High School Gravity and the Direction of Time

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the article "Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time," published in Physical Review Letters in October 2014. The article posits that an arrow of time can arise without special initial conditions, a claim that has not garnered significant follow-up or attention in the scientific community since its publication. The discussion highlights the narrow applicability of the findings, suggesting that the limited scope may have contributed to the lack of further exploration or rebuttals. Participants express curiosity about the reasons for the article's diminished impact in subsequent research.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational theories and concepts
  • Familiarity with the concept of the arrow of time in physics
  • Knowledge of scientific publication processes and peer review
  • Basic comprehension of Physical Review Letters as a scientific journal
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of gravitational time dilation in modern physics
  • Explore further articles on the arrow of time in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate recent studies or reviews published after 2014 related to gravitational theories
  • Examine critiques or discussions surrounding the 2014 article in academic forums
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the intersection of gravity and time concepts will benefit from this discussion.

White Rook
I recently read an interesting article published in Physical Review Letters in October 2014 - "Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time." There were also other articles in several general interest science magazines.
https://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.181101.

It seemed like it could be a big deal, but I haven't read anything else about it with a date after 2014. What happened? Did it turn out to be incorrect or unimportant? Were there rebuttals? Was no one interested? I am curious to know what happened next.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I do not in the slightest claim to understand the paper itself, but this section may elucidate why it didn't have bigger repercussions:

"We emphasize that in this Letter we make no claim to explain all the various arrows of time. We are making just one point: an arrow of time does arise in at least one case without any special initial condition, which may therefore be dispensable for all the arrows."

The way it sounds this is a very narrow result, and thus not generally applicable.
 
rumborak said:
"We emphasize that in this Letter we make no claim to explain all the various arrows of time. We are making just one point: an arrow of time does arise in at least one case without any special initial condition, which may therefore be dispensable for all the arrows."

The way it sounds this is a very narrow result, and thus not generally applicable.

Thanks for the response. Articles are always full of qualifications like that. It still seems like it could be a big deal, even if it's only in a limited sense. I'd still like to know why it's not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
998
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
754
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K