Recently, a substantial amount of debate has grown up around a proposed quantum resolution to the `arrow of time dilemma’ that is based on the role of classical memory records of entropy-decreasing events. In this note we show that the argument is incomplete and furthermore, by providing a counter-example, argue that it is incorrect. Instead of quantum mechanics providing a resolution in the manner suggested, it allows enhanced classical memory records of entropy-decreasing events.

For what it’s worth, I think the connection between low entropy initial conditions for the universe, and the sense of being able to fix initial conditions for local experiments would make for an awesome blog post.

I’ve no problem with the mystery of the low entropy early universe—it’s a mystery and something maybe we can figure out. But why do local experiments have the same arrow of time? I think it’d be a fun blog post to explore that and explain where there are gaps.

Such an instability seems to support Lorenzo’s view and what Zeh above claimed essential to understand arrow of time, that is quantum mechanics. Indeed, studies on Loschmidt’s echo can also give an experimental support to Lieb and Simon theorem even if, in this particular case, there are other competing views worthwhile to be pursued.

Wow, that brings back spr flashbacks….

Also this one: http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm

Who needs Einstein when you’ve got Isiah?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1232v1.pdf

Start with an extremely simplified “unobserved system” that consists of a single particle moving at some initial velocity towards two slits, with some kind of screen on the other side that can detect the particle. Instead of treating time as the independent variable and three spatial dimensions as dependent variables, specify a new parametric variable “p.” The particle’s position and velocity are defined at p=0. Let the particle’s position and velocity at p=1 be randomly selected from all possible states within the limits of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, and then repeat in a “random walk” pattern without any preference for increasing t. Continue this until something causes the system to “decohere.”

If we were to plot the path of this paramaterized particle in x, y, and t we would see a “fractal” shape–I think it would look a bit like an old-fashioned shaving brush.

As far as I can tell, this method would generate the interference patterns one sees in a double-slit experiment. In a system with a detector on one of the slits, the system would decohere the first time the p parameter randomly got the particle out to the detector. The moment of decoherence would reset the system with the particle now located near one slit, and all possible paths of that particle would now wind up on the screen at the far end looking just like a single particle going through a single slit.

By contrast, a system without a detector at one of the slits would yield an infinite number of different paths from the original starting point to the screen at the far end–but those paths would show just the kind of interference patters that make double-slit experiments so interesting.