- #151

- 416

- 0

Hi,

Next i detail some apparent misconceptions on the arrow of time:

1) The projection postulate / Born rule: Waves collapse only into one direction

2) Imperfect entanglement: The conservation laws are not exactly 100%

3) Spontaneous symmetry breaking: We might see Universes where time goes the other way

4) The time dimension itself is simply one way: The future does not yet exist. This precisely is incompatible with deterministic dynamics where future is already defined. Consistent models for time evolution follow only from

5) I cannot offer detailed comments on the last option of the poll since is not defined.

I have add some comments and references to recent work on non-unitary dynamics on why irreversible physics is superior to reversible one, the appearence of new properties on biological systems and the true nature of time which needs of a basic understanding of hiperreal numbers or similar (see xml page cited in Woit blog for some aditional data and references) in Peter Woit blog about Princeton http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=309#comment-6492". More data was available but erased by Woit due to the off-topic character of Andy query.

I read and re-read again comment https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=816792&postcount=25" and after of recent troubles in this thread i obtained my own conclusions.

I abandon this forum.

Marcus, CarlB, and others interesting guys, thanks by your valious comments!!

Next i detail some apparent misconceptions on the arrow of time:

1) The projection postulate / Born rule: Waves collapse only into one direction

**is not**the basis for the arrow of time. In fact there is not dynamical consistent description of the projection inside standard QM, which is based in unitary dynamics (Schrödinger dynamics). In fact, the projection postulate arises from non-unitary dynamics. There are very-well detailed models on quantum lorentz gas and Friedrichs models published on relevant literature. The limits of aplicability of Schrödinger dynamics are also well-detailed.2) Imperfect entanglement: The conservation laws are not exactly 100%

**is not**the basis for the arrow of time. Any explanation of arrow of time strictly conserves probability and energy. However, when one passes to an approximate description (as very well-known valid in the limit of very big markovian reservoir) from the full conservative dynamics one obtains both apparent violation of conservation of probability and energy. From this apparent violation and via very well-known theorems follows Caratheodory statement, the theory of adiabatic transformations and other interesting stuff: Gamow generalized vectors, Weisskopf/Wigner decay theory, and others. today there is a debate on why E.C.G. Sudarshan received not the Nobel Prize. Well, Sudarshan generalized IRREVERSIBLE quantum mechanics describing Kaon systems follows from nonunitary dynamics in the limit nonunitarity is epsilon when epsilon -> 0 (but is NOT zero as in Abel kernel for the Zubarev equation). Note: Sudarshan was a coworker of my colleague Prigogine who last years was working in Prigogine theory of instable elementary particles.3) Spontaneous symmetry breaking: We might see Universes where time goes the other way

**is not**the basis for the arrow of time. In fact, universe evolution is clearly nonunitary and we can choose either an initial simmetric or non-simmetric vacuum. If one choose already a non-simmetric vacuum then breaking is unnecesary. If one chooses an initial simmetric vacuum (Brushel School option) then it has been proven on literature that spontaneus simmetry broken at big bang does that our universe follows one of semigroups (the so called Lambda_{+}) generated in the phase transition ('Big Bang') from vacuum. The possibility of other universes with the other semigroup is possible but i) there is not possibility for combined evolution and time asymmetry is always fundamental in the universe ii) each universe follow a different semigroup of the spectral decomposition in the RHS, but the evolution in each semigroup (+) or (-) is always irreversible, simply there is two different arrows. All of this is published in literature.4) The time dimension itself is simply one way: The future does not yet exist. This precisely is incompatible with deterministic dynamics where future is already defined. Consistent models for time evolution follow only from

**non-unitary**theory. Material is available on literature, including serious criticism to the time dimension concept, for example via Stueckelberg/Horwitz 5D theory.5) I cannot offer detailed comments on the last option of the poll since is not defined.

I have add some comments and references to recent work on non-unitary dynamics on why irreversible physics is superior to reversible one, the appearence of new properties on biological systems and the true nature of time which needs of a basic understanding of hiperreal numbers or similar (see xml page cited in Woit blog for some aditional data and references) in Peter Woit blog about Princeton http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=309#comment-6492". More data was available but erased by Woit due to the off-topic character of Andy query.

I read and re-read again comment https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=816792&postcount=25" and after of recent troubles in this thread i obtained my own conclusions.

I abandon this forum.

Marcus, CarlB, and others interesting guys, thanks by your valious comments!!

Last edited by a moderator: