Slashdot Mirror


2 Futures Can Explain Time's Mysterious Past

cyberspittle sends this excerpt from Scientific American: Tentative new work ... suggests that perhaps the arrow of time doesn't really require a fine-tuned, low-entropy initial state at all but is instead the inevitable product of the fundamental laws of physics. Barbour and his colleagues argue that it is gravity, rather than thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time's arrow fly. Their findings were published in October in Physical Review Letters.

107 comments

  1. Yes, I saw a movie that explained this once. by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Interesting
  2. Time travel by SlithyMagister · · Score: 4, Funny

    For those interested in time travel, the inaugural meeting of the International Time Travel Association will be held at the Perimeter Institute last Tuesday at 20:00.
    The meeting location will be posted next Wednesday.

    1. Re:Time travel by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Boring. I might head there next week-end if I can bother, or maybe the one after. Time travel means I can procrastinate indefinitely.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:Time travel by meerling · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't bother, it will have been boring.
      The guest speaker was half dead from temporal lag and the symposium got over scheduled, twice!
      Don't even ask about the Parallelers. Ack!

    3. Re:Time travel by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      I know!

      I'll go the first time, and afterwards, if it was boring, I'll just stop by myself before I go and tell myself not to go at all. Problem solved!

    4. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't bother, it will have been boring.

      No, that's the tunnel driller's association meeting, you're thinking of.

    5. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you meet yourself the consequences are unpredictable! You might destroy the Universe! Or then again, maybe we'll be lucky and the damage will be limited to our galaxy.

    6. Re:Time travel by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Don't bother, it will have been boring.

      I was the only one there, but I found myself to be quite entertaining.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:Time travel by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      For those interested in time travel, the inaugural meeting of the International Time Travel Association will be held at the Perimeter Institute last Tuesday at 20:00. The meeting location will be posted next Wednesday.

      You've got this completely wrong grammar-wise!
      "The main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveler's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you, for instance, how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations while you are actually traveling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own mother or father."

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    8. Re:Time travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The location oh that is easy, It is being held in doctor who's Tardis. finding it may be problematic as the instructions merely state turn left at the swimming pool.

    9. Re:Time travel by Immerman · · Score: 1

      That always seemed like a radical stretch to me - I mean every particle in your body is already identical to every other particle of its kind in the universe, what difference would it make to the physics of their interaction if some of them had traveled through time? You might do strange things to sequential causality, but to date we have no conclusive evidence that such a thing even exists as anything other than an observer phenomenon.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Time travel by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about going, but the reviews will have been mixed.

    11. Re:Time travel by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      Boring. I might head there next week-end if I can bother, or maybe the one after. Time travel means I can procrastinate indefinitely.

      "Time Machines Repaired While You Wait"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  3. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can someone translate this for me (in American English) in four sentences or less what this is about, and more importantly - what it means to me?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This means the timecube is real!

    2. Re:Huh? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      Read. The. Fucking. Article.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call those SENTENCES? American public schools hard at work here!

    4. Re:Huh? by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Sometimes this faith involves an old white man with a beard.

      Santa?

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I read the linked article, but not the original paper, and here's my summary (sorry for not limiting it to four sentences, but I can only do so much):

      One of the outstanding problems of physics is to explain the directionality of time. It's easy to distinguish the future from the past, even though the fundamental laws of physics operate the same forward and backward. This "arrow of time" is normally explained in terms of increasing entropy, but that doesn't answer the question of why the universe started out in a low entropy state.

      The researchers here made a computer simulation of a simple system of particles interacting with gravity, and a metric of entropy based on how close the particles were together. What they observed is that gravity can (briefly) pull the particles together into a low "entropy" state. You can then post-rationalize this as having a single low-entropy "starting point", from which you get two high entropy "futures", which consist of earlier and later states by external simulation time. But both would be "future" according to a creature living in the simulation, seeing the entropy increase as one moves away from the "big bang". It's the whole "what is north of the north pole" thing - if you walk north toward the north pole, you eventually start heading south, even though you haven't turned around.

      The researchers claim that it's gravity which is the key to giving you this starting point, but other researchers quoted disagree, saying simply that having an entropy metric which doesn't have an upper limit is sufficient to give similar behavior, and claiming they'll be publishing a paper soon which will show this.

      What does it mean to you? Nothing, really. It's still rather preliminary and esoteric at this point. Maybe in another few years they'll be some science special on TV which will discuss it in a "isn't science mind-boggling?" sense. It (or rather similar such arguments) will eventually inform basic theories about physics and how the universe works, but right now it's not even at the "one day sir, you may tax it" stage.

    6. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why bother with school when a PhD won't even get you a burger flipping job in America?

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, Doctor! What do you want for Christmas?

    8. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get a job? Obama has told us to just go on welfare.
      That's the spirit Mr. President! Nothing like a community organizer that people can look up to.

    9. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho!Ho!Ho!

    10. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get a job? Obama has a job for ya! Join the Army and die for Obama! Because he's worth it.

    11. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get a job? Stop wasting time on Slashdot!

    12. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You. Must. Be. New. Here.

    13. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact you went for a PhD probably means that's all you are good for.

    14. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't get a job? Why don't you just become a millionaire?

    15. Re:Huh? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      What does it mean to you? Nothing, really.

      Actually, "an entropy metric which doesn't have an upper limit" allows perpetual motion engines. You can simply dump entropy into an infinite reservoir to arrange ambient heat energy into ordered force.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    16. Re:Huh? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Fair summary.

      Alternatively, time itself does not have an arrow and that is introduced only by the presence of observers.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Huh? by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      You call that a sense of humour?

    18. Re:Huh? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      This means the timecube is real!

      Now I can die a happy man.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This too: thermodynamics, that draws the bowstring to let time's arrow fly. WTF?

    20. Re:Huh? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

      People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.

    21. Re:Huh? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Sometimes this faith involves an old white man with a beard

      John Travolta?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    22. Re:Huh? by captjc · · Score: 2

      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas.

      Don't leave your clocks sitting out or they'll draw bugs.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    23. Re:Huh? by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      Sometimes this faith involves an old white man with a beard.

      Darwin? <ducks>

    24. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analogy of walking north and then going south without turning around reminds me of the ending of the movie Mr. Nobody, where time starts to go backward. Highly recommended if you haven't seen it yet!

    25. Re:Huh? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      This means the timecube is real!

      I can't even find a flashcube.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  4. Article Venue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I *refuse* to read science articles unless they are dumbed down, explained with barely-relevant images, and posted on medium.com!

    1. Re:Article Venue by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'm curious, would a wall of equations make you happier?

    2. Re:Article Venue by Lord+Crc · · Score: 1

      In that case one might be in for a disappointment. The article[1] seems to only contain about a page worth of equations.

      [1]: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0917

  5. turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand modern physics is quite far and I get that thing with Elephants but what are the turtles standing on?

    1. Re:turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand modern physics is quite far and I get that thing with Elephants but what are the turtles standing on?

      More turtles. Remember, it's turtles all the way down.

    2. Re:turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand modern physics is quite far and I get that thing with Elephants but what are the turtles standing on?

      Dark matter, of course.

    3. Re:turtles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Angels and before you ask , the head of a pin!

  6. The story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story so far:

    The universe is increasing in disorder. Scientists want to explain it. So there are theories of thermodynamics, anti-gravity, anomalous pockets of order, and now gravity.

    All these theories create the idea of a parallel or multiple universes. They also create a 'chicken or egg' condition as whatever created the proto-universe must stop and allow the disorder mechanism mentioned above to start expanding the universe. This new gravity-based theory is a half solution to this as gravity can create the proto-universe and an expanding universe.

    1. Re:The story by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      If you can explain the disorder, haven't you created a meta-order that formally describes the disorder? What is the limit on the creation of such meta-orders?

    2. Re: The story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Research grants

  7. Demonstrated by Roger Penrose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in his book 'before the big bang' - he talked about the difference between thermodynamic and gravitational entropy within a system such as the universe. upshot: greater gravity = greater perceived order, while still following the rules of entropy. Ergo thermodynamics is just ONE possible engine of time. There are at least two we know of, and there may be more.

    1. Re:Demonstrated by Roger Penrose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thermodynamics is just ONE possible engine of time. There are at least two we know of, and there may be more.

      A wizard did it.

  8. The actual scientific article by amaurea · · Score: 5, Informative

    The actual scientific article was published on arXiv in september. Gravity does not appear to be central to the problem, it is just used as an example here. They basically look at a toy problem where a large set of particles with simple interactions give rise to solutions where they can identify variables that increase monotonically away from a minimum, and hence can be used as a time variable. It is basically an entropic argument worked out in detail for a simple system.

    Carrol et al have published related ideas, and here is a popular science talk by Carrol (the main argument starts around 19 minutes into it).

    1. Re:The actual scientific article by amaurea · · Score: 1

      Actually, you'll have to watch part too also to see the whole argument.

    2. Re:The actual scientific article by duck_rifted · · Score: 1

      There is no shortage of ideas about Physics that can't be tested and are, therefore, beautiful and useless. If something can only be observed in a simulation, then it may only be part of the simulation. No matter how well-formulated the math or how sound the theory, anything for which supporting evidence can not be observed even in the form of observing predictions is not science.

  9. Arrow of Time by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually we can do better than that. The arrow of time is baked into fundamental particle physics and we have known this since the 1990's when an experiment, CPLEAR, showed that kaons turn into anti-kaons at a different rate than they switch back. This is completely independent of entropy and the result was further improved on by the Babar experiment only a few years ago showing that the 'T violation' occurs in B-mesons as well.

    The article is wrong when it says that the laws of physics work the same going forwards or backwards in time. They do not and there is data to prove it. So the 'arrow of time' does not need any entropy to define it - it is baked into fundamental particle physics.

    1. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true, provided, however, that the Kaons and anti-Kaons are decoupled from everything else. They're what's observed, but they might not be the total system.

    2. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eggs turn into chickens at a different rate than chicken turns into eggs. This is proof either that A) time must go forwards, or B) my proof has a logic flaw in it.

      If time flowed backwards, 0, -1, -2, -3.... all those reactions works in reverse because that is what they did already. Hence the logic flaw. You know how the system behaved at t-1, t-2, t-3, yet you assume it must be symetric in forward time. Like assuming that chickens turn into eggs at the same rate eggs turn into chickens.

      Particle physics has a different problem, namely the flock of starlings problem. You see a flock of starlings and think it is a thing, it jumps around the sky faster than light sometimes, sometimes moving backwards in time, the starlings flow left to right, yet the perceived flock jumps all over the place., and you build equations confusing the perception of stalings (as a flock) with the boring bird that does none of these things that you cannot perceive because you have no way to measure it.

      So building an equation to show how a flock of starlings appears to move, and then confirming the starling flocks appear based on your theory is not understanding of an individual starling.

      You hit two starling flocks together and wait to see them do a star formation, a god particle if you will, and it will confirm your theory, but it only confirms your theory of the perception of the system.

      Scale the system up, and they're just little birds that fly in boring ways, don't time travel, don't fly faster than light, yet your equation still works if you can only see the flock.

    3. Re:Arrow of Time by visualight · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Time cannot go backwards because time, as an independent phenomenon doesn't exist. The passage of time, and what enables "change" is the expansion of the universe. It expands slower or faster near or away from the influence of gravity as time passes faster or slower near or away from the influence of gravity. Time and space aren't simply "relative". The are the same thing. Entropy is strongly correlated but not actually coupled.

      IANAP, and I haven't actually convinced anyone that the way I see it is true. But I think the universe described by Renate Loll is probably the closest to my own mental picture. Or, at least, the idea that there are not really three spacial dimensions but one made my own mental map easier to "run" in my mind.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    4. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet your equation still works if you can only see the flock.

      If your equations continue to work, then there is nothing science can do to distinguish it from another theory that also continues to work. The same argument goes the other way, that someone claiming that flock is made of birds when maybe it isn't, but in the end it doesn't matter if there is no way to tell the difference.

    5. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because GP (and some physicist) think that if particle physics correctly describes matter/anti-matter then Kaons actions at t-1 must be its actions at t+1, because (in effect) an anti-particle is the opposite to a particle in the equations that involves t.

      (Apologies for the simplification, but really you know what the particle was at t-1, t-2, t-3, so you know how it behaves when running time backwards, so you have proof that particle physics in broken, not proof of the arrow of time! FFS logic 101!).

    6. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Throw a ball, it follows a parabolic path, y=f(x). You can define it in terms of x. x=universe expansion if you will, its just a value that changes. You can define it in terms of t, time if you will f(t) this is how we normally define our universe, you can define it in terms of how many farts the world has made so far today if you like f(f). Perhaps your universe smells bad.

      So therefore y is a function of farts because that is how I defined it.

      I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm simply explaining that we chose t = time, and our t is based on our perception of time, and therefore t changes the way our perception changes. Relativistic time is because the processes by which we measure time (chemical and atomic actions in our body) are affected by gravity and thus duh! Of course gravity affects time! Because *we* defined time based on our perception of it, and thus anything that affects our perception of it, must also affect our 't' value!

    7. Re:Arrow of Time by visualight · · Score: 1

      I might not understand what you're saying.

      The farther away galaxies are from each other, the faster they are moving from each other, and, the faster they are accelerating. Wouldn't this and other phenomenon be independent of my perception? I mean gravity doesn't only affect my physical being and the construction of it in my mind. It objectively affects the passage of time throughout the universe. Doesn't it?

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    8. Re:Arrow of Time by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      The article is wrong when it says that the laws of physics work the same going forwards or backwards in time. They do not and there is data to prove it. So the 'arrow of time' does not need any entropy to define it - it is baked into fundamental particle physics.

      While I don't doubt what you say, I am curious how would there be data to show physics working backward in time? How would you even test for something like that?

    9. Re:Arrow of Time by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

      (Apologies for the simplification, but really you know what the particle was at t-1, t-2, t-3, so you know how it behaves when running time backwards, so you have proof that particle physics in broken, not proof of the arrow of time! FFS logic 101!).

      At any moment t, the particle behaves in manner a, so while t-1,t-2,t-3, may appear to show the particle behaving in a manner b, when those prior times were the actual times the particle would have still acted in manner a. If somehow, our observation of past t is different then current t, then something else must have occurred that we are not aware of, possibly entangled particles or even the act of observation.

    10. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right that you can't run experiments where time flows backwards, but what you can do is reverse the experiment and see if the behavior is the same as if you imagined the original experiment is time-reversed.

      For example, you can look at the decay of a subatomic particle in a magnetic field (for simplicity, let's call it "foo"). You'll find that it has a certain decay pattern (let's say to bar + baz). If the laws of physics work the same forwards and backwards, then you would expect that the time reversed version of foo decaying into a bar and a baz - that is, a bar and a baz coming together to form a foo - would be possible. And indeed it is. Where it gets tricky is in more complicated scenarios. For example, if you prepare the foo particle to have a spin oriented with the magnetic field, you might find that the bar and baz particles it decays to also have defined orientations to the magnetic field - say both are always against the magnetic field. But if you reverse the experiment - that is, take a bar and a baz particle, both oriented against the magnetic field, and collide them together you don't see the same thing as if you time reversed the original field - you may see the orientation of the foo particle be random, for example.

      The GP is right that there are such experiments which disprove strict time symmetry. However, combined charge/partity/time symmetry still holds, so the cosmological question about time orientation is still relevant. Furthermore, the normal cases one talks about when one talks about the arrow of time (eggs breaking, stars emitting light rather than sucking it back in, etc.) are entirely based on an entropic definition. Time symmetry violations are strictly limited to weak interactions, and almost exclusively confined to the decay of rare particles. Arguing that such violations can account for the standard arrow of time is like explaining your neighbors missing dog by saying "well, saber tooth tigers could eat small mammals."

    11. Re:Arrow of Time by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      I think the article is referring to time-translational symmetry. Which is what results in conservation of energy. If you claim that time translational symmetry is violated, then you are also claiming the violation of the conservation of energy. Although nothing forbids either, but it would have been big news. And I haven't heard it!

    12. Re:Arrow of Time by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      http://subbot.org/coursera/big...

      Dark Energy and the Big Bang are violations of energy conservation laws.

      Conservation doesn't necessarily hold in General Relativity, either. Where does the energy of red-shifted photons go?

    13. Re:Arrow of Time by Agent0013 · · Score: 2

      The top of a large mountain would have a faster rate of time than at the base, according to relativity. So over a million years, the top will have moved into the future in relation to the base. But the planet spins once each day. The base and the top align to a certain star at the same time each day. How can they experience a different time if they spin an the same rate. Perhaps we are measuring time with things that do not keep constant. If we made a clock based on the spinning of the planet, it would not change based on gravity or speed.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    14. Re:Arrow of Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oversimplified: relativity says that "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observes and, and distance and time will change to make it so".

      In your example an observer on the top of the mountain and one at the base will disagree on both the time and distance figures they traveled in the million years they observed.

    15. Re:Arrow of Time by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The base and top will align to a certain star at the same time each day, and they will perceive a day as slightly different in duration between base and top. (This assumes we've got sufficiently precise clocks to notice the difference, and indeed some have been invented.) If you made a clock based on the spinning of the planet, it would not change based on gravity. (It would change based on speed, since it couldn't therefore constantly observe the sky from a constant point.) If you compared it with a sufficiently accurate regular clock, you'd notice that its counting of seconds would change depending on gravity and/or speed.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    16. Re:Arrow of Time by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Time cannot go backwards because time, as an independent phenomenon doesn't exist. The passage of time, and what enables "change" is the expansion of the universe. It expands slower or faster near or away from the influence of gravity as time passes faster or slower near or away from the influence of gravity. Time and space aren't simply "relative". The are the same thing. Entropy is strongly correlated but not actually coupled.

      That's an interesting theory. I eagerly await your paper to see the math behind it or your science fiction novel, whichever you are attempting to support.

  10. it's ingrained in Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was obvious that there is an arrow of time ever since it was discovered that we dwell in spacetime continuum.

    Well, sort of.

    There are infinite arrows of time, and each elementary particle possesses its own. The arrows of time are vectors of velocity in spacetime, and each one of those vectors has same magnitude, c.

  11. I'd like to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will knowing this further scientists efforts to create a working time machine or TARDIS?

    1. Re:I'd like to know by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Right now, our model of time is an arrow. Check back when our model is closer to a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.

  12. Re:Free Psychic Readings Online Chat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're real psychics, they'll know I need their services and they can call me,

  13. The thermodynamics explanation is circular by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Entropy requires time in which to move to a more disordered state.

    Time exists because entropy becomes more disordered.

    Hmm. Spot the logical flaw there.

    1. Re:The thermodynamics explanation is circular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnetism requires movement of electric charges. Electricity requires movement of magnetism.

      Hmm. Spot the logical flaw there.

      Oh wait, they're two unified forces. Just like gravity and time.

    2. Re:The thermodynamics explanation is circular by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2

      Entropy requires time in which to move to a more disordered state.

      Time exists because entropy becomes more disordered.

      Hmm. Spot the logical flaw there.

      Ok. Your logical flaw is a strawman argument. While the article claims entropy is responsible for the arrow of time, i.e., the directionality of it, you pretended it said it's responsible of the existence of time at all. Then you argued against your own statement and pretended that was a valid argument against theirs.

      Here's what they're actually saying. Assume time exists. So entropy can either increase or decrease with the passage of time. However, there are many more configurations with increased entropy than decreased entropy, which means a statistically implied direction towards increased entropy.

    3. Re:The thermodynamics explanation is circular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah but that dosnt imply time is uniform. After all does changing too disordered take as much time as switching to seriously fucking disordered?

    4. Re:The thermodynamics explanation is circular by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      By that definition, the hard drive on a computer increases in entropy when they make bigger ones. But we want more entropy then, because we can store what we choose on it. We don't have to limit ourselves to the disordered states.

      So the identification of entropy with "everything falls apart" is misleading. More entropy serves us in many cases: a zipped file has less entropy than the uncompressed version, but we can't read the zipped version. In computational linguistics, maximum entropy models are useful.

      Just because there's a possibility of more "disordered" states doesn't mean we have to choose them.

  14. The big crunch by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    This idea is not new... they don't say it outright, but I believe they are suggesting "The big crunch" and the endless cyclical universe. Basically the Big bang was a point in a cycle. There was a universe that "Crunched" into a point like state and then exploded into our universe. But that other universe had time flowing in the other direction. If true, I suspect they're suggesting that the big bang was just one point in an endless cycle of expansion and contraction... though you should take care no to think that contraction is what you'd normally think of... Time is reversed so it would appear to us as just another big bang.

    I heard about this theory as far back as the early 80s. It's a theory I always found theologically pleasing. It suggests the Hindi/Buddhists are onto something. ;-)

    1. Re:The big crunch by rossdee · · Score: 2

      " It suggests the Hindi/Buddhists are onto something. ;-)"

      Hindu is the religion, Hindi is the language

    2. Re:The big crunch by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I agree, I always liked that idea, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe. Gravity isn't slowing it down eventually leading to contraction. It appears we are doomed to expand until nothing is within the light cone of anything else.

      The future is very cold, dark and lonely.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    3. Re:The big crunch by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      I agree, I always liked that idea, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Dark energy is accelerating the expansion of the universe. Gravity isn't slowing it down eventually leading to contraction. It appears we are doomed to expand until nothing is within the light cone of anything else.

      The future is very cold, dark and lonely.

      We don't understand Dark Energy/Matter... so I reserve judgment there. We have no idea what will happen when electrons have been stretched to the size of galaxies. It may very well be that it triggers a phase change and reverse time. Who knows?

    4. Re:The big crunch by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      " It suggests the Hindi/Buddhists are onto something. ;-)"

      Hindu is the religion, Hindi is the language

      I thought it was plural of Hindu? Huh... learn something new every day. My apologies, I haven't been to India.

    5. Re:The big crunch by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      While it certainly isn't impossible (the universe is full of strange stuff) that would be rather unique. I can't think of any other forces that have a "phase change" and are attractive at some point and switch to being repulsive at another (electric repulsion doesn't count...it doesn't change).

      That said, dark energy is truly bizarre. It appears to be a perpetual motion machine, pushing things apart constantly with no power input. I know it can be said that it doesn't really apply a force because it appears to be the expansion of space itself, not an actual force applied to an object. However, locally gravity is more powerful so when the space our solar system occupies expands slightly (and I mean really, really slightly. I think I read somewhere the orbit of pluto expands by like a millimeter every million years or something), gravity pulls that right back in. But that's created gravitational potential energy, which could be used to do work. That's the creation of energy from nothing. Bizarre.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:The big crunch by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in Dark Energy/Matter, any more than I believe in C/C++. Those are four separate things, with Dark Energy and Dark Matter related something like Java and Javascript.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've long thought that gravity and time are forces, like magnetism and electricity, and need to be unified.

    1. Re:Good by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I've long thought that gravity and time are forces, like magnetism and electricity, and need to be unified.

      If only someone had thought of doing this before. Your totally original idea of a Unified Field Theory could have revolutionised Twentieth Century physics.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. Movement in space creates time. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I always thought this to be quite obvious once I though about it for a little while.
    You need space, matter and movement.
    Those together create what we call time, when we observe it.
    All four of those are interdependent. ... I came up with this at about the age of 9. Since then I've been doing fine with that answer. Couldn't say if science found anything new, but I really don't care. That philosophical answer (I suppose it is one) is sufficient enough for me. :-)

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  17. There is no arrow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask yourself why time moves forward AT THIS SPEED. Why seconds?
    Time travels forward in nanonseconds, milliseconds, seconds, hours, days, centuries. We perceive it moving forward in seconds because that is how our chemical brains record changes. If our brains saw x, then we'd see time as how far along x something is, whether it moved to the left or right x!

    This is why we don't see the world move forward in nanoseconds, and can't enjoy the nano-detail.

    Causality works forward and backwards, I can't kill my grandfather in +ve t, but equally if we travelled backwards in time. I cannot change the +ve time future.

    Think about it, I move my coffee, the light catches it, the light hits my eye, I think of coffee. In backwards time, the beam must go from my eye to the coffee, and can only hit the coffee because I haven't moved it yet. We are on a stuck path and nothing can be changed, it has already happened, we only perceive it unfolding in forward time measured in seconds.

    There is no arrow.

    1. Re:There is no arrow by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The only time I perceive time moving forward in seconds is if I look at a clock with a second hand.

      You make it sound as though we perceived the world like still frames in a movie, one after the other in sequence.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Time is an Art by artlu · · Score: 1

    If you are someone who researches the financial markets, there was a famous trader going back to the late 1800s named W.D. Gann. Gann's analysis of time was always that it was a subjective, illusory edge with respect to defining market movements, but that the definition was quantifiable at the highest of levels. In my book, "The Market is not Random.," I explore this subject more and think it is relevant for this conversation.

    What's more, I think this article's timing is perfect with the recent theatrical release of "The Theory of Everything."

    So, /. is time real or is it imaginary?

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
  20. It Works For Me by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    It makes sense to me as two objects attracted to each other close the gap between them over time. The action of gravity supports the notion of time. It could easily be causal to the existance of time as well. Imagine two objects attracting in a system in which time did not exist. The joining of the two objects would be instantanious and violent.

  21. A convoluted explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...deperately in need of Occam's Razor.

  22. No! The Hogfather, of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No! The Hogfather, of course

    Please hand in your geek card on your way out.

  23. Simple Explanation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Because GP (and some physicist) think that if particle physics correctly describes matter/anti-matter....

    Whoa there it is a LOT simpler than that. If you have a system in state A and it changes into state B then your process is A-->B. If you reverse time then the process you have is B-->A. Now if both these states have identical entropy there are no phase space arguments to favour one state over the other and so both processes (A-->B and B-->A) should be equally likely if the laws of physics are the same with regard to the direction of time.

    What these experiments showed are that for some systems A-->B is more likely than B-->A and so the laws of physics define an arrow of time. If time were reversed then A-->B would become less likely than B-->A which is how you could detect it. It's the temporal equivalent of looking in a mirror. If you have a perfect left-right symmetry you cannot tell wether the image you are looking at is the real object or the reflection. However if the object is not left-right symmetric it is easy to know which image you are seeing.

    So it does prove that there is an arrow of time. Perhaps you ought to spend a little time understanding the physics before you start applying simple logic: it tends to lead to more accurate conclusions.

  24. Entropy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Eggs turn into chickens at a different rate than chicken turns into eggs. This is proof either that A) time must go forwards, or B) my proof has a logic flaw in it.

    ....or C) that you forgot to account for entropy. To study time reversal violation you must have two states with identical entropy or you must account for the effects of entropy. The reason that a glass falling from a table and shatters is far more likely than all the pieces of glass coming together, leaping off the floor and forming a new glass is because of entropy. There are countless ways in which a glass on a table can be converted to broken shards on the floor but starting with the shards there is only one way that that process can be reversed.

    Scale the system up, and they're just little birds that fly in boring ways, don't time travel, don't fly faster than light,...

    Ummm...yes but the reason for that is because the fundamental physics governing the particles of which the starlings are made up prevent time travel and moving faster than light (which are actually one and the same). Assuming you are building a model out of simple, plastic lego bricks then regardless of what you are building we know that it will not be a conductor of electricity because the bricks you are building it from are all plastic insulators. Studying the fundamental physics of a system lets you know what is possible.

    For example we know that there is a fundamental arrow of time despite the fact that at an everyday scale this is completely obscured by entropy. You could study all the flocks of starlings you like but it would be impossible to show that you have time reversal violations in it...and yet since the particles in that system are subject to the weak force we know that at some incredibly tiny, insignificant level it is there.

    1. Re:Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are countless ways in which a glass on a table can be converted to broken shards on the floor but starting with the shards there is only one way that that process can be reversed

      That's a bit sloppy. It's not "countless" or anywhere close to it, since the energies involved are low. Moreover, you have to be careful with matching conditions: a particular layout of atoms in the shards and a particular layout of atoms in the unbroken glass is only considering the microstates; in realistic cases S is not enormously different between the unbroken glass and the few shards of glass on the floor.

      Gravitation is a factor in the glass on table -> shards on floor, and looking more deeply than classically at the system seems to raise questions about T symmetry in the presence of non-negligible gravity (non-negligible in the sense that it is clearly involved in the glass-disassembling energy, whether you think in terms of Newton or in terms of an interrupted Einsteinian free-fall).

      If we rearrange this by having two free-falling glasses smash into each other in deep space, it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this is more common than a free-falling set of shards of glass condensing into two free-falling glasses, and to hypothesize on a statmech basis that the degrees of freedom differ for observers seeing glasses->shards and shards->glasses isolated systems, but it's actually worthwhile to sit down and figure it out in the high energy limit. This exposes the principle of microscopic reversibility (Tolman, 1925). (The local evaporation-condensation problem is surprisingly different from a problem in which observers have different _cosmological_ arrows of time, since nontrivial interactions between observers at a(t_0) seeing a universe collapsing into a more orderly state and observers at a(t_0) seeing a universe expanding into a less orderly state will "correct" the former because of the vast differences in DOF: http://www.preposterousunivers... ).

    2. Re:Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In particular, Carroll's comment:

      The fact that two systems with oppositely-pointed arrows of time would interfere with each other follows from basic stat mech. If you have a system whose “initial” conditions are chosen so that it has a large (coarse-grained) entropy, but if you evolve it forward the entropy decreases, that means you have delicately tuned all of the momenta so that the system “aims” at a much tinier region of phase space, one with lower entropy. If you perturb it by just a little bit, you will generically deflect it away from that path, and the entropy won’t go down by as much; the bigger the perturbation, the less it will go down.

    3. Re:Entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, as in : increasing perturbations in the momenta of the condensing cloud leads to end states less and less like two glasses, BUT increasing perturbations in the momenta of the free-falling glasses leads to NO collision.

    4. Re:Entropy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Given the context - which is a post of Slashdot and not a paper - I'd stick with countless as in "too many to be counted" or "very many" given that I'm not willing to put in the large amount of effort that would be required to actually count them. Rather than the hugely overly technical considerations you are engaging in there is a very easy way to simplify this.

      If I start with the glass on the table then there are is a very large range of momenta I can give the glass to arrive at the state where it is shards on the floor so long as I don't care which particular set of shards it makes. To convert from any given set of shards on the floor back to a glass I have to give each shard a precise linear and angular momentum such that they will reassemble themselves into the glass. Hence in the phase space of all possible momenta for all the shards I have to hit a single point where as for the reverse just have to hit a large area in a far lower dimensional phase space. The same applies to glasses colliding in space.

      In the high energy limit the same will apply. The nuclei of the glass will collide to produce hadronic showers, each particle of which will have its own 4-momentum. However in this case it is clear that you cannot reverse the system since some of the interactions and subsequent decays will involve the weak force which we know is not symmetric under time reversal.

  25. Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Entropy seems to accompany the expansion of space and the passage of time. At a future time and space configuration entropy will reach a maximum. Time will then stop and space disappear. The universe will instantly shrink to a singularity. The energy of the collision will carry the mass through the singularity in an inflationary big bang until gravity is able to gain control and the universe will unfold again.

  26. Obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a physicist, but I have studied advanced physics independently. I never understood why gravity couldn't be the solution to time's arrow. I guess I am just a genius that nobody understands.