Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

Author Frank DiMeglio: on 11/24/13 at 20:25pm UTC, wrote You are mistaken, as unification in physics (that is, gravity, inertia, and...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/10/12 at 12:12pm UTC, wrote Hi Amrit, How are you? Fine I hope. I asked me but where were you ? happy...

amrit: on 3/10/12 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote on the micro and macro level time is a numerical order of change.......

Steve Dufourny: on 3/9/12 at 13:03pm UTC, wrote well said Eckard. You are the only one here that I read with a lot of...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/8/12 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Steve, A sensation is originally a physical feeling or an impression....

Anonymous: on 3/8/12 at 13:37pm UTC, wrote Hi Eckard, lol indeed, unfortunally it exists business teams around the...

Anonymous: on 3/8/12 at 12:57pm UTC, wrote Without real relevances. It is just a subjective appraoch by a philosophe. ...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/8/12 at 9:34am UTC, wrote Steve, The only possibly important result from 4,000,000,000 plus invested...

March 27, 2017

ARTICLE: Thermal Timekeeping [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Pentcho Valev wrote on Feb. 29, 2012 @ 11:35 GMT
"Thermodynamics is an incredibly fundamental theory...," says Milburn..."

Yes it is. Something that is not defined always increases so that we have a law of Nature, thanks to "the unargued statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck". This law represents "an obstacle to the reconciliation of different theories of physics" and the discussion of it is...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 12:04 GMT
Excellent article. I think, however, that Ted Jacobson is exactly right. If one aims to have a theory of quantum gravity that is *fully* relativistic, there can be no compromise of the continuous nature of spacetime. This leads logically to a theory that accommodates some degree of information loss, such as Jacobson (and Erik Verlinde) has proposed.

It may turn out that Milburn's measure of thermal time corresponds to information loss, but the theory can't be fully relativistic if so.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 15:41 GMT
The thermal time with respect to general relativity can work because there is no thermal equilibrium in the thermodynamics of black holes. The following thought experiment should indicate that is the case. Suppose you have a black hole of mass M and temperature T = 1/8πM (using naturalized units) inside a region with a cosmic background temperature T. The black hole might then be though to emit and absorb quanta at an equal rate. However, if the black hole emits a quanta at mass energy mc^2 = ħω, where from now we use naturalized units with c = ħ = 1, the black hole has mass M – m. The temperature is then increased T -- > 1/8π(M – m) ~= (1 + m/M)/8πM. So the black hole is hotter than the back ground and will then preferentially emit radiation. Conversely if the black hole absorbs a quanta of mass m the temperature is decreased T -- > 1/8π(M + m) ~= (1 - m/M)/8πM. So the black hole is colder than the background and will then preferentially absorb radiation from the background.

Equilibrium is then impossible, and the equal temperature condition any black hole might exist in is not an attractor point to equilibrium, but is rather a repeller point (a point at the top of a hill) where the black hole will statistically either increase in mass or decrease in mass. In spacetime time the thermal clock exists because there is no attractor point for thermal equilibrium. This becomes particularly interesting when the thermal fluctuations are equated to quantum fluctuations, eg e^{-Eβ} = e^{-iEt/ħ}, in a Euclideanized sense with it = τ and τ = ħβ = ħ/kT. Here the disorder of the system is largely quantum mechanical, as measure by quantum fluctuation lengths or Euclideanized time, and the Euclideanized time is a parameter along a string length.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Mar. 1, 2012 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

You're describing Hawking radiation in your first paragraph. But because black hole entropy does not decrease at the surface, any absorption of background radiation has to go into entropy increase, and cannot result in production of negative entropy, as you imply. The radiation only refers to the probability that an observer at a suitably far distance from the black hole will see a particle absorbed.

In your second paragraph, I think you're neglecting that black holes are a classical phenomenon. They don't allow us to get something for nothing, as quantum fluctuations imply. If thermal time is held to exist without loss of information, I still maintain it cannot be fully relativistic.


report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 2, 2012 @ 18:26 GMT
A black hole that radiates decreases it entropy. The radiation which is emitted has a thermal spectrum with S = -ksum_nρ_n log(ρ_n), which for a microcanonical system is S = k log(Ω). This heats up the exterior world, increasing its entropy, and the entropy increase due to the emission of radiation is greater than the entropy lost from S = k A/4L_p, for A the area of the black hole horizon at the start.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat wrote on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 23:18 GMT
Lawrence and Tom have both mentioned entropy. I wonder if it might not be a more direct approach to consider entropic time rather than thermal time. From an information-theoretic viewpoint, it seems more likely that temperature is emergent, and that entropy is the fundamental quantity we should be measuring. And if spacetime emerges from information (the recent article "Proving You Are Where You Say You Are" does a good job suggesting this), that would address Ted Jacobson's comment: Thermodynamics exists at the information level in the form of entropy, but at the spacetime level, we recover temperature and everything else.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 16:55 GMT
Temperature and time have a curious relationship. A euclideanized time τ = it is related to temperature by τ = ħ/kT, for ħ the Planck unit of action, k the Boltzmann constant and T temperature. The imaginary number is “hidden” or buried so amplitudes of certain frequencies can be scaled and a path integral evaluated as a partition function. This equality occurs when the quantum fluctuation length L = cτ is the thermal fluctuation which determines the degree of “disorder” in the system. So the relationship is between time and temperature.

The partition function e^{-Eτ/ħ} = e^{-E/kT} assumes the energy is in thermal equilibrium so E = nkT = ST, for S the entropy. The entropy is then = energy/temperature.


report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 11:52 GMT
"What is time in ... Relativity?".

Paul Marmet's argued that the experiment by Michelson and Morley has been based on a wrong expectation. His reasoning has meanwhile been experimentally conformed by Norbert Feist.

Consequently, Lorentz transformation was not necessary as to explain Michelson and Morley's null-result. Is Lorentz-covariance nonetheless useful?

Minkowski equated relativity with invariance under Lorentz transformation.

Norton wrote: “the notion of spacetime was introduced into physics almost as a perfunctory by-product of the Erlangen program".

I see one serious flaw: The world as seen by Klein, Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, and Hilbert differs from the real world in that it is assumed as an a priori given, therefore timeless, and in this sense closed system. While I do not agree with the emission theory by Ritz, I agree with Ritz, Popper, and common sense that the future is most likely not yet fully determined in advance.

Maybe, one cannot expect a breakthrough for $ 64,000 donated to a FQXI Awardee.


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 12:39 GMT
ahaha interesting.

Me I have had 2 dollars !!

Awards ahahahah and what after , a car and beautiful travels.And also a team of pseudos !!!

Eckard the monney is an error, the vanity also and the pseudo teams also !!!

Time will tell ....

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 09:34 GMT

The only possibly important result from 4,000,000,000 plus invested in the LHC might be the failure to confirm possibly faulty theories.

Norbert Feist's experiment eventually just required a car, an ultrasonic range finder, some auxiliary equipment, and of course many hours of persistent carefully performed work including failed experiments within a wind tunnel in 2006.

How much costs the average life work of a qualified scientist/engineer with two children in a highly developed country? Maybe it is in the order of 1,000,000 i.e. about 15 FQXi grants or 1/4,000 of what LHC costs.

How valuable is Feist's result? One could argue that it was not necessary at all because the result was predictable on condition of correct reasoning. It just confirmed an insight by Paul Marmet.

However, wasn't the whole community of experts blind in this case? It begun with Michelson and Morley, included Lorentz, FitzGerald, Poincaré, .... , Wheeler, ...., and possibly Feist himself.

Alternatively I do not exclude that Feist decided to choose the title "Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment ..." and he claimed having disproved acoustic anisotropy of air just in order to cheat referees and get published which was unlikely if he claimed having discovered that Lorentz build on a fallacy.

Just an aside, why did you mention "a car and beautiful travels"? I feel more happy without such achievements of questionable value. I do not even watch TV for decades.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 13:37 GMT
Hi Eckard,

lol indeed, unfortunally it exists business teams around the foundamental researchs.

But the real generalists exist fortunally. Is it important to invest in bizare extrapolations? No of course. Is it essential to continue to search the truths and the truth? Yes of course.

The discourse, Descartian, about method seems so important, but perhaps that the correct reasoning is lost in the ocean of confusions.

A time traveller or an extradimenisonalist do not need investments but courses !!! lol

How is it possible to accept a false reasoning ?

Eckard, about the travels and the cars, it was just a joke , it was not for you :)

ps the tv for the informations and the films are interesting. The films help to dream a little in this world of crazzy. Have you not seen avatar for example ?

ps2 me also I dislike the superficial of opulences, it is ruin of soul these artificial things. The secrets of the universal sphere are more than our human interpretations.

EPR OR COPENAGHEN...........The quiet fight between the rationality and the subjectivity.....where are the convergences? in the pure determinism of course at my humble opinion.

Best regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT

Interesting appraoch.

The entropy of a BH is the same that in all things !!!

The total energy is in all. Now if some steps are fractalized in their calculations. So we have a fractal of this entropy under several parameters. We can consider them like virtual sphere of enetropy. I agree that the Hawking radiation are relevant for the distribution and recycling of mass. If these BH produce radiations, so it is not under the special relativity. In all case, if it is in this line of reasoning, so we must agree that we can not see these radiations. But we can extrapolate them wehen the series are correctly utilized.

The informations can be indeed inserted in this logic , but of course with relativity and rationality.The temperature and the informations are linked in a pure dance of rotations of these entangled spheres. If the cosmological spheres are correlated, all that bvecomes very relevant if and only if the finite serie is taken with the biggest determinism.The serie of uniqueness must be well analyzed.The infinity ,so, must be well interpretated. The time is a duration correlated with the rotations.So the temperature is totally different than time. The thermal energy and the informations are so rational in thier pure fractalizations. Considering that we have the total entropy in all, so we can see the series of uniqueness and all its steps of disponible energy.

A BH is a sphere , cenral to galaxies, its mass and volumes are very important and permit to harmonize the spherical mass inside these galaxies.If these spherical mass exists, so there are reasons at my humble opinion.It is noty a door to travel in space, it is a sphere with a rule of complemenatrity for the spheriztion of spheres and their proportional rotations of volumes.

So no, Lawrence, relatively speaking,the entropy is maximum in all, and so we don't have a decrerasing of entropy but just a paradoxal fractalization of this maximum for specifics comportments of evolution.

If the radiations exist, there are reasons for a spherical evolution. The temperature of a BH is proportional ....the informations are different !

report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 18:30 GMT
To understand time we have first to understand who is the observer

attachments: New_Understanding_of_Time_Measurment.pdf, Observer_as_Observer_an_absolute_Reference_Frame_Frame.pdf

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 6, 2012 @ 16:24 GMT
Coupling Thermodynamics and Time is also introducing causality and as said above entropy. Cuasality is a result of the "arrow" of time, and entropy is as we conclude only increasing so following the positive direction of the arrow of time in our six direction (taking zero as origin, left, right/up,down/ahead , reverse) universe).

The fact however is that we don't know if these "emerging" entities like time (past and future, the now is not existing) and of course temperature (a scale that is linked to a certain velocity of molecules) are a form of awareness of our human senses.

In the (as I see it) limited universe we live in (Planck length and time) , once we are approaching the lower limit , we are not experiencing "lumpiness", (building stones) but we are approaching the non-causal dimension, wher there is no longer before or after, so time has vanished. That is why any "clock" we construct is only of the essence in our causal 6 direction + time universe.

When searching for a thermo-clock we still will not discover the essence of time which in my view originates in our consciousness.

What Amrit calls the observer being the absolute reference frame, has quite a paralel with the view of the consciousness being the antenna between the non causal "fifth dilension" of Total Simultaneity see Realities out of Total Simultaneity

think free


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 8, 2012 @ 12:57 GMT
Without real relevances. It is just a subjective appraoch by a philosophe.

You try to interpret things that you do not really understand. If people wants to speak about the genarlity, please acept this generality and forget the pseudo extrapolations without real innovations and generalities.Frankly your reasonning is weak, like if this time was the cause of the consciousness. No but frankly, what do you think? It is not neither general, nor foundamental.The consciousness is a result of evolution......Quantum spheres.....H ....CNH.....EARTH HYUDROSPHEROID 3.6 BILLIONS YEARS AGO.....H2O HCN CH4 NH3 H2C2...+E.....AMINO ACIDS......evolution time......increasing of mass and complexification......unicells......pluricells....sponges...
.medusas.....fishs......reptilians ....correlated brains.....mammalians.......hominids.....indeed the time is a constant of evolution showwing the inrease of mass and correlated consciousness..........but where is the generality of this evolution at the quantum scale and at the cosmological scale also.......The universal sphere creates this consciousness.

Furthermore, an, important point is that you confound the physicality and its 3 dimensions and this time constant.and the unknown behing the planck walls. You insert causality in a world without dimensions and temporality. Your resoning is weak and false. The physicality possesses its laws and its dynamics of polarization.The limits are bizarely understood and the borders also.Your simultaneities are falses. If you respected the physicality and its deterministic proportions, ok, but it is not the case.

So I repeat, you confound the philosophical point of vue and its subjectivity and on the other side the physicality and its irreversibilities.

Sincerelly and thinking rational.


report post as inappropriate

amrit wrote on Mar. 10, 2012 @ 20:22 GMT
on the micro and macro level time is a numerical order of change.......

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2012 @ 12:12 GMT
Hi Amrit,

How are you? Fine I hope. I asked me but where were you ? happy to see you again on this platform.

About you post,

Indeed but with a complexification of mass by evolutive optimization. The numerical change on the entropical arrow of time is universal and deterministic. A little if we said that the spheres of mass polarises the spheres of light. That is why a main different sense of rotation is essential consideringt the linear light.If we take my equations with the 3 motions of these spheres.With of course a specific serie of volumes with a main central sphere. The numerical change is a specific road at the universal scale. Where the mass increases with the complemetary light....the volumes of spheres and their rotations spinal and orbital dance and make the symphony of evolution, spherical inside an universal sphere.It is fascinating this sphere and its spheres. We are inside a beautiful road of optimization spherization. The informations are conserved and the volumes are essential like the main central sphere of all uniqueness serie.Mass or light !


report post as inappropriate

Author Frank DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 24, 2013 @ 20:25 GMT
You are mistaken, as unification in physics (that is, gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism together in an equivalent and balanced fashion) necessarily involves HALF gravity and half inertia, as this is the MIDDLE distance in/of space. This gives us invisible and visible space in equilibrium and balance.

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'S' and 'U':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.