Retrocausality, orbackwards causation, is a concept ofcause and effect in which an effect precedes its cause in time and so a later event affects an earlier one.[1][2] Inquantum physics, the distinction between cause and effect is not made at the most fundamental level and sotime-symmetric systems can be viewed as causal or retrocausal.[3][page needed] Philosophical considerations oftime travel often address the same issues as retrocausality, as do treatments of the subject in fiction, but the two phenomena are distinct.[1]
Philosophical efforts to understand causality extend back at least toAristotle's discussions of thefour causes. It was long considered that an effect preceding its cause is an inherent self-contradiction because, as 18th century philosopherDavid Hume discussed, when examining two related events, the cause is by definition the one that precedes the effect.[4][page needed]
The idea of retrocausality is also found inIndian philosophy. It was defended by at least two IndianBuddhist philosophers,Prajñākaragupta (ca. 8th–9th century) andJitāri (ca. 940–1000), the latter wrote a specific treatise on the topic, theTreatise on Future Cause (Bhāvikāraṇavāda).[5] The idea is also found in some Chinese Buddhist philosophers, likeFazang.[6]
In the 1950s,Michael Dummett wrote in opposition to such definitions, stating that there was no philosophical objection to effects preceding their causes.[7] This argument was rebutted by fellow philosopherAntony Flew and, later, byMax Black.[7] Black's "bilking argument" held that retrocausality is impossible because the observer of an effect could act to prevent its future cause from ever occurring.[8] A more complex discussion of howfree will relates to the issues Black raised is summarized byNewcomb's paradox.Essentialist philosophers have proposed other theories, such as the existence of "genuine causal powers in nature" or by raising concerns about the role ofinduction in theories of causality.[9][page needed][10][page needed]
Most physical theories aretime symmetric: microscopic models likeNewton's laws orelectromagnetism have no inherent direction of time. The "arrow of time" that distinguishes cause and effect must have another origin.[11]: 116 To reduce confusion, physicists distinguish strong (macroscopic) from weak (microscopic) causality.[12]
The imaginary ability to affect the past is sometimes taken to suggest that causes could be negated by their own effects, creating a logical contradiction such as thegrandfather paradox.[13] This contradiction is not necessarily inherent to retrocausality or time travel; by limiting the initial conditions of time travel with consistency constraints, such paradoxes and others are avoided.[14]
Aspects of modern physics, such as the hypotheticaltachyonparticle and certaintime-independent aspects ofquantum mechanics, may allow particles or information to travel backward in time. Logical objections to macroscopic time travel may not necessarily prevent retrocausality at other scales of interaction.[15][page needed] Even if such effects are possible, however, they may not be capable of producing effects different from those that would have resulted from normal causal relationships.[16][page needed]
PhysicistJohn G. Cramer has explored various proposed methods for nonlocal or retrocausal quantum communication and found them all flawed and, consistent with theno-communication theorem, unable to transmit nonlocal signals.[17]
"In relativity, time and space are intertwined in the fabric of space-time, so time can contract and stretch under the influence of gravity."[18]Closed timelike curves (CTCs), sometimes referred to as time loops,[18] in which theworld line of an object returns to its origin, arise from someexact solutions to theEinstein field equation. However, thechronology protection conjecture ofStephen Hawking suggests that any such closed timelike curve would be destroyed before it could be used.[19] Although CTCs do not appear to exist under normal conditions, extreme environments ofspacetime, such as atraversable wormhole or the region near certaincosmic strings, may allow their brief formation, implying a theoretical possibility of retrocausality.[citation needed] Theexotic matter ortopological defects required for the creation of those environments have not been observed.[20][page needed][21][page needed]
Most physical models aretime symmetric;[11]: 116 some use retrocausality at the microscopic level.
Wheeler–Feynman absorber theory, proposed byJohn Archibald Wheeler andRichard Feynman, uses retrocausality and a temporal form ofdestructive interference to explain the absence of a type of converging concentricwave suggested by certain solutions toMaxwell's equations.[22] These advanced waves have nothing to do with cause and effect: they are simply a different mathematical way to describe normal waves. The reason they were proposed is that a charged particle would not have to act on itself, which, in normal classical electromagnetism, leads to an infinite self-force.[22]
Ernst Stueckelberg, and laterRichard Feynman, proposed an interpretation of thepositron as an electron moving backward in time, reinterpreting the negative-energy solutions of theDirac equation. Electrons moving backward in time would have a positiveelectric charge.[23] This time-reversal ofanti-particles is required in modern quantum field theory, and is for example a component of hownucleons in atoms are held together with thenuclear force, via exchange ofvirtualmesons such as thepion. A meson is made up by an equal number of normal quarks and anti-quarks, and is thus simultaneously both emitted and absorbed.[24]
Wheeler invoked this time-reversal concept to explain the identical properties shared by all electrons, suggesting that "they are all the same electron" with a complex, self-intersectingworld line.[25]Yoichiro Nambu later applied it to all production andannihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, stating that "the eventual creation and annihilation of pairs that may occur now and then is no creation or annihilation, but only a change of direction of moving particles, from past to future, or from future to past."[26] The backwards-in-time point of view is nowadays accepted as completely equivalent to other pictures,[27] but it has nothing to do with the macroscopic terms "cause" and "effect", which do not appear in a microscopic physical description.
Retrocausality is associated with the Double Inferential state-Vector Formalism (DIVF), later known as thetwo-state vector formalism (TSVF) in quantum mechanics, where the present is characterised by quantum states of the past and the future taken in combination.[28][29]
Retrocausality is sometimes associated withnonlocal correlations that generically arise fromquantum entanglement, including for example thedelayed choice quantum eraser.[30][31] However accounts of quantum entanglement can be given which do not involve retrocausality. They treat the experiments demonstrating these correlations as being described from different reference frames that disagree on which measurement is a "cause" versus an "effect", as necessary to be consistent with special relativity.[32][33] That is to say, the choice of which event is the cause and which the effect is not absolute but is relative to the observer. The description of such nonlocal quantum entanglements can be described in a way that is free of retrocausality if the states of the system are considered.[34]
Hypotheticalsuperluminal particles calledtachyons have a spacelike trajectory, and thus can appear to move backward in time, according to an observer in a conventional reference frame. Despite frequent depiction inscience fiction as a method to send messages back in time, hypothetical tachyons do not interact with normaltardyonic matter in a way that would violate standard causality. Specifically, theFeinberg reinterpretation principle means that ordinary matter cannot be used to make a tachyon detector capable of receiving information.[35]
Retrocausality is claimed to occur in somepsychic phenomena such asprecognition.J. W. Dunne's 1927 bookAn Experiment with Time studiedprecognitive dreams and has become a definitive classic.[36]ParapsychologistJ. B. Rhine and colleagues made intensive investigations during the mid-twentieth century. His successorHelmut Schmidt presented quantum mechanical justifications for retrocausality, eventually claiming that experiments had demonstrated the ability to manipulateradioactive decay through retrocausalpsychokinesis.[37][38] Such results and their underlying theories have been rejected by the mainstream scientific community and are widely accepted aspseudoscience, although they continue to have some support fromfringe science sources.[39][page needed][40][page needed][41][unreliable source?]
Efforts to associate retrocausality withprayer healing have been similarly rejected.[42][43]
From 1994, psychologistDaryl J. Bem has argued for precognition. He subsequently showed experimental subjects two sets of curtains and instructed them to guess which one had a picture behind it, but did not display the picture behind the curtain until after the subject made their guess. Some results showed a higher margin of success (p. 17) for a subset of erotic images, with subjects who identified as "stimulus-seeking" in the pre-screening questionnaire scoring even higher. However, like his predecessors, his methodology has been strongly criticised and his results discounted.[44]