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 forums@fqxi.org 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
Introduction
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
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Juan R. González-Álvarez: on 6/15/10 at 18:37pm UTC, wrote I agree with JONATHAN DOWLING that the dual explanation is not satisfactory...

Georgina Parry: on 4/26/10 at 21:19pm UTC, wrote I should just like to add that not all irreversible changes need be...

Georgina Parry: on 4/26/10 at 20:51pm UTC, wrote Ordering the causal events or interactions that give rise to the...

Marshall Barnes: on 3/14/10 at 16:54pm UTC, wrote If I understand Dowling's approach correctly, then I believe that he will...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/4/09 at 22:14pm UTC, wrote Usually the author does not respond here. May I nonetheless ask him to...

Eckard Blumschein: on 12/4/09 at 22:08pm UTC, wrote Usually the author does not respond here. May I nonetheless ask him to...

Robert Oldershaw: on 10/30/09 at 16:36pm UTC, wrote Last night I was reading [2nd or 3rd time] Ivars Ekeland's excellent book...

amrit: on 9/16/09 at 14:10pm UTC, wrote Schrödinger cat in box is an interesting question. Cat remains in a box...



FQXi FORUM
September 23, 2017

ARTICLE: Readers' Choice: The Quantum Arrow of Time [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

amrit wrote on Jun. 10, 2009 @ 09:20 GMT
Origin of time is in the human mind, in neuronal activity of the brain that creates sensation of time flowing. Universe itself it timeless (atemporal) motion runs in timeless space. Awakened observer is aware of that. Non-awakened observer is still imprisoned in “neuronal time”.

attachments: AWAKENING_OF_THE_OBSERVER_IN_PHYSICS_Sorli_2009.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Uncle Al wrote on Jun. 24, 2009 @ 01:08 GMT
The absolute arrow of time is angular momentum. Take a motion picture film can - a very short, wide, hollow cylinder. Punch a hole in the center of one face and weld on a pipe normal to the exterior surface. Assemble the film can and weld its side seam shut. Punch a hole in the narrow edge and weld on a pipe tangent to the edge.

Fill with water. Connect the face port to a pressurized water reservoir and let it flow. Water streams in through the normal face port and out through the tangent edge port. Make a video. Play it backwards. Water streams in through the tangent edge port and out through the normal face port.

In the real world the latter behavior is impossible. The construct is a fluid diode. Time only flows in one direcction because angualar momentum is conserved. The higher the pressure the more the reverse flow is blocked.

The construct and its mirror image are not identical, demonstrating parity asymmetry in space as well as in time.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 6, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
The interesting thing about shroedingers cat, is it has two probable "future" paths in time as a conscious entity, but only one possible path if it is dead?..let me explain a little, the fact is that all living conscious entities can make a choice about its future actions, but a dead cat has a "fixed" future because:an alive cat will in its future, eithre be dead or alive, but a dead cat will most cretainly be just that, dead!

The only future options for a dead cat is to decay via its half-life, which is quite apt really?

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Jul. 6, 2009 @ 01:41 GMT
OK give shroedingers cat a hammer inside the box,now give it the knowledge of its future (death) if he/she/it should strike the vial with the hammer, then in all probability, the cat should always be alive when the box is opened!..which is neatly tied/entangled to the threads refered film?

Is half-life decay a future or past process/event?

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 1, 2009 @ 03:28 GMT
Hello everyone:

Here are some indispensible basics regarding the fundamental nature of being, experience, and time:

Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand. Consistent with this, the integrated extensiveness of the being and experience of the Common Chimpanzee is understood to be in the middle (or between) that of our waking and dream experience. Accordingly, the Common Chimpanzees live two-thirds as long as we do (in captivity, of course). In comparison to the Common Chimpanzee, we are understood as being more conscious in conjunction with experience that is (on balance) more unconscious; and this is evident in our waking and dream experiences.

Dreams are an emotional experience that occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping, because emotion is one part (or one third) of feeling, emotion, and thought. Consistent with this, both feeling and thought are proportionately reduced in the dream. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Dreams are essential for thoughtful and emotional balance, integration, comprehensiveness, consistency, and resiliency. Indeed, emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

It can be seen that in comparison to the Common Chimpanzee, the self does represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience IN GENERAL. This is, indeed, a great truth.

Comments and questions welcome.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 1, 2009 @ 13:28 GMT
Substitute Schrödinger’s cat for Schrödinger’s human. would the human in the box be both dead and alive until *another* human opened the box?

Isn't the Schrödinger thought experiment just a trifle too anthropogenic?

Unless of course reality exists only in the "human" mind....If so let's change it!!!

report post as inappropriate


Bruce Johnson wrote on Aug. 1, 2009 @ 14:08 GMT
Amrit said: "Origin of time is in the human mind, in neuronal activity of the brain that creates sensation of time flowing"

If that be the case, how did all the events which obviously took place prior to the evolution of humans occur? Or did the universe spring into existence at the first instance of human cognition? Quite a paradox don't you think?

Either the observational paradox is flawed or what we think "paranormal" must certainly exist. I'm putting my money on the former.

(I also posted the question of Schrödinger’s human above. If anyone can explain this I would very much appreciate a response. Perhaps I'm just abysmally stupid or missing the point )

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 1, 2009 @ 18:43 GMT
Hi Bruce and everyone:

The self becomes what it will be via comprehensive approximation to what it was AS IT IS (that is, in the present). The natural and integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand in and with time. Remember what I said about the Common Chimpanzees?

How can the self grow from a fertilized egg to a full human if it does not unify and, to some extent, harness/transcend/overcome the forces of physics to its ends -- think about gravity and electromagnetism/light?

We are always becoming other than we are in increments. Conscious and unconscious experience are necessarily interactive, so the understanding is limited.

We are outsmarted by (and in) the dream because the reconfiguration/replacement/alteration of sensory experience is not supposed to be overly intentional -- and this is the danger that modern physics poses.

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The dream makes thought more like sensory experience in general. Genius is relatively rare for the very reasons put forth in this paragraph. Television, for example, is neither dream experience nor waking experience for the very reason that it is both. Similarly, the dream combines opposites; and this is why dream experience is different from waking. That is why TV is a pure creation of thought, as the integrated and interactive extensiveness of being and experience (including thought) is generally reduced thereby. What of sensory deprivation alone? How can TV be good for us? Ultimately, the collective effort to "outsmart" experience in so many significant and various ways will lead to our ruin. Indeed, it already is.

Note that thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. The vision in the dream is more shifting and variable than waking. Consistent with what I have said, TV becomes even more shifting and variable (in conjunction with commanding and keeping attention).

Universal experiences (such as TV) were never supposed to occur, as everyone is different; in fact, we never experience the same things -- and this is the case in the dream as well. In a world of experience that is derived from everyone else, we cannot exist; for our individuality is taken; and is this not the modern trend?

Listen people, when the real and natural world of experience goes, you and your autonomy are gone. If you walk away from reality, reality will walk away from you.



I am spending so much time on this site in order to open your minds. Reality is the way it is, not the way we want it to be.

You only control someone or something by reducing it/them. I will again and again reiterate the importance of the integrated and natural extensiveness of being and experience.

WOW, what an eye opener this post is! Go spread the word. This is very serious stuff.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 14, 2009 @ 02:55 GMT
Time is dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including space and thought). This sheds light on the quantum arrow of time. Gravity and electomagnetism/light add to the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought) in and with time. The dream takes place at the mid-range of {gravitational} feeling, and at the mid-range of feeling BETWEEN thought and sense. Accordingly, the dream makes thought MORE LIKE sensory experience in general. Note the constant energy/lighting/feeling in the dream. (There is no fatigue or tiredness in the dream.) The dream merges and balances electromagnetism/light and gravity.

Do you all know who Christian Corda is? You might want to take his (and my) advice. THE DREAM FUNDAMENTALLY BALANCES AND UNIFIES GRAVITY AND ELECTROMAGNETISM.

Admit the clear truth/facts.

Frank Martin DiMeglio (author)

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 14:28 GMT
Hi Jonathan

You wrote: If you look at the equations that govern how molecules interact with each other, they work just as well backwards as forwards. In other words, on the microscale, it’s just as likely that shed skin particles should re-join our bodies as time passes, gradually making us look younger. Time’s arrow could run backwards or forwards.

Equations works that way but nature not. In nature physical events are in generally irreversible (Zabotinski reaction is an excuse). They run in quantum space that itself is timeless. Time is not part of quantum space.

Quantum space itself is “eternal now and here”. Once you are aware of that there is no desire to get younger. You are timeless, you are eternal.

yours amrit

attachments: FROM_SPACETIME_TO_TIMELESS_QUANTUM_SPACE.pdf

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 13:43 GMT
Bruce: Amrit said: "Origin of time is in the human mind, in neuronal activity of the brain that creates sensation of time flowing"

If that be the case, how did all the events which obviously took place prior to the evolution of humans occur? Or did the universe spring into existence at the first instance of human cognition? Quite a paradox don't you think?

Bruce motion is physical property of the universe. And physical time is tick of clocks that measures motion.

All runs in timeless quantum space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Sep. 16, 2009 @ 14:10 GMT
Schrödinger cat in box is an interesting question. Cat remains in a box one hour. When atom decay happens cat is dead, until atom decay do not happen cat is alive.

Cat is alive or dead before we open the box. It is not that with opening box cat will be alive or dead. Opening of the box has no relation to cat life.

If cat is alive when we open the box decay of atom did not happen in one hour, if cat is dead we can do autopsy of the cat and calculate when atom has decayed.

Cat biochemical reactions are natural clock “tick”. With autopsy we can see when (if) cat as biochemical clock has stopped.

Cat does not live or is dead in space-time. Cat is living and die in timeless quantum space only.

report post as inappropriate


Robert L. Oldershaw wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 16:36 GMT
Last night I was reading [2nd or 3rd time] Ivars Ekeland's excellent book "The Best Of All Possible Worlds" and the revolutionary changes wrought by nonlinear dynamical systems theory.

I was moved once again the ask the following impertinent question:

Is Perfect Reversibility/Integrability A Myth?

Did Poincare discover this revolutionary idea already during the 1892−1899 period when modern chaos theory was founded in his "The New Methods of Celestial Mechanics"?

Are the examples of "reversibility" that physicists frequently cite actually one of two basic varieties: (1) artificial idealizations that do not exist in the real world [nature], or (2) systems that are briefly maintained in periodic states, but whose full, and unmanipulated, range of behavior includes periodic, semi-periodic, quasi-static and fully chaotic states.

Bottom line: Are reversible/integrable "systems" very limited artificial idealizations of true systems found in nature, which are nonlinear dynamical systems?

What are the best examples of real world systems that appear to be ideally reversible/integrable?

————————————————————
-

On a related note, it seems to me that the SubStandard paradigm is tottering around like an embarrassing drunk. It's going down, and the sooner the better.

The ingredients of the new paradigm are: (1) Classical EM, (2) Classical GR, (3) Discrete Scale Relativity, and (4) Nonlinear Dynamical Systems Theory. These ingredients cannot be combined randomly or with force. They must be carefully integrated by those who study nature and have developed the intuition to do so.

Yours in the new paradigm,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 22:08 GMT
Usually the author does not respond here. May I nonetheless ask him to comment on [/link:http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/527] my last essay [/unlink]?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 4, 2009 @ 22:14 GMT
Usually the author does not respond here. May I nonetheless ask him to comment on my last essay [/unlink]?

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes wrote on Mar. 14, 2010 @ 16:54 GMT
If I understand Dowling's approach correctly, then I believe that he will be successful and here's why - it is a mistake to think of time as having to be involved with the increase of entropy. Entropy may increase over time, but entropy is not time.

If Dowling really will "order events in a causal way, replacing time with an ordering parameter or sequence", then that fits what my definition of what time is in the first place. That ordering sequence is time, and on a macroscopic level that ordering sequence can be manipulated to conduct its ordering at a variety of rates. We call that, time dilation.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 20:51 GMT
Ordering the causal events or interactions that give rise to the historical path of one particle, will give the story of that particle as it moves through space. As the particle only exists where it is now it is only a story and the path itself does not exist in existential reality. It can be non the less constructed to aid comprehension of what has occurred. As when a walker walks a route on a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 21:19 GMT
I should just like to add that not all irreversible changes need be considered detrimental. The accumulation of irreversible or less likely to be reversed change in spatial configuration of matter leads also to the building and fixing in space of macroscopic structures that we recognize in space. That is including the developmental pathways or construction of organic life forms from inorganic matter and simpler organic molecules. Thus the same process that may be viewed as causing entropy and breakdown of organic life is also responsible for its construction. That is the change in arrangement of matter and particles in space, which may also be viewed as energy changes, occurring within a background where chaos and chance plays its part in the final outcome.

report post as inappropriate


Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote on Jun. 15, 2010 @ 18:37 GMT
I agree with JONATHAN DOWLING that the dual explanation is not satisfactory and that we may find a microscopic arrow of time. Sometimes this is named the fine-grained approach to the problem of the arrow of time.

In the next links I give an introduction to why the belief on that irreversibility is explained using coarse-grained entropy over time-symmetric laws does not hold up on close inspection. I also give an introduction to a possible microscopic mechanism for irreversibility and sketch how the theories developed in last decades by at least six different communities can be seen as special case of the new theory:

The quest for the ultimate theory of time, an introduction to irreversibility

Trajectory branching in Liouville space as the source of irreversibility

Toward a grand theory of irreversibility

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.