent violation of causality.There has never been an observation (a formal experiment or a layperson observation) that anything, not a particle, not a photon has ever carried causality into the past.
Time and again you put your foot in your mouth. When are you going to learn to not repeatedly lie?
And you're confused because you drink your own Koolaid, not bothering to find out what physicists say. You have not gotten all the information about this part of physics and you're jumping to conclusions, constructing strawmen.Yes, I understand how entropy increases in the direction of time. And yes, I understand how it's impossible to move every particle in the universe back to it's position and momentum in 1938, which is what you have to do to facilitate a time traveling event, in order to assassinate Hitler (I'm just using Hitler as an example). But even if one positron goes whizzing by, with temporal ambiguity because it doesn't know if it's an electron traveling into the past or a positron traveling into the future, this confusion does not endow the positron with the ability to transmit causality into the past. The positron is confused because he listened to some physicist who drank the mathematical Cool-Aid.
Seriously, it seems like every paragraph you post contains something dishonest and ignorant. Don't you get tired of jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting people whose work you don't know anything about?
Speaking as a professional mathematician with a background in theoretical physics I'm completely aware of how mathematics is used in regards to the real world, much more so than you I'm sure. Furthermore, I've already given you an example of how your 'common sense' is self contradictory and thus demonstrably fails as a guide. Common sense is not logical, it is often wrong.Mathematics is a useful tool if you remember to exercise wisdom and common sense.
No, maths is maths, its validity has nothing to do with it's applicability to the reao world. The mathematical formulation of such things is entirely valid, what might be invalid is whether or not the abstract mathematical construct is analogous to something in the real world. For example, the mathematical formulation of Newtonian physics is valid despite the physical models which make use of it being inaccurate. English doesn't become invalid just because you can say things which don't reflect reality using it.Since time traveling is not observed, then the mathematics is unreliable (it's lying to you) when it tells you that antiparticles are traveling into the past.
It doesn't bother me because you're either rehashing things I've already said or you're making incorrect statements. What bothers me is how consistently dishonest and ignorant you are. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes.It should bother you that a guy who believes in God and the mother-ship has to tell you what you should already know.
Straw man.If you can't glean this particular nuance, then maybe you should build a transceiver that transmits lottery numbers into the past so that you can win and become rich.
Supposition.I already know that you are aware that such a device is impossible.
Straw man.Yet you continue to preach the dogma of time symmetry.
You're mistaking mathematics for it's application in physics. It's a common mistake for people who know neither to make. This is something I've now commented on a number of times.Let me summarize my point. Mathematics is useful, but it will tell you crazy s**t too. If the mathematics doesn't agree with observation, then you're going the wrong way.
Not enough.By the way, I have nothing against logic, I use it all the time.
A naive and demonstrably flawed approach when stuck to in its entirety since it cannot allow for new experiences beyond the previous ones.I rely upon experience.
You have little to no integrity.I consult my highest standards of virtue and integrity which are a reliable counselor.
And yet you've made at least half a dozen mistakes in just this one post, never mind the entire thread. Your 'common sense' that all things which exist have a cause is in contradiction to your belief about a higher power. Your most fundamental views contradict one another and you seem incapable of grasping this.I ask for guidance from a Higher Power which is a fairly common practice that leads to wisdom.
What about that statement don't you get? You gave an expression for an electric field and it wasn't Lorentz invariant despite you posting it for precisely that reason.I don't understand what you mean when you say that the "EM waves I gave are not Lorentz invariant". Can you please elaborate?
That whistling sound you're hearing is my point flying over your head.It's entirely possible that you can't answer my question because you can't articulate it in simple words to a layperson. That could mean you're going the wrong way.
Clearly you cannot given your beliefs in a Creator and the 'common sense' statement "All things which exist have a cause" are contradictory.No, but I can detect logical inconsistencies.
Given we observe particles and antiparticles and the models we have of them are the most accurate models of reality ever constructed by Man and that you believe in a god and an aether, neither of which have ever been observed, I would conclude that your final comment has just backfired. Well done, another demonstration of how you have drunk your Koolaid and you lack even the most basic logic processing ability.One of us believes in things that have been observed to exist; one of us believes in things that don't exist, things that have never been observed. If I were you, I would not wager your sanity upon the existence of time traveling anti-particles or super-strings. If you do, you will lose.