<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Time-Reversal Violation Is Not the &quot;Arrow of Time&quot;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:44:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Durham</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79544</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Durham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Nov 2012 17:23:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79544</guid>
		<description>Excellent point, Valatan.  Again, it is statistical.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent point, Valatan.  Again, it is statistical.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valatan</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79543</link>
		<dc:creator>Valatan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 16:36:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79543</guid>
		<description>I think you do get irreversibility in the following sense:

Let&#039;s say you have a cycle where you start with a particle B and it&#039;s antiparticle B*.  You have a cyclical decay process whereby B -&gt; C -&gt; B* -&gt;  D -&gt; B  and the time reverse of this decay process B* -&gt; C -&gt; B -&gt; D -&gt; B*.  You start with B and B* in exact 50/50 equilibrium.  If the decay rates are different, however, after time, you will favor either B or B* over the other.  You know the arrow of time, so long as you look at time scales less than the period of the longer oscillation.

How is this any different from ergodic recurrance, other than the fact that we typically can&#039;t measure time scales large enough to see the gas recompress into the left half of the piston?  And given the short times in the early universe, couldn&#039;t this have had something to do with picking out the direction of time in the early universe?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you do get irreversibility in the following sense:</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s say you have a cycle where you start with a particle B and it&#8217;s antiparticle B*.  You have a cyclical decay process whereby B -&gt; C -&gt; B* -&gt;  D -&gt; B  and the time reverse of this decay process B* -&gt; C -&gt; B -&gt; D -&gt; B*.  You start with B and B* in exact 50/50 equilibrium.  If the decay rates are different, however, after time, you will favor either B or B* over the other.  You know the arrow of time, so long as you look at time scales less than the period of the longer oscillation.</p>
<p>How is this any different from ergodic recurrance, other than the fact that we typically can&#8217;t measure time scales large enough to see the gas recompress into the left half of the piston?  And given the short times in the early universe, couldn&#8217;t this have had something to do with picking out the direction of time in the early universe?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79542</link>
		<dc:creator>James Gallagher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:08:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79542</guid>
		<description>Oh I see, your reversed entropy humans would still see high entropy as the future.

er, NO.

WTF!!!!


But I&#039;m at least arguing that such a scenario is not possible, so I don&#039;t have to defend my position so much as yours - but frankly, if you believe in determinism - then any way is ok. :--)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh I see, your reversed entropy humans would still see high entropy as the future.</p>
<p>er, NO.</p>
<p>WTF!!!!</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m at least arguing that such a scenario is not possible, so I don&#8217;t have to defend my position so much as yours &#8211; but frankly, if you believe in determinism &#8211; then any way is ok. :&#8211;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79541</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Nov 2012 01:02:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79541</guid>
		<description>James, the point is the low entropy state is the past and high entropy is the future, even if you reversed the microscopic dynamics. You seem to be very confused about this simple point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James, the point is the low entropy state is the past and high entropy is the future, even if you reversed the microscopic dynamics. You seem to be very confused about this simple point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79540</link>
		<dc:creator>James Gallagher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 23:06:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79540</guid>
		<description>Bob,

You know how a backwards entropy human would think? - impressive.

Well, no, perhaps it&#039;s not impressive, a backwards in time human would no doubt perceive the high entropy state as the past (Which is a big deal, no?)

However, I don&#039;t believe such a backwards in time human is possible, since I don&#039;t believe the world is deterministic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bob,</p>
<p>You know how a backwards entropy human would think? &#8211; impressive.</p>
<p>Well, no, perhaps it&#8217;s not impressive, a backwards in time human would no doubt perceive the high entropy state as the past (Which is a big deal, no?)</p>
<p>However, I don&#8217;t believe such a backwards in time human is possible, since I don&#8217;t believe the world is deterministic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79539</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 22:38:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79539</guid>
		<description>James, if you just reversed all microscopic dynamics, then the arrow of time would be reversed relative to the usual one, so we would just perceive that as forwards in time -- everything would appear the same. So that is irrelevant to the discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James, if you just reversed all microscopic dynamics, then the arrow of time would be reversed relative to the usual one, so we would just perceive that as forwards in time &#8212; everything would appear the same. So that is irrelevant to the discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Gallagher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79538</link>
		<dc:creator>James Gallagher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 18:02:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79538</guid>
		<description>Hi Bob

Sean is correct if  Nature is deterministic, since in a deterministic theory we could just reverse all microscopic dynamics and have the entropy decreasing from an initial high-entopy state, then this state would be the past

eg see http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy

However, if the universe is non-deterministic then the only possible global behaviour is increasing entropy or equilibrium at max entropy - except in ultra improbable scenarios (unlikely in exponential googolplexes of universes).

However, even in this non-deterministic universe we have  a low-entropy initial state (otherwise we would just have noise everywhere today) - BUT this low entropy initial state just explains why we haven&#039;t reached heat death yet, IT IS NOT THE REASON EGGS DON&#039;T UNBREAK - eggs can hardly ever ever unbreak anywhere in any universe because Nature is not deterministic, not because the initial state was a low entropy one.

(local decreases in entropy are of course possible - otherwise life wouldn&#039;t exist)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Bob</p>
<p>Sean is correct if  Nature is deterministic, since in a deterministic theory we could just reverse all microscopic dynamics and have the entropy decreasing from an initial high-entopy state, then this state would be the past</p>
<p>eg see <a href="http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy" rel="nofollow">http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Time%27s_arrow_and_Boltzmann%27s_entropy</a></p>
<p>However, if the universe is non-deterministic then the only possible global behaviour is increasing entropy or equilibrium at max entropy &#8211; except in ultra improbable scenarios (unlikely in exponential googolplexes of universes).</p>
<p>However, even in this non-deterministic universe we have  a low-entropy initial state (otherwise we would just have noise everywhere today) &#8211; BUT this low entropy initial state just explains why we haven&#8217;t reached heat death yet, IT IS NOT THE REASON EGGS DON&#8217;T UNBREAK &#8211; eggs can hardly ever ever unbreak anywhere in any universe because Nature is not deterministic, not because the initial state was a low entropy one.</p>
<p>(local decreases in entropy are of course possible &#8211; otherwise life wouldn&#8217;t exist)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79537</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:28:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79537</guid>
		<description>Sean is partly right and partly wrong. He is partly right in that this microscopic process is unitary, and has nothing to do with the thermodynamic arrow of time. The latter is completely well understood from basic statistics with large numbers. He is partly wrong in claiming we need a new theory to understood why the entropy was low at the beginning (big bang); it had to be low, or it wouldn&#039;t be the beginning, now would it?
So indeed all these things are very well understood but get confused by different groups/people -- the SLAC headline of the discovery of the quantum arrow of time totally confuses the issue, and Sean&#039;s claims that the thermodynamic arrow of time is a great mystery also totally confuses the issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean is partly right and partly wrong. He is partly right in that this microscopic process is unitary, and has nothing to do with the thermodynamic arrow of time. The latter is completely well understood from basic statistics with large numbers. He is partly wrong in claiming we need a new theory to understood why the entropy was low at the beginning (big bang); it had to be low, or it wouldn&#8217;t be the beginning, now would it?<br />
So indeed all these things are very well understood but get confused by different groups/people &#8212; the SLAC headline of the discovery of the quantum arrow of time totally confuses the issue, and Sean&#8217;s claims that the thermodynamic arrow of time is a great mystery also totally confuses the issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Durham</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79536</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Durham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 04:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79536</guid>
		<description>Excellent analogy Joan.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The BaBar results demonstrate a preference for one process over another.  Ergo, if you assume the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of anti-particles is correct, then these results appear to demonstrate a preference for one time direction over another.

And, in fact, I would think these results fit very nicely with the concept that the macroscopic arrow of time (via entropy and irreversibility) arise from microscopic statistical processes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent analogy Joan.  That was the point I was trying to make.  The BaBar results demonstrate a preference for one process over another.  Ergo, if you assume the Feynman-Stueckelberg interpretation of anti-particles is correct, then these results appear to demonstrate a preference for one time direction over another.</p>
<p>And, in fact, I would think these results fit very nicely with the concept that the macroscopic arrow of time (via entropy and irreversibility) arise from microscopic statistical processes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joan Vaccaro</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/11/20/time-reversal-violation-is-not-the-arrow-of-time/#comment-79535</link>
		<dc:creator>Joan Vaccaro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Nov 2012 00:43:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=9085#comment-79535</guid>
		<description>Nice blog Sean.

&quot;....This new measurement in the B meson system — indeed, the entire phenomenon of T violation — has absolutely nothing to do with that arrow of time.....&quot;

I agree up to a point.  The new work is evidence for a different arrow of time, that&#039;s certainly true.  But T violation may well underpin all other arrows.  T violation is associated with a time-asymmetric dynamical law (the weak interaction).  All the other arrows, including the thermodynamic arrow, are associated with time-symmetric dymanical laws. Their asymmetry arises from time-asymmetric boundary conditions - starting from a low entropy state, for example.  I published some work last year on this very topic:
    Found. Phys. 41, 1569-1596 (2011) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9568-x (http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4528)

The way I like to think of the situation is like this. Imagine a tree loosing its leaves in autumn. The position on the ground where the leaves fall depends on the direction of the wind. If you see the leaves lying on only one side of the tree, you can say which direction the wind was blowing. The pattern of fallen leaves is evidence of the direction of the wind. But this evidence doesn&#039;t make the wind blow in any direction! This is like the thermodynamical arrow - increasing entropy is evidence of the direction of time evolution. But it doesn&#039;t tell you why the universe evolves in one particular direction.

The T violation work I am doing is really embryonic at this stage. But it does show that T violation can induce large scale effects via interference.  T violation may give an explanation of why the universe appears to continue to move in one direction. This is like explaining why the wind blows continuously in one direction.

So T violation may well underpin the thermodynamic arrow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice blog Sean.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;.This new measurement in the B meson system — indeed, the entire phenomenon of T violation — has absolutely nothing to do with that arrow of time&#8230;..&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree up to a point.  The new work is evidence for a different arrow of time, that&#8217;s certainly true.  But T violation may well underpin all other arrows.  T violation is associated with a time-asymmetric dynamical law (the weak interaction).  All the other arrows, including the thermodynamic arrow, are associated with time-symmetric dymanical laws. Their asymmetry arises from time-asymmetric boundary conditions &#8211; starting from a low entropy state, for example.  I published some work last year on this very topic:<br />
    Found. Phys. 41, 1569-1596 (2011) <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9568-x" rel="nofollow">http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-011-9568-x</a> (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4528" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.4528</a>)</p>
<p>The way I like to think of the situation is like this. Imagine a tree loosing its leaves in autumn. The position on the ground where the leaves fall depends on the direction of the wind. If you see the leaves lying on only one side of the tree, you can say which direction the wind was blowing. The pattern of fallen leaves is evidence of the direction of the wind. But this evidence doesn&#8217;t make the wind blow in any direction! This is like the thermodynamical arrow &#8211; increasing entropy is evidence of the direction of time evolution. But it doesn&#8217;t tell you why the universe evolves in one particular direction.</p>
<p>The T violation work I am doing is really embryonic at this stage. But it does show that T violation can induce large scale effects via interference.  T violation may give an explanation of why the universe appears to continue to move in one direction. This is like explaining why the wind blows continuously in one direction.</p>
<p>So T violation may well underpin the thermodynamic arrow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
