Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

arXiv blog

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Email Subscription

Recently on the arXiv blog...

Recent comments on the arXivblog

  • flared0ne : The best analysis likely here is going to be along the lines of an opportunity cost model. I've...
  • spad12 : Main Entry: 1 loan Pronunciation: \'lonFunction: noun Etymology: Middle English lon, from Old...
  • ... : I agree with the statement that you need to take some econ courses. You don't change the cost of...
  • ... : These 'known reserves' are simply unaudited projections that make it to the Red Book, AKA the Red...
  • ... : I was going to reply to the prior entry, Bob, but you beat me to it. Those promoting loan...
  • ... : The assumption that creativity and imitation are exclusive activities (or accomplishments) is...
  • bugmenot2 : Quantum computers are excellent at simulating quantum systems, exponentially faster than...
  • Ron Diehl : Replace the word "quantum computer" with "human brain", and your response makes equal sense. What...
  • kjblack : I,m glad that I won't be around to see the future squabble into energy generation and water...
  • kvj : China is going to construct 100 NPPs. U.S. 30. Even middle east countries are going to construct...
  • ms : I'm surprised you didn't mention that rig a is just a doubling-up of each position in the Italian...
  • tulcod : The "promise" given in the first paragraph is completely irrealistic. It's not number crunching...
  • ... : Well, I did log in and searched in vain for your "withering reply".  Is it perhaps subtly hidden...
  • TooMany : While the anti-nuke contingent in the US and in parts of Europe continues to rant about the...
  • mulliguns : Points to why a pair may be the most difficult to row successfully, and that sometimes odd size...
  • shaase : It would seem difficult to guarantee that oarsmen all pull with the same force, so it will still...
  • seth : Even though the new arrangements were not immediately obvious, I do think they make common sense....
  • ... : I have examined the major uranium producing countries and made a forecast for 2009, 2010 and...
  • ZephirAWT : Frankly, I don't believe in communication hypothesis wery much, but there's is at least another...
  • ... : http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/The link above goes to your Technology Review...
Advertisement
Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Deriving the Arrow of Time

The laws of physics have no preferred direction for time, unless you take quantum cosmology into account.

Humanity has long struggled over the nature of time. In the last century, physicists were shocked to discover that the arrow of time cannot be derived from the laws of physics which appear perfectly symmetric. For every solution for t, there seems to be an equally valid solution for -t (except in a few cases involving the weak force in which case the symmetry is more complex, involving charge, parity and time)

At first glance that looks puzzling. But after a few years reflection, most physicists agreed that it's perfectly possible for symmetric laws to give rise to asymmetric phenomena. Physicists have identified a number of such asymmetric phenomena that represent "arrows of time", says Claus Kiefer at the Institut fur Theoretische Physik in Cologne, Germany.

Perhaps the most famous is the thermodynamic arrow of time in which the entropy of a closed system must always increase. But there is also a quantum mechanical arrow of time in which a preferred direction of time is determined by decoherence and a gravitational arrow of time in which the preferred direction is determined by gravitational collapse.

"What is peculiar is the fact that the time direction of the phenomena is always the same," says Kiefer. It's almost as if the arrow of time were predetermined in some way. "The question raised by the presence of all these arrows is whether a common master arrow of time is behind all of them," he asks.

What master law might be responsible? Kiefer's conjecture is that the direction of time arises when quantum mechanics is applied to the universe as a whole, a branch of science known as quantum cosmology.

Central to this idea is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation that describes the quantum state of the universe as a whole, including both its gravitational and non-gravitational states.

This equation does not contain any parameter that is equivalent to our classical notion of time. In the Wheeler-DeWitt formulation, spacetime does not exist in any classical sense and particles do not have traditional trajectories in spacetime, just as particles do not have traditional trajectories in ordinary quantum mechanics. Instead all the information about the universe is encoded in its wavefunction

So how might an arrow of time arise? While the universe is considered homogeneous to the first degree, there is no preferred direction of time, says Kiefer. But he shows that when small inhomogeneities are taken into account, an asymmetry arises in this wavefunction.

He even says that with slight elaborations, this idea could be applied to an arrow of time in the multiverse.

What he fails to do, however, is provide a way of testing this idea. There is no way of determining experimentally whether the Wheeler-DeWitt formulation is really the origin of the arrow of time.

Of course, that's a common failure of most thinking about quantum cosmology (not to mention cosmology in general). And until physicists find a way to prune their ideas about time with experimental data, we can merely marvel at their creativity.


Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0910.5836 : Can the Arrow of Time be Understood from Quantum Cosmology?

Comments

  • Cosmological time arrow
    We cannot neglect fact, one half of Universe evaporates and separates by antigravity (radiation pressure), while the second one agglomerates by gravity. In AWT boundary between insintric and exsintric observational perspective is divided by observer distance scale, which corresponds to wavelength of cosmic microwave background (CMB scale) at 1.73 cm. Above such scale thermodynamic time arrow for material object becomes reversed and driven by gravity. So what we are observing are two thermodynamical processes separated by CMB/human scale into exsintric and insitric perspective.

    Material objects, which are large then 1.73 cm tends to agglomerate in their gravity field into larger ones. This is essentially negentropic process, related to inverse time arrow, whereas object smaller then CMB photons are evaporating into radiation, whis is indeed common entropic process. For particles of energy the whole situation remains reciprocal: large photons are dissolving like tachyons in CMB, while smaller one are condensing into solitons, i.e. material particles

    http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/08/awt-and-cosmological-time-arrow.html
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ZephirAWT
    11/03/2009
    Posts:99
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Re: Deriving the Arrow of Time
    The very first question of the paper is flawed and will lead to another Not Even Wrong theory. There is no such thing as the "Arrow of Time" and shows a common misunderstanding in the Physics community of what is meant by time. From the first volume of Motion Mountain p45:

    http://www.motionmountain.net/download.html

    "Time is a concept introduced specially to describe the flow of events around us; it does not itself flow, it describes flow. Time does not advance. Time is neither linear nor cyclic. The idea that time flows is as hindering to understanding nature as is the idea that mirrors Page 71 exchange right and left. The misleading use of the expression ‘flow of time’, propagated first by some flawed Ref. 36 Greek thinkers and then again by Newton, continues. Aristotle (384/3–322 bce), careful to think logically, pointed out its misconception, and many did so after him. Nevertheless, expressions such as ‘time reversal’, the ‘irreversibility of time’, and the much-abused ‘time’s arrow’ are still common. Just read a popular science magazine chosen at random.

    The fact is: time cannot be reversed, only motion can, or more precisely, only velocities of ojects; time has no arrow, only motion has; it is not the flow of time that humans are unable to stop, but the motion of all the objects in nature. Incredibly, there are even books written by respected physicists that study different types of ‘time’s arrows’ and compare them with each other. Predictably, no tangible or new result is extracted. Time does not flow."
    Rate this comment: 12345

    captpaul
    11/03/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • There Is No Arrow of Time
      You are 100% correct but you will not get any love from the physics community for saying this. Physicists love to fantasize about time travel and the like. The hard truth, of course, is that time cannot change by definition. This is the reason that nothing can move in spacetime. It is also the reason that Karl Popper called spacetime, Einstein's block universe in which nothing happens (source: Conjectures and Refutations). I believe it was Dr. Joe Rosen, the retired former physics chair of the University of Central Arkansas who said it best:

      There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming."

      Source: "Time, c, and nonlocality: A glimpse beneath the surface?" Physics Essays, vol. 7, pp. 335-340, 1994

      The amazing counterintuitive truth is that a time dimension would make motion impossible. We can still talk about time but only in the abstract. Why isn't this common knowledge in the physics community? Why are so many famous physicists like Stephen Hawking, David Deutsch, Kip Thorne and others still talking about time travel as if it were a possibility? Why does anybody at Technology Review consider this to be a serious scientific topic? Physics needs another radical Kuhnian revolution. That's why.

      Nothing Can Move in Spacetime:
      http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Mapou
      11/04/2009
      Posts:65
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
    • Re: time has no arrow, only motion has
      Personally, I disagree. In AWT time dimension is defined by direction of gradient of Aether density, which explains specific nature of time dimension with respect to space-dimensions.

      In analogy with water surface, which is forming local space-time for surface wave spreading, space dimensions are directions plan-parallel with water surface, whereas time direction is normal to this gradient. In this way, time has always an arrow, defined by gradient, which is forming space-time.

      This geometrical model of space-time explains (between many others), why time has an arrow, whereas space-time not and it's easy to extrapolate into space-times with many time dimensions, like space-time branes.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ZephirAWT
      11/04/2009
      Posts:99
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • unnecessary complication
    Perhaps this quest for an explanation to the arrow of time arises from the same misconception that leads many people to postulate the existence of a God of some kind.
    The very fact that we are here and now implies the need for some processes, which have taken their "time" to evolve and lead to the present situation. Allowing the possibility that these processes could be reversed is alike to considering that some God set them up intentionally just to create us, i.e. it's an unnecessary (and complicated) assumption. The "speed" of these processes may change, according to relativity (or to subjective experience, some psychologists would say), but reversing it would reverse any consequence of the concept "evolution", in any physical, logical or Darwinian sense. Which is pure nonsense.
    Perhaps it is just a misunderstanding arising from mathematical formulations? I also appreciate the baffling beauty of the mathematical laws which attempt to describe our universe, but don't think that the existence of a possible "-t" solution should lead us to consider the possibility of a reversed causality flow. These consequences look unnecessarily complicated - normally the simplest solution is also the most likely.
    Perhaps in the "-t" solution, things "evolve" exactly as in our world, but people draw graphs with a "time arrow" pointing to the left instead...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Fabrizio
    11/04/2009
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • Arrows and Anthropic reality
    As important as this area of inquiry is, it is burdened by being right on the tough love spot between the imagination of fiction and (whatever exists of) 'true' reality. So be it. A few observations:

    ZERO CAN BE TOO MAGICAL:
    Any proposed formula explaining something can be turned into an equality equaling zero by subtracting some out_of_hat "K", etc to sprinkle a little fairy dust on the idea and get a fashionable zero out of it. Watch out for fashionable ways to get zero out of anything with magic numbers in units which maybe not quite exist.

    REAL NON SYMMETRY
    In a scenario where time has a from / to point which involves the conjecture a to / from point also may exist, seeking some non-zero sum, non transmutable quantities is essentially required. The explanations for inflation, etc to explain the disparity of matter and anti-matter to me, un convincing somewhat. If Cosmic censorship is true, no alteration of time can be directly experienced, no matter how much taxpayer money and thinking time is dissipated. Looking what comes and goes, and at what rate versus our "real time", is an indirect method. So, god(s) bless the measurers of c and electron volts, gravity, etc though we all expect nothing, there poking in the right bush set. I think they should poke in matter antimatter counts, and the Casmir effect.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dan_kolis
    11/04/2009
    Posts:2
    Avg Rating:
    1/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.