Search FQXi

If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).
Contests Home

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

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

Russ Otter: on 11/15/11 at 21:55pm UTC, wrote Connections The binding of existence This is a story, built upon...

Dimi Chakalov: on 12/22/08 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote Gavin: I think "hypotheses non fingo" can hardly be justified, since your...

Anonymous: on 12/22/08 at 16:44pm UTC, wrote Dimi Chakalov, Cosmological questions are outside my domain of expertise...

Gavin Crooks: on 12/22/08 at 16:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Cristi Stoica, You may also be interested in my recent PRL paper with...

Gavin Crooks: on 12/22/08 at 16:29pm UTC, wrote Dear James Putnam, Respectfully, in the microscopic realm entropy can both...

James Putnam: on 12/22/08 at 0:04am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Gavin Crooks, Thermodynamic entropy can never decrease. It is...

Cristi Stoica: on 12/21/08 at 7:21am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Crooks, In your essay, you explain very well the arrow of time....

Dimi Chakalov: on 12/20/08 at 15:56pm UTC, wrote Gavin: The issues I raised are indeed related to the cosmological origin...


Steve Dufourny: "Where is Lawrence B.Crowell??? I have made an error about the particles..." in “Spookiness”...

Rick Lockyer: "Fred, apparently you do not believe (+1)(+1) = (-1)(-1). This is elementary..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "Let me throw this out there, Lee: In 2001 the late physicist Jacob..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "The idea so far: using the "information channel" to think about the..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi All, please take a look at the previously linked file showing a..." in Alternative Models of...

Frank DiMeglio: "The FUNDAMENTAL quantum reality state balances being and experience AND is..." in The Quantum Reality...

Thomas Ray: "My approach is compatible with category theory." in The Quantum Reality...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Eckard, All, any questions, comments criticisms welcome. I have been..." in Alternative Models of...

click titles to read articles

The Quantum Reality Paradox
How the search for God’s limits led to the discovery of quantum contextuality—a weird phenomenon that could provide the 'magic' needed for super-fast computing.

Quantum Cybernetics
The quest for a meta-theory of quantum control that could one day explain physical systems, certain biological phenomena—and maybe even politics.

Video Article: Solar-System-Sized Experiment to Put Time to the Test
Is quantum theory or relativity right about the nature of time? Bouncing radar beams off the moons of Jupiter just might help sort things out.

Conjuring a Neutron Star from a Nanowire
Using tiny mechanical devices to create accelerations equivalent to 100 million times the Earth’s gravitational field—mimicking the arena of quantum gravity in the lab.

Inferring the Limits on Reality (that Even the Gods Must Obey)
The fuzziness of the quantum realm could arise from mathematical restrictions on what can ever be known.

December 2, 2015

CATEGORY: The Nature of Time Essay Contest [back]
TOPIC: Whither Time's Arrow? by Gavin E Crooks [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Gavin E Crooks wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 10:52 GMT
Essay Abstract

In our everyday lives we have the sense that time flows inexorably from the past into the future; that time has a definite direction; and that the arrow of time points towards a future of greater entropy and disorder. But in the microscopic world of atoms and molecules the direction of time is indeterminate and ambiguous.

Author Bio

Gavin Crooks is divisional fellow in Physical Biosciences at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He obtained his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. His current research interests include the thermodynamics of molecular machines and solar energy capture.

Download Essay PDF File

Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 17:13 GMT
Hello Gavin!

Thanks for the essay!

Consider a Hydrogen atom that emits a photon. The photon propagates as a spherically-symmetric wavefront of probability expanding at c, never to return (or not very likely). This seems to define an arrow of time at the atomic level, for radiation exists at the atomic level, and thus the radiative arrow of time manifests itself at the atomic level.

Best & thanks,

Dr. E (The Real McCoy)

Gavin Crooks wrote on Dec. 1, 2008 @ 18:01 GMT
Huw Price discusses this issue in his great book "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point", chapter 3. The radiative arrow is due to time-asymmetric boundary conditions, and ultimately reduces to the thermodynamic arrow.

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 13, 2008 @ 20:55 GMT
Dear Dr. Crooks,

May I try to answer the question in the title of your essay.

In your essay "Whither Time's Arrow?", you wrote: "Neither Newtonian mechanics, special or general relativity, quantum mechanics, nor quantum field theory picks a preferred direction in time, anymore than these theories picks out a preferred direction in space."

The apparent "expansion" of space due to the so-called 'dark energy from empty space' (L. Krauss, reference available upon request) does not pick up any preferred direction in space either, simply because this "direction" is omnipresent -- there is no direction in which space does NOT expand. The latter is ultimately needed as a reference direction w.r.t.w. we could discover another, preferred direction of space expansion.

Notice that such task is banned in GR by default, because it would require that GR determines the evolution of the lapse function and shift vector, along the "arrow" of the spacetime foliation. But as the lapse and the shift are gauge functions, any convertion into some Dirac observables would inevitably expose an *observable* absolute reference frame, and the ether will come back.

Hence many people at this Forum claim that we should "forget" time, but somehow avoid the driving force of the cosmological time arrow, and also the drastic contradiction between the predictions of their theories and all astronomical evidence of the cosmological time. As Thomas Thiemann acknowledged in astro-ph/0607380 v1:

"Why is it that the FRW equations describe the physical time evolution which is actually observed for instance through red shift experiments, of physical, that is observable, quantities such as the scale parameter?

"The puzzle here is that these observed quantities are mathematically described by functions on the phase space which do not Poisson commute with the constraints! Hence they are not gauge invariant and therefore should not be observable in obvious contradiction to reality."

In shorth, to answer the question posed in the title of your essay, the direction of time arrow is the one in which the amount of dynamic dark energy (DDE) is increasing -- the more time elapses along the cosmological time arrow, the more DDE we wind up with.

I tried to explain this paradoxical situation to my teenage daughter as follows: Suppose you accelerate a car, but the fuel gauge shows that you're actually gaining more fuel by accelerating the car. That's the ultimate 'free lunch' provided by DDE, only physicists cannot explain it.

A penny for your thoughts! It may be worth of billions, since we're talking about the cleanest and truly unlimited energy source.


Dimi Chakalov

Gavin Crooks wrote on Dec. 16, 2008 @ 23:14 GMT
Dimi Chakalov:

The issues you raise have to do with the cosmological origin of the arrow of time. On the other hand, the central topic of the essay is the other end of the scale, small systems and short times, where the ambiguity in time's arrow has quantitative consequences for modern, non-equilibrium thermodynamics. For molecular scale systems the origin of the large scale time-asymmetry of the universe is immaterial, although the consequences of time-asymmetry are vast.


Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 20, 2008 @ 15:56 GMT

The issues I raised are indeed related to the cosmological origin of the arrow of time. Bottom line here is the quantum vacuum as the prime candidate for Einstein's cosmological constant proposal from February 1917. Hence "the other end of the scale", as you put it, is automatically involved.

I wonder how you would comment on my answer to the question posed in the title of your essay.


Cristi Stoica wrote on Dec. 21, 2008 @ 07:21 GMT
Dear Dr. Crooks,

In your essay, you explain very well the arrow of time. The arguments and the experiments presented show that the time’s arrow is local, depends on scale, and its “length” can be almost zero or negative, being thus neither fundamental nor absolute. Congratulations for the well-written essay.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

Flowing with a Frozen River

James Putnam wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Dr. Gavin Crooks,

Thermodynamic entropy can never decrease. It is impossible for the exchange of energy it describes to reverse its direction. The definition of thermodynamic entropy is precise. It is defined under ideal conditions. It does not include any system for which any part can vary from its average temperature. We very closely approximate it by restricting the analysis to infinitesimal changes. The fact that these conditions cannot exist in the real world does not allow for loosening its definition. If it is given a notation for averaging, then it is not thermodynamic entropy. The new process may look similar, but it has become something different, something else. Thermodynamic entropy does not refer to a general process of achieving thermal equilibrium. Thermal equilibrium will eventually be achieved for other closed systems. Intervening conditions of disequilibrium do not affect the ultimate outcome. Yet, the kind of process they undergo is not the kind of process defined by thermodynamic entropy. Yes, in a system that is not in equilibrium, energy can flow in various directions at various points within the system. However, that kind of system is not telling us what thermodynamic entropy is telling us. It cannot tell us, location by location or instant by instant, about the direction of time. Thermodynamic entropy does tell us that its process, including our approximation of it using infinitesimals, moves forward as time moves forward.


James Putnam

Gavin Crooks wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 16:29 GMT
Dear James Putnam,

Respectfully, in the microscopic realm entropy can both increase and decrease. This makes sense theoretically and has been observed experimentally. If you are used to thinking about entropy in terms of macroscopic thermodynamics, it takes some time to get used to the idea that entropy is statistical, fluctuates, and is not a property of equilibrium systems alone.

Gavin Crooks

Gavin Crooks wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Cristi Stoica,

You may also be interested in my recent PRL paper with Ed Feng, "Length of time's arrow". The FQXi essay attempts to give a basic introduction to relevant results in non-equilibrium, small system thermodynamics, but inevitable glosses over many details of the theory. The paper goes into much more depth.

Gavin Crooks

Anonymous wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 16:44 GMT
Dimi Chakalov,

Cosmological questions are outside my domain of expertise (At present), so I choose not to speculate. Hypotheses non fingo.

Gavin Crooks

report post as inappropriate

Dimi Chakalov wrote on Dec. 22, 2008 @ 17:31 GMT

I think "hypotheses non fingo" can hardly be justified, since your essay would then cover (at best) only 4 per cent from the stuff in the universe. As to the "cosmological questions", every time you contemplate about entropy in the microscopic realm, you are -- willingly or not -- implying the nature of time and its driving force. It's a package.

Have a nice white Christmas.


Russ Otter wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 21:55 GMT

The binding of existence

This is a story, built upon knowledge, intuition, and speculation. In the end, it is built upon some known theoretically successfully tested truths, and some unknowns conveyed in a formula that I consider trumps any objections – as we ponder the scope of existence. First we know of existence, by way of our self-awareness, coupled with scientific...

view entire post

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'T' and 'V':

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