Two distinct conceptions for the relation between reversible, time-reversal invariant laws of nature and the irreversible behavior of physical systems are outlined. The standard, extrinsic concept of irreversibility is based on the notion of an open system interacting with its environment. An alternative, intrinsic concept of irreversibility does not explicitly refer to any environment at all. Basic aspects of the two concepts are presented and compared with each other. The significance of the terms extrinsic and intrinsic is discussed. 1
Two distinct conceptions for the relation between reversible, time-reversal invariant laws of nature and the irreversible behavior of physical systems are outlined. The standard, extrinsic concept of irreversibility is based on the notion of an open system interacting with its environment. An alternative, intrinsic concept of irreversibility does not explicitly refer to any environment at all. Basic aspects of the two concepts are presented and compared with each other. The significance of the terms extrinsic and intrinsic is discussed. 1
Nonintegrable Poincaré systems with continuous spectrum (so-called Large Poincaré Systems, LPS) lead to the appearance of diffusive terms in the framework of dynamics. These terms break time symmetry. They lead, therefore, to limitations to classical trajectory dynamics and of wave functions. These diffusive terms correspond to well-defined classes of dynamical processes (i.e., so-called “vacuum-vacuum” transitions). The diffusive effects are amplified in situations corresponding to persistent interactions. As a result, we have to include already in the fundamental dynamical description the two aspects, probability and irreversibility, which are so conspicuous on the macroscopic level. We have to formulate both classical and quantum mechanics on the Liouville level of probability distributions (or density matrices). For integrable systems, we recover the usual formulations of classical or quantum mechanics. Instead of being irreducible concepts, which cannot be further analyzed, trajectories and wave functions appear as special solutions of the Liouville-von Neumann equations. This extension of classical and quantum dynamics permits us to unify the two concepts of nature we inherited from the 19th century, based on the one hand on dynamical time-reversible laws and on the other on an evolutionary view associated to entropy. It leads also to a unified formulation of quantum theory avoiding the conventional dual structure based on Schrödinger’s equation on the one hand, and on the “collapse” of the wave function on the other. A dynamical interpretation is given to processes such as decoherence or approach to equilibrium without any appeal to extra dynamic considerations (such as the many-world theory, coarse graining or averaging over the environment). There is a striking parallelism between classical and quantum theory. For LPS we have, in general, both a “collapse” of trajectories and of wave functions for LPS. In both cases, we need a generalized formulation of dynamics in terms of probability distributions or density matrices. Since the beginning of this century, we know that classical mechanics had to be generalized to take into account the existence of universal constants. We now see that classical as well as quantum mechanics also have to be extended to include unstable dynamical systems such as LPS. As a result, we achieve a new formulation of "laws of physics" dealing no more with certitudes but with probabilities. The formulation is appropriate to describe an open, evolving universe.
I. Prigogine has proposed, and the writings of N. S. Krylov to some extent suggest, a novel and unorthodox solution to foundational problems in statistical mechanics. In particular, the view claims to offer new insight into two interconnected problems: underst and ing the role of probability in physics, and that of reconciling the irreversibility of physical processes with the temporal symmetry (time reversal invariance) of dynamical theories. The approach in question advocates a conception of the state of a system which incorporates features of the quantum mechanical state concept in a context, classical statistical mechanics, where quantum considerations are generally considered to be irrelevant. I examine the plausibility of this new approach by offering an analysis of the various notions of state employed in modern physics. In the first chapter, I analyze the conceptual connections between dynamical laws and the nature of a system's state. I argue that laws and states are correlative. In constructing dynamical theories one does not start with a fixed or pre-determined state concept. Neither is one given the laws of the theory from which the conception of state is derived. Rather, we get the law/state structure as a "package." In light of this general analysis, I next examine the notion of state employed in the quantum theory. Here I consider a variety of conceptions of quantum states and assess their ability to answer the "paradoxes" of quantum theory. I pay particular attention to the role of probability and related restrictions on the realization of certain states. The new approach to statistical mechanics proposes to exploit similar restrictions on states in order to resolve the irreversibility problem. But is this unorthodox approach viable? In the final four chapters, I offer a detailed critique of this approach, examining the plausibility of the radical reworking of the state concept. I argue that while some important progress can be made, certain old puzzles remain, and new and difficult ones arise--ones which raise serious doubts about the ultimate success of this particular approach. I conclude, however, by arguing that such radical proposals are not unmotivated; and that novel and unorthodox proposals concerning the foundations of statistical mechanics must be taken seriously.
The aim of this paper is to analyze the concepts of time-reversal invariance and irreversibility in the so-called ’time-asymmetric quan-tum mechanics’. We begin with pointing out the difference between these two concepts. On this basis, we show that irreversibility is not as tightly linked to the semigroup evolution laws of the theory-which lead to its non time-reversal invariance- as usually suggested. In turn, we argue that the irreversible evolutions described by the theory are coarse-grained processes. 1 1
In view of the fact that physical measurements represent transmission of information, a general definition based on the measure of lack of knowledge in information theory can be introduced for different entropies each of them corresponding to one particular kind of measurement. By means of this entropy concept the problem of the consistency of microscopic reversibility and maeroscopic irreversibility is studied. Under certain conditions it can be shown that the reversible microscopic equation of motion leads to the result that all entropies corresponding to reduced quantities, i.e., to quantities which do not determine the microscopic state of the system completely, can never decrease. However, it is to be noted that this behavior is symmetric in time, in the classical as well as in the quantum mechanical case. Irreversibility is so related on the one hand to incomplete description of a system, but on the other also to the fact that theoretical statements can be verified by experiments in the future only. The validity of the results obtained within the framework of ensemble theory for a single physical system is dtscussed. As applications of the general ideas a system of free particles and the Boltzmann gas are treated. (auth)
This is Part 1 of a four part paper, intended to redress some of the most fundamental confusions in the subject of physical time directionality, and represent the concepts accurately. There are widespread fallacies in the subject that need to be corrected in introductory courses for physics students and philosophers. Parts 1 and 2 are about quantum mechanics, Part 3 is about fundamental concepts, and Part 4 is about cosmology. We start in Part 1 by analysing the time reversal symmetry of quantum probability laws. Time reversal symmetry is defined as the property of invariance under the time reversal transformation, T: t -> -t. It is shown that quantum mechanics (classical or relativistic) is strongly time asymmetric in its probability laws. This contradicts the orthodox analysis, found throughout the conventional literature on physical time, which claims that quantum mechanics is time symmetric or reversible. This is widely claimed as settled scientific fact, and large philosophical and scientific conclusions are drawn from it. But it is an error. The fact is that while quantum mechanics is widely claimed to be reversible on the basis of two formal mathematical properties (that it does have), these properties do not represent invariance under the time reversal transformation. A recent experiment (Batalhao at alia, 2015) showing irreversibility of quantum thermodynamics is discussed as an illustration of this result. Most physicists remain unaware of the errors, decades after they were first demonstrated. Orthodox specialists in the philosophy of time who are aware of the error continue to refer to the ‘time symmetry’ or ‘reversibility’ of quantum mechanics anyway – and exploit the ambiguity to claim false implications about physical time reversal symmetry in nature. The excuse for perpetrating the confusion is that, since it is has now become customary to refer to the formal properties of quantum mechanics as ‘reversibility’ or ‘time reversal symmetry’, we should just keep referring to them by this name, even though they are not time reversal symmetry. This causes endless confusion, in attempts to explain the physical irreversibility of our universe, and in philosophical discussions of implications of physics for the nature of time. The failure of time reversal symmetry in quantum mechanics changes the interpretation of modern physics in a deep way. It changes the problem of explaining the real irreversibility found throughout nature.