- #1
hailzeyy
- 1
- 0
Physical processes do not require an arrow of time to be defined. Then how does one know for certain that time is unidirectional, that there is a past, present and future?
Because we don't see the dead arising from their graves, or new born infants being absorbed by their mother.hailzeyy said:Physical processes do not require an arrow of time to be defined. Then how does one know for certain that time is unidirectional, that there is a past, present and future?
hailzeyy said:Physical processes do not require an arrow of time to be defined.
hailzeyy said:how does one know for certain that time is unidirectional, that there is a past, present and future?
PeterDonis said:Let me turn this question around: what would your everyday experience be like if time were not unidirectional?
Stephen Tashi said:Perhaps the processes that implement our consciousness only have a "forward" direction in time
backward said:If somehow time reversed direction
These interactions don't follow T symmetry, but do follow the slightly different CPT symmetry exactly. There is a significant difference between those two symmetries, but it makes no conceptual difference as it relates to the question in the OP. We can say that all known physical laws are exactly time-symmetric just by stating that we mean CPT symmetry rather than T symmetry.PeterDonis said:This is not quite true. There are some processes involving the weak interaction that are not time symmetric. But it is true that these processes aren't involved in the ordinary everyday observations we make that indicate that there is an arrow of time.
There are some ideas, or interpretations... that seem to imply what you stated...backward said:If somehow time reversed direction and we went into our past (this is different from time travel through closed time like circuit), we would not notice anything strange because as we go back in time our corresponding memory also will be lost. So we will feel exactly like when we were there at that point of time. If time again changes direction and we come back to the present, this will feel exactly as if time had always maintained the same direction.
For all we know it may be happening without our knowledge. After all, barring some processes in weak interactions etc there is nothing to prevent time from going backwards.PeterDonis said:Can you describe a way that this could happen, consistent with the laws of physics?
backward said:there is nothing to prevent time from going backwards.
OCR said:There are some ideas, or interpretations... that seem to imply what you stated...
It means that just as you can and often go back in space cordinates, you go backwards in time coordinate. This is allowed by the laws of Physics with some exceptions. I cannot think of a specific physical process which would trigger time-reversal. So, it is a general statement. Only point I wished to make is that if somehow time reversed direction in our lives, we would fail to notice it.PeterDonis said:You're missing my point. What does "time going backwards" mean? Can you describe a scenario, consistent with the laws of physics, in which "time goes backwards"? It's not enough just to make a vague general statement. You need to give the specifics.
Well, no. The correct statement is that a matter particle moving forward in time is the equivalent to an anti-matter particle moving backward in time. If you wanted to, you could just as easily describe a matter particle moving backward in time, which would behave like an anti-matter particle moving forward in time.backward said:For one thing, antiparticles have been interpreted as particles going backwards in time.
backward said:It means that just as you can and often go back in space cordinates, you go backwards in time coordinate. This is allowed by the laws of Physics
Wiggle room? ...wiggle room, really?? ...you're joking!PeterDonis said:... if we are willing to tolerate some wiggle room ...
nikkkom said:The question is, why they are _different_, while laws of physics are _time-symmetric_?
nikkkom said:I know what spontaneous symmetry breaking is :)
nikkkom said:In the GR solution which is a contracting Universe muons would still usually decay, not "spontaneously reconstitute" from electrons and antineutrinos.
PeterDonis said:Not once the temperature got high enough during the contraction. From the standpoint of GR, we just have a "cosmological fluid" whose proportion of muons relative to electrons and antineutrinos varies with temperature, and the temperature varies with time, and that variation in the contracting solution is the exact time reverse of the variation in the expanding solution.
You could also look at a much more detailed solution that includes QFT as well as GR
nikkkom said:There is no obvious reason to link arrow of time with the expansion of the Universe.
nikkkom said:Physics in flat Minkowski space, which is time translation invariant, exhibits the same time asymmetry between past and future: muons decay, not reconstitute.
PeterDonis said:In other words, you are now claiming that there is no valid solution of the laws that corresponds to a Minkowski spacetime in which muon decay goes in reverse.
nikkkom said:I'm just saying that in Minkowski spacetime, for some reason muons far more often decay than "reconstitute", when you go in "future" time direction.
PeterDonis said:You are basically envisioning a solution which describes Minkowski spacetime which has some distribution of quantum fields in the "far past" that has a supply of muons and no (or very few) electrons and antineutrinos; and you are saying that in the "far future", there will be few if any muons left and a much larger number of electrons and antineutrinos. But it seems obvious that there will be another valid solution, the exact time reverse of this one, in which there is a large number of electrons and antineutrinos in the "far past", and where the initial conditions are set up just right (as they must be, for this solution to be the exact time reverse of the one I just described) for those electrons and antineutrinos to collide with each other and form muons, creating a large supply of muons in the "far future". So in this solution, muons reconstitute more than they decay.
nikkkom said:My point is that the observed physical world realizes only the first possibility
nikkkom said:If you set up many independent non-interacting systems, half of which are "muon-dominated" (let's describe them as "impenetrable box with a few muonic hydrogen atoms") and other half are "electron-dominated" (box with ordinary hydrogen + sufficiently energetic muon and electron antineutrinos), very soon all of them will become electronic. Not one of "electronic" boxes will have muonic hydrogen in it.
PeterDonis said:Sure, but so what? Again, we aren't talking just about our particular solution. We're talking about all possible solutions.
nikkkom said:It does not matter to me that among all possible solutions, time-reversed ones exist. I don't argue against that. I'm asking why they are not realized 50% of the time, as they naively should be.
PeterDonis said:We don't know what constraints the time asymmetry of the overall global solution we live in puts on the local "solutions" that can be realized in our experiments;
and the fact that, so far, all of the laws appear to be time symmetric (except for a few cases in the weak interactions), strongly indicates that the time asymmetry in our experimental results is due to time asymmetry in the initial conditions we can realize.